City Council - Regular Meeting

Here.

Swope.

Here. Wolfe. Here. Sproul.

Here. Do we have an approval of the agenda?

Mr. Mayor, I move that council approve the agenda as presented for September 8, 2026. I second.

Motion made by Lewis, seconded by Swope. Wolfe?

Yes. Randall? Yes. Lewis? Yes. Swope? Yes. Osborne? Yes. West? Yes. Sproul?

Yes. Moving on to item number two, which is our consent agenda. The listing under consent agenda is a group of items to be acted on with a single motion and vote. This agenda is designed to expedite the handling of limited routine matters by city council, either the public or council member may request that an item be removed from the consent agenda prior to council's vote. 2A, approval of meeting minutes from August 25th, 2026. 2B, approval of the expenditure list for September 8th, 2026. 2C, approval of two special event permits to Fundamental Needs Incorporated to host fundraiser events on September 13th, 2026 and October 23rd, 2026 from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. at 209 West Main Street in Cortez. Does any member of the public or council member wish to have any specific item removed from the consent agenda for discussion? Seeing none, I'll accept a motion.

I move that city council approve the consent agenda.

Second. Motion made by Randall, seconded by Lewis.

West. Yes. Swope? Yes. Osborne? Yes. Wolf? Yes. Randall? Yes. Lewis? Yes. Spruill?

Yes. Item number three is public participation. Individuals may not comment on items that are on the Consul General during the public participation time. There is no limit to the number of speakers, although public comments will be held to an overall time limit of 30 minutes. Speakers have a time limit of three minutes per person, may only speak once, and may not cede time to another commenter. Do we have anybody? I see none. We'll move on to item number four, which is presentations. For a proclamation declaring September as Suicide Awareness Prevention Month, we had three council members that wanted to have a proclamation. That was Council Members Wolf, Osborne, and West. And I believe Council Member Wolf would like to read that proclamation.

All right.

Suicide Awareness Prevention Month. Whereas suicide is a serious public health issue that affects individuals, families, friends, coworkers, and communities across the nation, and whereas every life lost to suicide leaves a lasting impact, and many more people experience the effects of suicidal thoughts, mental health challenges, or the loss of a loved one to suicide. And whereas suicide is preventable and increasing awareness, reducing stigma, encouraging open conversation and connecting people with support and resources can help save lives. And whereas mental health is an essential part of the overall health and seeking help is a sign of strength that should be met with understanding and compassion and support. And whereas, community organizations, healthcare providers, schools, employers, first responders, volunteers, and advocates work year-round to promote hope, resilience, education, and suicide prevention. And whereas, Observing Suicide Awareness Prevention Month provides an opportunity to honor those we have lost, support survivors of suicide loss, and recognize those with lived experiences. And whereas those who are experiencing or know anyone who is experiencing thoughts of suicide or mental health crisis are strongly encouraged to dial or text 988, the Colorado Mental Health Line, or visit www.988colorado.com.

I'll accept any motion for that proclamation.

I move to, oh sorry, I need to read the whole thing.

I move that Council authorize the Mayor to declare September as Suicide Awareness Prevention Month.

Second.

Motion made by Osborne, seconded by Lewis.

Randall? Yes. Osborne? Yes. West? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.

Swope? Yes. Wolfe? Yes. Sproul?

Yes. Now, therefore, I, Dennis F. Sproul, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Cortez City Council, as the mayor of the city of Cortez, do hereby proclaim the month of September as Suicide Awareness Prevention Month and encourage all residents to learn the warning signs of suicide and how to respond with care and to join communities across the country in recognizing September as Suicide Awareness Prevention Month. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September 2026. We'll move on to item number five, which is public hearings. 5A, ordinance 1374, series 2026. Staff will present an ordinance for second reading, making changes to various sections of the Cortez land and use code. Our presenter is Nancy Dotsdale, our contract city planner. Your mic's not on, Nancy. Try it again. Hello? There we go.

So I'm not going to be able to see it.

Yeah, let's do this instead.

Haven't had this happen in a while. I guess we'll just get started so tonight we have a number of different code amendments in front of you which If we can bring up the PowerPoint and I will show you, there's a number of different categories. Some of the amendments are due to changes in state statute since adoption of our code last year. And a lot of the changes are due to staff recognizing issues with the code as it was adopted and refining it to make it work better for all. So, and go from memory, the first set of changes, which are changes that were, that came about due to changes in state statute. You can put my, no, that's my email. They don't want that.

OK. Ready to go.

