Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call to order the May 26th, the regular meeting for Glenwood Planning and Zoning Commission. This meeting is held via Zoom as well. You can dial in 719-359-4580. The ID is 86380550264. And before we do the roll call, I just want to, I think there's a change in the agenda. So Trent, do you want to talk at that?

Yes, we can continue each one of those items individually when we get to there, but we will be requesting a continuance for the items A and B under the new items section.

Okay. And I see that there's one person online right now. I don't know if you're here for... for the park drive short-term rental or the short-term rental and accessory tourist rental code amendment. But if you are, you're very welcome to hang in and listen to the rest of our meeting, but those two items will be continued to a later date. And Trent will notice those and let people know.

Yeah, we're going to, just when you get to them, I'm going to have you individually continue them to the next regular.

Okay. Okay. Okay, let's do roll call. Do I have the mics? Yeah, you can just stir right down the line here. So yes. Okay.

Kyle Jones. Pat Porter.

Amy Connerton.

B. Waller.

Joy White.

john houghton connie guymon okay thank you thank you all i know that's a bit kind of cumbersome but it does help us with drafting the minutes if if the ai hears your voice first and then it can help us with the the rest of the meeting language so thank you

Oh, the AI? We don't want to hear what the Pope says about AI. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the receipt of the minutes. So the first one is March 24th, and I need a motion and a second. Commissioner Connerton.

So we'll do them individually?

Yeah, let's do them individually.

Okay. So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the March 24th, 2026 regular meeting.

Okay. Do I have a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, second by Commissioner Corcoran. Okay, any questions, comments, additions, deletions? Commissioner Connerton?

No, because you expanded the minutes for like the next one, right? With more, it seemed like it. Okay. Nope.

Any other questions, comments? Okay, we'll call for the vote to approve. Looks like the meeting minutes I just unanimously. Okay. Now for the receipt of the minutes for April 28th, commissioner Connerton up.

Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes, the very thorough minutes, um, from the April 28th, 2026 meeting.

Okay. Motion by Commissioner Connerton. Commissioner Howden.

I'll second that.

Second by Commissioner Howden. Additions, deletions. Okay. We'll vote on those minutes as well. Okay. Okay. Pass six to one with one abstention. Commissioner White was not here. OK, now we'll move on to the next item. Comments from citizens appearing for items not on the agenda. OK, seeing we have none, we'll move on to the new items. Okay, item A, which is being continued, but is to appeal the 319 Park Drive short-term rental.

Yes. Good evening, Chair Waller and Commissioners. Trent Hyatt with Community Development. We have received a request to continue this item to the June 23rd, 2026 hearing. The applicant was unable to be with us tonight, and we actually had requested that she come to this meeting instead of the last month's meeting, which we had a very sensitive discussion. publicized meeting that was on the agenda. So we asked her to continue to tonight, but she has since come up with some issues and requested that we continue to June. Happy to answer any questions, but we would do that so that we could recognize that the notice has already been sent out and that we would still, that notice would still hold for the next meeting.

Thank you, Trent. Why don't you stay up there? Okay, the next item is.

We actually need a formal vote.

Oh, we need a motion to continue.

Motion to continue it.

Okay. Commissioner Helton.

Is it appropriate to ask a question about that now, or should I make a motion?

A question about the requested continuance? Sure. Question specific to the application? I would wait until next month.

Okay. Okay. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Understood as well, almost continue. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Item a on our agenda five. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Okay, we have a motion. HAB-Jacques Juilland- To the next. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Scheduling regular.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Yeah, but that's not HAB-Jacques Juilland- Yeah, we've continued and so HAB-Jacques Juilland- Well, you're going to take a vote.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Yeah, so that was who we have a we have a motion to continue. I need a second. Commissioner White?

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second by Commissioner White. All in favor of continuing to the June meeting? It looks like the continuance passed unanimously to June. Okay, the next... The next item is code amendment for short-term rental and accessory tourist rental. Trent?

