Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um... I'll call this meeting to order on July 7th, 2026. Please stand for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Cheryl, would you go ahead and do roll call then?

Fortini?

Here.

Burkett?

Here.

Fryhover? Here. Landreth?

Here.

Rimey.

Rimey. Rimey! I do that every time. I'd like to welcome the two new members that we have. We finally have five commissioners. It's been quite a while, but welcome, Rich and Bruce. Appreciate you being here. First item of business is approval of the agenda. I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

Second. I make a motion to approve the minutes for the agenda.

Oh, the agenda. It's the agenda first.

The agenda. I make a motion to approve the agenda.

I'll second.

Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Proceed to vote.

Landreth?

Yes.

Orchini?

Aye.

Burkett?

Yes.

Fryover?

Yes.

Rieme?

yes next item is approval of the minutes from the may 5th meeting those that weren't here just vote present but any comments and any changes or anything or IF NOT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 5TH.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING.

IS THERE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND.

GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY CHANGES? LET'S PROCEED TO VOTE THEN.

BEIHOEVER?

YES.

BURKETT?

PRESENT.

Landreth.

Present.

Orchini.

Aye.

Remy.

Yes.

First item of business. Will there be any public participation? Speakers would limit to five minutes or three minutes, I mean. Anybody need to, on behalf of anything that's not currently on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll open the public hearing for resolution number five, series 2026, land use code revisions. And Nancy, would you enlighten us on this, please? Is your microphone on? Okay. There, that's better.

I guess I could go up here.

Yeah, there you go. That's better.

I feel like I'm on my tiptoes. so in front of you tonight and i realize some of you are new so if i go over this in too detail stop me or not enough feel free to stop and ask questions at any point you probably know that last year we adopted a brand new land use code redid the whole thing and since that time as it's used by staff obviously you find things that didn't work quite so well in addition to that in the last year the state passed some new laws that actually mandate some changes to the land use code so at this point i've got a mixture for you of some changes that are proposed really by staff working with the new code and then also ones that are were required by the state to be changed although there was some discretion on how we did that so what i'm going to try and do is quickly go over what the changes are we have red lines so you can actually see how it fits into the code but i think i'll first just go over in in words kind of describing what they are and after that we can page through all the changes of the code if that works for you um we did review all these changes with the code committee in march um we had some delays and vacations and things so we're here before you tonight should you recommend this to go on it will go to city council next um for a first and second reading because it's an ordinance so um Those are scheduled tentatively for July 28th and August 11th. The first changes were due to actually a vote of the people of Colorado where natural medicine became legalized in the state. the city council back last year adopted changes to the city code that allowed some what they call natural medicine. I have it right. Natural medicine businesses of different types. So we needed to put this into the land use code as a land use that is considered permitted or conditional. it's in city code now but city code allowed that natural medicine centers to to be in the central business district and commercial zones and the eye zone but they did not speak to whether they were allowed uses or conditional uses the code committee reviewed that recommended that the centers be a conditional use in the cbd in the central business district and the commercial zone and a permitted use in the industrial zone if you don't know this the industrial zone is limited really to the industrial park out towards the north end of town um We then, so the centers is where people, it's like a doctor's office where they would receive the medicine. The other uses would be cultivation, manufacturing and testing. We're suggesting that those become conditional in the commercial zone and permitted in the industrial zone. cultivation manufacturing testing we didn't feel were appropriate at all in central business districts so they're not they're left out of that they're not allowed just sort of as a side note the hospital is zoned as a PUD right now that's probably another location there's some doctor's offices and such out there where it may be reasonable to allow natural medicine centers not really a code issue however because There's two ways to look at that. If someone came in and said, I want to do a center in the hospital PUD, it could be looked at as an interpretation of that PUD. Would it be allowed? Or you could require that the PUD be revised to allow natural medicine uses.

And would you highlight what PUD stands for?

planned unit development so it's a custom written zone most of the city is in traditional zones commercial residential industrial etc but a few places in the city the hospital and then right near the hospital there's a county county facilities pud where the sheriff's office and that um those uses are so you would establish usually a larger area of land where it it doesn't fit cleanly into any of the existing districts and you custom write that zone district for the uses proposed um limit and limited to that so i think those are the only two we have in the city where Oh yeah, Brandon's gate was also done as a PUD because there's some multifamily in there and single family, so mixing of different uses or densities is very traditional to use as a planion development. Okay, so natural medicine needs to show up in the code. The next set of changes relate to a change in state statute regarding turf and let me just say the basics of this was an idea to limit bluegrass basically water thirsty turf uh and the use of that in cities and towns and counties there's a bunch of limits on when you can put turf in and a lot of complicated definitions that we had to add and essentially the changes are going to show up in our landscaping regulations where we won't allow the water thirsty turf. There's a few other places where we had to move them in. They also when they made the changes in statute to not allow bluegrass except for things like soccer fields and football fields and where you really need turf. They also decided to disallow artificial turf, and that we believe was due to climate warming issues of artificial turf. So they wanted to make sure people didn't just rip out lawns with turf and put in artificial turf. So there's a number of changes throughout our code to recognize those changes in statutes. um wildfire resiliency codes so the city adopted the colorado wildfire resiliency code several months ago it does affect about what a third of the city maybe a little bit less at the northern on the the limits because the idea of this is which portions of the city would be most affected by a wildfire again most of these changes are related to building materials and the changes were made to the building code of course that's not in necessarily the lane use code But we did find two places in the land use code that we thought needed to be changed to address that. Number one was in the landscaping portions and requirements. We wanted to make sure that anywhere where the land use code requires landscaping, but the wildfire resiliency code wouldn't allow landscaping. buffering plants along building foundations. If that's not allowed by the wildfire resiliency code, we wanna make sure that we didn't require it with the landscape code. So basically we wrote an exemption in there and said, hey, if you can't put those in the plant materials in because of wildfire hazard, don't.

And wildfire trumps landscaping.

so hopefully we've addressed that in that way the other thing is that fence materials in that wildfire resiliency code it won't allow say a wooden fence up against the building if you're even your single family home if you're in the the area that's affected so we wanted to make sure that that was clear that we want contradicting it by allowing the fencing in one area and not in the other so again there's a simple reference to wildfire resiliency rules um sidewalks this is one where there's a lot of debate going on and we're looking for a recommendation from you guys specifically the the code committee really couldn't settle on the right answer but when the new code was written there's provisions let me step back so much of the city has three foot wide sidewalks in residential areas those do not meet ada regulations okay a five foot is minimum for ada but they're older parts of town and the sidewalks are there When we wrote the land use code, we talked about filling in the gaps. So say you develop and there's three foot sidewalks on either side of you. What do you have to do? The land use code at that time debated and said well if it's a small section of sidewalk in front of your property you got three three on either side it would be kind of silly to go to five and maybe difficult to punch it out to five where you have three so the lane use code was rewritten to allow you to do the non-compliant three foot sidewalks to fill in gaps everywhere else where there's not already three foot on either side you would put in the five foot as required the we then have a new public works director who expressed concern with allowing substandard new sidewalks rightfully so to be constructed he expressed concerns with liabilities and future costs to the city should they have to be torn out and replaced he then suggested that we remove that allowance to do the three foots when the adjacent walkways are three foot the code committee had a lot of concern with that like i said you know what do you do you got three foot and then five foot and then back to three foot um pretty awkward so there they were somewhat uncertain i would like for you folks to tell us keep the three foot in there make the changes or or don't don't make the changes leave it the way it is as suggested or require ada compliant sidewalks whenever someone puts it in and we'll have to figure out how to make the transitions Another pretty simple revision suggested by the new public works director was that any new subdivisions coming in throw an extra empty conduit in when they've got the trenches open just in case. Some subdividers will do that anyway, and it's proven to be very useful when a new fiber company comes in or something like that. So it's really very limited cost, and it provides a great benefit in the future should that need arise. Okay, carport design standards. going through the new code we did remove most design standards the only remaining standard is for carports which requires that carports be constructed in a manner that appears as part of the original construction of home and that the materials used be compatible with materials used on the home these provisions are somewhat hard to define and administer and in the past have been generally ignored with carport construction a lot of people use those metal carports obviously they don't match a single family home given that it's been ignored in the past and it's the only design standard left staff suggesting you remove that and allow people to do what they're doing recently anyway. So that change would remove that requirement. Historic preservation, Robert was actually sat in on a lot of it. There was a bunch of changes that were made all suggested by the historic preservation committee. I can go over all those, but most of them are pretty much wording changes, not really anything to change how we do things. Next change, parking lot lighting. This one we noted when new lighting was being proposed for the south of town softball fields. um the consultant or the designer came up and said whoa if i meet your code this thing's going to be really really bright we kind of looked back and forth and looked up some new standards the new code when it was done changed the parking lot requirement for parking lots from three-foot candles to five lumens. We do not know why they made that change, but it was noted that five lumens is a really excessive amount of lighting. I pulled up the International Electric. I don't remember what IESNA means at this point, but they have recommendations. and so if you look at that five foot candles that is the top and it's a high security amount of lighting so we really had to looking at that agree that that was pretty excessive for a parking lot Probably don't want that in all our parking lots in the town or in the city So we're suggesting that that get moved down To a minimum of one foot candle which is comparable to that residential and standard commercial recommended levels it would allow people or commercial to go higher than that and but the minimum of one seems to be much more reasonable for this community where some people are much more concerned about dark skies than we are about super bright security lighting. nobody's asking questions so i'm going to keep going set pack exceptions we did note that the new code did not include some very common exclusions and exceptions to setback requirements so we suggest staff went through and suggested adding the following um which are permitted setback exceptions including fences walls that meet all requirements of the code and retaining walls meeting all requirements of the code and then another permitted setback encroachments so you can bump out a little bit things like on awnings and canopies bay windows chimneys decks porches patios um eaves i think eaves was where we first noted the problem and then stairways and fire escapes those amounts of encroachment we worked with the building director to make sure map building code and common practices should the uh should the uncovered decks and patios be allowed all the way to the property line a patio sure deck an uncovered deck Well, that's the suggestion. You could pull them back if you wished. Certainly patios, I would think.