So as you can see from the slide up there, we've got three changes that have come about due to changes in state statute within the last year or so that the city was required to address in some way, shape or form. The green changes up there, which I'll go over in a little bit more detail, are changes that staff has come up with. And then the bright blue are also changes staff has come up with, but they're more prompted by the Historic Preservation Commission. So Helen's your expert on that. And if you have when we get to that, if you have questions, she's probably the better one to speak to. They're pretty straightforward there. So the first set of changes are due to the natural medicine, which was actually adopted not by the legislature, but by the voters of Colorado where they voted natural medicine in the city council. You adopted changes to your city code to address licensing for natural medicine businesses. And we need to reflect those changes in the land use code also because we did not have use use the use of natural medicine listed in our use table. So that first change they're showing would be to include two different types of natural medicine businesses into the land use table, the first one being the natural medicine healing centers. And those are like a doctor's office where natural medicine would be prescribed under a doctor's orders or a practitioner's orders. The changes to city code allowed those centers in the Central Business District in the commercial zone and in the industrial zone. It did not speak to whether they would be considered conditional or permitted uses in those zones. We took these, everything before you tonight through the code committee. resurrected our code committee and then to the Planning Commission and at this point the recommendation is that natural medicine healing centers would be a conditional use in the central business district and the commercial zone permitted in the industrial zone. Then the second type of land use with natural medicine is cultivators, manufacturers, and testers. Those are proposed to be conditional uses in the commercial zone and permitted uses in the industrial zone. As you recall, the legislation, the referendum, says that you have to allow natural medicine in your community, you can't disallow it, but you can put reasonable measures on. City code does that now, but we also had it included in the lane use table should that use be proposed. Along with doing that, we also had to include definitions. Those definitions will be included to define what natural medicine is, what a healing center is, and what the cultivation facilities, product manufacturing, and testing are. And then we want to keep it simple and make sure that we don't have future discrepancies between city code and the lane use code. So as far as use standards, it basically references you back to city code. Any questions? I'm going to run through all these changes, so please ask questions before you open it up for public comment. The next set of changes here were due to the wildfire resiliency code that was recently adopted by the city. Mostly these are changes to the building code. We also wanted to make sure that there weren't any conflicts with the building code or provisions of wildfire resiliency in the land use code. So we did add a new section that's 505 to H5, which is in fencing. And we wanted to make it clear that with fencing, if your property was within the wildland urban interface area, You may have material prescriptions on your fencing. In other words, if you're in that area, you may not be able to put a wooden fence right up against your home. It may have to be fire-resistant material. And then we also want to make sure because the new landscaping code has requirements for planting and in some cases foundation planting that the wildfire resiliency code may prevent that in the case of a conflict that the wildfire code would rule. So you could ignore a provision in the landscaping requirement for say a foundation planting if you're in the wildfire or prescriptive area and it doesn't allow planting near your building. Does that make sense? Okay, we have two new, or 2024 and 2025, a House bill and a Senate bill that were intended to help With drought issues, so with preventing the planting of bluegrass type turf in the state in certain cases, this doesn't hold for single family homes or very small multifamily homes. projects but it does apply to city projects to commercial projects industrial and larger multifamily projects so because of those prescriptions well wait there's another section that also regulates let's say astroturf or artificial turf and i think they did that because they're restricting natural bluegrass turf they didn't want people to replace it just with artificial turf due to the heat island effect of using that so we've got both a house bill and a senate bill that prevent that it required us to make some changes to our landscape code And to make definitions of all of the turf up there, including The major difference up there is between functional turfs and non-functional turfs. And the functional turf definition is things, got some photos up there, things like football fields, soccer fields, play fields, that would be a use of either functional natural turf or functional artificial turf. Then turf that's sort of decorative or just used for landscaping purposes would fit the definition of the non-functional turfs. We had to make a number of different changes to the landscaping regulations to make sure that we're addressing those. I've only got one of them up there as an example. But for example, so with the red line there, because turf was used, but now it might have different definitions. We eliminated that and changed it to plant varieties, minimizing the use of high water species. And then we had to say that in no case, non-functional turf or non-functional artificial turf be allowed for projects other than single family homes or very small multifamily developments. So that's the kinds of changes that went into the landscaping to make sure we're not conflicting with those new state legislation. Okay. Okay, this one's been tougher for everyone. So the new land use code included a new provision addressing infill of sidewalks. So see that photo up there? We have a lot of cases in the city where an undeveloped parcel doesn't have a sidewalk in front of it. um when people can we have a lot of places in the city where sidewalks are substandard to current ada they're three feet wide in a lot of places in the city five feet is the new ada prescriptive requirement okay We did have people coming in to build a new home with three feet on either side of them that were pretty concerned with having to put a five foot sidewalk to fill that gap. Kind of makes sense. It feels a little overkill. But ADA, the requirement is five feet. So they thought it was a good idea to put in the new land use code an exemption there that said, hey, if there's three feet on either side of you, you can infill with three feet. after rethinking that with some input from our new public works director there was concern that we should not be allowing people to build a substandard sidewalk at any time in the city so the suggestion now is to eliminate that require people to put in five feet even if you have three feet on either side of you

In your noted said that the planning Commission voted 3 to 2 and and was this the issue that was the the largest concern of all the ones that we're about to address.

I would say this was an issue. This was one of the major concerns at least one planning commissioner had a concern with the natural medicine. And this was probably the other most difficult issue. Yeah.

Well, and that plan to make it five feet, I mean, if you go back to allowing the three feet, you'll never, ever in that neighborhood get up to ADA compliance. Right. I mean, it would just continue.

Without the city going in and spending city tax dollars to redo the whole area, no. I mean, you may not anyway, a lot of it's infill and most of the city is developed. I also have a photo here I pulled off of Google Earth to show in some cases how it can jump around and how that can work or not work. But in this case, because it looks like the three foot sidewalks were separated from the road and they put the five foot attached, it fills in fairly easily.

