Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Orchini here. Fryhover here. Ryan Reie here. And under approval of the agenda, I would like to add under five unfinished business that we appoint a vice chair to our commission. So I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda with that addition.

I nominate when we get to it, but we got to approve the agenda first. So um just adding the action item of appointing a vice chair. So So I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda with that one addition. I move to approve the agenda with the addition of appointing a vice chair. Is there a second to that move? I second it. Any discussion? Let's proceed to vote then. Fry hover. Yes. Orchini I. Remy.

Yes. And then we need approval of minutes from the February 3rd PNZ meeting. We're not going to have a quorum to We got a quorum. Well, we've got an issue because he resigned and

Patrick I can vote present. Yeah. Is the what you're saying is there the three members here were not all present at that meeting and the member who was present is no longer on the commission. Yes. Okay. I I think you can approve them wi with the vote of the three that are present. Do I have to vote yes or do I can I vote present? I'll have that. You can vote present as long as as long as two of them vote in favor of it. Okay.

I guess I would entertain a motion of any changes or approval of the minutes that meeting. I'll offer a motion to approve the minutes from the February 3rd meeting. Is there a second? I second it. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Then let's proceed to vote. Forchini I. Ryhover yes. Remy

present. Motion passes. Um, next item is public participation. Um, limit of 30 minutes per participant. if they would like to discuss something not currently on the agenda, um, please go over to the microphone and make sure it's on and we'd record you. Is there anybody that would like to speak to anything that's not already on the agenda? Seeing none, then let's move to public hearings. And the first item is an application for encroachment. And Jason, would you give us some insight on that, please? Evening, commission. So, our first item this evening is a public hearing and application for an encroachment permit for property located at 9006 North Market Street. Um, just scroll through here to give you a little visual representation of what we're going to talk about tonight. So um so yeah the the property is located adjacent to uh a city open space. This is a carpenter natural area and the property line um the property is separated by 16 foot city uh rideway. This is actually an alley used for maintenance. Um the property owners inadvertently constructed a rock retaining wall. um kind of extending past past their property line. This is from the um this is from the property owners diagram. So you can see there's the property line and they drew a rough estimate there of where the rock wall comes out. Um

here is a picture of the actual rock wall. Androach.

Um, so, uh, there are two private utilities that are using this alleyway. And I'll go back up here and show you where they're at. So, first off, uh, Amas Energy has a gas mainline. And that gas main line um is in the alley and it starts on Driscoll Street which is just south of this picture. Extends up to the property line but from there it terminates and uh it enters into the property owner's property as a service line. Um so they had no real issues with that rock wall being there. Um, Empire Electric has overhead utilities that kind of extend this entire alleyway. Um, they sent out uh a crew to take a look and see if the rock wall was in fact encroaching on their access to provide maintenance to those utilities and they didn't feel like it was an issue for them. Um, additionally, uh, you know, the city of Cortez public works department, they maintain all of our alleys and, um, they maintain this one and, uh, any easements and infrastructure that are located in it. Um the only thing of note that is in here is that there is a water mainline that is running um kind of uh south south to north through through the property and they may at some point need to get into this alley to service it, but right now they're not they're not really particularly worried about it. Um, so, uh, you know, we we sent all of our applications out for public comment or for, um, referral agency comments. Didn't receive anything that was of concern from any of those folks. That information is located in your report.

Um, I would say that, um, one of the things that we did figure out in talking with our public works department was that just because there isn't, um, any perceived uh, issue with that encroachment at this point, if it did become an issue, um, the, uh, city or utility could come in and remove that encroachment um, at smoke and and not be responsible to replace it. Um so that would be at the cost of the property owner if in fact that had to happen. So um I think that all the utilities in our public works department would definitely work with that property owner before they would want to go in and take something out like that. So, um, your alternatives tonight for the commission, um, you guys can recommend, uh, approval that that council approve the encroachment permit on property located at 906 North Market Street. Um, you can recommend denial of the application for the encroachment permit and state the reasons why. Uh you can ask for more information um and continue the application to a date certain or table the application or you can recommend to council to approve the encroachment permit and state any conditions you feel would be necessary to ensure compliance with the land use code and the staff recommendation is for alternative number four which is approval with conditions. Um, I did uh want to point out again that one of the conditions that we put into the resolution for your consideration is to the extent that the landscaping restricts the reasonable use of any easement held by a utility company or the city, it can be removed without any obligation by the utility company or the city to repair or replace it. So with that, that those are the

planning department findings on this. um open it up for for questions. Would you cover that water one again? That Yeah. seems to be like the only major

Yeah, there's a water man that was established a water easement that was established on the property. It kind of runs um vertically across here um running kind of south to north um across the property. Um again, there doesn't seem to be any concern from the public works side of it. Um but of course they hold that easement on the property and they would have to get into the property to provide maintenance to it. Um, and that includes uh in the alleyway itself, but the water line itself is not close to where this encroachment is is at. It's kind of north

because the way you were drawing that is like the water line the easement went right underneath the house. No, no, they re this got established in the last year or so. They had to go back in and establish the uh the utility easement through the property. Is Mr. Schaefer in the audience? But it's still got There he is. Mr. Schaefer, do you have anything that you would want to add to anything that I brought up? Yeah, come on up. Well, we might as well go and add to the public hearing open. Well, the applicant always has the right to speak, so Okay.