Yeah, and for a similar reason, this change is intended to clarify something related to the appeal that we just continued. So we've asked that you, from staff, that you also continue this one to the June 23rd, 2026 meeting.

Okay. I have a motion to continue. THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING? COMMISSIONER WHITE?

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 2026 MEETING.

THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WHITE. COMMISSIONER CORKER? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER GEIMAN?

While it's closely related, isn't it separate?

It is separate, but just not to confuse the issue. We'd rather wait until next month to discuss that code amendment.

Any other questions? Okay, let's vote on continuing this item to the June meeting as well. Okay, this item passed six to one. One no, Commissioner Guymon, everyone else was four. Okay, we'll move on to- Mr.

Chair, if I may, I understand that there's someone online that would request to speak. I would just say that I would advise you not to take any public comment on either one of those items until we actually have a, discussion of the applicable standards.

That the applicants here and everyone's here.

The applicants here and everyone has the same access to due process in consideration of the appeal. What I could express to you is I think that maybe there was some frustration that we were continuing this item by an adjacent property owner. But again, I can't go into that in the details. That person would be able to tell you that in a public hearing.

Okay. Okay. So the person on the line who's on Zoom, I'm assuming that you heard that. So I think you can take your hand down. Okay. Thank you. And so next month, both of these items will be on the agenda. Correct. Okay. The next item. Commissioner White.

Just so we have clear expectations, is there a chance that the applicant could not show up again and it would need to get continued? And does this somehow adversely affect the person who is the neighboring parcel.

So continuance and continuances are at your discretion. Traditionally, we allow an applicant a single continuance unless they have some other really great reason why they want to continue more than that. Particularly on an appeal, it's a pretty straightforward review of the record. So I would anticipate either that hearing moves forward with or without them at the next meeting.

Okay, perfect. Yeah. And again, you know, we requested that the applicant continue that item to this month's meeting, you know, so to give them the same courtesy that they gave us in doing so, you know, we would like to extend that.

Got it.

Good question.

Okay. Item C. CDA 000038-2026 code amendment to sign regulations.

Watkins. Good evening, commissioners. Great job reading all those letters that your naming convention is a lot. I think I have them on my hand.

I know, right.