Thank you for addressing our concerns and and Councilmember Lewis I think you have a good point about if you don't start somewhere then you're not going to start but I think the thing that needs to be considered here is that in there was some talk of it being mandatory in new developments, right? So that going forward, any new development would require five foot. But the recommendation was even in the old developments, you're going to have one with three foot on one side, one with three foot on the other, then you've got five. I would ask someone, whether it would be the Public Works Defender who moved forward to have all of these put through it, five in the replacement ones, to tell us the cost of the construction. I mean, I get the understanding for moving forward on new developments, but I don't understand the benefit of having patchwork and putting this added expense upon homeowners who are in older homes and making a sort of a patchwork look of things. I don't know that the city is going to incur any retaliation or bad effects from this. But if you could maybe just talk about that and the justification, because we have a lot of city sidewalks now that are in need of repair at three foot. And if we even increase the cost more to make it five foot when they couldn't pay for three foot, I mean, it doesn't make sense. So can you talk to us about that and give us your justification for that, please?

Yeah, sure. I think the most visible example would be the concrete cost share. So, for example, residents might, every year a certain amount of residents come in and want their sidewalks replaced. Well, If we were to continue to allow this three-foot existing infrastructure to go back in, to Nancy's point, you'll have these inholdings of three feet that never go anywhere, whereas as we have this concrete cost share program replacing sections of concrete kind of like a puzzle, you hope to one day have a full length of sidewalk which a person in a wheelchair could effectively use. it is a long-term vision so I understand like in in the short term it does seem like it will be patchwork II for sure but the long-term goal would be that we move towards having consistency across the board and we do see sections where we are starting to link together these new five-foot with stretches through the cost share program for sure. And sidewalks with our downtown treescape, they're getting replaced fairly frequently actually. And so I don't think it's that far out that we'd have more five foot consistency across the city in many areas.

Councilmember, I might add to that. Sidewalks, the city liability under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act exempts sidewalks. So if there's an injury on a sidewalk, the city can be liable. It doesn't have immunity. And to the extent the city is participating through the concrete cost share program, in replacing those sidewalks. Someone may interpret that as it's a city-owned sidewalk and if there's a damage, somebody gets injured and the city purposely constructed a non-ADA compliant sidewalk, I think it opens us up to potentially more liability for failure to comply with ADA.

So what I'm hearing is in our concrete cost sharing program, if someone is participating in that, we are participating in that because we're sharing the cost that even though if we're requiring five foot sidewalks, that would increase the cost to the homeowner who's doing it or to the property owner. But it may decrease our liability since we are a, quote, partner and say in helping build this. Thanks for the clarification on that, Councillor. Can you please tell me what percentage of current sidewalks in Cortez are five feet?

I'd have to look that up. We do exciting news. Almost all the sidewalks are now logged in OpenGov, and so I can actually look that up rather quickly. But I don't have my computer here right now, so I'll have to get back to you on that.

Does this apply to historical properties as well?

I guess it would. Yeah.

Yeah.

Is there a technical or engineering basis that we should defer to or is this a values judgment for council to make?

Well, it's.

I mean, the states, it's the ADA.

Yeah, it's ADA code. So do you mean should we should our land use code Write that in.

What I'm really asking is as we discuss the merits of this, the ADA seems to be a One way to read this requirement, is there another technical or engineering basis that we could make this judgment off of instead of deferring from our own personal biases and judgments? For we are trying to act on the best behalf of the city as we possibly can.

I could look up to we are in the process actually in the coming year looking to be updating our building codes I could see what the building codes say my guess is that the ADA pulls from the building codes but I could confirm that for you and there's an international code book that most roads and sidewalks pull from so it's not like very different from state to state or city to city

Yeah, I guess I would say the five foot has engineering practice and best practice behind it. Three foot does not.

Thank you.

The ADA does so it doesn't mandate 5 feet, but if you don't have 5 feet, it requires. 5 feet turn turnarounds to allow competing users enough space every 200 feet. It recommends 5 feet. And it it doesn't require that existing. substandard sidewalks all be replaced. So it's more a matter of requiring new installations, whether they be replacements or new development to be compliant.

Move on. Okay, the next one is fairly simple. One of our communications providers actually suggested this in that should a new subdivision go in the requirement would be to add in an extra conduit it helps promote competition and should new technology come into play it's already in place so it doesn't add very much cost with a new subdivision and definitely saves quite a bit in the future Okay, carports. You've heard a little bit about carports lately? Somehow, the design, the only design standards that are left in our land use code apply to carports. Not really sure how that stayed in, but I think you've seen a couple of carports recently come through. And the requirement here is that if you wish to build a carport into your front setback area, which where most people put a carport you can do that you can encroach into a setback if you apply for a conditional use permit these standards all the ones that are up there are in place they require that the carport be constructed in such a manner as to appear a part of the original construction of the principal structure we there's a lot of carports in the city and Very few, if none of them, meet that standard. So when people come in, it's pretty hard to explain to them why they would have to do that. The next standard says the materials are compatible with the materials used in the principal use. And again, that's super hard to define. What does compatible with that mean? So we're suggesting taking that out. The carpet must meet side yard setbacks. Well, if it doesn't, they'd have to get a variance or deviation from the code. So we're suggesting that come out. And then the last one is just having the staff reviewed at building permit to make sure the building materials meet the above standards. So that's what this change is all about. Just trying to be a little match what's actually happening in the city and what people are actually wanting to do. Questions? Okay, parking lot lighting. This one was interesting, we had a contractor designing some lighting for city softball field they looked at this new standard of five lumens and said well you don't want me to do that that's ridiculous it's way too bright we went and looked up at the some standards and from what we found here they were absolutely right and you can see there the I gotta remember the name of the lighting, illuminating engineering society recommendations, which I pulled here off of their standards off the internet. They had high security being five foot candles and lumens are basically the same thing. It's depending on where the source is coming from and what it looks like on the ground. But five lumens, which was the new requirement in our new code, is the highest standard they had and equates to a high security situation. So we recommended pulling that down to one Foot candle, which is it's on the low end of standard commercial and recommending that that be the minimum and that people actually not exceed that by more than 10%. And also keeping the light shall not trespass on adjoining residential areas.