Yep. Come on up. So I if I understood you right, there's still 8 and 1/2 ft from that farthest point of the wall to be able to drive a vehicle through there, right? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Just to clarify the water easement, I I granted the city um a 10-ft easement across my property. Uh, but it's on it's it's not where he said the the it's down on the south east corner of the property. See if it's over here.

It's um It's nowhere near the encroachment. It's down here. Way down there. It's it's it okay. It's right here. It's right along the property line. No, it's diagonal north to south almost. Okay.

Yeah, it's it's down there. It's not up or it's not under the house. And the city has um under the uh easement agreement, the city can come in and on my property and do whatever they need to do with that that water line at any moment. I think they just have a 24-hour notice or something like that. So they would go kind of on the southeast side of that rock wall.

Yeah. They come off of Market Street and they would go right across my neighbor for a short distance and then then right through mine and uh there's a some kind of a water device uh on my property that they may have to get it. And then it goes on to a valve that I had them install and then it goes on forever to the tanks. So, how would Empire Electric enter the easement?

Emptire uh Empire has come in already come in twice and and they can come in off of Driscoll from the south and service the pole and everything on the kind of the south and east corner of the lot and that's where I get my electric. And then there's another pole on the on the very north end of my lot. It's not even on my lot. I mean, it's in the easement that they can get from the um Market Street um off my property where the entrance to the carpenter is. So, they they can get to that pole real easy and have gotten to those poles. They had to take a a transformer down from the north pole and put a brand new one up on the South Pole. So, they've been in already. They they've done quite a bit of work just to get my house going. So, I had to have a transformer. And we The other thing I wanted to say is we uh wholly apologize for messing up on the on the sloping the the the dirt. We uh when we were building it, we we sloped it off and uh you know, it didn't seem to be much of a problem, but I should have said something to the city, I believe, before I rip wrapped that slope because the slope was eroding. It's just filled dirt. And by the way, if someone does have to come in there and open that up, uh it's purposely done with smaller rocks and a a skid steer or a small tractor can do it in a matter of an hour or less. Can get shove all that aside. So it's not concreted in or anything like that. It's just rip wrap. So Jason,

if I heard you right, if for some reason somebody needs to go in there and remove some of that rock to get to whatever it is they need to do, it would be upon the homeowner to go ahead and fix it again. Yeah. Or not fix it, right? Okay. Yeah, sure. And you have no problem with that? None whatsoever. It's it's my errors and I'm responsible. This is for Jason. Is it a requirement to record this permit with Monzima County included in the final resolution as a condition? We could make that a condition if you wanted to add that.

I think that'd be a good idea.

Okay. Anything else, Jason? Questions for Jason? I'll go ahead and open it up for public hearing then. Anyone wanting to speak for or against, uh, please go up to the microphone, state your name, and make sure that it's on so it's recorded for the meeting. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and comments.

I think as long as we have the right to or as long as the utilities have the right to go in and they have to make changes, they have the ability to do that in the future. And like the homeowner said, uh hopefully it won't be that difficult because it's not a not as permanent as some other structures. I agree. Uh so that would be alternative four. So the conditions are um stated in the staff report that I gave you guys and then you could also look at the resolution. They're in there. You want me to right here? Yeah, that's

you wanted to add a fifth one that it would be with the I wanted to make a motion to make sure that we include um that the the permit or that there's a requirement to record the permit with Monizuma County that we include that as a final condition in in the resolution for the city council to consider along with the first four. Correct. So, I don't have any problem with that. Um I'd entertain a motion. them.

I'll make a motion to approve the um the issue and add the um the amendum of making sure that we get the Monizuma County uh permit included in the final or the requirement to record the permit with Monuma County included in the final resolution. Patrick, is that good enough or do we want to follow? I think that covers it. Okay, second that. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Let's proceed to vote then. Fryhover. Yes. Orchini I.

Remy? Yes. Motion passes. Uh, next item of business is uh conditional use permit for a permanent accessory structure. And Jason, would you us in on that one on roll?

Yes, sir. Uh, so public hearing on a conditional use application um for uh permanent accessory structure that exceeds the maximum square feet allowed in code for property located at 1626 Rolling Road, Cortez. Um, so the property owners are requesting a conditional use permit to construct a new garage for vehicle and RV storage on their existing property at 1626 Rolling Road. Uh, accessory buildings that are proposed to be larger than 800 square feet are required to obtain a conditional use permit. Let me scroll down picture of the property and then I will show you kind of the design of where they're going to put this at. we can talk about it a little bit more. Ah, so here we go. So, um, yeah. So, the proposed garage is to be 1,600 square feet. It's this guy up here. Um, or double the maximum size allowed as uh permitted by code. Um, the structure is proposed for personal storage. Uh, the the garage is a metal building uh that is larger than most garages in the city. Uh however, the lot is significantly larger at 1.29 acres uh than other lots in the city. Uh the proposed height of the garage is 16 ft at its highest point. This is similar or lower than the existing singlestory home with the on the property. Uh the garage is proposed at a lower elevation than the existing home which will further limit the impact of the new garage. Um just kind of an anecdotally as we went through this application um it's not directly related to the application but there is an issue with an existing shed. You can see it here. I put an arrow to it. Um the shed was built by the

