[PAGE 1]
AGENDA
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
NOVEMBER 18, 2025
Council Chambers, First Floor
101 W. 8TH STREET
6:00 PM
1 Attendance Instructions
A. This meeting is held in person as well as via Zoom.
Join at: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86380550264
Or Dial:719-359-4580,
253-215-8782 US (Tacoma) 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
Webinar ID: 863 8055 0264
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbEVpOzwHL
2 Roll Call
3 Receipt of the Minutes
A. August 26, 2025 Meeting Minutes
B. October 28, 2025 Meeting Minutes
4 Comments from citizens appearing for items not on the agenda
5 New Items
A. Housing Work Session
6 Commissioner Comments
7 Director Comments
8 Adjournment
Packet Page 1

[PAGE 2]
MINUTES
City of Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
August 26, 2025
Council Chambers, First Floor
101 W. 8TH STREET 6:00 PM
1. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners: Carolyn Cipperly, Amy Connerton, Pete Waller, John
Houghton, Gregory Cowan, Joy White, and Connie Geiman.
Also Present: Interim Community Development Director Tim Bergman, Senior Planner
Watkins Fulk-Gray, Long Range Principal Planner Jim Hardcastle, and City Attorney Karl
Hanlon.
2. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Cowan stated he will recuse himself from consideration of items 6.B
Planning File REZONE-000048-2025, Rezoning from Glenwood Springs Mall. There were
no other conflicts of interest.
3. Receipt of Minutes
a. July 22, 2025 Meeting Minutes
By hand vote, all members approved the minutes, with Commissioners Waller and
White abstaining.
4. Comments from citizens for items not appearing on the agenda
No public comment was offered.
5. New Items
a. Planning File SUP-000062-2025, Special Use Permit Marijuana Dispensary 2922
Glen Avenue
Senior Planner Watkins Fulk-Gray presented Action Item 1 and recommended approval
with findings and conditions outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner questions, comments, and staff responses included the following:
• Commissioner Connerton: How is this a legal nonconforming use when it is a new
Special Use Permit? Staff response: This is a continuation of the same use that
was lawfully operating. If the previous business had been required to get a Special
Use Permit when it was established, the Permit could have transferred with this
property. The mental health facility and school district facility that are now within
the buffer area moved there after the establishment of the retail marijuana use.
• Commissioner Connerton: Is there a regulation to negate the buffer area that was
changed in 2020? Staff response: The retail marijuana use was already there when
the vocational tech facility started. Similarly, a mental health facility moved in when
Page 1 of 7
Packet Page 2

[PAGE 3]
the retail marijuana business was operating, then failed, then a new business
moved in.
• Chair Waller: Does the City need to inform the school district about this new
business? Staff response: The marijuana business is obvious from Grand Ave., and
the school district must know it exists. The Green Dragon has not had any
complaints or issues.
• Commissioner Cowan: If a different business, not retail marijuana, occupied this
space, and then a retail marijuana business came back to the space afterward, how
would we deal with it? Staff response: That would be different.
• Commissioner White: Are all Special Use Permits transferable? Staff response:
Yes, unless the P&Z makes a condition saying that they are not.
• Commissioner Geiman: Who changed the buffer to 1,000 feet in 2020 and why?
Staff response: Staff response: Staff is unsure, but it may match State buffer
requirements.
• Commissioner Geiman: Is it important to keep mental health patients and
students away from marijuana? Staff response: The history of marijuana in
Colorado is interesting, and may be based more on how people feel rather than
data. The buffer in Glenwood Springs used to be 500 feet.
• Commissioner Connerton: Why did the Green Dragon fail and is there a
compatibility issue with the surrounding businesses? Are we limiting the
opportunity of other businesses? Staff response: Staff does not have any
information indicating that the Green Dragon failed. The landlord has the freedom
to select the tenants they want, and so the City is responding to what they are
requesting to do.
• Commissioner Geiman: Does the fact that the mental health facility does not have
a business mean that it is not caring for mental health patients? Staff response:
The issue is whether it is legally defensible to deny this permit. The other issue is
the fact that it moved into the buffer zone when a marijuana business was already
operating there.
• Chair Waller: Clarified that there is no Special Use Permit currently for the Green
Dragon.
• Commissioner Geiman: Was the school district notified about this Special Use
Permit application? Staff response: This application was noticed in accordance
with the regulations and the school district was not required to be noticed.
Applicant Comment:
The applicant’s representative, Sahil Patel, introduced himself and lives in Lakewood,
Colorado. They have done everything according to the rules, believes Glenwood Springs is
a phenomenal place to operate, and is seeking the Planning & Zoning Commission’s
approval to do so.
Page 2 of 7
Packet Page 3