So lowering the lighting standards. So what I'm understanding, help me get this. So what I'm understanding is that it'll be at a minimum of one, a minimum of one, that they can go up to as high as five if they're in a, or is it a minimum of one?

Well, they could go up to 5.5 if it was a high security situation.

Okay, so it's a minimum of one, but they can go to five based on what their parking lot is used for. Right. Thank you.

What does lighting shall not trespass on adjoining, what does that mean?

So if you have a parking lot next to a single family home, you don't point the light at the home. You should point it down, shield it, so that the home is not adversely lit up. It is hard to prove one way or the other, But we do occasionally get complaints about that kind of thing. Setback exceptions. All right, this one gets fun to explain. We did notice when reviewing building permits that the new code did not provide what are common of allowing encroachments into a setback. um the examples there of eaves etc normally are exempted or allowed to encroach slightly into a setback the reason for that is think about it when you come in with your building permit you show to the foundation the building inspectors measure from the foundation to the property line. And then it's like, oops, but there's an Eve that pops out over there. I've got a little illustration here. It's not from Cortez's code and it's not exact, but it shows the kinds of encroachments that are very common when you're building. So you can see there that the line goes the The vertical line goes up from the foundation and the eave comes off, extends beyond that setback line. That's pretty common. Porches sometimes would encroach into a setback. Decks often encroach and there's a bay window in this example that In this case, wouldn't encroach, but let's talk about that. So going back, we took this to the code committee, talked through all the types of encroachments. The first two are actually setback exceptions that we want to make clear. You can put a fence in your setback. Otherwise, you could not put a fence up to your house if you were trying to enclose a backyard, for example. Retaining walls often if you were building it on a hill you'd have to have a retaining wall say in your front setback or your rear setback so again as long as they meet building code or other provisions of the code those were recommending the exceptions and then encroachments we've got the list there awnings and canopies and So without supports, I'm going to go back to my illustration. Like I said, this is in Cortez. I just didn't want to have to do a whole drawing. But in this case, this wouldn't apply because there is a... a pole there so that there is a support bay windows and this is in here in the cove what's proposed to allow to encroach into the setback okay so awnings three feet bay windows two feet chimneys three feet Decks, porches, this gets a little confusing. The Planning Commission did change this from the Code Committee suggestion. So the suggestion here is that decks, porches, or patios, which are not covered, could encroach three feet, as long as they're low, not the upstairs ones, could go three feet into the setback. Although patios, we accepted from that because of course a patio is on the ground. And it states that patios could go to the property line as long as drainage does not trespass onto neighboring properties. So you got to design your patio so it won't... shed right onto your neighbors if you're going to put it right up against the property line. Eaves could go three feet and any stairways, fire escapes also three feet. So we go back to that illustration. You have to remember the numbers, but those in this example, the upstairs open deck would not allow to to encroach into the setback. You can still have one, just not add one onto a house that's right on the setback line, okay? Does that make sense to everybody?

Okay. I'm just wondering why no awnings with support, because I see a lot of covers that go over a front entrance, and I know awning's not the correct term, gable,

maybe I don't remember what they're called but they'll go over the entrance and then they have the support beams so no no one thought those would be okay no you could change it but yeah there was and these are encroachments into the setback so you can have an awning with the support you just have to move it all to comply with the setback And then the big exception is carports. If you get a conditional use permit, you can have those. So you might think about that. This is open to change. The planning commission changed it on you. The code committee had it with allowing decks to go to and porches to actually go to the property line, so. They felt like that was overkill and it would encroach on a neighbor's privacy to have it that close, which seems reasonable. Okay, the very last one, we made it, is historic preservation. These are changes suggested by the Historic Preservation Commission. I've got them kind of listed there. And if you have questions, I'm gonna bring Helen up to talk through them.

I have a question maybe before Helen. I'm sorry. Hi, Helen. I don't have a question for you, but I do have a question for, and I'm not sure if you want me to ask it now or later, but it's in regards to landscaping and screening. There were some changes in that. Are you okay with me bringing that?

Jumping back? Sure.

