Planning and Zoning Commission - Special Meeting

e e e e

e e sorry I didn't wasn't paying attention to the time um we're going to go ahead and get started with tonight's Planning and Zoning commission um special meeting so let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag and can we do roll call Bright yes fryover yes C yes Waldren yes um and I would entertain a motion for approval of tonight's agenda I motion to approve the agenda

second it's been moved and seconded everyone in favor please say I I I all right do we have any public participation um seeing none we will move on to the public hearing session of tonight's meeting the whole reason we're here um a resolution recommending the Cortez city council the adoption of the proposed comprehensive land use code Rachel I'm not sure who's supposed to be presenting presenters e

so uh I'd like to go over our process and then an overview of all of the changes in the code um a quick summary of some of the public comments that we have heard um through the the last 30-day public comment period and then um uh turn it over to you all for the public hearing portion uh so we've we've had kind of a four-step process through through this whole code update um all of our code updates start with a strong Foundation um a project kickoff branding you know all the the the you know building off of the the city's branding colors and Logo um so that there was some some uh recognizable um imagery throughout the community throughout the process we did a series of community listening sessions um and we paired that with the housing action plan so there were some um some Dual Purpose meetings with the housing action plan and the land use code update uh we moved into an assessment phase where we uh looked at the entire existing code and made recommendations for what uh might be um working and what might not be working well um and tied that to the housing action plan um at they they came out at about the same time so that we could incorporate any of the uh potential uh policies from the housing action plan in our assessment then we've spent about the last year and a half drafting so drafting from that assessment report which kind of set the foundation and and road map for how we were going to draft the process and and now here we sit at the adoption phase we did draft the code in three distinct modules there were a variety of pieces within each module as well so module one addressed just the general Provisions chapter Zone District regulations and use standards because the Zone districts and uses are kind of the foundation of any land use code so we wanted to make sure we got those kind

of honed in uh before we moved on to module two which included subdivision standards site development standards in historic preservation and then into module three which includes the application procedures flood plane regulations definitions and a review of the appendices so quick overview of kind of the overall overall changes within the whole code um the current code does have seven chapters um we've kept the chapter structure fairly similar the the biggest change would be um we added a chapter for historic preservation historic preservation in your current code sits Within chapter six in the application procedures but there's a lot of um very specific historic preservation standards that uh we felt were uh better suited in their own chapter and then that bumped uh the flood plane regulations to chapter 8 uh we are proposing removal of the appendices all of them are um pretty out ofd um application uh actual applications for development review that the city has um replaced over time in in a different format so globally uh we took each chapter and kind of reformat it for consistency um and to help help the flow of of the regulations in language we've added a table of contents to the beginning of each chapter so that when you open up you know what's in there we've added tables in graphics throughout to try to help legibility um there where whereas there are some new standards in the code um in this proposed code there are other standards that we pulled back on or kind of opened up for additional flexibility to create balance between uh the new standards and maybe some expanded um existing standards and those pictures off to the side oh I have that little can you see that yeah um are just a

couple of Snippets from the uh existing uh the proposed code to to show some examples all right I'm going to walk through each chapter um some chapters have a little bit more information some of them are fairly simple um but I'm going to walk through what changed and kind of what Remains the Same so chapter one is the general Provisions um what changed is because we are uh trying to Encompass a full code here we changed the title to the uh Cortez land use code um we updated the non-conforming provisions and I'll talk a little bit more about those in a second we've added additional options in the penalties and violation section to um to allow for different options for remedying a situation um and they're primarily civil uh civil offenses rather than uh misdemeanor as per the um the vested property rights are fairly similar uh it's just we change the language slightly so that they're just automatic with approval of a of a final plan but what Remains the the general purpose of the code Remains the same the general Authority and jurisdiction uh the jurisdiction is is the city of Cortez not the county so um That Remains the Same relationship to other plans ordinances and resolutions that language remains uh primarily the same and then a definition of how to determine a non-conformity even though the non-conforming section itself saw quite a bit of um of revision the the definition itself Remains the Same so uh the non-conforming provisions uh what we did is we reorganized the language so that its non-conforming structures non-conforming uses and non-conforming signs so each section has its own um own kind of subsection to help legibility uh we developed a new

