Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I pledge algiance 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. Uh would you do roll call then, please? Fry Hoverver here. Ta here. Remy here.

Next is approval of the agenda. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda? We don't really have any consent agenda where items would be pulled from it. So, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Motion to approve. Second. Motion in a second. Let's proceed to vote. Ta. Yes. Ryver here. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Uh, next item then is approval of the uh minutes from May 6th. Motion to approve. Minutes from May 6th. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on them? Any changes? Let's go ahead and vote on them then. Fry Hoverver. Yay. How? Yes. Remy,

yes. Uh, at this point it's public participation. Anyone willing to speak on anything not on the agenda or with a threem minute time limit. Uh, please go to the microphone. Seeing none, we will move on. um appointment of a commissioner to the historical preservation board. Uh and I have been attending the meetings as a onlooker. They brought up tonight that since it their meetings are right before hours and so it could be a long night for someone, they're willing to um have a rotating member so that we could share that concept. Um otherwise I'd be happy to go ahead and be on there. just makes a long night. But save a be um comments if if you want to uh rotate it. It's kind of an interesting they sometimes have some things to discuss. Um meets at 5:00 on the first Tuesday, but there was a little break tonight. Sometimes they have gone till 6:30, I noticed, but um if anyone's interested in doing it all the time, that's fine. I I'd be willing to uh help alleviate.

Okay, Richard. Yeah, I'd go for that. Okay. Um um Mr. Chair, I we'll have to double check. I I don't see why why we couldn't do that, but just have to check the um what it says as far as appointment of a a person. But I suppose you could call a substitute say if you couldn't make it one meeting, I would think. But we'll have to double check. Yeah, I didn't think about that when they brought it up. Um they were just trying to make it easier. Yeah. Yeah. To make sure that they had a P&Z person there.

Yeah, it's a good idea. Well, I know I won't be there in October. So, would one of you we could appoint I mean, if one of you is willing to do it as permanent person and then if we need to change it, I guess we could do that. I know they were asking for a realtor. They called our MLS and asked Yeah. volunteers, but I don't know about how that resulted

then because they need two places. They need the realtor and they need a PNZ. So, I guess we could uh agree to nominate Nina and then if realtor does come up, then you'd be available to um I move we appoint Nina to the uh preservation board. I second. Got a motion in a second. Um, let's proceed to vote. Right? Yes. Tal, yes. Remy, yes.

Uh, then we also need to pick a vice chair to replace Emily. Um, I know Bob isn't here, but he'd be willing to do it. Um, would someone like to nominate him if that were the case, or would someone be willing to do it? I nominate Robert. I second. Got a motion in a second. Um, do do you mean um Robert Bright? Yes. Just to confirm. Okay. Let's go ahead and proceed to vote.

Fry Hover. Yes. Al, yes. Remy, yes. So, Bob will be our vice chair and he will be here in October.

That's good. Uh, next is public hearings. Um, Nancy, some land use code revisions. I guess you're up. Okay, good evening. Now, um I think both of you have been at work sessions public here, but Nina has not. So, I want you to jump in. Um the idea here was that we've been N you know we've been going through the code using it for the last three months and finding some some minor and some a little less minor things that aren't aren't working so well some typos some bad sites and some confusing language. So staff has been working and making note of those and we have before you a number of changes to we I think we've hit every chapter at this point with some minor changes and um I guess I'll just go through them or we can start with chapter one. We just had a typo and a bad citation. Does anyone want me to go over those in detail, show you those? No. Move on. Um, chapter two, the only change is to revise the definition of affordable housing. This will meet our new will meet new state statutes. Um, and I also feel like it probably is a little bit or a lot better. Um, having written the first one, I know this one's much better. So, I've got this pulled up here. It eliminates the current affordable housing definition and breaks it up into affordable housing for sale

and affordable housing for rent. And then there the standards are in there for each of those which are a little bit different. Um are there any questions on that one?