I just think there could be a problem. What about drainage, privacy, fire access, conflict with the neighbors? I think that's one thing that I don't think is a good idea, allowing a deck all the way to the property line.

Okay. And these are like a platform, right, with drainage and privacy? We can make note of that. Okay, so does everyone get that? Do you want me to walk through the red lines to show you how we put that into code? Or is that overkill?

Nancy, I do have a question on your sidewalk that you were talking about. Is it like there's a three foot wide and then it going linear, it hits a five foot wide and then maybe goes back to three foot wide? Is that the situation?

No, typically the situation is three foot wide, nothing. Lots not developed. Three foot wide.

and the question is should we put five foot to fill the gap which is ada i i along those lines for our city attorney um you know if we allow the three foot does that create an ada liability if we if we don't require the five foot sidewalks well the the ada

has some flexibility in it. It doesn't require wholesale replacement of the noncompliant sidewalks. So our three foot, especially in the older neighborhoods, you don't have to replace existing sidewalks. if you're building new sidewalks they use kind of nebulous terms like to the extent feasible you're supposed to make the new construction compliant um you know i guess my my thought would be that uh making it five foot unless it's you know only six feet of sidewalk you probably should make it five feet if it's a especially if it's completely new construction you're not replacing an old sidewalk but if you know if there are other physical constraints like tree roots that would prevent you from installing the five foot unless you cut the tree down and pulled the roots out of the ground you don't have to do that but generally the they talk about each jurisdiction having a kind of a compliance plan for transportation and that would include sidewalks and curb cuts and ramps and all that sort of thing and again you don't have to replace the existing sidewalks But if you build new and obviously new development You would have to require the five-foot I think it's you know, it's questionable whether there would be Any liability if if it's only the sidewalk in front of one house that's being replaced If we're being built for the first time for that matter if Because it may create, you know, the whole premise is that it's supposed to facilitate access. And so if you have three foot that, you know, I guess if you didn't put like an apron on to lessen the change from the five foot to the three foot. You don't want them sliding their wheelchair off the three foot and not being able to get back on because there's a sidewalk in front of them. So I think you kind of would have to look at some of that and see whether it's feasible to Increase to the five foot so that you're in compliance, but I think generally I would suggest we err on the side of complying Even when it maybe seems a little awkward But I would think if you're gonna go from three foot to five foot you may want to smooth out the 90 degree angle so that somebody doesn't go off the free foot and hit the curb, you know, or hit the new sidewalk. But that, you know, I think the ADE does give you some flexibility. So I think that's where

So would that be an administrative issue with the department, city department, deciding whether or not it's feasible or not and that they should go with five foot?

Yeah, I mean, to the extent possible, I recommend including some kind of guidelines in the code so that, you know, I think the less discretion you give them, the better in terms of whether it complies because You don't want Jason to be the one that gets arrested for not complying with the ADA. If he says he's complying with the code, that gives him a little more protection, I think. yeah it may it may take some discretion because obviously you can't anticipate every circumstance that might be encountered out in the field so certainly a little discretion is is necessary

Curious about several things with this with regards to You mentioned safety as far as going from a wider sidewalk to a more narrow one I'm also thinking about drainage and how that would work along that with the street There's a I think several factors probably to be considered in this this whole deal I

I fully support five foot sidewalks. I think we should always have our eye toward the future. I don't think we should allow three foot sidewalks unless there's extenuating circumstances. So anyway, that would be my vote.

Yeah, I would think going with five foot ahead, but I would not be in favor of trying to rip out all the three footers and put in five foot now. The city would

Right and that was one of the questions I did have about the sidewalk so how would this apply to let's say you went on your and the the sidewalk replacement program and you're it happens to be 3 foot in front of your House what would that do then. You know so that's one of the questions that I would have other than that if it's new I think it should always be 5 foot.

Yeah, I'll add part of the impetus from the public's work director was exactly what you said. He just didn't feel right about the cost share program replacing non-ADA compliant sidewalks. That was another reason he brought up for maybe making this change.

And I would have a tendency to agree with that too, yes.

I guess where the conflict comes in is if there's a new development There are existing 3 foot sidewalks on either side. I think it would be. I think it would be stupid to make him build a 5 foot. So I guess that's where the friction comes. Do we force the house that's already in a 3 foot sidewalk area to build a 5 foot and that would stand out. or do we pay the cost to rip it all up and replace it with the five foot? I mean, you gotta have one standard or another. It seems like that's where there'd be friction, and I wonder what the other members feel about that situation.

The concerns have come it so it's a single-family home where there's no I mean they're building a new one and you know first person is building a modular home and it's they're putting everything they can and when you tell them five foot sidewalks I know your neighbors have three but the extra concrete they're upset with but anyway so the way the code's written now what we'd have to do is take out that exception for infill redevelopment with that would allow the three foot and that's the recommendation of the public works director we take that out um as jason came up to us with you know there is a an ability to ask for a special exception um i was kind of like yeah every single person building a new single family home with this situation is going to ask for that so um that's tough i think that that puts you in a tough place um but keep in mind if if they're building a new home or replacing an existing home uh

on a lot that already has a three-foot sidewalk, if they don't have to replace the sidewalk, in other words, it's still in good condition, then they don't have to build under the ADA. They don't have to increase it to five feet. Now, if the sidewalks destroyed either because of the construction going on or just because it's old and it's it's it's started to heave and all that then the ada would suggest that um you you've got to replace it with a five foot yeah for the most part sidewalks weren't built until the homes were built so if it's a vacant lot in the city that's the situation we're talking about

Well, I think they just have to know up front that going into it, you're going to have a sidewalk if you put a sidewalk in. Right. If it's in an HOA that calls for a sidewalk, it's going to be five foot. They just have to know that, I guess.

Yep.

So taking that out, their suggestion was... Code committee really kind of left it up to you.

is that is that what you want jason you you'd rather have uh because you like she just said there'd be a lot of people coming in and wanting that exception the three foot no and you can't apply um

i mean what that would result in is everybody asking for a special exception it would have to be decided upon you know by you guys not by staff um so this wouldn't be administrative then you wouldn't be able to this is well it would have to go before us and then it would go before yeah if it was part of a it was a requirement then we have a special exception you can apply to most everything in our land use code chapters now um so people could take they could try to go down that road even if we said staff wouldn't support it But, you know, again, we went to the Land Use Code Committee with this, and they were kind of in a similar place you guys are at as to, like, what's the logical and right thing to do. So, yeah, just looking for some feedback from you guys.