If you give me just a second to queue up presentation, I will jump into our next item. And our item now is a code change about our sign regulations. There's going to be nothing too really groundbreaking in this tonight, but this is part of what we do. We need a municipal code that's easily understandable and usable. And so that's what we're working on tonight. Now, I know that a lot of you have been with us for a long time. We are pretty active participants. updaters of our code here. And so you guys have been through this before, at least most of you. But I think it's still worthwhile to talk about what we're doing before I get into what the changes that we're proposing are and then what comes after that. So with our municipal code, we don't take changes to it lightly, which is why you all, the P&Z, are going to be reviewing the changes and making a recommendation to the city council. And then city council is the deciding body for making code changes. They do that through two readings. And when we're making code changes, we have to be sure that they meet these five criteria of approval, which I have here. And I'll briefly read to you. The changes need to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other city policies. The changes need to not conflict with other provisions of the municipal code or other provisions in Title 70. The changes need to be necessary to address a demonstrated community need. They need to be necessary to respond to substantial changes in conditions and or policy. And the changes need to be consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code, this code being Title 70 of the Municipal Code. And we're going to talk about all that. So what are the changes that we're proposing tonight related to signs? They are first to incorporate the Glenwood Meadows Master Sign Plan into the Municipal Code. That's kind of a mouthful, so if it's all right with y'all, I'll be calling it the Master Sign Plan tonight. simplicity. We're also going to be talking about some other changes that apply citywide, which are slight edits to the rules for how we do window signs and to clarify and clean up some regulations regarding illuminated signs in the downtown core. So as you probably gathered, we're going to be really, it's going to be an opportunity to dive into the minutiae of the code tonight. I'm going to try to avoid, you know, trying to read too much to you at length, but we'll have an opportunity to do that if y'all need to. So the Glenwood Meadows master sign plan was established in 2003. It goes with the annexation and development agreement and some other other related actions that created the Glenwood Meadows. It's the governing document for signage in the Meadows, so they have their own special code out there. It does not apply citywide. And until August of 2024, there was a lot of clarity about what we allow for signs out there. In 2024, the Annexation and Development Agreement, which was one of the original, I'll call it founding documents of the Glenwood Meadows, it actually expired. And so with it... we found ourselves in a need to kind of incorporate this Glenwood Meadows master sign plan into the municipal code or alternatively kind of discard it and that would be a very messy process of forever kind of updating new signage when new signs were installed and it would kind of be again it would be messy because we'd be trying to match what they have out there with what we have in the rest of the city and those two things are not the same. The intent of this code amendment, this part of the code amendment at least, is to just incorporate the master sign plan into the municipal code. We're not trying to change anything about the sign code out there, just to incorporate it and make sure that we can continue doing things as we do with no complications. On the other hand, some minor changes that we want to make to the rest of the sign plans have to do with window signs. And when I say window signs, I'm talking really about the kind of, you know, you'll see vinyl kind of that's like adhered to window panes. And there's some kind of slight discrepancies on how that's described in the code. And so this is to clear that up. not to really change anything, but to make it clear what the rules are for those kinds of signs. We're doing that by deleting the definition of window sign and then creating a new definition of interior sign that includes the types of signage that are currently within the definition of window sign. So we're talking about definitions. We're talking about this refers to this, which refers to that, and we use it in this way because it's defined that way. So we're We're clearing things up. The definition currently of interior sign just refers you to window sign. Of course, there are more kinds of window signs than just the kind of things that are adhered to panes of glass. So we're trying to clean that up and make it more broadly applicable. Let's see, and did I talk about the other one? Yeah. So with the illumination, we're proposing to eliminate two sections of code. One is kind of unnecessary because it's covered elsewhere, and one actually conflicts with another part of code. And they all relate to illuminated signs for specific kinds of signs in the downtown core. Very specific. What I'm going to get into now is an analysis of how these changes meet or don't meet those five criteria of approval that I showed you on slide two. Again, the first criteria is, are the changes consistent with the comp plan and other city policies?

I think the answer is yes.

They support one of the plans listed policies, which is reduce light pollution in a slight way because it'll help bring all signage that's in the city under the same set of regulations and They'll facilitate future changes if we want to make any future changes in the future. Do the changes conflict with other provisions in this code or other provisions in the Glenwood Municipal Code? No. Proposed changes do not conflict with the code and help to clarify existing requirements that are outlined there. So we do think it meets that criterion. Are the changes necessary to address the demonstrated community need? Yes, in this case, the demonstrated need is the fact that the annexation and development agreement has expired. And so we need to clarify which sections to incorporate by reference the master sign plan and also to clarify some sections that may not immediately clear. Are the changes necessary to respond to substantial changes in conditions and or policy? Again, the ADA is expired and so there's a need to handle that. Are the changes consistent with the general purpose and intent of the code? We think so, yes, that it is. It allows signage within reasonable limitations that are consistent with our community goals. So as I alluded to the comprehensive plan, there's not any significant implications here, but what I mentioned about light pollution, it helps us to regulate that in a more comprehensive way in the future if we want to. Mike Noce, Mgmt. Public comment, this is a slight change from the staff report the one pager that I distributed everyone before the meeting. Mike Noce, Mgmt. was from a representative of the Glenwood meadows shopping Center that letter supported incorporating master sign plan into the municipal code and that's really all that that he had to say about that. So I'm not going to read these findings to you. They're the same that are in your staff report. But if you do vote to approve these changes, you'll need to incorporate a finding for each of the five criteria of approval. So these are our recommended findings. And this is the recommended motion to approve the changes here because the application meets the approval criteria. That's all I got. Questions?