opt-in process for tracking non-conformities the current code does um have some language that speaks to um uh notifying the city of a non-conformity but uh We've developed a certificate or there will be a certificate that folks can when they know they have a non-conforming structure user sign they can come you know just fill out a very simple certificate and that allows the city to track that and say in the future if a future application comes in oh you're non-conforming so this is kind of how you would would work within this code um we revised the definition of abandoned so um abandoned non-conforming uses or structures um currently are six months and uh vacant for six months and we've changed the language to 12 months vacant just to give a little bit more time say someone just needs to get you know get some financing in place to to continue the use that gives a little bit more space there uh we' revised the the definition of Destruction um your current language speaks to um fire and only natural causes that would cause a destruction of a certain building um and then that triggers some additional um Provisions uh we've changed that to just any cause so if if a if a building is damaged or destructed um to by any cause then it would still fall in those Provisions we changed the partial destruction param parameters from assessed value to square feet it's much uh simpler across the board for everybody to um be able to justify uh square feet versus an assessed value and then structures uh We've allowed added a provision that allows structures to be enlarged so non-conforming structures to be enlarged um as long as they do not exceed the dimensional standards of the Zone

District so in chapter two that's the definitions um we did uh a few changes in this chapter so we added standards of measurement at the beginning so there were standards of measurement throughout the existing code in in a number of locations and that's you know how to measure a building setback how to measure Building height we've put that all in one place so it's a little bit easier for folks to use um we've moved all of the land use terms so when you're speaking to an accessory use or a temporary use or any of the dwelling type uses any of the uses in the in the code we've moved all those um definition terms to chapter three to pair up with the use standards in the use table we removed any outdated terms um added new terms that were applicable to any new language and then we've removed standards that were embedded in definitions and the sign code was probably one of the biggest ones that had the current code has quite a few dimensional standards in the definitions we want to leave those in one location rather than having any conflicting Provisions um what what Remains the general organization of this chapter is is very similar um we didn't reorganize a lot of the language um and then the computation of time in general interpretation of terms section remains pretty much the same uh one thing I did want to highlight is um in the building height how to how to measure Building height we added a bit of clarification on Accessory projections so chimneys Steeples um different types of things that might um uh project above the building height um we've added some clarification on those um we did update the definition of family per uh very recent legislation at the state level uh which said we can't um Define uh a a

household by number of of of folks basically um we added the historic preservation definitions there were quite a few definitions in the historic preservation section that uh were never defined in the current code um with some of the new landscaping and lighting standards we've uh brought forward some definitions to help uh support those sections and then as I said before the sign the sign definitions had quite a few standards embedded in them so we've cleaned them up to uh simplify those chapter three is Zone districts and youth standards uh what changed is the uh we adjusted some of the Zone District names to better reflect the intent of those districts adjusted some dimensional standards to align with housing action plan and and just some best practices across the industry uh we simplified a fair bit of the design standards added new housing typ ypes Incorporated land use definitions as I was saying before the definitions of each of the uses is now in this chapter rather than definitions and then what remains uh the intent number and location of all the Zone districts so we haven't changed any Zone District boundaries or the intent of any of those Zone districts we have added purpose statements in each of the Zone districts to try to help clarify their intent but um did not change that intent many of the parameters of the R1 Zone District were preserved um just to preserve the intent of that District being uh as it is um and then we maintained an expanded upon many of the existing land uses so a lot of the existing land uses do remain um a few of them were out of date so we've changed either the terminology or removed them and uh added to the land uses anywhere where um where we needed to oops So within the Zone districts um you I mentioned a moment ago that we changed a few of the names so we have proposed