I mean, I would support allowing for a 3 foot where there's existing 3 foot. I don't think it's a good idea to make them put a 5 foot and then it would aesthetically look. It will look terrible. I mean maybe it might provide a little bit better access for that one segment of sidewalk. But if we don't say OK, we're going to do one of 2 things either we're going to mandate the 5 foot and then we're going to rip up the 3 foot and replace it with 5 foot or You know Or we're gonna have to allow an exception so I Think it's a difficult situation because Sidewalks are very expensive Cost a lot of money to rip them up and replace them and if the city had to rip up every three-foot segment and replace it with the five-foot That'll cost a lot of money And that's not what the ADA requires, right?

ADA does say that financial considerations are not relevant to whether or not you comply. So it's based on the physical layout of the property, whether there are tree roots in the way that you don't want to kill a mature tree just to get your five foot sidewalk, that sort of thing. I think one thing you may want to consider is whether you require a transition from the three foot to the five foot so that it's not a 90 degree, so you don't just have a two foot jut out. Maybe it rounds off back to the three foot so that it, I don't know if awkward's the right word, but it would blend in with the other sidewalk a little better if you had the little apron on either end of the five foot. Obviously, that's more money, more concrete.

I've got a suggestion that might make you feel better. The people staff has felt bad for is the person with a 75-foot wide lot. putting the new house in three foot on the whole block and having a five foot there is pretty strange for the 60 to 7,500 feet that's in front of the house. Would it feel any better if we wrote it right now, the wording that's in there that's suggested to be removed says infill or redevelopment project shall design and construct new sidewalks in conformance with the existing sidewalks adjacent to the development site regardless of whether they conform with the standards in this section what if we clarified to say redevelopment of one or infill of one single family home

so that if it were a bigger development no we're not they got to go to the five um does that feel any better well yeah i would think that if a developer comes in all empty lots and they're going to build houses and put in sidewalks that they should all be five foot

Right and that's what the code says here, but it had that provision for in filler redevelopment when there's 3 foot on either side.

I don't know if I want them coming before us in the City Council for every time they want to connect the 3, you know install a new 3 foot sidewalk where there's other 3 foot sidewalks. I think that would create a burden on the city and I think it's better handled administratively. than having to come before us and the city council for every type of sidewalk project that wants to do the three foot.

Right, so what I'm hearing is, you got one house here that's got a three foot, another house over here that's got a three foot, you gotta, say, call it an empty lot, they come in and build, and now ADA says you gotta have five foot, so you're going three foot, five foot, three foot. Is that the picture I'm seeing?

Right. So, ADA did not intend their standards to be anything but for safety. Why would putting a five foot sidewalk next to two, three foot sidewalks make it safer?

Passing zone. It's a passing lane.

I mean, I agree. We've got a lot of infill lots where the whole neighborhood are three foot sidewalks. Why would you put in a five foot having to get rid of the 90 degree angle to make it safer When common sense just tells you, you build a three-foot sidewalk. And then when it's all new construction and five-foot sidewalks, then they put in five-foot sidewalks.

Yeah, isn't that kind of what this says already, is if it's existing, it would match the three-foot instead of... Yeah, when they wrote the new code...

put in that exception for people that are building one house and the whole block's three foot. The public works director suggested taking that out, feeling that we shouldn't condone noncompliant sidewalks in any way, shape, or form. But the suggestion is to- Everybody has a good point here. We don't know what to do.

The suggestion is to remove the allowance of three foot when the adjacent walks are three foot.

I've got it up here. There you go. So that was the provision C. The suggestion would be to take C away. you could probably take d too but it still has the requirement of five foot in all districts right right the requirements five feet most places nine feet in the central business district

Yeah, it seemed to make sense to me that it fits in with what everybody's been saying. If you just take it out. Or am I misinterpreting something?

So if we take C out, everyone builds a five-foot sidewalk. If you're building a sidewalk, it's compliant.

regardless of the fact that it might look dumb and yeah and we could not put something in there that you know if you're building and it's adjacent to a five foot sidewalk you have to build a five foot sidewalk and we could you also put something in if you're building and there's a three foot sidewalk adjacent to you then you wouldn't have to put in the five the five foot yeah if you look at the wording of c the red line

that was intended to allow the match what the neighbors did and that is corner to corner like for a whole street no the whole street they're building five but it this is only a small infill project

I support uh including c so I don't know what the other committee members feel but if you're building adjacent to a three foot I don't think you should be required to put in a five foot are there any examples in town of this already happening where they put in five and they had a three did anyone do it yet

I've walked most of the streets of the city and I've found a lot with no sidewalk, but I couldn't think of one example of three going to five. It would be maybe helpful to see that.

I argued pretty hard with one person. Remember what the solution was.

I think part of the concern from the public works director is that the city has this concrete share program where the city pays part of the cost to redo the sidewalk. And I think his concern is, does the city want to be financially participating in building or rebuilding non-compliant sidewalks? And that's the, I think that's his... if it's a private developer that's building it on their own that's one thing but if the city is paying and i jason what's the is it a 50 50 split yeah if the city's paying half the cost to rebuild it

should they be paying for non-ada compliant sidewalks i would you know i think it's a good idea in the central business district where most disabled people most people that are using the widened sidewalks might use as opposed to small neighborhoods in our city that might only be used by you know the residents and people that live around it um you know I wholeheartedly support you know the these standards in the central business district when it comes down to the individual neighborhoods I think that they should be allowed to you know build what's adjacent to them so I think we probably should it should include the provision the C provision in in the in the code here

So my understanding is if we take out C, it doesn't prevent people from building the three-foot to connect to other three-foot, but it takes away the city's potential liability, I guess, or cost sharing.

I think it does. Yeah.

Oh.

I mean, I guess we do have to grapple with...

comes in to cost share the city could say you gotta do five or we're not cost sharing

mean eventually we might have to tackle this issue down the road to rip up all the three foot sidewalks and replace them with bigger sidewalks i mean in the for a long-term plan i'm not talking about tomorrow but maybe 20 30 50 years i mean is that what we want to do and how do we want to support that i think it'd be too expensive to have this you know to build to rip up all the three foot and put in five foot

why would they recommend taking that out if they want to allow three foot to match three foot on each side he doesn't so we have that in um and they recommend taking it out so you have to do five feet everywhere oh so that's the recommendation is to do the five foot take it out okay yeah i don't support that um Wow.

I mean, like I said, in the central business district, I think that might be a different situation where most people who are handicapped are gonna be using that area of the city. We might wanna have a special program for the CPD to rebuild, expand the sidewalks and things like that. But for the other parts of the city, I really don't agree with it. But for the central business district, where most people are using the sidewalks, the facilities, I think that could be an exception.

well i think he covers what you're saying b sidewalks must mean in the cbd oh about the cost sharing program i don't know how that works with this you know um PATRICK, DO WE NEED TO OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THEN SOMETIME DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SOMETIME DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING?

SURE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT. IF YOU'RE DONE, NANCY, ARE YOU DONE WITH ALL YOUR AMENDMENTS?

UNLESS THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY.

SO, YEAH, OPEN IT UP. I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC. WE'LL COME BACK TO IT.

YOU CAN OPEN IT UP ANYWHERE.

We'll open it up for public comments to speak for or against. Seeing none, we'll close the public comment section of the public hearing and continue with the public hearing. You got questions, Rick?

Yes, regarding the parking lot lighting. So we are, are you getting rid, so five lumens, so lumens is going out.

Lumens is going out, foot candles are coming back. we can and then so we can address the definitions that's in the next section we're going to talk about right whatever yeah whichever ones you want to go in to in detail we'll i'll pull up here and we can go into detail here's the lighting proposal

The other thing is I would agree regarding the decks all the way to the lot line. I don't think that's a good idea generally. I agree.

We can pull those back.

Thank you.