No. Chapter three has quite a bit more going on. Um, should I go over those in detail? What the rest do you think? I guess I should. Um so let me jump to the first change which is we noticed that neighborhood business zone district. It had a setback just one setback but two types of uses both residential and commercial are allowed in neighborhood business. We they had set it at one 7 foot setback which um was is really quite a bit more than the residential setbacks which are mostly five feet. So we just added in this case clarified that the seven foot was for commercial development and neighborhood business and that you only needed five feet for residential. And if you go on back to the residential zone districts, you'll see why we did that, which is most of the zones R1, R2, R3 have a 5- foot sideyard setback. So, it didn't seem right to require neighborhood business to have a bigger setback than those. Um, let's see. Table 3.4 was really just some citations that took you to the

wrong place. So, we've corrected those. But there are quite a few other changes. Um, that first one there is the incorrect citation. We did also switch a few of the uses where accessory ADUs were permitted in all districts, but they were conditional in our RE district, which is one lot and one house in Cortez. So, we thought that might be more fair to make that also permitted to match the other districts. And then in the central business district, we do have some single family homes. Somebody came in and asked whether or not they could do an ADU on one of those residential parcels. And I was we were a bit confused because technically, no, you couldn't do an ADU, but you know, you can do pretty high density development in it. So, we thought it would only be fair to add them as a permitted use. also in the central business district. Um, going down on sure we get all this. You can see that we also added some additional residential types in the commercial zone district. Previously in our code, you could only do residential uses as a conditional use. I believe in the single f for single family. Um and as upstairs above commercial uh in the commercial district, this new code really expands residential uses in the commercial district and so but it left off some of the newer uses. For

example, it allowed single family homes. It allowed town homes as conditional uses. it did not allow duplexes. So, we just wanted to make that make more sense and put all those different types of residential uses as conditional uses in the commercial zone. Farmers markets, uh, that's just a mix. They were mix up. They were down as permitted, but when you go to 3 64E. It required a temporary use permit. So, we're just making that match.

We did add a new definition. Excuse me a minute. On that temporary use permit, is it just for one year or is it three years? I have to look. Okay. I just curious. We'll get to it. Yeah, I'll look it up.

Okay. I I believe it was like one and allowed for extensions, but I don't want to guess and be wrong. We added a definition of outdoor recreation um for as a use mostly because somebody had I think our our parks and recck director said, "Hey, wait a minute. It doesn't really specify where you can have parks in what zones." So, we put that in there. These are public outdoor recreation things like parks and we put them as permitted in all zones. And then there's two definitions. So there's outdoor recreation and then outdoor commercial recreation which is conditional in the sea zone. And we'll get to those definitions. Oops. This isn't supposed to be here. Wrong draft. Um, here's a change to the ADU section that was first recommended by the state and we decided to pull out some of the ADU. We we were starting to make some changes to the ADU based on state recommendations. We took most of them out feeling like those need to be looked at separately, but this one survived that process mostly because our attorney felt like it made a lot of sense to only require and be a because really the only time you can check whether an ADU or the the the existing home is occupied by the land owner, by the property. owner really is at the time of application. It would be really

hard for the city to keep up with that if someone were to decide to move to Phoenix, move to France. Um and um we wouldn't really know that at any time and keep both the main unit and the ADU as rentals. So um it now we added either the single family dwelling or the ADU must be occupied by the property owner. The new language is at the time of application for the ADU permit.

What' you find? Um so for a temporary use permit uh a time limit a time limit needs to be specified on the temporary use permit but it leaves a lot of discrepancy or discretion as far as that goes. It it's based on the use. So if it's a temporary office trailer then it specifically says you can have that for 120 days. Um but in general for the temporary use permits um it says a a time limit for discontinuence of the temporary use shall be specified on the temporary use permit. So basically a time limit