um to change the manufactured home District to mixed residential and change it to R3 instead of MH and the purpose of that is that um that district is is comprised of not just manufactured homes there's many single family homes duplexes small lot large lot so um it's it's really in in the city it's probably the most diverse um residential Zone district and Sox residential kind of felt appropriate based on a lot of our conversations because it's a real mix of different residential uses um we changed Highway commercial to General commercial and again the purpose of that is not all of the um property that's zoned Highway commercial is actually along the highway so some of the highway commercial is is is just generally commercial um in the general vicinity of the highway we also um have proposed to change the res residential estate Zone District to a legacy District there's only two or maybe three property zoned um residential estate um they can continue to operate under um as they are but we um a legacy District means that no new properties would be zoned residential estate uh we simplified the Pud regulations um the the current code writes the Pud regulations as as like an overlay which would be an overlay lay to one of these other districts but the intent was really to have it be its own Zone District that's um rezoned to PUD for uh um kind of unique type of of development so we've re uh retooled that chapter a bit to follow that intent um we reduced the minimum lot size from 7,000 s feet to 6,000 in the R1 Zone and this has a pretty big impact on non-conforming Lots in a good way a lot

of the existing uh Lots in the R1 zone are already around 6,000 square F feet or 6,500 um and which leaves them as non-conforming Lots um by reducing that lot size now they're not conforming Lots so I think it it makes it a little simpler for them to do any future um infill development or remodeling or anything with their homes um and then we've reduced in the R2 and R3 the lot minimum lot size from 6,000 to 4,000 again that one is to accommodate a lot of the recommendations we've reduced the residential front setbacks from 20 feet to 15 ft to allow a little bit more flexibility except garages they still need to be at 20 ft to allow for parking a car in the driveway and then we've increased the maximum lot coverage across the board um again what this really will allow is since we've reduced those lot sizes increasing the lot coverage now you can still have the same size house um on that parcel without being impacted um within the use regulations the main thing I wanted to highlight is that we did expand a lot of the housing options in the R2 and R3 Zone districts just to make sure that there is a lot more variety allowed in those districts um and we've added a number of New Uses and among those are Cottage cluster micro home tiny home modular home and then we've clarified what a multif family housing is I I think it was a different term currently and we renamed apartment to mixed use in chapter four the subdivision standards we've added uh the subdivision classifications so what the difference between a minor and a major subdivision um updated the street standards simplified the public land dedications quite a bit they're very um in your current code they're they're

they're quite complex let's just say um we comp combined all the Improvement standards into a subsection add a development Improvement agreement section to really spell out what would um what would be entailed within a development Improvement agreement we added Improvement guarantee language and then the impact fee section um was very nuanced and so we've we've simplified that quite a bit to um try to address the intent of that section and then what Remains the scope and applicability of this section is is primarily the same um the easement standards um are mostly the same with some very minor clarifications and modifications um the general generally the required improvements so putting in streets and utilities and all of that is still in here as I said we've combined some of that language into a section altoe and the land dedication amount is still 5% so that public land dedication section that we've reworked the total land dedication is still 5% and just to highlight what we did with the street standards um we incorporated private Street standards from the Pud section updated terminology and dimensions to match the master street plan uh we added median design standards just a couple little Provisions to help um guide median designs and then optional bike lane design criteria so the um we've included bike lane design criteria but it it's just at the um discretion of of the veler it's not a requirement so just some standards to guide that if they are added chapter five the site development standards this is um always in land use codes one of the biggest sections it just has a lot of information so um we've reduced the off street parking requirements in a number of um uses added an alternative and shared parking