previous owner in a road rideway irrigation easement uh located directly east of the property line. The easement is not currently in use as a road but serves as an easement for the Cortez lateral. Um given that the shed appears to be uh had appears to have been accidentally built off property and a public use easement and correct permits were obtained, uh the city will not at this time require that the shed be removed. Um again, should the city ditch company or public utility need the property in the future, the shed would need to be removed at that time. Um, I'll just point out that uh the size of the the the footprint of this garage is the uh only uh dimensional standard that is out of compliance as you can see on this graphic here. Um everything else about the project is in substantial uh compliance with the land use code including setbacks, heights, lot coverage, etc. Um

can can the staff confirm that this garage is for personal accessory use and not a commercial operation? Um well, they did not specify that in their application. Um we could make that uh condition of approval. If you would want to make sure of that, um if anybody was going to use that as a commercial enterprise, they'd have to obtain a permit from us. And so we would we would know through that through that process. But right now, it's just personal storage is what they want to use it for. Is the applicant in the audience?

You guys have anything you want to add to that? Sure. Yeah, that'd be a whole another issue because you'd have to get a commercial and it's zone for R1. So, yeah, home occupation permit.

Um, where is the uh entrance to the garage? I guess I didn't quite tell where it was. Is it going to come off N Avenue? So rolling road is an unimproved right away. Any other questions for Jason before I open it up? Okay, I'd open it up for a public hearing then on this issue. Uh, anybody willing to speak for or against, please go to the microphone. State your name. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Oh, wait.

Oh, okay. Go ahead. Go on right over there. Make sure the mic's still on and just state your name. We used to state name and address, but I discontinued that when Halloween was coming along. Um, all right. Well, we would like to oppose the permit. Uh, state your name, please.

My name's Emma Thompson

and I'm Austin Tips. We live across the street. So, we live at 1702 Rolling Road and um technically the front of our house is situated in the front of Null and upon receiving the permit plans for this building permit, it uh alarmed us quite a lot. Um, we just bought the home in August of 2025 and, um, we worry that this large structure will, you know, not only decrease the value of our investment in our home, but it is directly in front of our house. Um, so while we live in a residential area, this is a huge metal garage that will be built on our front door essentially. It's not the back of their home. Um, it is our front yard. And so we would like to oppose the permit. Um as we have some concerns about the terminology used within the permit as well. As the Franchinis have stated, it's for um their personal storage. There is some words that say perhaps a uh craft or workshop. Um what kind of crafts or workshop are they going to use? Is it going to create noise? Is it going to create, you know, an unpleasant place for us to live? And that's our front door and our, you know, front yard essentially. So, um, we do have some concerns and ultimately would like to oppose the decision.

Yeah. Do you want to say anything? Um, I mean 104T's not that far from basically null road. Um, our big thing is it's a giant metal building kind of just basically ploped straight into our front yard. And um, part of the reason we bought the house is that we had southern or south views straight to the mesa. Um, and this this building will entirely probably close those off.

I'd also like to note that, you know, while we live in this neighborhood, most people's lots are not as large as theirs. Um, this is a residential neighborhood with all about the average size lot as ours is. And this structure will be about the same size as any other house in the neighborhood. And it's a metal construction oversized garage. Um, so, you know, it's unpleasant to the, you know, overall standard of the neighborhood of which I hope that Cortez could uphold. Um, especially being new homeowners in the city and just purchasing our home. we we had the intention that, you know, it was a safe neighborhood to raise a family in and ultimately stay for a long time. So, um, just wanted to add that in, I guess.

Okay. Thank you. Did we start the clock by any chance? One minute. Okay. Um, anyone else to speak for or against? How tall was that building, Jason? Um, 16 feet proposed height.

Yeah,

my name is Greg Hyle. I live here in Cortez. Um, what's your address?

My address is 1811 Shady Lane. Um, recently, uh, two homeowners on Shady Lane were permitted to build these huge metal buildings. As mentioned earlier, these buildings are total obstructions of everything. They don't fit into our our neighborhood whatsoever. It's a longstanding neighborhood. The planning went into it. It's all single family. Uh it's recently with the new neighbors uh gone into a remodel and kind of refreshing the whole area and increasing the value for the city of Cortez. I'm not saying that their one building changes all of that, but I am saying it's another piece that takes away from the the community feeling there. It's, you know, all of us, almost all of us in that area, uh, walk around the neighborhood, talk to people. Um, and we want to continue to do that and we would continue to do that. But this building, I don't know. It's huge. It sounds huge to me. I How many square feet is it? 1,600 square feet. So, you know, I mean, that's got to be a sizable motor home and a whatever else they're going to do. They have mentioned that they're not going to make anything commercial there. So that was a big concern when we read

the the original statements. But uh I I just want to make it clear that I don't believe that this building is in the best interest of the whole community. It is in their best interest and I understand they how they want that. But I think our job as citizens and your job is to look at the whole community and the the hundred and some other people that are not here tonight because they're not aware or they're not directly affected today. So, thank you very much.