[PAGE 4]
The owners, Alex and Andrew Levine, also introduced themselves online. They noted that
they are the same people who were behind the Green Dragon. They apologized for not
appearing in person.
Comments from the Public:
No public comment.
Commissioner Cipperly made a motion to approve Action Item 1 with findings and
conditions as written in the packet. Commissioner White seconded the motion.
Discussion after the motion included:
• Commissioner Connerton: She hopes that the store will make sure no students are
able to enter.
• Commissioner Geiman: She supports small businesses, but thinks the children
trump reasons to approve this business.
Commissioner Waller called the item to question. Motion passed unanimously with a vote
of 6-1.
Commissioner Cowan left the room for the next item.
b. Planning File REZONE-000048-2025, Rezoning from Glenwood Springs Mall PUD to
M1 - Mixed-Use Corridor, 51027 HWY 6 & 24
Long Range Principal Planner Jim Hardcastle presented Action Item 2 and recommended
approval with findings and conditions in the staff report, striking the need for #2 in the
conditions list and the two findings, c and d, as supplemented in the Staff Report: Rezoning
Criteria & Findings.
Commissioner questions, comments, and staff responses included the following:
• Is the Urban Development Authority collaborating on this at all? Legal response:
the UDA is still in existence but is not relevant to this conversation, it is a financing
tool.
• Are all parcels owned by the same individual. Staff response: No, there are six
different entities connected with this application.
• It looks like future projects would need to conform to many standards, though there
is ample parking, but is there a use or situation that would cause this to become a
problem. Staff response: The owners as they redevelop can only put forth any
project that can be accommodated by available parking.
• Can you clarify the purpose of the variance process vs. a rezoning to meet use
needs? Staff response: Staff would utilize other tools such as variances or Special
Use Permits to meet the needs of the applicant before considering a rezoning to
meet site needs.
• Would this rezoning increase the value of parcels and benefit the applicant? Can we
expect the owners to agree to what the parcels will be used for in the future? Staff
Page 3 of 7
Packet Page 4

[PAGE 5]
response: The management and adjustment of the value of a parcel when different
parameters are applied is not the intended function of the rezoning process of the
City and is market driven. The approval criteria of the Rezoning Approval Criteria in
this case have been met.
• Is rezoning parcel by parcel more efficient than a blanket rezoning? Legal
response: The historical PUD zoning was originally established while the parcel was
in the County decades ago. The purpose here is to accommodate how the
community wants to achieve growth through the influence of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Municipal Code based on public input years ago when these and other
driving documents and plans were initially approved.
• Does the Rezoning replace the PUD? Staff response: Yes the M1 district replaces
the PUD zoning as originally established.
• This proposal exceeds the 125% excess of parking allowed, how will this be
addressed? Staff response: Tall future redevelopment will address parking on a
use by use basis to maintain individual parking requirements are met.
• M1 zoning extends throughout the 6 & 244 corridor, where does this end and how
does it affect others uses on Mel Rey? Staff response: the M1 - Mixed-Use Corridor
district physically meets and supports the commercial zoning of the County along
Mel Ray, making the mall rezoning fully surrounded by commercially zoned uses.
Representing the GWS Mall Applicant, Jeff Peterson PE presented aspects of the
application, sharing how the applicant has met the rezoning criteria as set forth in the
Municipal Code, and the Comprehensive Plan.
Questions of the Applicant:
• Is there something bigger coming? Applicant Comment: There is no private master
plan, though residential components are not being considered at this time as the
lease with the tenant Ross limits this opportunity, and will be in place for quite some
time.
• Can you speak to the collaborative nature of the other tracts in the application and
their support of this request? Applicant Comment: We reached out to the other
four entities, only receiving limited feedback, none of it negative.
Comments from the Public
• No public comment was offered.
The Public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Connerton made a motion to approve Action Item 2 with conditions as
written in the packet, though striking the need for #2 in the conditions list and the two
findings, c and d, as supplemented in the Staff Report: Rezoning Criteria & Findings.
Commissioner White seconded the motion.
Page 4 of 7
Packet Page 5