standards to provide a little flexibility from parking it's it's really hard sometimes to to to Really assess what is the actual need of a of a use so um you have those standards but then there's an alternative plan that can be um presented um we increased the sidewalk width from 4 feet to 5T and added some language about um where there are existing sidewalks um you can con continue the existing with um you don't have to have a patchwork of a 3ft sidewalk to 5 foot to three foot um we've updated the landscape standards added lighting standards added some new natural resource protection standards um in the signs we've added electronic signs and updated the billboard regulations um what remains is the basic concept and computation of parking requirements a majority of the fencing standards remain the same we've kind of reorganized some of the language for clarity in that section the landscape plan requirements what what you submit with a landscape plan uh remains primarily the same and then a majority of the sign standards remain untouched so with the landscape standards um the current code requires just 10% of a paral to be landscaped and um uh not not a whole lot of other specificity um what we've done is we've created kind of a tiered system of tailored uh standards by use and location um so there are specific standards for commercial and multif family uses versus industrial and the commercial multif family uses are a little bit more Landscaping then you would see at an industrial site um single family residential are exempt from from those specific standards we added parking lot specific landscape standards and um some prohibited plant material lists um speaking to invasive species that piece is actually um tied to some recent legislation at the state

level as well and uh this is where a lot of our new graphics come in to help kind of explain these landscape standards uh We've added lighting standards your current code does not have any lighting standards um and we we tried to strike a balance between going fully dark sky and no standards at all so tried to find uh some kind of happy medium in the middle um with fully downward directed and shielded lights um a a color rating maximum um a light level maximum and then just language that prohibits flashing blinking lights and you know obtrusive lighting the natural resource standards um fairly simple just added some buffer standards from waterways um as we were doing our analysis with you know within the city there's not a ton of you know waterways that this would apply to um but there there are a couple uh we also added some Wetland standards um there have been some changes at the federal level um in past in recent years of what what is um what falls under the federal designation of the Army Corps of Engineers um for wetlands and what needs to be monitored at the local or state level so we've kind of built in kind of a baseline um section on Wetlands for for the city to build on as as legislation may change um but it clarifies the difference between a federally designated Wetland and an artificial Wetland as well in the sign standards uh We've added a few Graphics clarifying um what requires a permit and what does not um we reduced the maximum wall sign area from 200 square feet to 128 square feet to be consistent with some of the other dimensions in the code um we added some window sign standards electronic message sign standards um a provision to prohibit new Billboards based on some

conversations um with uh Planning Commission and city council um and then added optional oh that was the last Slide the bike lane standards um chapter six this is the administration and procedures uh We've reorganized that whole chapter into four distinct sections so you have um the review and decision-making authorities all in one section common review procedures and um specific review procedures uh we added a procedure table which I'll show you guys in a second it identifies um each application type and who is the review and decision-making authority of each application um we've combined all the public noticing procedures into one section rather than having them peppered throughout each application type we separated the rezone and text amendments they were combined as one in your current code and really are two separate procedures um we clarified the site plan process and then updated some of the decision-making Authority uh for preliminary plats to a um administrative process what remains is the overall intent of the chapter that was always intended to spell out the procedures of different application types um the overall list of development applications remains we built off of the existing list and added a few for clarification um and then most of the procedures and review and decision-making authorities remain the same with the minor tweaks that I've spelled out and here's an example of what that review uh procedure summary table looks like so you can see there's a reference section which references where those standards are um whether a pre-application conference is required um you know what what Authority the zoning administrator versus historic preservation board Planning Commission and city council have this is a very useful tool at all levels it really

helps the applicant come in and say I know what to do with my application it helps staff you know kind of guide the process and then it also helps you all to say oh we we are recommending a body or a decision-making body so uh the other big change in the administration and procedures chapter is the site plan um process uh We've there's currently I think about a three-step process of administrative there's a u certain applications that come to Planning Commission and then there's certain applications that go to city council so we've kind of changed that into two where you have a minor site plan and a major site plan minor is administratively approved and major goes through Planning Commission C Council and a minor site plan can be a single family lot a a duplex lot development less than a quarter acre um creation of additional uh addition of three um or less multif family units change to existing property that results in 20 less than 25% change change to an existing property that does not result in additional traffic noise or smell change does not result in more than 100 um addition average daily trips on adjacent roads change that does not result in a change in traffic patterns on adj adjacent roads and change to an existing mobile home park where no uses and density is not increased no New Uses are added and density is not increased all right we're almost done chapter seven historic preservation um a lot of the language Remains the Same in this chapter the overall intent of the regulations um and much of the review criteria a lot of that comes down from the state level um the state historic preservation office um and even from the national um national parks uh what we like I said we did pull this out at