Yeah, I'm I'm not supposed to engage, but I do have a question. Did I hear you say that on Shady Lane there were a couple oversized buildings already? Yes. And I'd like to I'm glad you brought that Street. Excuse me. They're on Center Street. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. And And how big are those buildings? Do you know? I mean, those those buildings are huge. There's two of them. And I think there's a reason why we have the codes and, you know, sometimes we we have to go off course and, you know, do something different. But that we we'll we'll discuss that. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else to speak for or against? Um, I will point out to uh the commission that if you guys take a look at the conditional use permit application approval criteria, uh, number one, um, might be something that you guys uh, would want to consider. And I've got it up here for Mr. Chair, I I would point out that this use is considered a conditional use that is authorized in this zone district. And to that extent, you know, there was cons concerns about what what could be done in this this building, any anything that the owner would would do would have to comply with the zoning, the existing zoning. And and the conditional use process does not change the zoning. That would be a separate process that would require an ordinance and a first and second reading and a public hearing to to change to to reszone the property if if uh the applicant was wanting to conduct operations that are not currently authorized in the zone district. So, uh, it it's not, you know, you don't need to get affirmations from the applicant stating that they won't do this or they will do

that in terms of the uses because the uses are already defined in the zoning code. And if there's a violation, then the violation. Correct.

Exactly. The code enforcement would enforce a violation. Anyone else speak for or against? I'll close the uh public hearing then. And commissioners, do you have any questions for Jason or comments? I was just going to say that, you know, there's a reason why we have our zoning rules and our standards for construction and all the all the all the thought and you know all the um all the legality all the legality that goes into it and you know I am kind of concerned that you know this would be a giant obstruction in the neighborhood and you know it is the height is, you know, is more than what we normally allow. And um I think it has a lot to do with the location of it. If it's right in front of the neighbor's house and causing an obstruction and um if it's going to bring down the property values and you know hurt the neighborhood, I think that's a big concern. And if somebody, you know, built something right in front of my house that changed the the character of the neighborhood, I'd be upset, too. Um, so I think that's a real concern, and I'll let the other commissioners speak on it.

I think it needs to have some more investigations. I think we need uh need to table it and put it uh get some more information. I don't think it's appropriate to make it right now. If you want me to go through your alternatives really quickly, uh you can approve the condition use permit. Um and and again, this is planning commission, so they don't approve or disapprove. They they recommend to

council to city council. Yeah. Um, you can recommend to city council approval of the condition use permit. Um, you can recommend denial of the application. Uh, you can ask for more information and table it to a date certain. Um or you can approve recommend through resolution number three series 26 uh resolution approving the conditional use permit with conditions as stated in the resolution and state any other conditions.

And I would clarify if you table it it's it's done they have to reapply. If you continue it to a date certain, then you don't have to do anything. It It's just continued and it comes back up on a on a future PNZ meeting. So tabling is more drastic than a continuence. Gotcha. And yes, we only recommend a city council, right? They're the ones that they need more information. Um,

I mean, do we want to hear from more um more citizens? Is that the goal to have more input? I guess. Well, I think some staff also needs to take a better look at it and make some comments because I see that on here that there's a lot of the departments didn't even make any comments. Yeah, I mean um there really wasn't any significant concerns by any of our referral agencies in regard um I will just point out again that um the one um the one element of this project proposal um that doesn't meet code unless you enact a conditional use permit is the actual square footage, the height, the setbacks, the lot coverage, all of those things are in compliance with the land use code.

So the only thing is the square footage.

Correct. And there is that mechanism in code um that allows somebody to apply for that conditional use based on that square footage. And it looks like that it's relatively adjacent to the existing house 104 ft from uh No Avenue or whatever that street is. Is that right? I don't know if you can see that up there, but yeah, it's 104. It says it's 24 feet set back from the from Rolling Road.

From Rolling Road. Yeah. But it's which is the is what it's addressed off of. So that's actually the front. And so the garage would need to be per land use code 20 ft from the property line. So it meets that. I mean, I I I think we should we should have a vote, yay or nay, whether, you know, we we because we're just approving this to the city council and they can take a closer look at it. I don't want to delay this any further for the applicants or for the other people.

So, the conditional use permit is just for the size of the building, correct? So theoretically they could put in two buildings half the size.

We're going to approve we're going to approve the application in front of us one way or the other. Um, if the property owners wanted to rethink uh their application and resubmit with a different design, we would take a look at it at that point. I I I I just to clarify, there would be no requirement for a conditional use permit if they built two buildings, each of which was half the size of this building.

Fair enough. Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at, that there would be no conditional use permit needed. Um, wow. That just complicates it. I'm glad city council has to make it. Um I make a motion to to um to not approve the the um the permit. Well, give a motion to recommend or to re I make a motion to recommend not to approve

and and you need to state your reasons why.

I think this is out of character for the neighborhood and I think that it would um it would bring down the value of the surrounding properties and it would, you know, um encourage other residents to, you know, come before us and seek the same thing. And I just I make a motion. That's why I make a motion to disapprove it a recommendation to disapprove it. So let me make sure motion correctly. My understanding is you are recommending to the city council not to approve the conditional use permit. Is that correct?