[PAGE 6]
Discussion after the motion included:
• Commissioner White is encouraged to see this development in commercial hub in
Glenwood Springs.
• Commissioner Cipperly agrees with this extension and infill of M1 zoning makes
sense.
• Chairperson Waller agrees with this effort to revitalize this important commercial
hub.
Commissioner Waller called the item to question. Motion passed unanimously with a vote
of 6-0.
Commissioner Cowan rejoined the Commission for the remainder of the meeting.
c. Planning File #23-25 Code Amendment: Sidewalks
Senior Planner Watkins Fulk-Gray presented Action Item 3 and recommended no changes
to the Municipal Code, as described in the staff report.
Commissioner questions, comments, and staff responses included the following:
• Commissioner White: Explain how this works. If you’re putting in an ADU on a
street that has no sidewalk, would there be a sidewalk just in front of my house?
Staff response: Yes, if there were no fee-in-lieu. It would look weird, but there are
examples of gaps where the sidewalks now connect.
• Commissioner White: Where are the fees collected spent, and how does the fee-
in-lieu compare to market rate? Staff response: When you exclude site preparation
work, the five-foot residential sidewalks are very close to market rate. With eight-
foot sidewalks in commercial districts, the fee-in-lieu is under market rate even
without excluding site preparation.
• Commissioner Geiman: How expensive is the fee-in-lieu for a typical City lot?
Staff response: If a lot with a 50-foot street frontage were subject to this, it would
be $3,000.
• Commissioner Cipperly: There was an ADU project that was a corner lot that
incurred a fee of $8,000. There was also not a place to put a sidewalk. Those
streets should be on the exempt list. Recently those streets were paved, but they
did not put in sidewalks or curbs. Staff response: People sometimes do not know
where the right-of-way starts and their property ends, sometimes lawns are in
portions of the right-of-way.
• Commissioner Cowan: If things stay as they are, is there an opportunity for
property owners to appeal? Staff response: Yes, the process for that would be a
variance.
• Commissioner Cowan: What is the floor area opportunities in the pre-approved
ADU options that we might adopt in the future? Staff response: There are lots of
options.
Page 5 of 7
Packet Page 6

[PAGE 7]
• Commissioner Cowan: Has Staff looked at how pre-approved ADUs would work
with sidewalk requirements? Staff response: Pre-application conferences and
education are the best ways to do this. Also, the City’s new permitting software,
which requires some files for people to submit applications, is a way to make sure
requirements are not missed.
• Commissioner White: Currently, you’re not required to put in a sidewalk if you
build an attached ADU? Staff response: That’s right, except that if you build an
attached ADU by building an addition, it could still trigger the sidewalk requirement.
• Commissioner White: Was the direction from City Council to only look at
sidewalks and ADUs? Staff response: Their direction was to look at barriers to
building ADUs, and sidewalks can be one of them.
• Commissioner White: Could P&Z’s recommendation be for the City Engineer to
review the exempt list? Staff response: Yes, the way to do that would be in a
motion.
• Commissioner Geiman: Which areas of town need sidewalks? Staff response: A
lot of west Glenwood and some of south Glenwood.
• Commissioner Connerton: How many sidewalk gaps have been filled with the
current system? Staff response: Some sidewalks have been built, but Staff does
not have specific information.
• Commissioner Connerton: Could the P&Z consider different requirements for
different parts of town? Staff response: Staff would not recommend that. The
exempt list is based on streets that do not have sufficient right-of-way for sidewalks,
but walkability is important everywhere.
• Commissioner White: I would like to see a list of “priority areas” where the fee-in-
lieu funding is being utilized. It would be good for the City to find ways to allocate
funds toward walkability. Is there a list of areas where sidewalks would be put in
with the fee-in-lieu money? Staff response: Staff would have to check with Public
Works, but a current example of this is the Blake Avenue redevelopment.
Comments from the Public
There was no public comment.
Commissioner White made a motion to recommend amendment of the Municipal Code to
increase the threshold to 1,000 square feet, and to strongly recommend the City Engineer
revisit the exempt streets list.
There was discussion after the motion. Commissioner White stated that her intention is to
exempt all ADUs, but continue requiring sidewalks under the current rules for other types
of development.
Commissioner Cipperly seconded the motion.
Page 6 of 7
Packet Page 7