chapter six so it's its own chapter now um we added a new applicability section to differentiate between local state and National register and then we've clarified the de demolition procedures chapter eight uh really comes straight down from FEMA and the state um and so we did some formatting and terminology to match the other chapters other than that the intent of the chapter in the majority of the language is is the same and then I mentioned the appendices earlier that um all of the outdated development applications and subdivision Improvement agreement template will be removed all right so that gets us through all the changes um and I just wanted to highlight a just a handful of comments we heard um we did post the the full code on conveo for um for public review over the last 30 days um didn't get very many comments on conveo but we did get a few um comments through a um a Google form that we had on the website as well so uh one of the one of the questions or comments was a concern about lack of a lack of a noise ordinance in the city and realizing that the municipal code itself does not have an or a noise ordinance we had a already added in section um 5.11 or 5.01 one um reference to the state requirements for noise and this is just a little screenshot out of the state uh regulations where there's certain decel ratings for um different types of Zone districts at certain times of the day so it does give uh the city some some something to hang their hat on for enforcement of noise um there were about three comments about recognition of the strong work that was put into the updated code um really getting to some layman's terms

that that make the code more legible and um I had a comment saying that uh the increased density in the neighborhood business Zone District was much appreciated so we say thank you to those comments um there was a question about um regulating types of fertilizers to be used or sold in the city and that really isn't something that um the land use code has jurisdiction over but the municipal code could so thought we would highlight that as something that the city may you know want to think about down the road um in the subdivision section uh we did have one comment the concern over long-term effects of subdivisions on the overall health of the area uh based on the comment I believe they might have been talking about some of the subdivisions more in the county but just looking at subdivisions collectively um it is it is definitely something to to think about um and it is something that's Guided by the comprehensive plan the code really speaks to the standards once you once you have um identified an area for growth or development then then this land use code identifies those standards but the comprehensive plan is where you really Define you know how how much growth we want in any particular area um excuse me there were two questions or concerns about section 1.0 4.4 that states um it the relationship other plans um and there is a provision in there and it's in your current code that speaks to um subdivisions that come in in the county come through the city as a referral agency um and that is just common practice the city does not have any jurisdiction over those and does not make any decision on those they just come in for a review because they're in that three mile coordinated planning

area so um and then there was a question about section 1.05 point2 pointb in the non-conforming regulations asking if businesses would be notified if they are non-conforming and the answer is no it's just a process to certify that you you know it's a voluntary process like we've talked about so if they were to come in with any kind of application then they would um if they didn't know that they had a non-conforming use or building or structure then they would uh work through that process with the city and the last comment was um there was a question about setbacks off of alleys we don't have any specific um differentiation in our our rear setbacks in the dimensional standards um and so there was a question about should we um add setbacks for alleys that might be a little bit different I think our rear setback currently proposed is at 7 feet um but thinking about um for example maybe a a residential property and you're putting a a shed at the back of your property does it really need to be 7t from the back property line and um my suggestion is we could reduce that to 3 feet for accessory structures I think you'd still want to keep principal structures to you know at least 5 feet so just something to to consider based on on one comment that came in and that is the end of my presentation so um thank you for listening to me yeah thanks Jen um yeah do you w to okay do you guys have any questions for us on any of that I do we've had this open and transparent process it's been going on for some time

the public was always invited to whatever meeting there was was on uh and you know I personally I've I've really appreciate that process of openness and transparency and giving the public a chance to always uh take a look at what's going on and comment and you just talked about some of the public comments uh we received a a memo tonight from the city attorney which has not gone through any review we received it literally minutes before the meeting and I guess I'm unless there's some fire that I don't know about on this process and these recommendations I'm wondering why we're seeing it that at this late date yeah I I can probably speak to that so in in looking through all of the uh new code provisions and making edits there were couple of issues that uh came up that had not been fully vetted and in my opinion and I think some other staff members uh and uh one was a very basic one when should this land use the new code be applicable and uh in Colorado there's a statute that mandates that the code uh that that a new code uh cannot be applicable to any applications that have been submitted prior to the adoption of the new code and so our thought was number one we we need to Define what is a submittal