THE ONE THING THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT, SHOULD BE AN IMPORTANT INITIATIVE FOR THE CITY IS THE DARK SKY PROJECT WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE LIGHT POLLUTION IN OUR CITY. AND SO I GUESS THAT LUMENS OR THAT LIGHTING STANDARD FOR THE PARKING LOT WOULD ADDRESS THAT. It does. I mean, I guess there are certain parts of the city we might want to protect a little bit more, have different lighting standards, make sure they're not as bright, maybe near parks, maybe near schools. Maybe there might be some areas, but I think light pollution or light pollution or excessive lighting can, you know, can be a problem. And I think we're on the right track to making sure that it's not that we don't make the standard too bright. And, um,

And just to clarify, so the current code, the way it is now, it's not dark sky compliant, but it does require that all fixtures be downward directed and fully shielded. So it's pretty close to a dark sky requirement. There were people that wanted that in here and others. So we left it the way it was. But for the most part, you're not doing searchlights

The only thing that, and I don't know if they still have it, but they had something over by the city market that was like 24 hours, like some sort of like police, red and blue type of light, and I couldn't imagine living right across from that. I don't know if it's still going on, but there was some sort of security device in the city market parking lot that was really bright.

and that wouldn't be a lighting issue that would be a sign probably right okay and we don't allow that kind of a sign so maybe it's a code enforcement issue i don't know if you remember it but it was like a security uh and it had different alternating lights on it do you know what the foot candles are at the rec center parking lot

I mean... Are they too low or too high? Oh, I don't know.

I don't walk around there much at night. With a light meter, you don't do that?

Yeah.

I did have something I wanted to ask about first off I think the majority of this is done really well and I appreciate that but on the carport thing require requiring that carports be constructed in a manner that appears as a part of the original construction of the home with that pretty much eliminate someone being able to just put up a carport type feature that you can just order online and put together out in front of the house

Yes. And that is in the code now. The suggestion is to take it out.

The suggestion is to take it out? Yeah. Okay. I'm for that. I just, you know, when it comes to, at some point you feel more like an HOA than you are just trying to help regulate things being done evenly for all the citizens in the city. And when it's all about the aesthetics, I'm not going to be so much for that. Practical use allowing someone to have cover for the car that makes sense And so I'm definitely gonna be for that removing that restriction or requirement Yeah, I can think of years ago somebody had to come and get a conditional use permit or something to put up still do if if it violates the setback, which most of them do because

i i had one last question for you about the natural medicine centers um did the city council allow them in the central business district is that what i'm understanding when they took a vote last year or yes whenever it was yes as long as it was a certain number of feet away from a school right there are

Yeah, there are restrictions, distance restrictions from schools, from other natural medicine facilities. And remember, these are not retail stores. These are treatment centers. Treatment clinics where you go and you spend all day and you but they you know it has to be a licensed therapist restrictions in the city code and and again the the city the state says you got to allow them you can't ban them and but it allows some flexibility and restrictions and so that's why the the city determined that you know you could get it it's used by right permitted use out in industrial zone district commercial and central business it's a use by uh conditional use

Yeah, we put, I pulled it up. Natural medicine healing centers are conditional uses in the CBD and commercial zone permitted in industrial and then the cultivation are conditional in the commercial zone and permitted in industrial.

Do we have any of those two in the central business district now?

Nobody's asked for one yet.

I didn't think so.

Okay, but I mean if the City Council voted to allow them in the central business district, I mean, I'm very hesitant of forcing them to be in the in the industrial district We're not forcing them or or making or making them come before before the city before our committee to to get a conditional use exception, correct? I I mean, I think this is an important, I think these are important centers to help people with struggles who are going through a lot of problems and just like the hospital, just like mental health facilities, I don't think that we should, be forcing the natural medicine centers into the industrial district, I think they should have a fair shot to be in the commercial district as well. I don't think that should be a conditional, I don't think they should have to go through a process for that. I think we need to open our doors to these centers, and I think it could be a critical industry for our town. I'm not in agreement to putting more restrictions on the natural medicine centers. So that's my two cents If Yeah, again if the City Council a year ago said hey, they gave the green light for these centers I'm in agreement and I don't think there's I think they should be allowed and I don't think there should be any conditional You know restrictions

Patrick, what's the state say on?

The state doesn't restrict to the particular zone districts. They just say you have to allow them. You can't outlaw them or disallow them, but you have to provide some. You can have time, place, and manner restrictions, which is what we've done here. uh but it it uh you know the state doesn't say it has it can't be in a residential district or it can't be here can't be there it it leaves that up to the uh the the municipality and and the municipalities some some of them just have chosen not to adopt natural medicine regulations at all which means they're allowed anywhere within the city limits as long as they comply with the state requirements. WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE JUST NOT PASSED ANYTHING AND LIKE YOU LIKE YOU'VE JUST SAID JUST ALLOWED THEM TO YEAH I'M NOT SURE UH I DON'T THINK MANCUS OR DOLORES OR YOU KNOW DUB CREEK HAVE ADOPTED ANY REGULATIONS

I KNOW I ALSO WORK WITH IGNACIO. I WORK WITH MANCUS AND DOLORES, AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING YET, BUT THEY HAVEN'T TOUCHED THEIR CODES. IGNACIO DID NOT WANT THEM IN THEIR COMMUNITY AT ALL, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEM.

IT'S ILLEGAL. YOU HAVE TO ALLOW THEM.

WHAT?

THEY HAVE TO ALLOW THEM.

THEY HAVE TO ALLOW THEM, AND I REALIZE THAT. AND THEY WORK VERY HARD TO LIMIT WHERE THEY MIGHT BE. they don't allow manufacturing it's a different situation they're surrounded by tribal land which doesn't allow them so they they did their best to restrict them with large limits and conditional use on all of that but there there there are we did a whole i could try and find it we did compare a bunch of different communities on what they're doing and just like pat said some are like whatever do them wherever some are restricting them this proposal is fairly typical where yeah we want to allow them but and we know we have to allow them but we want to put some some constraints on to see how it works

But even if they didn't have to get a conditional use permit, they might still have to abide by place, distance, certain regulations, correct?

Because the city already adopted that, yes.

Right, so.

But we felt that it was confusing to have it in city code and not in use code. So if someone comes in, looks at the lane use code and says, oh, there's no rules, it doesn't address it, but it is in city code as far as,

We need to attract every business we can get in this city. We don't need to put onerous restrictions and make it hard for them to do business. I'd rather us have no law at all than to try to restrict the businesses that could really help out our community, help people out and make a difference out there. THIS IS SOMETHING UNIQUE TO COLORADO ONLY ONLY TWO STATES ALLOW THIS OREGON AND COLORADO AND I I THINK THIS COULD BE REALLY UNIQUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND LIKE I SAID REALLY HELP PEOPLE OUT AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON IT OBVIOUSLY THIS WILL PROBABLY GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHATEVER WE RECOMMEND AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION WHAT'S THE CITY CODE SAY NOW

it basically matches what we put in here with the exception is it didn't talk about whether they were conditional uses or permitted uses because it wouldn't i mean that's what so if we recommend what the staff recommends city council still has to take a look at it and have it published and stuff okay Elevate accountability you could recommend that they be permitted uses everywhere Well, I'm in favor of having some sort of restriction as to

the public being able to look at it where it might be.

Well, it will already be restricted based on distance from schools, distance from a church. There are certain regulations that they have to follow, even if we said, okay, we're not gonna pass any type of zoning or any type of regulations on them.

Still have to abide by a bunch of rules The the essential thing is whether you make it a permitted use or a conditional use the city code already that council adopted Already limits it to the specific zone districts that Nancy's talking about so that that's not what's on the table for discussion it's whether or not the land use code adds any additional restrictions to those zone districts and the the proposal is that it's a permitted use in industrial zones it's a conditional use in commercial and cbd

I was gonna say earlier elevate accountability eliminate doubt and I do think it's a good thing to have some restriction on any type of business like this that would that would come through and Make sure that they're gonna abide by the rules that they're supposed to abide by Even within the zones, I think it's a good idea and I think it's well put together and I'd be in favor of it. I

Any other comments on this section? Man, do we have to have a motion on every section?

No.

No, we gave you a draft resolution that references all the sections.

You can make a motion that says you adopt the staff recommendations with the following amendment or amendments and whichever ones you want to change from the staff recommendation. Or you could just say, I move that we recommend denial of this resolution to city council. I mean, that's the simplest, right? And that's the simplest. Maybe not recommended by staff, but it's certainly an option that you have.

I mean, because what I'm hearing is, well, you start with the natural medicine, and then you go to the sidewalks, and then you go to the carport design, and then you go to the deck out to the lot line.