Any questions? Commissioner Howden.

If the Glenwood Meadows master sign plan is silent on a topic, does that mean That city code or, you know, municipal code applies, or does it mean that does not apply like a regulation in city code? That's not in the sign plan.

Yeah, that's a great question. Uh, the answer is that if it's silent on something, then the municipal code, the general regulations will apply. Um, but it's also good practice to try to anticipate those kinds of gaps or mismatches. And so that's what I've tried to do here with some of these things like signage illumination levels. Okay.

Thank you. Commissioner White.

So that ADA applies only to the Meadows area. Is that correct? The annexation and development.

It did apply only to that.

It did only apply, but it's expired. What are the other elements to that ADA that have, I mean, I know we're specifically talking about signage, but does that mean that like use and stuff like that is involved in an The expiration.

So underlying zoning and kind of what those correspond to in our code remains in place. So what to because that was adopted separately and zoning is not subject to expiration. Right. Some of the things would be design standards, sign code, lighting, density limitations, those kinds of things, unless the use restriction was incorporated into on the original zoning when it was done. And I can't remember, there were some things that were the modified typical zoning back in 2004 or five, whenever that was adopted. So those are the kinds of things that would remain in place. So fundamental zoning- Oh, remain in place, do not expire. Fundamental zoning remains in place. All of that other stuff kind of is gone.

So the fact that there's one more developable parcel in that whole area stays in place?

It does. There's actually two. Two more, okay. But things that changed were things like the application of our affordable housing regulations and varieties of types and things like that, changes that we've made to the code since the adoption of since that original annexation development agreement were entered into, you know, since those limitations, traffic fees, all kinds of stuff, now that's all gone. So those remaining parcels are really developed with the exception of zoning and potentially the sign code changes here. They're subject to all of the both the limitations as well as the permitted uses that might occur or the types of things that can be done or the way it would be done in terms of design standards and things like that. So it kind of cuts both ways. Okay, great.

Mr. Guymon.

You might have answered this question, but if someone in the Glenwood Meadows and one of the new developments or the current new owners requests assigned variants, who would that go to with this new plan?

It will go to you, PNZ. Okay.

Commissioner Connerton.

So on the other proposed changes, Watson, like the window signs, is that just because by if we adopt this tonight, it would just cause conflict in the language?

There's some conflicts in there. It's just generally not as clear as it could be. And so we're trying to make sure that everything is usable for everybody and that the expectations are clear. Okay.

Thanks.

Other questions? I have a couple. One follow-up on Joy's question. So the ADA is different than a PUD, right? Because a PUD is kind of cast in concrete that It doesn't change, but the ADA had a lifetime to it.

The ADA had a lifetime to it. It had been extended a couple of times. But there again, zoning, much like a PUD, that's why the PUD is written in stone, is that it's a zoning exercise. So the underlying zoning that was adopted by separate ordinance back when the original approval, that stays in place as, you know, with the analogous zone districts that we have today in the code.

But so like you mentioned that there's two more parcels to be developed. And there's, you know, like the one we approved, the 300 units up above Lowe's or whatever that number was. So is density from the original approval or did it change to another?

So the density caps would no longer be in place where originally agreed to in terms of square footage or number of units. The flip side to that is, is that there also is no, there's nothing preventing the application of those more strict things that we have like housing variety, which had that been able to been applied to the 300 units, it would look very different than it does today. But that was a function of, and having been part of the ADA.

So that would be in the new going forward.

So in the new, like in the parcel to the west of it, for instance, would have to meet all of those standards in the code as they exist today. And that's why I said it's kind of a double-edged sword that, yeah, arguably density limits have been lifted. And you're looking at just what is the parcel support kind of thing. But there's also all the exactions, all of the typical code requirements that would be applied to it now under current regulations, which I think probably turns out better for the city as we evolve. Yeah, it makes it be more consistent.