Yeah. So that would be section 5.06, landscaping and screening under D. Okay. 5.06 landscaping and screening on page chapter five, page 516. Okay. So I'm assuming that it's in red that we're making changes under D and it says the following weeds and undesirable plants are prohibited from being planted or allowed to remain in the city of Cortez. You have a list of four of them. It's not that I'm disagreeing or agreeing with any of them, I get it. But under D, under four, it says all other undesirable plants. Now, I'd love for somebody to give me a list of what an undesirable plant is and how we're going to begin to enforce this.

There is actually a list already that the city maintains.

So do we have a list in code now about undesirable plants that we're not going to allow?

It's not in the code. It's in a separate document.

Believe and the city attorney can correct me or our public works director, but undesirable plants are listed in the city code I believe I think one of them is that I don't know how to say a lot of them are what we consider noxious weeds right and there are three that I believe are listed in that code and

Yeah, we have three here, the leafy spurge, the Russian knapweed, and diffuse knapweed, spotted knapweed.

Those are the listed undesirable plants.

But it says all other undesirable plants is number four, and I was kind of curious where the list of undesirable plants is. We've got tamarisk like crazy all over the city, and if any plant should be undesirable, that would be one I would think should be on the list. But, uh, I just, I just want this to be easily enforced. Um, if my plant, if my neighbor plants Tam risk and I don't like it, how do I say, look, this is a undesirable plant or how do I prove it? Or how do we enforce it? I mean, let's just, I'm just bringing that up to have some discussion about how this works.

I'll let our contract city planner speak, but I also think that in our discussions that was item four might have been to, in case you wanted to list Tamarisk, if that was changed, but it was a way to add that in another document so that you could point to that other document. But right now, as you said, there's no listed Tamarisk. And I think our contract city planner has a...

I can't promise I'll have to look it up and if maybe during public comment I'll look it up in city code but we do believe it's in city code under weeds and property maintenance I'm not point I'm not picking on a tamas right now specifically but I'm just saying some place to make this easier if we're gonna list for why are we not listing the 40 or whatever or if why don't we just make all undesirables and refer to that list kind of mixing mixing and matching just a question those are mandatory control those four that are listed throughout the state as not just weeds so

So our our city code. Under chapter 12. That's the garbage refuge and weed section. Under 12 dash 9 a subparagraph a. It defines undesirable plants as. Russian spotted and diffuse napweed and leafy spurge are declared to be undesirable plants To be controlled in accordance with this section, so it's it's it's three plants that are specifically identified You know it might to avoid any confusion perhaps we we title that and all other undesirable plants identified in the city code or something like that but we just have three in the city code

change that and if you change that to add whatever they are this would automatically control it just seems like a bug because they both reference a list of undesirable plants and then there is no list of undesirable plants so I agree it's it's kind of confusing and seems unhelpful

Okay. I mean, we can take that off. This was another one that was in the statute with the turf, et cetera. So we put that in there with the state's wording.

So could we use the state's wording for, or like referencing the state's list of undesirable plants? Just so that it ends that bug of just like cycling through.

Right now we wanted to match Cortez City Code. They might be different for Cortez than they would be for other communities in the state, given the differences in elevation and vegetation, et cetera. So I think it's more important to be specific and match with Cortez City Code. Right now it matches, although that other undesirable is extra and it doesn't have a meaning.

That is correct. So it sounds like we need to adjust the city code to be more specific. And this would, the land use code would reflect the, I'm just muttering now, sorry.

Yeah, no, you're right. If you changed city code to add more plants to the undesirable list, then this would have meaning and they would match.

Yes I would recommend under D number four where it says all other undesirable plants that you add as defined in city code. And that way if additional ones other than those three are identified in city code for some reason. We don't have to amend the land use code. It would already include them, but it because that is kind of a generic all other. I mean, as defined by whom? I mean, I may have weeds that I think are undesirable that you grow on purpose. So unless you tie it to a definition in the city code.

Can I add something about that? Our code enforcement has a list of undesirable plants and weeds and officially it might be in the property maintenance code, I'm not certain, but I'd hate to limit it to just what's in the city code because we have other adopted codes that list undesirable plants.

you can add those and so all other undesirable plants as identified in city code or other applicable international codes adopted by the city or something to that effect i think we need consistency whatever it is so if there is

I've never heard of the maintenance code. Do we have such a thing?

We adopted, if you'll recall, it was probably maybe six months ago, a series. Remember Sean brought in like a cart full of a stack of different codes and it's the international building code the international fire code and uh... the international property maintenance code is one and that's that's what they use when they go out and enforce these weed regulations and it changes periodically as we know that's why we had to adopt new ones but about every maybe five years they change I don't know that the specific weeds identified change every five years, but I Just think that in the land use code or at least in the land use code or the city code We should make reference to the other code so that we don't have to change both of them if the list changes

I just think it's real important. It's a one-shot place I mean we don't want to be bouncing everywhere to find out what kind of weeds or if our neighbor is has a weed we want to find out is that a bad weed and we have to go four or five or six different places to find out if it's a bad weed I think we ought to be able to go to one place and find it me may I make a suggestion that we find we determine what the

Holy Grail is of undesirable weeds, whatever that list is, whether it's put out by the state or State Department of Agriculture or whoever it is for our area and reference that. And I do believe, Councilor Coleman that there was some list of noxious weeds and plants we didn't want to have and it was it was a specific list at one point in time when when the land use coast first came out I and I remember reading the name of it I just can't think of it right now but we should have some references that we can go to and say this is what the state of Colorado says for our elevation or the whoever the The expert is on it. That's putting this out. We just need we just can't say anything undesirable I just want a reference in here somehow or another Is that clear as mud Yes

I was leaning toward all other undesirable plants as defined in city code or as otherwise adopted by the city. So if we adopt a handbook or guide or new plants that would cover it.