of an application uh we didn't want it to be somebody sketching in a a request for a subdivision on a cocktail napkin and handing it to the planning staff and say hey I submitted it before you adopted the new code uh this is obviously a shortterm issue because at some point the new code will be fully adopted and any applications submitted after that date will have to come under the regulation that have have been adopted uh that you're reviewing tonight uh but we wanted to be clear that since the the state statute says uses the the specific term submitted that we Define submitted as as only occurring when we receive a completed application and all the fees have been paid for that application and we have we Define what a completed application is and the idea being that uh the clock doesn't start ticking until the applicant actually fills out the application submits it with all the required information that's in the code and at that point we determine that the application has been submitted and if the new code effective date is has occurred already then that application goes under the new regulations if the application is submitted as we've defined it here prior to the effective date of the new code then they uh are reviewed under the

existing code not the new code um now there there are uh there's a couple other issues or at least one other issue that we we wanted to determine is when should the effective date of this new code be and as as you know the the process goes first Planning Commission hears it what you're doing tonight and assuming you complete your review tonight you certainly have the ability to uh vote to continue this hearing to a date certain if if you determine that you need additional information or additional time to uh review everything uh but at the time you make your submittal or your recommendation to the city council then it goes as an ordinance to the city council and and they have a first reading and then two weeks later is the second reading and the second reading is when the public hearing is uh for Council to consider adopting the code and they also have the right to determine that they want to continue continue the public hearing to a later date if they you know if the room fills up with public and not everybody's had a chance to speak or they raise issues that we have to look at and reconsider any drafting points then uh they can continue that to as many multiple hearings as they think are necessary but generally uh most ordinances are uh heard on introduc on first reading and then placed on a public hearing schedule two weeks later and they're either adopted or the council votes not to adopt the ordinance

at that time uh then the the process turns to a publication if if the ordinance is actually adopted then it's published in the newspaper an additional time after the vote to adopt it and the thought I think amongst staff was that perhaps 30 days after that publication would be an appropriate time to make the uh the ordinance and the land use code effective and if you guys think that's am I correctly summarizing what what we discussed but well uh I guess oh yeah the situation the Planning Commission is in is that we're asked to make a recommendation with no public review and I'm I'm well and and tonight is public review it's it's stream I mean it I mean it hasn't been advertised but is that I think that what my colleague is asking right is like this is three pages of suggested correct and there's a coup we only only the folks in this room and maybe a few other people at City Hall have seen a couple items on here seem substantive to me yeah now if if you'll recall one of the options when you hear this you it's not either up or down on what was submitted in the packet and and this this occurs in other con instances not just resolutions but if if you're reviewing site plans and that sort of thing you come up with changes sometimes substantive changes on the Fly the night of the hearing ing uh sometimes they haven't even been suggested or reviewed by staff it it it comes a part about as part of

the public comment period or the applicants make suggestions from the podium so it's it's not certainly not illegal but if you're hesitant to to make recommendations on items that uh have not been published in an agenda then and this whole process been so open and transparent I just don't want to add something like this to it personally that's speaking for me okay and the the other I'll just explain the other uh in addition to the the timing of the uh of the U effective date that there actually two other issues that I've addressed in the memo one is there was a provision in the existing code that transferred over to this code that said that an applicant uh cannot begin the review process of their application if they owe the city money in any form or fashion so if they if their business owes sales tax or they have unpaid parking tickets or what whatever the thing the the issue may be if they owe the city money the language in the proposed code says we won't review your application and from a practical standpoint uh I think the consensus among staff was it's difficult to determine all of those because the the planning Economic Development Community Development Department they don't deal with uh sales tax or property tax or a lot of other fines and fees that an applicant May May owe and uh certainly it wouldn't be