And then on signs, so I mean, I'm thinking of like Cordova, for example, and we did Cordova a couple of years ago, whatever we did, but that, you know, it was There's something that's grandfathered signs that are there already are were proved and they're there and they're good. But if they made a change of something, then they just like any place else, then they would have to come under the new, not the new, but they would have to come under city code versus what was there before. Is that is that correct?

That's right. And you're getting at the messiness of the situation where if we didn't adopt the master sign plan, then all the signs there are there legally. And so they'd be grandfathered in. But as soon as someone wants to replace them, we'd say, no, actually, it needs to look differently than all the signs that are around you. It needs to meet city code. And that would be the mess.

Okay. Got it.

Okay. And then that's what would come to us that if someone wants to do something different, like Maxwell-Anderson. Yeah. Whatever. Okay. I just thought of that one.

Silly.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Do we have, this is like a public hearing, so do we have anyone from the public?

No, I guess next is the applicant.

Sorry. Okay. There is no applicant. We are the applicant. The city is the applicant. Okay, we got this. So the note we got, that's from Glenwood Meadows, but it's public comment. Okay. So is this the only public comment we have other than... That's all that I've received, yes, sir. Mr. Frail, are you here to talk about that? Okay. Okay. Then I guess it comes back to us to make a motion so we can discuss this. Commissioner Connerton.

Okay. Thank you so much, Watkins. So I move to recommend approval of Planning File CD8. 00038-2026 incorporating staff findings because the applicant meets the approval criteria for a code amendment. The proposed changes support have no impact on the comprehensive plan and other city policies. HAB-Juliette Boone, The proposed changes don't conflict the proposed with with other provisions of the code. HAB-Juliette Boone, Number three, the proposed changes are necessary to address a demonstrated Community need clear things up, thank you, and the proposed changes are necessary to respond to a substantial change in conditions and or policy. which is the expiration of the ADA and the proposed changes are consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code.

Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Connerton. Is there a second? I'll second that motion. Okay, there's a Motion and a second by Commissioner Corcoran. Okay, any conversation?

I'm just really interested in the whole window sign attached to the window. Do you have pictures of that? What are we talking about? Connie, hold on.

You're back on.

That's a great idea. I don't have a picture. I don't think of that. What are some good examples that we have?

I'll pull one up pretty quickly.

I think there's one.

Just search window signs and give them some examples.

Trying to think of other places in town. Hawaiian Liquid Art in the Meadows, they've got some window signs there.

Do they even share your screen?

Yeah, I will once we get it.

Would you get a good one to show?

Just ask Google AI. Yeah.

This is kind of what we're talking about.

So you were going to allow window signs, then?

We do already allow window signs, but there's a little bit of question of how much of a window is allowed to be taken up by a window sign, and this is going to give us clarity on that. Thank you.

Okay. Any other?

HAB-Juliette Boone, You look perplexed. But when we did that one approval and they were coming up with like ideas for HAB-Juliette Boone, Signs. They wanted to put in their windows over there at that hotel and there's a discussion around that about blocking and I don't know just aesthetics and how things are going to look and just how things could be crazy.

Okay. No more questions and let's call for the vote on approval of the motion. Commissioner Jones.

Yeah, sorry. I just want to follow up on the conversation that we had a couple of meetings ago about the illumination requirements that we had, like light curfew and everything like that. Does that apply to this or are they getting exempt? Because I see a statement in here about illumination standards. I'm just kind of confused where it overlaps with our code.

Yeah, so the master sign plan doesn't talk about like maximum lighting levels. It says that it talks about how certain signs may be illuminated, but it doesn't give any maximums and foot candles. It doesn't say that they have to be turned off at any certain hour. So this change will make it so that all the rules that we have citywide that you looked at before will apply out there in the meadows.

Perfect, thank you.

Okay, let's call for the vote here. Pass unanimously 7 to 0. Thank you. Okay. The next item is CDA zero.