because the farmers market runs from a certain time in the spring to a certain time in the fall. Yeah. every year then would they have to try to get that temporary permit? Yeah. So, they'd need to Well, as it stands right now, um I believe that the one that they applied for specifies the start date and the end date of this this year. So, they'd have to come back to the city to re renew. Okay. But we the city could establish a longer time period like seasonally for three years, five years. Yeah. So maybe the next one they would request that.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. The next change was in the use standards for dwelling mixed use. really we started trying to apply this and realized that the under two the use standards. This is the requirement for mixed use in the commercial zone and um with previously the only residential uses we allowed were 2A where it was up to one half the floor area of singlestory non-residential building. um over and multiple floors upstairs are allowed unlimited residential use. And then it had some strange standards for where they were located. Um saying that if it's adjacent to the highway, commercial use is required on the first floor of the mixeduse building. Well, that is what's required in A. So, I'm not sure what we didn't know why that had to be repeated. And then under C, it said you don't need a commercial component if it's not adjacent to the highways. But then we realized, well, it's not a mixeduse building if they don't have a commercial component. It's just a residential building, which are now conditional in the commercial zone. So just suggested we get rid of those two provisions and then we get down to the flea market somewhere it

five. Oh, this is where we defined the outdoor recreation. This is the public definition um where outdoor recreation for the public, open to the community or it could be say a park in a subdivision which is open to the residents um but not commercial in nature. And we wanted to include areas both for active or passive recreation. And then you'll see later on here we've got a definition. Oops. I'll get to it. Flea market. We had no use standards for a flea market, but we had them for a farmers market. So we thought it was kind of strange to have more standards on the farmers market than we do on the flea market. So we added use standards for the flea markets. They're very very similar to the farmers market requirements. And then What's the next one I'm looking for? [Music] Is that the That was our last change in chapter three. Chapter 4 has a very tiny change which

maybe I don't know if you even recall but when the code was adopted there was a provision added that allowed for what is called minor deviations and exceptions for when it seems that um a requirement is not necessary. neessary for a certain type of use. So it it it sort of opened up the door for applicants to ask for a change to a code standard. Uh the the that was added in to chapters five and three, but it wasn't added in chapter 4, which is the subdivision st chapter. So we're adding into chapter 4. Then chapter five, these are were two. I know one of them somebody wants to talk about, but um 5.025B is a really minor change. There's a reference in there that said all off streetet parking must have a driveway that is a minimum of 20 feet and a maximum of 40 ft. This isn't true in all cases. So I remove that just to reference section 5.03 which is the actual standards for driveway. And that way we don't have any um redundant well it wasn't even redundancy. it it contradicted it itself. So got rid of that um recommending that you get rid of it. Then in the sign section, there was a section in there that said the maximum

amount of a window that can be covered with signs is 50%. It didn't say per window. It didn't. And there were people in here trying to say that, well, I want to cover all my windows, but I won't cover the ones in the backs. So, I'm meeting the 50% requirement. We just wanted to clarify that that should be 50% per window. There is there was some discussion at the work session that maybe we shouldn't do that. So, uh, the way it stands and recommended in here is that it says the amount of a window that can be covered with signs is 50% per window. Anyone want to jump in and talk about that or do you want to save it to the end and talk about them? Save it, Richard. I know you want to talk about it.

No. Okay. Don't talk about it. I think it's too late.

Um, and then chapter six, we really made quite a a few changes in there. Get there. And this really came about as we were preparing checklists for the applicants for all the different types of applications. And we really noticed that the lists that are in this chapter sometimes miss some things. um and sometimes um mostly missed some things but or or a few cases I'll get to they were just incorrect and most of it was carried over from the old code but um we want to make sure that we get that this more clear. So going through that, the first changes were really just in our application procedures table. We wanted to make sure that all the types of applications that require an ordinance that it was stated the same way. So, a zone map amendment, which um we were doing when we adopted the zoning map separately. We wanted to make sure that it also stated that you needed two readings, no hearing at the first reading. And then we found another one. Someone applied for historic designation. That has traditionally been done by ordinance. So, for one, we want to make sure it says historic designation because that's what it's called now, not landmark. And clarify that that also gets done by ordinance where there's two readings, no hearing at first reading. Here's another thing where the appeals

was portion was written a little bit oddly and then we added minor deviations or exceptions pursuant to