Now, if we make a resume... DO WE PASS ALONG THESE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT OR IT'S JUST PRETTY MUCH THEY DON'T REALLY GET ALL THIS, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER IDEAS THAT WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT?

minutes of your session okay that'll be part of the packet for their their consideration of the same well a similar resolution you know if you do a negative then staff won't amend the resolution if you do a you know a motion that would say I move we adopt resolution whatever the number is with the following amendment or amendments, you know, change the section regarding carports to...

I mean, if it was just one thing, I would probably recommend doing that, but it seems like there's a lot of disagreement with many points. So, I mean, I make a motion to recommend to disapprove the resolution number five.

You could also make a motion to continue it to your next meeting and ask staff to bring you back the changes so you could see them.

IF IT WAS JUST ONE THING THAT WE COULD JUST SAY OKAY WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT LET'S DO IT BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES HERE I MEAN I DISAGREE WITH THE NATURAL MEDICINE LIMITING THEM I I DISAGREE WITH THIS I MEAN THERE'S A DISPUTE OVER THE THREE VERSUS FIVE FOOT SIDEWALKS i mean i think those are the two main problems i mean i i would i would make a motion to recommend disapproval of resolution number five the land use code revisions and what's your reason for disapproval THE MAIN THE MAIN THE TWO MAIN POINTS ARE. I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A BLANKET FIVE FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIDEWALKS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE THREE FOOT SIDEWALK. AND THEN I THINK NATURAL MEDICINE I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY CONSTRAINTS ON NATURAL MEDICINE BUSINESSES Those are the two reasons I make a motion to recommend disapproval of resolution number five.

So what's in here and staff is recommending that the suggestion is to remove the allowance for three foot sidewalks when the adjacent walks are three foot. So yeah, you'd go three foot, five foot, three foot. Is that what they're recommending that Yeah.

You could also move, you know, the option is there to move to forward on the ones you're okay with. Do what? forward on the changes that you agree with and it's i'm hearing three that there's concern with natural medicine the decks being all the way to the property line the look the patios and low decks to the property line and the third one would be the sidewalks you could make a motion to amend what you're moving, passing on to require decks to meet the setbacks, to not remove the section for sidewalks and suggest that and recommend that natural medicine be permitted in CBD and commercial.

Okay, let me see if I can repeat the motion that's on the table that doesn't have a second yet, but the motion was to Deny this

Motion to recommend to disapprove.

Actually, it would just be a motion.

Motion.

P and Z resolution. So if you deny it, then it goes to city council without a recommendation from the planning commission.

And the reasons for denial were he didn't agree with the natural medicine or the sidewalk.

Well, number one, the natural medicine. I think I don't think there should be constraints. Number two, the sidewalk debate between the three and the five foot. And then number three, I don't think a deck should be allowed all the way to the property line. OK. so if i assume if if we did if we recommend um denying this they're still going to have to give the same presentation that we received about you know all these different issues on at the next city council meeting so they they will be aware of these problems i mean it's not like they're not going to hear about them right they're going to they're going to get the same presentation right okay

Yeah, but I agree with you on post-change medicine. I agree that they should be changed, and you agree you want them not changed. Is that correct? Well, then, yeah. Okay, and so as far as if there is a second-tier motion, I'm going to vote no because I want to be passed on that I want the changes in there.

Mr. Chair, just as a point of order, technically you're supposed to get a second and then have your question before the vote. If there's no second, then it dies for lack of a second.

But I'm, okay, I'm clarifying what the motion is and what people should be interpreting the motion to be. And so I think I'm clear on what it is. Does anybody have any questions? Okay, we got a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Hearing none, motion fails. I would entertain another motion then.

I'm the new kid on the block, so I don't really know how to make a motion, but as I'm understanding the conversation going, I would like to make a motion to advance this with the amendments being added that we include the three-foot exception on the sidewalks, that that be sent forward with our recommendation, and not not requiring for that new construction that that five foot as long as it's matching the existing things that are there. Oh, yes, and that the decks that We we consider that those decks aren't going all the way to the property lines and that they're back a the right distance And so those those would be the amendments that I recommend other than that. I believe we can advance this I

So let's make sure I understand the motion correctly. The motion would be to adopt or to recommend what the city staff has recommended with the two exceptions being the sidewalk requirement being taken or being not being what the staff recommended and the decks being having a proper setback. Does that sound about what it was? Okay. I guess is there a second to that motion then?

I second it.

I've got a motion and a second on the table. Is there any further discussion?

Well, I won't vote for it just based on the sidewalk, so just so you know that. That's the only thing that's, but I'm not gonna vote for it because of that.

So you want to have a standard five-foot sidewalk in the future?

They have the ability to ask, you know, if there are extenuating circumstances, but, you know, we should be putting in five-foot sidewalks everywhere all the time.

so you could make an amendment to the motion to require the five foot sidewalks you want to do an amendment to the motion and we have a second too so you have a motion with the second yeah and but somebody can move to amend the motion and then you have a second to that and then you vote on the amendment and then you vote on the marginal motion

I think we gotta vote once we have a second, right, Pat?

Yeah, I think if you want to amend it, you should vote this one down, and somebody should make a new motion. Or it could just pass.

Well, that's the easiest way, yeah. I mean, it could just pass, and not have an all alone decision. That could happen, and that's fine.

All right, well, we got a motion and a second. Doesn't sound like we want any amendments to the motion. So let's go to any other further discussion.

I just want to make sure I understand your point there. believe that as as as it stated the emotion that I just made is that it should be five everywhere unless there's already just sidewalks already in existence to match that three-foot but you're in favor of even in those neighborhoods at going to five that's correct okay so that the sidewalk would look three five and three yes okay And I get the future focus. I do realize that I would love if there was a plan to just move everything to five and then that makes sense. It's just, I don't know that it's feasible, but I don't know that it's reasonable to require other citizens to do what other people aren't required to do.

Rich, you got any other comments? I've said everything and I think we're ready for a vote if there's no other.

All right, let's proceed to vote then.

Burkitt?

Yes.

Fryhover? Yes. Orchini?

Nay.

Landreth?

No.

Remy?

Yes. Motion passes. So it moves on to city council.

I think in the end, that works pretty well anyway. They're gonna have the same kind of discussion, right?

Your TV's down for the night, you can come and watch.

They might have an audience, huh?

Okay, thanks everyone for their input. Next item on the agenda.

oh is uh the unfinished business there's none new business uh overview of the city comprehensive plan jason i guess you get to give us the overview yeah um so i welcome you guys to uh put that memorandum i sent you um there's a lot of content in there and My goal was to provide some high-level information about comprehensive plans, why we have them, and how cities can use them, and then talk a little bit about what's coming up next with our comprehensive plan. So I'll just kind of track through the memo, super high-level, and then we can stop and ask questions if you guys so I started out in the memo just wanted to provide you with the existing state statutes in Colorado as they relate to comprehensive plans what the statutory authority is for those to even exist in the first place I then went into some detail on what required elements of comprehensive plans are through statute and how our existing plan meet those requirements and I just want to make note for you guys and any public that might be watching this that our existing plan meets and exceeds current state requirements. um next dove a little bit into providing you with some information on this commission's roles and responsibilities in maintaining revising and fully rewriting a comprehensive plan some of these responsibilities are delegated through the state statutes but some others by the city council who adopted the plan such as the desire to have the implementation plan reviewed by this commission annually and have city council plan review it every two years so just taking a step back and looking at the overall format and hopefully you guys have had a chance to at least just look at what we have online that's It's a fairly expansive document. Just the way it's formatted and how big it is, it makes the process of reviewing it and doing periodic updates somewhat daunting, in my opinion. So my experience with these plants in the past in other places is that you know their functionality is sometimes compromised by the idea that they need to contain as much information as possible and there's no required formatting. or really content beyond the basic elements dictated in statute. So I've seen plans that are like 200 plus pages long, and I've seen some that are 50 pages long. So to me, as staff, it's really not a wonder that many times there Created and put on a shelf and they're only really referenced when needed specifically for land use decisions and so kind of on that note I Also included a section in the memo that just kind of outlines the functionality of the comprehensive plan that we have When do we really look at it? and you know i have some you know some suggestions that you know we can go into when we rewrite the comprehensive plan but um there are some very specific land use decisions where the comprehensive plan is called out as something that needs to be weighed and when those come up staff is going to point those out in our staff report to you guys so for you guys that are new um You don't need to peel back through the entire comprehensive plan unless you want to. We'll provide you with those sections and you can go and research that stuff yourself. Other ways that the city could be using the comprehensive plan is to make decisions around public investments and how we provide input to regional and state agencies. For instance, highway improvement projects, the city participates in a regional planning initiative that CDOT has. We work with the county when they're looking at doing development on the fringes of our municipality and work with them on if the property's not gonna annex in at this time, you know, basic standards of like how to design roads and some infrastructure so that when it is possible that that annex is in, it's not like a wholesale change to all those elements for the person that wants, or the developer that wants to do that. finally i just want to provide you with the background information around the two legislatively required elements and those came through senate bill 24 174 the same bill that required us to create a housing action plan and a housing needs assessment these two particular elements the strategic growth element and the water supply element We are supposed to adopt those elements into our comprehensive plan by the end of this calendar year, December 31st, 2026. Due to some delays with DOLA providing some information to local municipalities about how to even create these elements, and some things around procurement of grant money to go through the process. We're not gonna make that deadline, but that's okay. I've spoken with DOLA, and as long as we're working towards it, it's not gonna have a negative impact on our ability to seek funding for other needs for the city.