Thank you. You'll give me just a moment. good evening commissioners chair waller this evening you're listening to a presentation for the consideration of planning file cda 3926 which contains proposed changes for right-of-way encroachment license section of our code the planning file is being listed this evening for consideration by you to amend that section 706050F right-of-way encroachment license. The role of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as you're well aware of, is to consider a recommendation to city council. The action item in front of you this evening is led by a staff recommendation for approval with findings outlined on page three through seven of the staff report. And by way of definition, a right-of-way encroachment essentially is the placement of a private item, something that is put from private property, oftentimes over a line or straddling the line into a city street sidewalk or other city property. And the process that we have is intended to be able to mitigate adequately the impacts of that encroachment. It can be anything from a permanent retaining wall or a temporary blade sign that you might see suspended over a downtown sidewalk. The code amendment approval criteria has five, items. One is that it must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other city policies. It cannot conflict with other provisions of the code or the provisions of the Glenwood Springs municipal municipal code is necessary to address a demonstrated community need is necessary to respond to substantial changes in conditions and or policy and is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this code. The reason for the changes in front of you this evening are all staff initiated. It is meant to modify the process that we have in place at this time to make it more efficient. It is not found to be a negative impact at all. shouldn't be heard. The considerations shall be or should remain restrictive and subject to utility and mobility needs, be more permissive and predictable in denser areas to include patios, canopy, signage, et cetera, and should be context-based. The first group of changes have to do with the administrative review and applicability section, and it just expands the types of items and issues that you might find within an encroachment, such as walls, retaining walls, foundations, buildings, lighting, and fencing. The second change deals directly with authority, taking the planning commission out and assigning solely city council at one point past where the director would be a reviewing entity and approval. The third group just manages and identifies a site plan as a substantial and acceptable submittal item. Four removes an error that I think has been longstanding, selecting planning commission as a reviewing and approving body. And the fifth group has to do with assigning an umbrella liability policy where in the past we have found that it most likely wouldn't be necessary because of the very slim nature or small nature of the negative impact. Such policy would most likely not be needed at all. Those are the changes in front of you. They seem benign, but trust me, when it comes to staff working with applicants, these are meaningful and helps identify and clarify the things that are brought up consistently. Of those five approval criteria, the analysis has indicated as the five that I read to you earlier, they all meet with a positive result and they do support the staff recommendation for any of the seating. It was the action in front of you this evening was posted correctly on the 15th and the 22nd of May 26 in the Glenwood Springs Post-Independent, and to date, no public comment has been received. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval, approval with conditions in denial of this set of code amendment amendments. The commission may also continue the hearing with a request for specific information to be held at a later date in hopes of you being able to make a decision. The action item in front of you this evening, the consideration amendment of right-of-way encroachment license has a staff recommendation, as I mentioned, that finds that it complies with the approval criteria in the listed code section right there therefore we recommend approval there as outlined in the suggested motion as follows and there's your motion the suggested findings if you find that you need an alternative i have them for you on this this last page and with that do you have any questions um thanks jim questions

Commissioner Helton.

Maybe this is a dumb question or too broad. Is the development code the right place for a right-of-way encroachment license to live? Why is it separate from the right-of-way permit in Title 90?

That's a good question. That's just where it lives today and where we propose the changes.

And is a right-of-way permit a temporary encroachment into the right-of-way?

No, it generally tends to be something that is permanent, but that the city has the authority to remove if we so need at some point in the future.

That's... So we're talking a right-of-way encroachment license tonight.

Right. So a right-of-way permit, you're correct. Is it more related to working in the right-of-way, temporary occupation of the right-of-way while you're doing work, completing your structure, or maybe you're installing a water line, a service line, something like that. All of that would fall underneath those temporary kind of... uses of the right-of-way by a private citizen versus this which is for a permanent structure that we may have to remove at some point if we choose to and you as a property owner have to fix whatever it is that we just tore out and then i mean practically speaking is this does every right-of-way encroachment license get referred to the city engineer I think in a lot of ways, it probably lives here because at the time that the city got around to doing these, it was the department that could handle and was used to processing permits as opposed to engineering or public works.