So the property maintenance code doesn't use the term undesirable. They use the term noxious. And they just says, noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants, and vegetation other than trees or shrubs. And then it goes into a... Let's see. And excludes cultivated flowers and managed gardens, which are not considered weeds. So it's even less specific. It's kind of, you know it when you see it, basically. I suppose somebody could grow weeds, as long as they're not noxious weeds, and I think there are you know, biological definitions for those, but there may be undesirables that are not noxious. And as long as you're not growing them on purpose in a cultivated garden.

It seems at this point, maybe to move it forward, we delete the undesirables.

The wording you just said earlier sounded pretty good, and everything in our website refers to noxious weeds, which then refers to the county's noxious weed list, which then refers to the state's noxious weed list. So that seems somewhere.

Nancy, could you repeat that again, what you suggested prior to?

All other undesirable plants as defined in city code or otherwise adopted by the city.

Can we change the undesirable part to noxious weeds or noxious plants?

The three listed are the noxious. I think you've got noxious covered. Sorry.

I don't have any problem with that terminology.

So what I'm hearing is undesirable plants as determined by the city and noxious weeds.

Yeah, so you would have to adopt a guide. I think there is one somewhere. I think so too. Yeah, here's the noxious weeds and here's the undesirables.

I'm good with that.

Okay, sounds good. I have one question. I hate to belinger this, but if I build a brand new motel and I want a place for the doggies to go, I can't put artificial turf there?

Well, that would be debatable as to whether or not it was functional turf. I think maybe a dog park might be defined as functional turf. Functional artificial turf. Let me get that right. Yeah.

This is second reading. So is there anybody in the audience that has any comments that they would like to make? Any further questions from council?

I would like to see changed wording for the setback exemptions for the canopy and awning. I think that it should be OK that they have posts. The setback exemptions for the canopy and awnings The wording specifically said without posts and I don't see any reason why they can't have posts In fact, it seems a little safer, right? I mean Brackets do amazing wonders but I have seen a lot of houses throughout Cortez that they do have the awnings or the canopies with posts and I don't I guess understand the problem behind those and I don't see why we should exempt those and

Any comment, Nancy, on that?

So I would just say on that 5A, awnings and canopies, and just remove that without supports is my recommendation.

YOU KNOW, AS I THINK OF WHAT COUNCILMEMBER OSBOURNE IS SAYING MAKES SENSE, BECAUSE ON MANY OF THOSE to the ground. I mean some of them are are so long so is it is it a safety issue. I mean I to see that long bracket being is vulnerable to run into as as as opposed so I I would agree with that change.

We're only talking about 3 feet and if you look at the example drawing. You know, so that would allow this, the way this example's done, as long as that was not to exceed three feet, you could have a front post. It makes it look nice.

So I think the important part about what you're saying, Nancy, is that these awnings or whatever, can't, that's three feet into the setback, not total. Correct.

So if you put one on your front window or your front porch, it could have a post to support, even though your house is sitting on the setback line. Three feet. Yeah. Three feet. No more than three feet.

Yeah.

Nobody else from the public has any comments? No, they don't. We're gonna close it to the public comment. Go on to the city council. Did we resolve your question or your concern?

I don't know.

I think she grabbed it. Did you discuss the historical portion of it?

She had the list of the summary, the overview of changes on the board. I can go over them. Most of them are just grammatical or clarifying. They're really, I think the biggest change was we moved, oh, and you're gonna bring it back up for them to see maybe, maybe not. The biggest change was we moved the alteration of historic signs to be directly underneath the alteration of historic buildings And in front of demolition and we added the mission statement for the board. I was like the biggest things The most changes we changed community to the word the city to be very specific about what we're talking about and we changed So in the national, we are not becoming the national council is allowed to decide on local designations, but in the national registry, they list five types of structures. So district site, building structure, and object. IN OUR ORIGINAL LAND USE CODE, WE LISTED SOMETIMES BUILDINGS, SOMETIMES WE LISTED STRUCTURES, SOMETIMES WE SAID BUILDINGS AND OBJECTS. SOMETIMES WE SAID BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. SO WE JUST CHANGED IT TO BE CONSISTENT AND SAY DISTRICT SITE BUILDING STRUCTURE AND OBJECT BECAUSE THOSE COME FROM THE NATIONAL DEFINITIONS.

Did you say that they changed their mission statement?

They never had one. So they have one now? They have one now. And do you have that in front of you? Give me a moment to switch screens and I can read it for you. I think the public would like to hear it. The Cortez Historic Preservation Board is dedicated to protecting and preserving Cortez's historic and cultural resources, increasing public appreciation of the area's rich history, and harnessing our unique heritage as a driver of economic prosperity.

Okay, I closed the public comment for the other portion. Does anybody have anything for the historical? portion of it. No council. Do you have any questions.