[PAGE 8]
Commissioner Houghton prefers to see a middle ground to completely exempting some
projects from the sidewalk requirements, such as a cap on the fee-in-lieu.
Commissioner Connerton agreed.
Commissioner White said she does not like that projects on some streets would cost more
than on others, because of the presence or absence of sidewalks.
Commissioner Connerton asked if all ADUs could be assessed the same fee. Fulk-Gray
said yes, but pointed out that it would increase the cost of some ADU projects where there
are already sidewalks.
Commissioner Houghton suggested a proportional fee based on the size of the ADU.
Commissioner Cowan asked if the streets tax cover sidewalks? Hanlon said that it does.
Chair Waller proposed some options for changes: a flat fee, a fee based on the size of the
project, or a 50% reduction for ADUs in the fee-in-lieu.
Commissioner Cowan said he favors Staff’s recommendation, because there is already a
way to apply for flexibility on the sidewalk requirement.
Commissioners White, Cipperly, and Connerton voted for a flat fee-in-lieu for sidewalks for
ADU projects, regardless of whether a sidewalk is present or not.
Two commissioners voted to set the fee-in-lieu based on the floor area of the project.
Commissioners Cowan and Geiman voted to maintain the current regulations.
All expressed interest in revisiting the exempt streets list.
6. Commissioner Comments
• Chair Waller welcomed Tim Bergman. He said Staff did a good job putting
everything together.
7. Director Comments
Acting Community Development Director Tim Bergman said that the new director, Trent
Hyatt, will be starting on September 15th.
8. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 10:09 PM.
Page 7 of 7
Packet Page 8

[PAGE 9]
MINUTES
City of Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
October 28, 2025
Council Chambers, First Floor
101 W. 8TH STREET 6:00 PM
1. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners: Carolyn Cipperly, Amy Connerton, Joy White, John Haughton,
Gregory Cowan, Patrick Corcoran, Connie Geiman
Also Present: Community Development Director Trent Hyatt, Senior Planner Watkins
Fulk-Gray, Senior Planner Emery Ellingson, Chief of Public Safety Joseph Deras, and
City Attorney Karl Hanlon
2. Comments from citizens for items not appearing on the agenda
No public comment was offered.
3. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest.
4. New Items
a. Planning File 25-25, Code Amendment Regarding Restaurant Drive-Through Use in
the Resort (RE) District
Senior Planner Emery Ellingson presented Action Item 1: Planning File 25-25.
Staff recommend approval with findings in the staff report.
Commissioner questions, comments, and staff responses included the following:
• Commissioner Geiman: Why were drive-throughs not allowed in the RE district? Staff
response: Staff explained that the previous code to 2018 did not allow drive throughs
in the RE Resort District and that barring any reason for changing it, that existing
prohibited use was carried forward. Staff also speculated that it was likely due to the
conditions at the time where drive throughs were primarily focused on fast food uses.
• Chair White: Is the recommendation to allow drive-throughs by Special Use or use-by-
right? Staff response: Staff confirmed that the recommendation was to add the use as
a Special Use and not as a use-by-right.
Chair White opened the item to public comments. No members of the public were present
for comment. Chair White closed the item to public comment.
Commissioner Connerton made a motion to approve Action Item 1 with findings and
conditions as written in the packet. Commissioner Cowan seconded the motion. Motion
passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0.
Page 1 of 4
Packet Page 9