impossible to figure that out but it would take some staff resources that uh they were not comfortable committing towards that goal and uh so the thought was maybe limit it to the fees that are applicable to the pending application that they're considering and if the applicant hasn't paid those those fees their application is not deemed to be complete and it won't go forward until they actually pay the fees uh that was and you know if if the other staff wants to comment on that you know they said I have a question on that okay um we don't get a ton of applications so when you talk about use of Staff time to track that down it's already pretty small because we don't get a lot of applications and so I'm wondering is this I mean I kind of like the original one where it it is anything that you owe to the city you have to be in good Financial standing with the city big umbrella you have to fit under it so it seems like we're kind of cutting ourselves off at the knees in in an effort to simplify what is essentially someone's job to review and so I don't know I guess I'm struggling with that recommended amendment to see how that benefits the citizens of Cortez if we're not willing to to do our homework at the staff level and determine if people are in Good Financial standing with the city well and and I'll certainly let Rachel comment but this does not eliminate the city's

ability to collect these other fees and and taxes and what whatever other monies are owed it simply does not tie them to a land use application process uh and so that we still have that availability and when the the department that is owed the fee other than the the land use fee uh determines that they've got some somebody that owes them money they still have the opportunity usually through my office eventually to uh collect those fees and uh so it's it's not we're not eliminating the city's ability to collect fees we're just the recommendation I think was to not tie it to a particular land use application and yeah and I I mean I guess I'm still wondering how does that benefit the citizens of Corte has over a singular applicant it seems as though that amendment is really in favor of an applicant who might not be in good Financial standing so I guess I'm my question remains what is the benefit to the citizens and it's okay if you don't have an answer it can be a rhetorical I I think it's a really good point um it's not a Ben I don't see it as a benefit we honestly couldn't come up with what they might owe that I mean because you pay taxes to the county right the county assessor so we're like well could it be sales tax um or maybe a fine from a violation that's the only thing we could think of when we notice that in there um and I we're

honestly don't nobody's here but we're don't check now to see if an applicant owes something somewhere in the city so it the I think Pat's recommendation was let's not have things in there that we don't enforce or we um might not enforce clearly let's make sure we can enforce everything that's in the code so that it's not a big deal um I think we could leave it in there if you want but um it also isn't really I don't know if it's very effective or enforceable now I I mean I guess it's enforceable it's hard to figure out um and then the other issue was it says applicant usually there's a land owner there's an applicant and which one and if it's the land owner that owes money and the person is trying to rent from them are we going to punish the person that's trying to rent from them or vice versa so that's why we just actually today we were like why is that there and maybe it should come out so not a big deal got to ask a hypothetical question so if we as a a commission uh were to approve just the original resolution as presented by staff then that would go that recommendation would go to council but also City attorneys memorandum would go to city council for possible action yes I think that the the staff always reserves the right to make recommendations that are either consistent with the planning commission's recommendation or that are in addition to or contrary to I mean I I

haven't really seen it here but periodically staff will recommend denial of an application Planning Commission will recommend approval and and uh so the staff both both recommendations go forward to the uh the city council so certainly yeah as you as you pointed out though by the time it got to council it would have had the public would have had a chance to take a look at it sure that's that's absolutely correct um sorry were you done um I also I guess wanted a little bit of clarity because um some some of the memo that we've received has really clear um like red line strike out and some of the language says some possible language could be inserted and then there's an example um or another one says my proposed language would be something similar to the following and so I guess I'm wondering what was the are is the intent of this memo that we in making a motion of recommendation include these suggestions in that motion or is the intent of this memo just to say hey we're going to send this memo to council with the ordinance yes so the the with recommendation language that is in red font is not it's not track changes it's new language that I'm proposing be added to a particular section I didn't want to have to type the whole section and then add it on but it it's it's new language there are a couple sections in here that show strikeouts of particular words or phrases and then the additional language but for the most part the the red