So Mister mayor just to confirm you're making one amendment to the code revisions as presented and that's to eliminate the supports on the awnings is that.

So I guess if somebody is going to make a motion, make

The setbacks is in 2.0358. And then April, I don't know if you have.

The number on the weeds is 5.06 D, under D, to change the wording from all other undesirable plants to all other undesirable and noxious plants as listed in city ordinances and to be determined by the city reference, yeah. Something like that.

Okay, let's give this a shot here. I move that city of council approve on second reading ordinance 1374 series 2026 an ordinance approving revisions to the Cortez land use code as set forth in the ordinance with the following amendments. 5.0, excuse me, let me go back, 2.035A to allow posts in the setback and 5.6D, which will state undesirable weeds as defined by the city.

I second.

Motion made by Lewis seconded by Wolf.

Osborne. Yes. Swope. Yes. Lewis.

Yes.

Wolf. Yes. West. Yes. Randall. Yes. Spruill.

Yes. Moving on to number six, which is unfinished business. We have none. Seven new business. 7A, ordinance number 1376, series 2026. Council will consider approving on first reading ordinance number 1376, series 2026, an ordinance approving the Garland House building located at 120 East North Street for historic designation and to include this property on the city register of historic resources. Presenters Helen West, our community economic development

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 1376, SERIES 2026, AND TO POTENTIALLY SET FOR A SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2026, WHICH IS THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. I WILL NOT GO OVER THE POWERPOINT THAT I HAVE CREATED TO DESCRIBE THIS PROPERTY UNTIL THE SECOND READING. SO JUST IF YOU HAVE A COUPLE Otherwise, it's a first reading.

That's perfect. Does anybody have a question? We're going to hit you up on the second reading, but thank you very much. All right, thank you.

I move that the City Council approve on first reading ordinance number 1376, series 2026, an ordinance approving the Garland Home Building located at 120 East North Street for historic designation and to include this property on the City Register of Historic Resources and set for second reading and a public hearing on September 22nd, 2026. Second.

Motion made by Osborne, seconded by Wolf.

Lewis.

Yes.

Wolf. Yes. Randall. Yes.

Swope.

Yes.

Osborne.

Yes. West. Yes. Sproul.

Yes. We're going to move on to item 7B, request for authorization for the mayor to sign an LPC grant contract amendment with the state of Colorado. Consideration of a request for authorization for the mayor to sign a state of Colorado grant agreement modification. Amendment number two to LPC grant amendment. LPC 24-006, accepting $50,000 in supplemental funding from the Department of Local Affairs. Our presenter is, welcome back, Rachel Marchbanks, Director of Community and Economic Development.

Greetings, Mayor and Council. This is really just a housekeeping measure. The state wants to give us money, and we want to accept it. Back in 2024, we opted in to Proposition 123, which is a state-funded housing program, which allows the city and other entities in the city to qualify for some housing money, including land banking, equity investment, concessionary debt financing, home ownership assistance, homelessness initiatives, and local planning capacity. So we've benefited some from that with a local planning capacity grant, which has helped us move forward some of the city's housing goals in the housing needs assessment and the housing action plan, including the project that we're looking at moving forward with, which is Park Village on 7th. Anyway, one of the requirements of Prop 123 is that the city needed to put in code and in policy a fast track process. And they sweetened the deal a little bit, that if we did that by December 31st, 2025, they would give us an additional $50,000 to put towards, our housing initiatives. We completed that, if you recall, in November of 2025. So we fast-tracked the fast-tracking initiative, and so DOLA, it made us eligible for a $50,000 grant, which we accepted, we went through the process, we got a letter from the mayor at the time, but then DOLA actually asked us if we could hold off receiving the money until their fiscal year turned over because they wanted to prioritize some of the other communities that didn't already have an LPC grant. So we agreed to wait and we got a contract from them which was reviewed and okayed by the city attorney and now we just need your official permission for our mayor to sign the official amended contract.

Many times we ask questions that we already know the answer to and this is that question. Do we have to match any of that $50,000 or pay back any of that $50,000?

no there is no match and we do not have to pay it back as long as we use it as as intended council have any questions thank you welcome back thanks

Mr. Mayor, I think this is pretty straightforward as Ms. Marchbanks presented. And this is going to help us continue with our 7th Street project. So with that, I move that city council authorize the mayor to sign the grant agreement amendment number two to project LPC-24-006, ACCEPTING $50,000 IN SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS.

SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY LEWIS, SECONDED BY SWOPE. RANDALL. SECOND WAS RANDALL.

WOLF? YES. OSBORNE? YES. WEST? YES. RANDALL? YES. LEWIS? YES. SWOPE? YES. SPRUILL? YES.