Right. Correct. Based on

I I think the major issue I have with it is the location of it. if it's going to be directly in front of the neighbor's house and causing a, you know, obstructing the view and, you know, bringing down the character of the neighborhood with this giant structure. I ma'am, I'm I'm speaking here. I think it's bad for the neighborhood. I think I think it's too big. If they want to build two if they wanted to build a smaller building, I'd probably be in favor of that. The building's too big. It's out of character with the neighborhood. I move to disapprove this application or a recommendation to disapprove this application. I would entertain a second, but I'm not going to second it.

No, I I won't second that either. Okay. Motion dies. For lack of a second, I would entertain a motion to uh do something to pass it to city council. Then

did you say extend was was No, continue. Continue. I mean, I'd be I'd be in favor of letting the city council decide this. Yeah. I'd like to, you know, I don't let them

I mean, I think they're the I mean, they're the ones that ultimately have to decide it. Um, so, you know, perhaps it's not prudent to just disapprove it, but to pass it along to them for their input. So, I know staff has some recommendations there, but um Patrick, would there be a suggestion that we pass this to city council or

Well, your recommendation in addition to the recommendation of denial includes uh the other three recommendations in the staff report. Uh, and if you know, if you have some variation on one of those recommendations, you're certainly welcome to to make it. Um, I I would remind you that before it goes to city council, it will be noticed and the public hearing will be published so that the land owners, the neighbors, whomever uh, and including people that support it are certainly able to show up at the public hearing again and express their concerns or their support. Uh but in order to get it to city council and and even if you make a recommendation of denial, it still goes to city council. Uh you don't have veto power to to kill the application at this point. So um

they make the choice. Yeah. But but you you have to make a recommendation and they have heard recommendations for denial before and sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. So or whether we approve motion, you know, to approve the application or not, it's still going to go before the city council.

Yes. So I'd be in favor of either of those routes. Since the motion to deny uh failed for lack of a second, how would that be communicated to city council?

It it doesn't um just whatever motion ultimately is voted on by a majority of you is what gets reported to the city council. now they have the ability to look at the video and you know and they may be watching right now for all we know. Um, but yeah, I think you know, if you look at the staff report down at the bottom, it contains options. Um, and and a possible motion. again uh and and this doesn't preclude another motion to recommend denial based on different reasoning than Commissioner Borchini mentioned. So you you have that and I've seen it go where you you make four or five motions before you get one that even gets a second. So if if you don't succeed at first, try try again is is my recommendation. So, how do we move this forward?

Somebody can make another motion without making without making denial or

Well, I I think you you need to either make a recommendation of denial or approval. Uh, and you can make conditions on the approval or state different reasons for the denial that two of you might agree on. and and uh so you could go that route, but uh you know, it's kind of up to you to gauge gauge the tenor of the commissioners that are up there and what you think you might be able to get two of you to agree on at least. Does it have to get posted as a public hearing for city council?

Yes. And I I can see where it needs further study, but I don't want to continue it. I'd rather city council get it. It needs to be moved forward.

And get it to the public hearing Not coming up with any wording. Yeah.

Well, Patrick, I noticed one of these is that appropriate construction drawings must be approved by the building official and the building permit obtained prior to any construction. Um

yeah, those are conditions subsequent that would occur after if if the application is approved by council before they can start construction, then they have to provide that. That's a condition that applies to any conditional use. So if we make a say someone makes a motion to approve it but with the stipulation that appropriate construction drawings. I don't know. I want I can't think of anything.

That would be required anyway by the code. So if if they get a an approval of the conditional use by city council, before they can start construction, they would have to present those building plans to the the building inspector for approval. So you you you don't unless you think it needs to be emphasized for some reason, you you don't really need to make that one of the conditions of approval because it's it's already a code requirement. Yeah, you're right.

Oh man. Well, somehow I'd like to move this forward to city council and then have them have to have more study on whole situation because I haven't had enough time to formulate any and the chair can make a motion. I'm trying to come up in case you were wondering, but

I haven't got the right wording. Um. Oh man. Any ideas? What about we can't split the baby? Got to pick one side or the other here. Well, I guess I look at this that even if city council denies the conditional use permit, they could just put up two buildings of the same. You know, there's nothing to prevent that. That's what this kid get crazy. then they don't have to go through the conditional use permit. Right.

Correct.

Unless either of those two buildings didn't comply with the well yeah the code standards obviously. But you could you could build two buildings and have it apply and have it comply with all the codes, right? Sure. Yeah. How come staff didn't think about this? The implications here. Oh boy. Um

Jason, do you want to read the conditions that are in the existing resolution? Sure. Yeah, no problem. Give me a second here. The only problem is it's too large of a building for what's permitted by the regulations. Right.

So there's three conditions that are in the the current resolution. So all requirements of utility providers, city department, seed dot, and affected districts must be satisfied as outlined in adopted city codes and other regulatory documents. Specifically, all public improvement shall comply with the minimum requirements of the 2009 city of Cortez construction design standards and specifications and all requirements of C dot for required highway improvements, keeping in mind that um this is a this is a condition that we put into all of our approvals um and it may or may not fully apply to this particular project. Uh the second one, the appropriate construction drawings must be approved by the building official and a building permit obtained prior to any construction on site. Um what that means is is if this is uh ultimately approved um they would be responsible for submitting building plans that that match with the approval for the amount of square footage and the other, you know, the height and all that. Um, and then the last one is the landowner should apply for an encroachment permit for the existing shed. And those are the three that are currently in the resolution.