[PAGE 10]
b. Planning File 50-25, Code Amendment Regarding Fire and Emergency Services and
Police Impact Fees
Director Trent Hyatt, Chief of Public Safety Joseph Deras, and the City’s consultant, Dr.
Michael Verdone, presented Action Item 1: Planning File 50-25.
Staff recommend approval with the findings outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner questions, comments, and staff responses included the following:
• Commissioner Houghton: Asked questions related to the future location of the fees in
the Development Code, how the draft fees were calculated, tourist related
impacts/costs. Staff response: Staff explained the fees will be added to section of
Code where existing dedications and impact fees are located, Section 070.040.030(g).
Dr. Verdone explained that the fees are calculated based expected impacts of various
uses and that tourism associated with the development of various businesses.
• Commissioner Cipperly: Asked which development types (such as accessory dwelling
units) would be subject to the fees and when they are paid. Staff response: Staff
explained the fees are applicable to new development or redevelopment and are
assessed at the time of building permit submittal, one half being due prior to issuance
and the other due prior to a certificate of occupancy.
• Commissioner Connerton: Asked for clarification on how fees increase efficiency and
how our fees relate to other communities. Staff response: Dr. Verdone explained that
fees are intended to maintain existing services and to pass the responsibility of new
impacts on to development. He explained that the proposed fees are similar to other
rural resort communities in Colorado but that each is different.
• Commissioner Cowan: Asked about the distinction in types and forms of development.
Staff response: Dr. Verdone confirmed that the fees are applicable and specific to all
types of new development.
• Commissioner White: Asked specifics related to how fee calculated and our Police
Department is currently funded. She also asked what the exact change in the fire and
emergency services fee being proposed is. Commissioner White when the last time the
fees were adjusted. Staff response: City Attorney explained that the department is
mostly funded by the general fund and that he is not sure whether the fire and
emergency fee has ever been adjusted. Mr. Hyatt explained that the fee is proposed to
move from $1,600 to $3,267 for a single-family home equivalent rate upon adoption.
• Commissioner Geiman: Inquired about the fee applicable to multi-family residential
and whether fees are reassessed if growth trends change. Staff response: Dr. Verdone
explained that the proposed fee is $2,793 per multi-family unit and that fees are
collected for actual new development and should address the impact or revenue to the
fund on an as needed basis.
• Commissioner Cipperly: Asked whether the fees would limit impacts of the Police
Department on the general fund and how fees are managed. Staff response: Mr.
Hanlon explained that it would have material impact because impact fees are not
allowed for use for operations and are kept separate from the general fund.
Commissioner White opened the item to public comments. No members of the public
were present for comment. Commissioner White closed the item to public comment.
Page 2 of 4
Packet Page 10