yeah we didn't add four in there I need to add that in there. Is it 4.012B? Okay. Um and so that's to establish the process for people applying to that because that new provision got added towards the end. it wasn't in the table and there really weren't any procedures on how to follow that. I think you'll see in here another example where the citations were all a little bit off somehow. They had chapter 16. So, we changed that to chapter six. Um, and it had some of because we added a section, they all shifted a little bit there. page through this. Here's another thing that I think you'll know we've had some issues with is determination of a complete application because we added quite a we added some requirements in here in the code. I want to make we want to make it clear that some of those might not apply to all types of applications. so that the ZO the zoning administrator could wave any of those required submitt items if they're they're not applicable in a specific application. Okay. And then another thing we wanted to clarify that we've been having

trouble with is the process where somebody submits their application, the zoning administrator sends it out to city staff, consultants and review agencies and often times it's not adequate and it's not ready to move on to the planning commission. So there's a bit of back and forth trying to get it adequate. So we wanted to clarify that process in here that if for example, and it's an example that happens fairly often, they submit a drainage report that's incorrectly done or not done by an engineer, doesn't work. the city's consultant engineer reviews it says no this isn't going to work. We have to go we want to go back first to the applicant and get it right before we bring it forward to the planning commission or city council. So we want to make sure that process was in the code. Uh moving forward again we found some circular references where the historic designation said see the table for the noticing requirement and then the table said see the code for the noticing requirement. So we added it in here. Um, annexation is complicated as far as noticing, but so I've got that in there, but we wanted to make sure it references state statute, which is the requirement for noticing on annexations. We did have someone start to propose an annexation, so we got a little worried about that.

And then I think we're going to get to the submittal items and you'll see what we were changing and why. This actually was just a typo of some sort. Okay, so here we are in the which one am I in here? I went too fast. Preliminary plat. So, we haven't seen a lot of that these, but it's for subdivision. So, we've got all the submittal information on here, project narrative, development plan in in the subdivision part of the code. It does require a surface and subsurface soils report. So, you want to make sure that that was here for the checklist. There are also portions of the code that require traffic assessment. So again, we wanted to make sure that people understood that that was going to be required. Um C do DOT would have required it anyway, but we don't want people to submit their subdivision, have it go to C do DOT, have C do DOT say you need to do a traffic assessment and add delays to the project. Um again this is the final plat submittal requirements. We notice that it requires you to say what the proposed use for the sites are. Um we don't want them putting the use on a subdivision plat. So um eliminated that. cleaning up the dedication certificate, which was super complicated and not necessary. So, we cleaned that up. Um, I

had a surveyor in the room ask me whether it required a description using meets and bounds method and it didn't. So he asked that we add that and it's consistent with their requirements under statute for surveyors, but we didn't always get it and this makes it clear. We don't I don't know why it had the approval certificate on a final plat being by the planning commission. It's actually city council in the process. So we're corrected that. um want to make sure that under construction plans that it spoke to streets and roads. We did have someone submitting a street and road improvement plan for an existing subdivision that had never been completed and we realized that it wasn't even on the list for a construction plan. So, we wanted to make sure that was there. Then I think the next one we had major changes in was the site plan submittal requirements which I think you've seen a lot of. So that's right here. And as you can see I was just cleaning up language with DNA. So it's location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures and signage signs. And then you can eliminate layout and dimensions of all buildings. common open space. Normally with a site plan, you wouldn't have common open space. That's a requirement for subdivisions or PUDs. So, we eliminated that. Um suggests that they include a paving plan specifically at least indicate on the

site plan all areas proposed for surfacing and type of surfacing proposed. That's something that we've been sort of challenged with in the site plan submittals lately. So that it would be good to make them aware right at the very beginning that that they should show that on their site plan site contours in the code right now it says at a minimum of 10 foot intervals. They've always when we get sight contours they're 10 feet really don't show you anything hardly in Cortez. So we suggesting you switch that to two foot intervals which is most of them I've seen are actually one foot intervals but um at this point but two would be acceptable. Um again lots or plots is a subdivision requirement. it doesn't belong in the site plan requirements. But another thing that we don't always have them show on their first round of a site plan is any proposed storage areas with screening. So we're recommending that you put that on the checklist. Eliminate proposed areas for dedication, parks and parkways, school sites, all subdivision requirements. Asking for a utility plan so we know where the soon water lines are coming in if they have to be added or where they are now. Um, a narrative describing the proposed development. Again, this is has been challenging for some of our applicants lately. So, we tried to give them some suggestions in here as to what types of things should be in a narrative. So, it's easier for you to