language red font language is new language uh I hesitate to use track changes too much because it gets confusing when we're looking at multi-page codes um but so so I guess that's my confusion is is your proposed language the red um text or is your proposed language something similar to the red text which in front of us I mean I think like we have to take it seriously we're we're considering changes that the public hasn't seen and I don't feel like the language from staff is super clear like are we proposing this or are we proposing an unknown similar thing the the language I'm suggesting is the red font language um if Planning Commission wanted to or or in the case in a couple weeks the city council wanted to make changes to the language I suggested that's why I said similar to this because certainly there are different ways you can say things and uh after the discussion tonight or the discussion at the public Hearing in front of city council if if there is some modifications to the language I'm proposing I wanted to be clear that what I'm proposing is not mandatory that if you if you don't adopt it you're doing something illegal it's it's certainly my suggestion that it be adopted but uh if if the you know and and this staff may have alternate language they want to suggest at some point probably I don't know about tonight necessarily but uh if if this goes forward to the city council then uh um it it can you know I I can remove the substantially similar

language and just say here's what I propose and if they don't like it they can edit it as as can you uh to make it say what you want it to say because everything that I put down or that the rest of the staff puts down is is merely a suggested recommendation okay um additional questions for staff and so now we are good to deliberate amongst ourselves correct I I would open it up to the public in case somebody is listening outside wants to come in okay and and then recognize if nobody offers public input that you close the public comment portion of the hearing any public comment okay seeing none we will close the public comment section um and move on to commission deliberations um does anyone want to kick it off with thoughts well I I think the commission's probably aware of my feelings now uh I I would be in favor of the original uh motion as suggested by staff but and I would I would make that motion after discussion um so your preference would be for Council or I mean for commission to not um necessarily make any suggestions based on the memo we received tonight but rather to leave those decisions up to council that's correct after the uh public has had a chance to take a look at it and then the council will have the opportunity to hear that informed opinion from the

public I do agree with that um I just believe that like these additional edits last minute are very crucial especially um I had notes here too for the fees um I do understand that we might not have the manpower to um determine who has fees all across the county or the city how however if we were to have somebody who who is delinquent or very delinquent in taxes um to the county we we should like you said we should do the right thing and and follow up with that um especially if if one do have multiple properties and neglects one then that should be investigated and determined um with this removing any of these um wording would open opportunities for somebody to take advantage of it um of owing to the city or the county and Contin to neglect one property but um upgrade or or increase the benefit of another property so I would agree to remain to to move forward with no I think your comments are appropriate myself any other thoughts um seeing none I would entertain a motion I make a motion to that the Planning and Zoning commission recommend that Council repeal in its entirety city of Cortez land use code and adopt and updated city of Cortez land use code containing Nina's suggestions I'm not sure how we want to word that perhaps

the clerk can help us with that you're in reference to the memo or her comments I'm not sure what kind of help is madam chair be before you take a second just to clarify the motion properly should contain a motion to approve the resolution what's the number uh resolution number three number three series 2025 yeah and I make that change to my motion and I guess to to further clarify you all have made some comments relative to the suggested additions that are in my memo but as I understand the preference of the commission is to not adopt those comments the city council receives the minutes of this meeting which will contain the comments that you've all made relative to the suggested changes uh but as I understand your motion you only want to approve the resolution without any amendments that approves the land use code AS submitted in your packet is that that's my motion okay does everyone understand Bob's motion including me is there a second now second um any additional discussion let's take a vote tell yes

Rover yes bright yes walren yes cool motion passes um I want to say thank you to Jen and Logan Simpson um I know a lot of times people think that the code is really boring until it tells them that they can't do something that they want to do um and I am really appreciative of you guys knowing your stuff and and helping us to to get to a place where it's a little more understandable I definitely learned a lot in the process so thank you thank you for your time and and expertise it was a great process um and with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn so move there a second second uh all in favor say I I I I all right meeting adjourned thank you everybody thank you than