um jason excuse me yeah go for it those two situa or those two items yes sir um is this something that comes to planning and zoning first or do we have workshops with the city council i mean

well um and that's something that you guys can decide how you want to proceed but at the end of the day adoption of those elements as either standalone chapters for our comprehensive plan it's just a revision right or if we're going to integrate those elements into existing chapters, because there's places where maybe water supply should be discussed in terms of economic development and housing and things like that. Either way, it's pretty clear in statute that The Planning and Zoning Commission is the one that will hold the hearings, do the community engagement work, obviously with staff and a consultant helping along the way to like garner that and collect all that community input into the changes that we're making. of course City Council's aware but this is like one of the things that you guys as a Planning and Zoning Commission are fully responsible for adopting so to answer your question you know that's something that I will probably

at some point be able to bring the council for a suggestion i don't think it makes any sense for your two bodies to be operating in silos as it comes yeah when we when we were going through the land use code essentially city council would be having a workshop work session and pnz would be in attendance and we'd all be contributing to it and stuff so that would make sense yeah but you're saying we decide this total

well city council is going to adopt the final plan but well they don't have to adopt it by statute it's solely your responsibility now most jurisdictions the governing body whether it be board of county commissioners or city council they will ratify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission so that it's not hanging out there like, well, does council agree with it? And so my guess is they will attend your public outreach, some of them will, and if they have real concerns about the way you're going and the direction you're going on the plan, they will probably let staff know and staff will relay that to you or they may contact you directly but ultimately by statute it is the the one thing that pnz is responsible for and it doesn't require any ratification or adoption by the governing body but most of them do so that you know it's it's recognized as one of the foundational documents of the land use process especially and and there's no dispute that well you know this is PNZ's plan and we don't have to follow it kind of a thing

But once we make a decision, it's done. They can't turn it back.

They can come back and vote yes or no on whether to ratify it.

But that doesn't matter. But that doesn't matter at all because it is our sole responsibility. So whatever they decide, it doesn't matter. It's our decision.

Interesting. So would it make sense that when we have a work session on different things, we invite city council to the work session?

I would think that would make a lot of sense. Absolutely.

I mean, they were nice enough to invite us to their work session, see if they show up or not, I guess.

You guys just have to have good food.

So I did provide you guys the request for proposal that we just put out just so you have a better understanding of what we were asking of a potential contractor. We did our best to kind of define what those final deliverables should be, but Again, this is a very novel process for the state. It's fairly new legislation, and so there's a lot of municipalities and counties all around the state that are really trying to grapple with what these specific elements are going to look like in their own comprehensive plans. But I'll just make a note here. This is like two pieces that we have to do right now. The comprehensive plan, at the very least, what we have is due for, you know, some consideration and probably some revision if not fully rewriting it um it's it's it's old enough that you guys would be justified in saying we should totally we should redo the now that is a really large project is that something that we can contribute to jason that's something that

So we can actually review the current plan, review other cities, review other similar situated rural communities and do some research to see what they might have done for their comprehensive plans, what's working, what's not. We could bring that, deliver that to you and you could include that in the package that comes before us.

You Jason correct if I'm wrong, but I think you have two options one could be done by the end of the year If not sooner is to just adopt the two amendments that are required by the statute Without rewriting the whole plan or I believe, Jason, aren't you in the process of soliciting an RFP for a consultant to help do the complete rewrite of the plan, and that may be a year-long process?

no we're right now we're soliciting for the two specific elements but one of the deliverables is for that consultant to provide the city with recommendations about where these two elements should be integrated into a comprehensive plan rewrite um i mean and to your point um You guys are free to do whatever research you want, but as I pointed out in the memo, you're also free to direct staff to do research and provide it to you as well. So just putting it out there. And I think that kind of leaves me with the last thing I just wanted to talk about briefly. So I have two items that I was hoping you guys might want to discuss this evening. The first one is we have a member that has already volunteered, Commissioner Boccini has already volunteered his time to help with the RFP selection process for the consultant. So I wondered if any of the other members were interested in participating in that selection process. What I need to do is I need to put together kind of a diverse RFP review team So you'll be, whoever, if you choose to volunteer for it, you don't have to decide right now, unless you want to go ahead and delineate that on the record. You know, you'll be part of a diverse group of, you know, staff across the city that'll be impacted by these particular elements. But you, but you'll be participating in that scoring process, doing interviews with the top candidates, that kind of thing. Next, and I noted this because it's pretty clear that our existing comprehensive plan lays out some timelines for review and potential revisions that the city has just not historically followed. So I guess what I wanted to know is, I know we have these two elements that we're gonna do, but you guys also have the ability to direct staff in terms of working on a review of what we have in terms of an existing implementation program and providing you with that report now. There may be reasons you might wanna direct me to start working on that. One of them being just really kind of backing up and taking a look at the current comprehensive plan holistically and starting to think through what the city might wanna revise in the new one or when we rewrite it, what kind of content do we want? What's changed completely? But I think just overall, for me personally, I think the legislative required mandates, we have to review those every five years and document that. I would say that, you know, whatever the plan looks like, the ultimate plan looks like, in a couple years, once we get to the full rewrite, it'd be my desire to be doing something annually with both this commission and councils. just to review where things are at. Technology is speeding things up in our society, and whatever we think is going on now or in five years could be completely different. But those are the two things I wanted to talk about. Who wants to maybe participate on the RFP selection process and scoring and all that? And then the next is, do you guys want me to take a look at the current implementation program, and provide you guys with an overview as a starting point for what we have right now.

And what were you saying for a, you were mentioning a complete rewrite, how far from today?

Yeah, so I think a best practice in most municipalities is that When you do a comprehensive plan, I'll just use the example of our parks department. They are getting ready to embark on a new parks and rec master plan. What you want to do with the comp plan is reference that plan and not just try to make the comp plan have all that information in it. And so with that in mind, Public Works is working on some infrastructure plans. Parks and Rec is obviously about ready to do their plan. And so we've just agreed as staff not only because it makes sense for the ultimate outcome, but you don't want to confuse the community by trying to do all these master plans all at one time. So we would like to wait for Parks and Rec to kind of get through their process. My guess would be in talking with the director of Parks and Rec that it would be wise of us maybe next year to apply for some funding with the idea that maybe we would start the full rewrite in 2028.

Yeah, I can remember doing a Master Streets comprehensive plan. So yeah, my couple of questions were, the RFP you're gonna put out, Is it, who's paying for it? Who's gonna pay for the people to come in and?

Oh, okay, so yeah, it's a matching grant with DOLA.

Okay.

Yeah, so DOLA's funded 75% of it, and the city put in, and it was really hard, to be honest, to estimate how much that project was gonna cost, because again, nobody's done it, so.

Dolan made some recommendations on what they thought the cost of the project should be and that's where we Because when we did the land use code, I know we had a grant to help with that and That was quite a process a couple of years. Anyway, it's before Jason's time And then do you know when the last review was of this comprehensive plan? I

No.

Because I don't remember ever doing it. It was adopted in 2008, right? Correct. I think that's the last review. Okay.

So that's why I'm asking you guys right now, like, I'm willing to put in the work.