make a decision based on impacts. Um down it says drainage plan added grading and drainage plan because we've definitely had some grading happen and applicants aren't telling us about it. It's creating issues for the neighbors. So we want to make sure they show that on their plans. And then traffic assessment following C dot traffic assessment guidelines to determine if it's required and the level of requirement. Um I believe I added that. Was that in their packet? Did that make it in the packet? What those requirements are? But essentially since most of our commercial development is served directly off of a C dot highway, it's really in C do DOT's hands anyway. And we didn't want to get to the point and we did a couple times where people submitted to us um we required them to go talk to Sed and then they found out they needed a traffic assessment and they were again behind the eightball in timing having to find someone to do the assessment. Um and we just want to make sure people know everything upfront that's going to be required of them. So it's not really a Cortez requirement. It's a C dot requirement. We do have standards in the code though that say based on amount of traffic and unless they do that first easy level of traffic assess assessment, we wouldn't know what that is. Um that clarified grading. Oh, the appeal section. So I think we struggled with this really the difference between an appeal and a

variance. The appeal process that was in here was more of a ver Yeah, we wanted to make sure that it was more clear the way this was written that because some of the decision levels have been dropped down by this code that you could clearly appeal it on. So, if it's a if staff were to deny a minor subdivision, we'd want to allow them to appeal that on to the planning commission. Um, if the if you as the planning commission were to deny a conditional use permit, again, we want to make it clear that they could appeal that on to the city council. And really, that's just giving them some due process rather than having to go to court. Um the the way this was written before some of those appeals went to the board of adjustment, it's really an interpretation of code. It feels that city council is a more appropriate place to send that. So that's what we've clarified in there. I clarified a little bit on the submittal requirements. Tell us why you're appealing. and I eliminated a application form because they've already applied. They've applied and gotten denied. Um, we want to make sure we can just use that existing application information plus a letter saying why they felt like whoever made the decision was in the wrong. This appeals to court being eliminated. It doesn't eliminate their ability to

appeal or challenge anything in court. We just didn't know why it's in our code. Don't want to give them any ideas, right? Because it and the way it was stated was every decision by the board of adjustment can be go to court. It's really any decision by the city council or the board of adjustment. So, we'd have to either if we want to keep it in, we've got to put it everywhere or we just thought it might be cleaner to take it out. And then this whole minor deviations process we had to add thought there um because those were added and there was no process for them. So, we've got all that in there. how you submit, what you need to submit, what the criteria is. That was kind of in the code. So, we just sort of pulled that out and cleaned it up a little bit for the minor deviation submitt. And then the last major change here was we found that somehow reimbursement agreements dropped out of the code. There is a reference to them back in the subdivision chapter, but it had been the whole idea of them have been eliminated. So, we had to so we put that back in. That's all I got. And I guess I should have included that as part of the public hearing, but I'll retro open public hearing then. Thank you, Nancy. Um, is anybody to speak for or against any of the changes?

Seeing none, we'll close the U. Any commissioners have any comments? No. Close the public hearing. Um, do you need a motion recommending the resolution. Yes. Yes. We have a suggested motion for you. Yeah. Um I'm looking at the resolution itself.

In the staff report, there's a suggested Resolution number eight, series 2025. Do you need it? No, I have it. She doesn't. I make a motion that the planning and zoning commission approve resolution number 8 series 20 2025, excuse me, a resolution recommending that council approve the proposed revision to the land use code attached to the resolution as exhibit A. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? And this is just a recommendation to city council, right? Okay. Uh let's proceed to vote. Tal. Yes.