When's the next city council meeting? Next Tuesday. But that I I I don't know that this would go on there, does it, Jason? We noticed it. Okay. But that doesn't mean we have to do it next week. Okay. Yeah. As long as it's already noticed, then yeah, you're good.

How was the notice of the public hearing for tonight's meeting posted? Cheryl, you want to speak to that? It's always posted in the paper at least 10 days before the meeting and posted on the doors. And I believe letters were sent out to the neighbors. I'm sorry.

The letters go out 300 square feet around the home. It's also posted on the website. Correct. Posted on the website. Yes. When I see things for the county, they put a sign up public hearing on the property in the county, but we didn't do that. The only time we have to put signs up is for reasonzoning.

Okay. I was reading over here. I guess that's the same thing. No recommendations, but it still has to follow these guidelines too. So I think comes. Well, the Patrick would wouldn't they need council approves it, but then you still got to get the building permit, right? In that order.

Correct. And then what if the building official denies the permit? Then what?

Well, again, the denial would would not be based on the square footage of the building unless they increase the square footage based on what their special use permit or conditional use permit allows. Uh so it would have to be based on some non-compliance with the international building code uh you know fire fire issues or uh drainage or or some issue you know the wrong size uh trusses or what you know I I'm not a I'm not a builder or a contractor But certainly they they have a a list of things that they have to comply with that if if they're not complied with, they don't issue the building permit. and and we can't just make a motion that passes it on without a reject or accept.

It'd have to be a an approval or denial. Yes. Sure. Yeah, because I'm thinking of a motion to say due to the lack of uh

or a continuence for that matter, you could continue or uh to a date certain um but I guess you need to state the reasons for the continuence like inadequate information or uh I I guess I I would caution you not to say we want to continue it to allow more of the neighbors to show up, for example, because if assuming they the the planning department complied with the code noticing requirements, that that's that's all that's required. And if the neighbors other than the ones that are here now didn't show up, then that's kind of on them. But I would again remind you that it's heard all over in a new public hearing in front of city council. And you know, if there are neighbors here that want to get additional input from other neighbors, they are certainly free to go out and uh encourage those people to show up at the city council public hearing. Breathe in just to move it forward and without any conditions. Wow.

And you're saying it probably would not be on next Tuesday's agenda for city council?

No. No. I I believe Jason indicated that it's already been noticed. So it will be I think one way or the other we need to get this to the city council either disapprove or approve and then they can tackle it. So Patrick, if they decide to deny, they would just be basically saying that they uh are not in favor of passing the resolution. Is that

correct? They could say motion could be motion to deny the resolution for approval. Uh and again that's a recommendation. It goes to city council. They they get to start fresh but they would have the input from planning and zoning commission uh as an additional part of their decision making criteria. Well, the same would apply if we wanted if we passed it.

Exactly. Yes. it it's it's merely a recommendation. Um, Cheryl, do did they get the minutes from this meeting? Will they have though? They won't have those approved yet. So, but if they, you know, if they wanted to watch the uh this this hearing, they certainly are able to. Um, I I I caution anybody that's doing a what they call a quasi judicial hearing to limit your receipt of evidence and testimony to the hearing at which you you are sitting or anything that's submitted in writing. That could include staff reports, letters from neighbors, emails, all of that. But um I I don't encourage them to watch planning commission, but I'm not in their living room right now, so I can't dictate what they're watching. Uh but yeah, they it's a new public hearing. Wow.

Uh it will be noted that planning commission made a recommendation of approval or denial and uh you know the the uh the staff report I think usually includes information from the planning and zoning commission hearing as to what concerns were voiced and that sort of thing. So uh but you're not again as it it is a recommendation. So whatever way you go it it doesn't sink or get approval of of the the application. It it merely adds one one recommendation from the planning commission. And ironically, even if city council would deny the conditional use permit, the applicant could just put up two separate buildings that would essentially have the same effect on the community but not have to go through this process. Is that correct?

Yes. I can't I can't think of wording for the recommendation to the to the council. Um,

I'm going to make another motion to deny for being too large and out of character in the with the neighborhood. And um, I'll leave it at that. And is there a second? Well, I guess I'll second it. But it definitely needs to go to a hearing. Well, we got a motion in a second. Is there any more discussion? Um,

I mean, this is a hard decision. I mean, nobody wants to turn away somebody that wants to improve their property. The issue is there has to be limits. There has to be, you know, there has to be consideration for other community members. And if it's a giant building, I think that's the issue. They wanted to build a smaller one, I think I'd be in favor of that. I think the issue is the size, and I think it it harms the neighborhood. So, would you say you're in favor of building two smaller ones, which they could?

I'm just in favor of disapproving this because it's too big and I'll just leave it at that. Could you restate that motion, General? How he said it? You have it written down? Um

I have that he recommends to deny to city council based on the size. Guess that's pretty simple. Any other discussion? Uh we'll proceed to vote. Fryhover. Yes. Orchini I. Remy.