I'm gonna look at our current plan and at least meet that basic requirement that we've that City Council put on us back in 2008 and it might reveal something, you know important or for staff and would it be better to just Throw everything out and just start from square one you know have like a fresh a fresh plan a fresh look rather than just trying to Cobble together, you know previous plan

Yeah, I mean, that's really what I'm asking you. We can do a review right now of what we have and not make any edits at all, unless there's something glaring that we just feel like needs to be addressed. I can't think of what those elements would be off the top of my head. It seems like the document is functional right now, at least for land use application purposes. But I think that, like I said before, my recommendation would be that we would wait for Parks and Rec to get pretty far down the road with their plan and let Public Works solidify and have City Council adopt some of their plans around infrastructure. And then we would go into the community with existing plans that had already been vetted by the community and adopt those by reference into the new comp plan. and hopefully draw some goals from... Because I think the most important thing about this plan is that...

not what it's gonna look like in one or five years, but maybe 20 or 50 years in the future, and putting things into the plan that will encourage smart growth, that will encourage different types of initiatives in our city that maybe have it more pedestrian friendly, have more access to bike trails and paths and things like that. So I'm really interested in it. I think it's really important for our future, and I'm looking forward to working with you, Jason, and coming up with a contractor that can help us work through this process. I don't know if anybody else wants to come aboard and join some of these meetings, but the more the merrier. The more voices that we have, the better it's going to be.

It would be interesting to... hear what the discussion was back in 2005, 6, 7, and 8. It's probably the same thing that Charlie's mentioning now. So it sounds to me like we need to get those two things, the two requirements in by the end of the year and then go and look at the big picture of okay. Yeah. Just trying to take it a separate time. And so Charlie's going to help with the review. Anybody else? You don't have to decide tonight, right? Okay.

I'll be the, we probably won't be going into that scoring until probably, you know, middle of August. So you guys have a little bit of time to decide.

Probably give at least 60 or 90 days for an RFP to come back, right?

yeah yeah it's not uh we open the first round of proposals they're due on july 24th and i try to provide some buffer time for staff to kind of get things set up and then create the committee and go from there but i would say also kind of similar land use code you heard nancy mention the land use code committee what we try to do through that process is invite different corners of the community to come in and i think it it's something that i would advocate for that we do for the comprehensive plan as well as just have kind of a committed COMMITTEE THAT SORT OF COMES TO THE TABLE AND KIND OF TAKES IN THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

LIKE BUSINESS OWNERS, THAT TYPE OF STUFF?

YEAH. I MEAN, YEAH, IT'S, YOU KNOW, TO DO THE, WHEN WE GET TO THE FULL REWRITE, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE A YEAR AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS TO DO IT RIGHT.

well at least as far as the rfps charlie can represent us and i mean if anybody else wants to join yeah i mean i'm excited about the process and you know i guess we're not going to have a a company to work with for a little while but i think it's an exciting time for our city and uh I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD RESOURCES AND WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT OTHER CITIES AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT HAS WORKED AND WHAT HAS FAILED AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL COME UP WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WILL MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CITY AND HOPEFULLY ALLOW FOR FUTURE GROWTH AND PROSPERITY.

Jason just to clarify though this RFP that you're asking for participation is for a consultant to do solely the adoption of the two statutorily required Elements that is correct and and you'll do another RFP Maybe in the next year next year's or the full rewrite Yep, that will be a much longer process and it'll require probably another the land use code committee that you mentioned, and that process seemed to work very well when we did the new land use code. Although, I will admit, it was hard to get participation other than city staff there there were maybe three or four members you know a developer a realtor you know an insurance person and they came to most of the meetings but it's a pretty long process and keep keeping them engaged and participating is a challenge, and I'm sure it will be an equal challenge for the comprehensive plan, but maybe not. Maybe more people will be interested.

Yeah. But thank you for summarizing that, because that was my impression. First RFP was for the two items, and then we'll go into the bigger one later on, because that'll cost more money, too.

There's a quicker way that a planner can break up a conversation in a party is just start talking about planning and land use. So... Yeah, land use codes a little bit of a slot.

This is like the vision for the city for the future.

Correct.

Yeah. Well, this what we do this year won't be wasted because it's going to be done in light of what's what we're going to start revising next year as well. The bill for you getting involved in the process of reviewing things and what you mentioned earlier, I think is a great idea.

All right, yeah, I mean, I can start working on just kind of an overview of the implementation plan of what we have currently. Provide you guys with some idea of what is in there right now and maybe talk, you know, with you guys about what we've actually accomplished, because there are things in there we've done. So I'll start working on that. I don't know how long that's going to take me, but I won't take forever with that piece.

And, yeah, giving us, you know, taking a little bit at a time and giving us an update at each meeting even would be okay. Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay.

Do you have access to AI tools

KNOW THAT WILL HELP FACILITATE THE PROCESS FOR YOU YEAH I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YEAH YEAH UM OUR DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY IS A PILOT AN AI PLATFORM SPECIFIC TO PLANNING AND BUILDING UM RIGHT NOW SO YES UM YOU KNOW I It does speed up research, I'll put it that way. And it's 90% of the time, I agree 100% with what it's found, but what it's not good at is the nuances. Well, it's pretty good at black and white. What it's not good at is helping you decide if an architectural feature fits in a neighborhood, right? So, you know, it is not the total solution, but yeah, I'm not gonna have to grind away 80 hours a week to analyze it. I'll figure out creative ways to use technology.

I'm glad you have the tools that helps make you more effective and hopefully make better decisions.

Any other questions for Jason? Thank you. We've got a couple other items here. We've got a couple boards that we need someone to volunteer to be on. One of them is the Historical Preservation Board. Charlie indicated an interest earlier in that. I guess is anybody else interested? They meet on Thursdays at 5.30 usually, right before? No, Tuesdays, I'm sorry.

Tuesdays, it's once a month.

Yeah, they meet once a month, usually before our meeting. They used to meet on Wednesdays, and I don't know why they changed it, but they did.

It's on the same day of the month, too.

Second Tuesday of the month. So you could end up being in a historical meeting, maybe get a break, and then come to this meeting.

oh this is first tuesday right yeah you're talking about council first council meeting yeah so you don't have to run into another meeting unless you want to come to city council yeah it's they meet on the first tuesday they made right before us right now they meet next week you guys second and fourth second and fourth that's yeah the historical no the city council oh no i'm talking about the historical They're next week, I think. Second Tuesday. Yeah, second Tuesday.

Okay. I'll consider it. I need to look at things.

Okay, well, talk to Cheryl. Oh, do we need to point somebody tonight? Are you sure it's the second Tuesday? Because that's why we had people trouble getting to it, because they wouldn't have time to eat. And so I volunteered for a while, but... I just had a text message on when they were meeting.

Well, he's researching. You had asked...

Okay. And then we need a Board of Adjustment, and I'm already on there. Patrick, what... Go ahead.

I'll fill you in later after you're done with your business.

Well, I'm on the Board of Adjustment and we've never met, so I'm really not sure what they do. But usually PNZ has two representatives on there.

It has to have two PNZ members on the Board of Adjustment?

We don't have to, but in the past we've had to. And both of those have gone by the wayside, and I've been on there, but I've never had... Just to clarify, what the Board of Adjustment does is...

They hear appeals from administrative decisions either made by Jason or the building department, and generally it's building department requirements. If the building official imposes a requirement, someone doesn't like it, their option is to appeal it to the Board of Adjustment. Yeah, I'm not aware that they've met in the four years I've been here.

And does that go to the PNZ after the Board of Adjustment?

Board of Adjustment's final. I see. Then if they want to appeal that, I guess they can go to district court.

I couldn't even tell you who else is on the Board of Adjustment.

When do they meet if they meet?

It's case by case.

Is that what it is?

yes um and fortunately we don't run into that very often um so um back to the historic preservation the reason why i was confused is because they just moved the last meeting um it is the first tuesday of the month at 5 pm yeah you were correct so well i mean if it's the first tuesday um like this says i believe i could probably do that historic

Preservation Board position if it's we need a PNZ person on that board is that or is this just looking for somebody to do it?