Ryver, yes. Reie, yes. Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Other items of business. Um, Nancy, is Jason here? Jason actually is under the weather today. So, just us. So, Nancy, are you going to highlight each of these that next? Yeah. Okay. Are we reviewing the proposition fasttrack? Yeah.

Okay. First item is review of the proposition 123 housing fasttrack requirements. Um okay.

But so the proposition 1233 which Cortez opted into which provides funding for affordable housing. It's okay. Let's present it. um requires that to remain eligible communities adopt new code provisions or a what they're calling fasttrack for affordable housing projects. The state defines that as that and if an affordable housing project was submitted, we deem their application complete. the city has 90 days to take it through the public process and either approve or deny the request. Now, the city of Cortez already exceeds the 90day requirement in almost every case with U site plan, which is probably what an affordable housing project would be. It would be either that or subdivision really. But um the state is recommending that you adopt that you codify that so that because even though it's fast now it's not in the code that you have to get it done within 90 days. Now, there's a big incentive from the state if you do if the city does that. If we adopt new provisions to re mandate a 90-day review for an affordable housing project, they're basically giving the city

$50,000 that can be used for affordable housing, for code amendments, for the whole list.

Yeah, it's it's pretty broad. anything I think that um is part of the LPC grant. So, I'm not going to go over it in total detail detail with you because we'll probably bring I'm hoping to bring this back to you in October, which would allow the city to assuming you saw it in October, agreed with it, recommended it on, we could then get it to city council for first and second readings, have it adopted by the end of 2025, and the state would be would be granted the $50,000 bonus. So, big incentive, big cash incentive here to get it done. Um, we've got it rough draft. I've been working with Lisa um on on some of these changes. She also helped she wrote the definition of affordable housing that you just recommended on. She's here tonight if you have any questions. But the basic idea of it is the way we've started to draft this and it may change before it gets to you next month is that we'd add a section of the code entitled incentives. Okay. And at this point it would only apply these incentives would only apply to affordable housing. were I was thinking that in the future you could maybe apply incentives to job gen you know projects that generate jobs or other desirable land uses that you want to encourage. So the way this is written now it's only applies to affordable housing but it speaks to the incentives that that can be awarded if you qualify

as an affordable project. So, it goes through all the how do you qualify? Um what what counts, what doesn't, how they might say no, we don't want these incentives. Um in part because if if it's going too fast for a developer, um they may say, "Wait, stop." I because what's likely to happen is if that deadline was looming the city that would and staff and the planning commission might recommend denial of a project because it's not ready. So we would need to have a provision in there that allows the developer to say don't want that one. I want more time so that they don't get denied essentially. Um, and this is a requirement from the state that they have the ability to deline and then essentially how they earn it. You have to have a certain percentage of the housing be affordable. We've got a couple of provisions they'd have to meet in here. And this is all just suggested. So, you can play with this a little bit. There's some thresholds that you can't go under or over based on state requirements, but the suggestion here is that if it's a mixeduse project that it be primarily residential and the idea, the ex that section A1 really was written to prevent someone from doing a what was the example I used? a family dollar with two units on top. Um because the next requirement is only 50% of the

residential units are restricted. They could put two units on top, say, "Hey, one's residential. I need a fast track through the process." Um really, you want to make it a primarily residential property before you're going to give them incentives. Um then we've got it set at least half of the residential units are um restricted to be affordable if it's for sale. Um if it's rentals is that still at half Lisa the residential.

Yeah. And then so if you meet all these requirements, you'd qualify for fasttrack. The other incentive that our code already had um as far at for affordable projects is increased development potential that's already in our code. So that where affordable housing units are provided and and our current code is only only 10% of the units need to be affordable. It you get a density bonus of 20%. So basically it's a lot of complicated language that says if you're affordable you got two incentives available density bonus and faster review. So, to make sure I understand this, if a developer comes along, wants to meet all of these requirements, they're supposed to get $50,000.

No, no, that comes to the city. If you adopt this code, okay, or something similar. So then the developer has to follow these but they get the developer would come in and say hey you have to approve or deny me within 90 days plus they could get a 20% density bonus which is already in the code. So they get expedited review processing the increase in development potential and that's their incentive to follow these requirements in the city.