Yes. Moving on to item 7C, new application for a fermented malt beverage and wine liquor license. Set a public hearing date and neighborhood boundaries for a new fermented malt beverage and wine liquor license for UPOP Holdings, LLC, DBA, Gopher, store number 49, located at 2410 Fairway Drive, Cortez. Our presenter is Daniel Wells, our city clerk.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, this application was filed in the clerk's office on August 14th. This is for a new application for fermented malt beverage and wine liquor license. If council recalls, this applicant previously applied for a transfer of license application. When that was approved by the state or the city, we sent it off to the state and the state had more requirements for that application. And instead of finishing out the application, UPOP Holdings, the applicant withdrew their transfer and has now since applied for a new application. So it's a little complicated, but it was just a lot of paperwork issues. And so now here we are, they're asking for a new liquor license. As part of the liquor license process the council has to set a public hearing and review all the application the petitions and any other Comments from the public as well as law as well as any needs and desires of the neighborhood and the Suitability of the licensee normally Any licensee or owner of more than 10% of a liquor license would need to have a background check and fingerprint process completed. In this case, and that's done through the city, through CBI and the FBI, but in this case, this applicant has more than five liquor licenses throughout the state. that lets them have a master file holding and so we as the city do not have their fingerprints on file but the state does and the state has given their recommendation or their approval thus far as far as the master license goes so today we're asking for a public hearing to be set and that the neighborhood boundaries be set as city limits for the application for the new fermented malt beverage and wine liquor license

Can I just ask two quick questions? The transfer was because of new ownership?

Yes, the previous establishment was sold to UPOP Holdings. And so that sale has been done, but the liquor license transfer, that was never completed. So the business, they're not selling wine or beer or any malt beverage at this point. They're not selling anything currently. There is not an active license for liquor on that property.

And I think I already know the answer to this question, but the neighborhood boundaries, I'm assuming that was already set with the previous license, so there's precedence to, or does that have anything necessarily to do with this?

Yeah, city code already, in city code we do establish, for liquor licensing, the neighborhood limits is the whole city. Like in larger cities, they can, There can be different in different locations in different municipalities. They can do like a five mile radius or a certain block radius. But for the city of Cortez in our code and historically, we've always done the city limits as the neighborhood.

I'll entertain a motion.

I move City Council set a public hearing date of Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026 for review of a new fermented malt beverage and wine liquor license for UPOP Holdings LLC DBA Gopher, store number 49, and set the neighborhood boundaries as the Cortez city limits. Second.

Motion made by Osborne, seconded by Wolf.

West. Yes. Swope? Yes. Osborne? Yes. Wolfe? Yes. Randall? Yes. Lewis?

Yes.

Sproul?

Yes. Moving on to item number eight is draft resolution ordinances. We have none. Number nine is city attorney's report. No report, Mr. Mayor. You're really getting on my good side. Number 10, city manager's report.

Yes, Mayor and Council, I do have a report for you this evening. However, in the interest of time, I'd like to file that with a clerk and have it posted on the website unless you think otherwise.

Be fine. City Council Committee reports.

Start down here.

Report.

Golf Course Advisory will meet this Friday, 7 a.m. at the clubhouse.

The Historic Preservation Board met September 1st, 2026. Of note is the fact that the CCC work on the CCC camp and that project that's been undergoing, they're going to have another presentation at the Sunflower Theater on Saturday, September 26th at 12 o'clock. Another interesting fact is that the Mana School, the school district has received a grant from the state's historic fund to move forward with a historic structural assessment or HSA in order to determine if they can If the building will work for, I believe their intended goal was affordable housing for teachers and the like. The Cortez Cultural Center is going to have a chuckwagon dinner on September the 12th. The Montezuma County Historical Society is having a Ute Mountain History presentation on Saturday the 19th at the museum. For everyone's information, this is the last year of the Lohr Foundation grants, which everyone might or might not be aware of, but I wanted to bring that up. And it looks like the Fundamental Needs Building, which is the old Pennington's and Samstown Furniture Building, is going to be applying for historic designation application. That's the second application we've received since the letters went out not too long ago. On the last note is that the historic tours have been a pretty big success, and they're going to continue into October the 3rd at this point, possibly until the 18th also. So that's it.

Parks and Rec will meet on the 17th, so I'll have a report after that.

MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11A, WHICH IS THE MAYOR'S REPORT ON OUR WORKSHOP. WE WERE ABLE TO VISIT THE AIRPORT TODAY AND IT WAS VERY INTERESTING AND WE ALL WALKED AWAY THERE WITH BRIGHT IDEAS. SO IT WAS VERY EXCITING. I LIKE THE FACT THAT CITY COUNCIL Getting out and viewing our parks and rec and our water and our airports and I think that's something council should do so we know what we're Looking at when we get requests from these people okay, we're moving on to 11b other board reports does anybody have anything burning I

No.

Number 12 is public participation. Individuals may not comment on items that are on the council agenda during public participation time. There is no limit to the number of speakers and overall time limit. Speakers have a time limit of three minutes per person. May only speak once and may not cede time to another commenter. Please reference, does anybody have any comments? Looks like all silly staff here except for. GO ON. NUMBER 13, OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS.

ANYTHING?

OKAY.

I'M READY FOR A MOTION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO ADJOURN.

SECOND.

MOTION MADE BY LEWIS, SECONDED BY WOOF.

Yes. Swope. Yes. Wolf. Yes. Lewis. Yes. West. Yes. Randall. Yes. Spruill.

Yes. I just want to tell the city staff real quick, guys, it is so great to look out and see all of you out here. It is fantastic. And I get more off the city staff. I should have done this during council. I get more out of the city staff meetings that you have than anything else. I think it's fantastic. And I've talked to the other council members, and they're all in agreement. So thank you, guys. Keep up the good work.