No, well if we appoint someone they're a voting member I Attended but I was never officially appointed. So I told him I can't vote on anything. So I was just there to help represent PNZ because I

yeah and um you know uh council member uh randall is april's yeah um if you go into that meeting um during these meetings um you can provide an update to the rest of the commission on what was talking about april is a voting member though too yeah so um

I THINK I'M GOING TO TRY TO DEDICATE MY EFFORTS TOWARDS THE UH THE PLANNING PLAN IF SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO SO DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR BRUCE TO SURE I WOULD RECOMMEND WHOMEVER YOU CHOOSE I MAKE A MOTION TO UH TO APPOINT BRUCE AS THE MEMBER OF THE UH HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE A SECOND

Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Let's proceed to vote.

Fortini?

Aye.

Landreth?

Yes.

Fryhover? Yes. Burkitt?

Yes. Do I say yes? I suppose yes.

That's the sound of a train railroading you into the position.

Ramey?

Yes. Motion passes. And then Board of Adjustment.

I wouldn't have no problem doing that, but I'm very busy. If by some chance something happens in the next couple of, I'm busy for two months, really busy. But short of that, I'd be happy to participate.

And even without you there, we'd probably still have a quorum, so.

And I might be able to make it. It kind of depends on what day. That's why I was kind of asking.

Unless anybody else expresses an interest? Is there a motion for Rich to be on that board then?

I'll make the motion for Rich to be on the board of adjustments.

I second the motion.

Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Let's proceed to vote.

Landreth?

Okay.

Porcini?

Aye.

Burkitt?

Yes. Over yes Remy yes, and then I have one other item I want to bring up Patrick It's my understanding that City Council has approved Members attending virtually and still being able to vote. Is that correct?

We're actually passed an ordinance and it it spells out the rules and procedures for doing that and um if you know if that's something you're interested in staff can prepare a similar resolution for pnz to adopt as a policy or consider adopting some of you may not want to so but we can certainly prepare something if that's

so i would like us to take a look at something just because of the difficulty of getting pnz members and sometimes people are out of town but they could still attend virtually and and participate and then we have a quorum

I MEAN THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS MADE THEIR DECISION AND UH BUT I GUESS WE'RE AN INDEPENDENT WE'RE AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE SO WE MAKE OUR OWN DECISION BUT I'D BE YOU KNOW I'D BE FOR THAT YOU KNOW IS ANYTHING THAT WILL INCREASE PARTICIPATION AND BRING US TOGETHER TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS SO I MEAN CAN WE PASS THAT CAN WE PASS THAT RESOLUTION TO AN IPAD OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE IN BLACK AND WHITE BEFORE WE YEAH WE'LL BRING SOMETHING

I guess it's more of a personal thing for me because I'm out of town in the wintertime, but I'd be happy to participate and fulfill our quorum.

But there's no limitations, Pat, as to, you know, do you have to be in the state of Colorado?

No.

You know, there's not like any type of limitations on the remote participation.

The limitations are for the city council ordinance are it's limited to two members per meeting and it's on a first come first serve basis. So if uh if you want to participate remotely and you're the third person to ask you're out of luck absent um if you can't make it uh it uh it limits i think to six and of course council meets

twice a month, usually.

And even then some. So they meet quite a bit more than you do. And it's limited to six meetings per year that you can remotely participate. So you may want to lessen that amount.

We don't have to have any limitations, right?

I mean I'm just telling you what what the City Council arrived at was And you know, I think there's you have to You have to I think there's some language in there about You have to be in a location that is you know, quiet, so, you know, not the local pub or something like that. And, you know, that it's confidential. And because they even allow participating in executive sessions. Now, you all have the right to do executive sessions. It's been pretty rare that P&Z has ever done executive sessions, but you have that right, and the council allows for remote participation in the executive session, and we have the technology here in the jury room to allow for remote participation in those sessions, so that's one of them, but we can give you a kind of a framework with different options and Just give us something to look yeah, and you can decide down the road Thanks for entertaining that any other comments or So I had one you you had asked about the training session and I'm not sure how many probably the two new Commissioners maybe didn't attend but I may be mistaken and I'm not sure if all of the rest of you did I think all three of us Yeah Anyway, Sam Light, who is general counsel of SRSA, which is the city's insurance carrier, and he's a former city attorney, he goes around the state and does these trainings for newly elected officials and new PNZ members. on the quasi judicial process and it's it was it was live streamed it's the may 12th city council workshop session or work session so i would strongly recommend that you log on to that and and and watch it if you didn't have the opportunity to attend in person But it's a good training for, you know, the quasi-judicial decisions. And it kind of explains the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial and what that involves. And so it's, I think, very helpful, especially if you've never been on one of these boards.

Yeah, thank you for looking that up. I forgot to do that ahead of time. Yeah. But yeah, I would highly recommend it. It's informative.

Might keep you out of trouble But they don't that the attorneys only represent the City Council they wouldn't represent one of us would they bet if something happened There was a case they represent the city.

So if generally he and Z Usually won't generate litigation because for the most part all you do is recommend and any final decision that might generate Litigation and an appeal to the court would would be an appeal of the City Council's decision now if there was a defect and in the process by which P&Z, Bruce's brother owns the business that you guys recommended approval and he didn't recuse himself. And based on, and that recommendation of approval was a three to two and he was one of the ones that voted for it. and that based on that recommendation, council decided to approve it, saying, well, if PNZ supports it, we support it. You know, they might name the PNZ commission as well, but generally they just name the city and or the City Council in and then Not all stuff will is covered by insurance. So some of it you're stuck with me I Would say a lot of the training has to do with ethics. Yeah But yeah for the most part that represent the city and city employees If we fire somebody and somebody claims we did it wrong and we get sued, then the Insurance Defense Council would take over and handle the case. If the police shoot somebody and they claim it was They represent that officer and the city as a whole.

So it would be pretty rare that a case would be brought against one of us.

Real rare. Like you said, unless it was some super conflict of interest that you ignore warnings from staff and or something like that it yeah it generally they don't sue individuals uh... and certainly on the pnz you're kind of one step removed anyway it would be more likely a city council member might get named but that's that's even very rare it's generally just the city of cortez and But it's important, if you follow the instructions in this May 12th video for the work session, that our process is clean and we give due process to the applicants, then it lessens the chance that we'll get sued. It gives us a defense if we do get sued.

So Charlie, be careful on that RFP.

Well, the only other thing I'll bring up is THE THE TRAINING SESSION EMPHASIZED THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UH WE ABIDE BY THE COLORADO OPEN UH THE OPEN STATUTE LAW MEETINGS AND OPEN RECORDS YEAH PERSON ON THE COMMITTEE YEAH OR THAT COULD BE A VIOLATION

Yeah, and it's three members or a quorum, whichever is less. So two of you could get together and discuss something, but not three of you. And if three of you did it, Cheryl would have to post it 24 hours in advance, and the public would be theoretically invited to come to the meeting. But two of you can get together. But what you can't do is... Two of you meet and discuss an item, and then one of you meets with one of the other guys and discusses the same item. So it's basically a serial chain meeting, and that violates the open meetings law. So you've just got to be careful. The main recommendation is do your discussions of these quasi-judicial matters in the public meeting, in front of the public. And if you need legal advice or some other confidential issue, we can go into executive session behind closed doors. But if you're anticipating that, I would recommend that you ask me ahead of time, and I'll prepare the appropriate motion and everything for doing the executive session. But generally, P&Z, my experience, doesn't go into executive session very often.

No, I never had to do that. But in relation to that, the school board would get out, you know, in rural Colorado, where I was superintendent, they'd get down at, you know, midnight sometimes, those farmers would go out and stand on the corner and talk. Yeah, exactly. Three of them, and somebody would drive by. Oh, they're talking to you? Yeah, they'd take a picture of you. I told them, you guys can't do that anymore. So I'd have to make sure they left.

Beat for coffee and, you know. Now that, and he distinguishes between legislative and, so if you're like talking about the comprehensive plan, All five of you can go to coffee and discuss it and discuss it with your neighbors ahead of time. And because that's legislation, it's not the quasi judicial applies to a single property or individual so you're essentially applying the rules and ordinances that have been adopted to a particular piece of property and you know it invokes you know you can't deny somebody of life liberty or property or the pursuit of happiness without due process and the due process is that you you do it in front of the public and uh you you don't discuss it ahead of time and and you you don't have see you don't text each other while you're sitting up there on the dais and talking back and forth you know like how are you going to vote you know what do you think of his comment and that stuff you can do that you got to actually just turn the mic on and talk about it and uh

okay thanks any other comments before i okay meeting adjourned we only have a motion there we go

I'm not sure what it is.