Yeah. city's incentive is to have this in place. So if somebody wants to take advantage of it, then the city would get a grant from the state. Is that Yeah. Okay. As man Nancy mentioned, we're already pretty fast as long as everything is in order when it's when the application is turned in. But this makes it official and offers, you know, offers a bit of an incentive.

Sure. Gotcha. And we did rough review this with the state and they said that it would meet the requirements basically which was great to hear. They also want Lisa to present on the city of Cortez process to other communities. Will there be a workshop with joint workshop with the council to go over any details or just bring it back in October and then we were kind of thinking just bring it back. Okay. Really, it doesn't change anything. Okay, you're already fast. You already have the 20%. It really just puts it in writing. Okay.

And makes you eligible for $50,000. Anybody have questions for Nancy? Okay. Thank you. So, it's coming. Just thought you might want to think about it. We're we're open to revising it if you have other ideas. Okay. Thank you. Let's move on to item B then. Um, administrative approvals. Who has those? Um, I'll go ahead and if our planner is not here, so if you want me to take it, I can, Mr. Chairman. Sure. This is just Okay. Mostly an information item, isn't it?

Yeah. It's just an FYI, but it's it's new. It's a new item on the agenda. Um, since the code was adopted on April 18th of this year, it uh some of the items that normally had to go through say a longer and more formal review process um it basically shortened the review process and created some administrative approvals. So, um, we have them listed here for you as an FYI, but the items that are now subject to administrative approvals are formal interpretations of the code, uh, final plat, minor subdivisions, condominium subdivision conversion, plat amendment, and minor site plan. So some minor items that you know by pre previously we required them to either go to planning and zoning and council or just planning and zoning and it just added some extra time for the pro to the process. And um so anyway, these are the ones that have been approved since we last met with you. And just in the spirit of um being uh open, we wanted to make sure that that was on the agenda as well.

So theoretically, these uh would just help in shorten the time frame for an applicant. Yeah. Okay. Sure. But staff's looking at them, checking the boxes, and approving it. We also send it out to agency review in case there are concerns from agencies. All right, any questions? Thank you. Um, next is a county proposed project.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and introduce that if you'd like. Um, so the Monizuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will be holding a public hearing um to review and determine recommendations to be made to the county commissioners um regarding a 17 lot major subdivision and resoning application. Um it's a property located along 145. It's just north of the city of Cortez. Um, so it falls within our zone of influence. It's not adjacent to the city, but it's it's close. So, we're just um we just attached it for your review. And then if you have any comments that you'd like us to forward on to the county planning commission, um, let us know.

How how many lots were they going to have? 17. Yes. And is there an average size of the lot? Let me check. I mean, the the total is 95 acres, right? Divided by Yeah. 17 monthly, but there's a lake in there, too. So, 91

Can you Sorry. We can't hear you. Can you turn on your mic? Sorry, I'm just reading this. Um Oh, okay. 91.76 acres less 35 acres that will not be part of the project. So, you're looking at 55 acres in total divided by that 17 lot. So, on average, it's about three acres. Yeah. As I was looking at it, I wasn't quite sure where they were going to access Highway 145 from all of those.

I think it's um they're proposing an access kind of on the north side of the proposed subdivision. So up further. When does this go to the county planning and zoning? I believe in just a couple of days. So, we'll have to turn any comments around pretty quickly. Does anybody want to make a comment to the county? Not at this time.

Okay. Um, yeah, I guess I don't either. Thank them for including us, I guess, in their information. Okay. But no, no comments. Correct.

Okay. Um and then I guess building permits for your perusal. And see nothing else. I guess I would entertain or add an entertaining emotion to journ right I don't see anything else Was that the I thought we had building permits issued.

Yeah, it's in your packet to review. It's this right here in the middle. Sorry. It's always information items. So, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. I second. Oh. Uh, I guess I made the motion to adjourn. Need a seconded. Let's proceed to vote. Ryver. Yes. Ta. Yes. Remy. Yes. Meeting adjourned.