No. Motion passes. It goes to city council. Next item on the agenda. If I can find my agenda. which I moved. Oh, I put it over here. Um, resolution for a continual use permit on South Market. Jason, would you

He can't have conversations. Not having not having I mean all Yeah, I know. have an option.

Oh yeah, we do. I mean, but Okay, we ready?

Yeah. Okay. Uh so number three, uh public hearing, uh on a conditional use permit application that exceeds the maximum square foot allowed in code for property located at 525 South Market Street, zone residential multif family R2. So the property owner is requesting a conditional use permit to construct an addition to an existing permanent accessory structure, which is their garage. I'll pull that up so you guys can see. Here's the property. There's the existing garage. And where the arrow is pointing there is approximately where they want to add on to the garage space. Um the proposed addition will increase the garage to uh approximately 1,080 square ft. Um and as we know accessory buildings that exceed 800 square f feet are required to obtain this permit. Um the pros garage meets all residential dimensional standards. This is a design a site plan as provided by the applicant. Um again here are the uh development standards for R2 zoning. I will point out that uh lot coverage in R2 um for accessory uses is up to 80% of the property. Um it's a little bit denser of zoning. Um see the uh it meets all those dimensional standards. Uh through the process realized that the existing garage is over 800 square feet already. Um, so it's legal non-conforming. It means it's just been grandfathered in. It's existing. Um, but if uh the conditional use permit is uh eventually issued, it would cure that nonconformity.

Um there say the existing garage is already oversized.

Yeah. But it's legal non-conforming. And so with the conditional use permit um they're getting permission uh which would bring that actually into compliance. Um so they're not expanding that nonconformity in that way. They'd be getting it done through a conditional use permit process. So by granting the conditional use permit for the addition, it brings the existing non-compliance into compliance. Correct. Correct. That's just a side note. When's my term up? That's all I want to know.

Yeah, there's not there's not a lot more uh to explain on this one. Like I said, it it's lot coverage works, height of it works. Um and again, same conditions. They'll have to um get a building permit. Anybody have any questions for And I'll open it up for public comment. Anyone here to speak for or against? I believe the applicant's here. So, yeah.

Oh, yeah. Would you care to speak? Oh yeah, it happens. Um, I'll close public hearing. Um, what's the pleasure of the commissioners? I make a motion that we pass it. Second. I second that motion.

Got a motion to grant the conditional use permit and a second. Any further discussion? Ju just to clarify the motion is to recommend to city council that they approve the condition that actually you can just if if you choose approve a motion to approve resolution number four series 2026. Yeah the possible motion is on your staff report at the bottom there. Like you to read the whole thing if I can find it. four.

Yeah, this one here. So, the motion reads as as he's reading it now. You move. Uh we move move to for resolution number four series 2026 with the conditional condition as stated in the resolution and that was what was seconded. So we'll proceed to vote. Yes. Brihover. Yes. Forini. I

motion passes. Um let's see. Next item uh is unfinished business where we need to uh move to appoint a vice chair to the commission. I make a motion to appoint appoint Richard Fryver as the vice chair. I'll uh second that. Any denial? Okay, let's proceed to vote

Fry Hover. Yes. Reluctant. Orchini. I Reie. Uh, yes. Are we supposed to vote yes or I? Whatever the Okay. Okay. I think council does I, don't they? Well, the city council changed their policies here a few months ago to require everybody to say yes uh rather than I or nay. Okay.

So, that yes or no is what council uh has decided that is most appropriate. And I I think some of the comments were if you say I, it sounds like you're a pirate. But anyway, you don't have to comply with council policy, but you can choose to do so if you want. Okay. Uh any any new business? Uh we got a cash in lie of land dedication.

Yeah. Um so uh so uh annually um the city uh by code needs to set its cash and L fee amount. And I'll explain what that is for you guys. So um in section 4.05 of the land use code, it outlines public land dedication requirements for new subdivisions within the city. So um the purpose of that is to ensure that all new subdivisions designate sufficient land and appropriate areas for parks, open space, schools to meet demand and need of future residents. Um every major subdivision shall include dedication of land or fee in loo for parks, recreation and open space. Um and that's established in code. Um just as a note, existing uh subdivisions and minor subdivisions are exempt from these requirements. Um so the dedication requirement um for our parks space um is required of 4% of the gross acreage of the subdivision development uh for use as open space buffers, public trails, sports fields, playgrounds, picnic areas or passive recreation features. At the option of the city, a cash fee in lie of the land dedication may be requested. uh dedication of land to the school district uh is required in the amount of 1% of the gross acreage of the subdivision development and uh that is determined by the school district. Um and they determine that as uh if it's usable for development for new school facilities. Um so in in many circumstances where the land dedication would result in a very

small parcel or land is otherwise inappropriate for us as parks from the city's perspective the city will instead require this cash and loo fee um as I stated we have to have a per acre um cash and loo fee adopted in the fee schedule every year. And interestingly enough, um when we adopted our new land use code, uh in April of 2025, um we just mentioned that you we needed to have it in the fee schedule. What we didn't speak to that the prior code did was how we calculate that. Um so the way that you calculate uh cash and loo at least currently until we change the current um it's based on the market value of number of acres that otherwise would be required to be dedicated. So, um, basically the city council final recommendation of you guys, uh, will by resolution set the per acre fee for dedicated land based on the current fair market value for raw lands adjacent to the city utilizing an average per acre value calculated over the previous five years. Um, so what Nancy Dodsell, our contract planner, and I did is we had the GIS department uh pull all of those uh property sales and we focused in on all property sales of raw land, undeveloped tracks within the three mile area uh around the city of Cortez. And from there, um, we got an average, uh, value of $26,218. Um, what that actually that was last