Okay.

Thank you. Yeah, we tend to get left with anything that involves also public notice, you know, or any sort of process related to public process. Yeah, so.

Commissioner Connaughton.

Just a quick clarification. So like on number five, I don't mind being cut out of the process. However, however, below it does say city council review and decision for some encroachments by saying review and decision is going to be at city council. Wouldn't it be for all encroachments? No, no, because this director be the other part.

Correct. And, and, and this was, you know, two, two fold one, the changes that you see in three, I'm sorry, not three, but three, it was two previously. That was just to clarify that, you know, encroachments that are elevated above grade, awnings, signs, things of that nature. We got feedback from city council as to why they were even considering those applications. And there was some confusion in that paragraph too, as to whether it was still required to be approved by city council if it was greater than one foot. So we tried to clarify that there by taking some of those things like awnings out of the second part of the paragraph so that it's clear that even if that is a projection greater than a foot, that staff has the opportunity to approve that. Now, we would always have the opportunity to push something up to city council if there was ever any concern at the staff level. And just to clarify, it's never been my experience anywhere that I've dealt with right-of-way encroachment licenses that a planning commission made a recommendation on those. I think really that was just something that was included, a copy and paste from when the code was revised in 2018 from other sections of the code where you do provide a recommendation.

Yeah. Thank you.

David Price- Mission of core current yeah i'm sorry I kind of new to this, how often does this happen, or how often are we dealing with this as a city like I guess i'm. David Price- I didn't understand when you said permanent you're not talking about fixtures you're talking about like awnings or signs or. David Price- restaurant like seating is that what you're referring to or.

David Price- No that's it that's a separate permit. David Price- Okay, even say. um, encroachments or I'm sorry, licenses, work permits. Um, I think we've done 12 or I'm sorry, two since I've been back to the city. Okay. Um, so it can be frequent. Um, but again, you know, things like signs, awnings, those are things that we want to do administratively at the staff level so we can process them and folks can, you know, open things like, uh, the, the, the new sandwich shop as quickly as possible.

Okay. Okay.

Commissioner Gaiman.

So I just want to build on the last two questions because we keep talking about awnings and things that are above level, but it clearly says also that the administrative review would be for grade level landscaping walls, retaining walls, foundations, buildings.

Less than one foot at grade.

Yeah.

Yeah. such as ours, that you'll have encroachments when surveying techniques were not as to the level that they are today. So when these occur, let's say someone comes in for a remodel permit, we notice this because we have an updated survey. We want to address that quickly. We want the city to have the ability to say, hey, if we ever need this space for a public use, we can take it if need be. and or if it's something that could fall into the right of way and damage public property, we want the ability to take an insurance policy that covers us for any damages.

Thank you.

Other questions? Okay. Any comments? I mean, you said there's nothing from the public. I don't see anybody online. No one is here. So I'll close public comment. So bring it back to the Commission for a motion and a second so we can discuss.

Oh.

Commissioner Gaiman.

Just to get the discussion.

I move to recommend approval of planning file CDA 000039-2026, incorporating staff findings on page three through seven in the staff report.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion. Commissioner Connaughton.

Second thought.

A second. Okay. Conversations, questions. Okay. Let's call for the vote. Okay, the motion carried unanimously. Thank you very much, Jim.

Thank you for your time this evening.

Okay. It's moving along very quickly.

Okay.

Commissioner comments. Kyle. Really? I have none. Okay, we all director.

It's all done.

Thank you. No comments. What about next meeting? We know two items.

Yeah, we certainly have two items next month. Nothing else that I'm aware of that's met the deadline for meetings. So pretty low on land use cases right now throughout this whole year, really. But it's good. It's given us the opportunity to bring forth some much needed code amendments and clarifications. Yeah.

okay any questions for director okay i guess we are adjourned boom seven o'clock