year, sorry about that. This year, uh, the land value actually dropped slightly based on those uh, analysis. And it's $23,720 is the average sale. So if you uh did the total uh deduction which is 5% meaning 4% to the city and 1% to the school, the actual per acre uh price uh in our fee schedule should be uh $1,186. Um that's a fee decrease from last year of $124. So really what we're looking for here is a motion to recommend that council approve the new cash in lie of land dedication fee of $1,186 per acre and amend the 2026 adopted fee schedule through resolution.

Any questions for Jason? What size were the parcels that you were

uh Yeah, we included we included that spreadsheet. Let me let me pull that up for you guys and show you what we used for that. I was just looking at it. I mean, it's all over the place. And I think really where we had to make some decisions on what was not so much the size of the parcel, it was um obviously the sale price per acre of that parcel, but then in addition, we had to weed out um parcels that showed up that definitely had clear development patterns already on them. meaning they had a you know something that we kind of landed on was well it's agricultural land it's adjacent to utilities um but it also had like a dedicated access point into the property like a um a driveway permit and so we considered those to have development on them of some kind. So, we took those out just to try to weed it down because it was the list was very long. Um, what we ended up with, give me a second here.

Did you take out the water? What's What's that? Did you take out water? If Yeah, I mean, if the that was one of the clear delineating points is if it had utilities on it of any kind, um, it definitely didn't qualify as like raw land. So, I kind of I ran that today and it's a little bit high compared mine was a lot lower than yours, but but I made sure that it was just raw land, no water. Yeah. And it was only south of town.

See second here. Just just a side note, I don't know that there's ever been a subdivision large enough to be approved by the the city council that would require the dedication of a park or a school site. you know, you Yeah, you're you're talking and I'm just kind of spitballing it, but I think, you know, 200 250 unit subdivision may

may may require enough for something like that, but these, you know, southern bluffs in the city limits. Yes. Yeah. And and I don't I'm not sure we had a uh fee and loo requirement when it was approved. Well, they do have some research. Yeah, they have some open space

open, but it it's, you know, generally larger communities that have large unit developments where they actually need a new school in that area because of the 400 units that that are getting approved. They they they require. But almost everywhere else it's it's a fee in lie of land dedication. And uh this this formula is I think fairly typical of of what other jurisdictions do. Um and it is based on raw land, not not in developed or improved land, even if there's no no structures built.

Yeah. I'm surprised it went down from last year, but well, it's just how the market went and what sold in the final um this is kind of there were 19 properties that we considered as uh raw land. So, you can kind of see it's all over the board, but we had some that were like in the millions and you're like or you had some that was like a dollar. So, values have dropped a little bit.

I I make a motion to approve the cash and loo dedication fee proposed as $1186 per acre $1,186 per acre. There a second to that. And again, that's a recommendation for approval to city. Yeah. A recommendation for approval for the cash in Land dedication fee

and amend the adopted resolution. just add to the last of what you were saying. Okay. And amend the 2026 adopted fee schedule through resolution. I move that as a motion. Second. Got a motion in a second. Any discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. Forini I Hoverver. Yes. Remy,

yes. and uh any other items of business? You should had a list of your permits, discussion items. Well, that was a tough one.

I've got I've got a discussion item for you guys. So, um, if you guys are interested, uh, next week at the city council workshop, CERSA, um, they're going to be doing a training on board compliance and doing some dos and don'ts for folks that are in elected positions or sit on public boards. And so, we encourage you guys to attend that. There's it's it's you know it's geared towards elected officials but it's very applicable as to as to how you present. What is what is the time and date of that Jason?

5:00 pm and it'll be here in council chambers next so next Tuesday at 5. Yes sir. Um yes I've attended those and they're very good to make them to it. Um, that's a must be a council workshop then, right? Yeah, the new council uh is getting that initial training.

Put that down. Um, and I guess another item is normally we have a representative on our uh historical preservation committee and I have attended those meetings appointing somebody else. Um they used to be on Wednesday evenings, but now they're on Tuesday nights before this meeting. And so maybe next meeting we further discuss that to have somebody and we we should have two new members and to uh hopefully we will we're going to have some we might have some potential new members

potentially. Yeah. Hopefully by our next meeting we'll um and I know that they've got their big historical month of May and they're doing some things with the walking tours and that sort of thing. Um but uh so if somebody else wanted to be on it that's fine. Otherwise next meeting I'll go ahead and volunteer. But I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. Second. I guess I made the motion to got second vote. So, did someone make a motion? I I move to

Okay. And everybody seconded. Yeah. Orchini. Hi. Ryver. Yes. Yes. And I have a question. No, because I live on Rolling Road and the subdivision that's right to the west, which is um where where is this? What part of town is this? Well, it's three streets down from the highway on the go to the go that way. is going.