[PAGE 11]
Commissioner Cowan made a motion to approve Action Item 1 with findings as written
in the packet. Commissioner Connerton seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously with a vote of 6-1.
c. Housing Update
Senior Planner Watkins Fulk-Gray presented the yearly Housing Update.
Commissioner questions, comments, and staff responses included the following:
• Commissioner Houghton: Where does the City stand on its Prop 123 commitments.
Staff response: We are on target, though the current number is in flux because of
the nature of the L3 project.
• Commissioner Houghton: Do affordable units have to have their certificates of
occupancy to count toward Prop 123? Staff response: We will have to verify
whether it’s CO or just when they are entitled.
• Chair White: Will more supply help reduce rental rates, which are plateauing right
now? Staff response: More supply should help, and should help reduce sharp
increases that were seen in 2021 and 2022.
• Commissioner Cowan: How well is the City working with Garfield County, and
could housing development in the County help Glenwood? Staff response: On a
person level we know and get along with their planners, but the growth environment
in the County is unknown. Annexations are unlikely, given Ballot Measure A’s
passage. The most likely places to see development in the County nearby is south
Glenwood and up Four Mile Road, but the limiting factor is access. If South Bridge is
not built, more development is unlikely. The City does provide can and will serve
letters for new development and charges the same monthly rates for water and
sewer.
• Commissioner Cowan: Is the County financially supporting South Bridge? Staff
response: There was the intent to contribute previously, but that is now uncertain
and they are in a difficult financial position.
• Commissioner Connerton: Can the City sell City-owned land to a developer for
building affordable housing? Staff response: Not without an election.
• Commissioner Cipperly: Is there a preservation program for new homes? Staff
response: Not currently, it was one of the recommendations nested within the
Preservation strategy.
• Chair White: Are there any plans to look at land use rules and incentivizing
condominiumizations? Staff response: There are not many regulatory barriers
toward condominiumizing a building. The challenges would likely come from
particular buildings themselves.
5. Commissioner Comments
• There were no commissioner comments.
6. Director Comments
Page 3 of 4
Packet Page 11

[PAGE 12]
Community Development Director Hyatt informed the group of the upcoming work session
and asked the group for discussion topics. He also stated that the onboarding of the new
building permit technician, Joel Asplund, is going well and that efforts to hire a new housing
development manager were ongoing. He also mentioned that the department is
developing a new survey for online portal customer and working on general improvements
for customer service.
7. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.
Page 4 of 4
Packet Page 12

[PAGE 13]
Planning and Zoning Commission Memo
Date November 18, 2025
Planning File Number Not applicable
RE: Housing Incentives Work Session Discussion
Staff Watkins Fulk-Gray, AICP, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
At the November 6, 2025 joint work session between the Planning & Zoning Commission
(P&Z) and City Council, members of both bodies expressed interest in exploring new
incentives for housing. Staff considers this request an early-stage, open discussion and is
pleased to offer the following list of topics for discussion. No rigorous evaluation has been
performed for most of these topics, and Staff does not recommend all of the following
changes. Based on the P&Z’s discussion, Staff can prepare more information and
schedule future work sessions or public hearings with the P&Z as desired.
Housing incentive ideas are grouped by the following categories: zoning changes,
programmatic activities, fee changes, building code changes, and mobile home parks.
Zoning Changes
Possible zoning changes to incentivize housing could include the following issues:
• Density bonuses. These could include:
Incentives for providing deed restricted units not required by inclusionary
o
zoning standards, including variable incentives depending on level of
affordability provided in deed restriction
Incentives for projects within 500 feet of a transit stop
o
Incentives for for-sale housing
o
• Allowing duplexes as a use-by-right in more zone districts
• Reducing parking requirements for small ADUs
• Waiving parking requirements for ADUs that are deed restricted
• Additional incentives for hotel conversions to long-term housing or Extended-Stay
Hotels
• Incentives for commercial-to-residential conversions
Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 13

[PAGE 14]
Programmatic Activities
• Expansion or addition of Workforce Housing Fund programs. Current programs
include:
Downpayment assistance
o
Employer-based rental assistance
o
Funding for West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition
o
• Pre-approved designs
• Greater assistance from City Staff (e.g., infrastructure planning)
• Short-term rental to long-term rental conversions
• “Housing navigator” roles
• Development on City-owned land such as The Confluence and Vogelaar Park
• Additional housing open houses, including Spanish-language open house
• Tenants’ rights education
Fee Changes
• Reducing the fee-in-lieu for parking for ADUs (currently $5,000 per space)
• Increasing the short-term rental fees (currently $613.62 for new licenses, $409.08
for renewals) and accessory tourist rental fees ($368.17 for new licenses, $184.09
for renewals)
Building Code Changes
• Point access blocks exceptions
• Commercial-to-residential conversions
Mobile Home Parks
• Support for conversion to resident-owned communities (ROCs)
• Zoning overlays that prohibit redevelopment
Conclusions
These topics should be considered preliminary ideas and not recommendations from
Community Development. If there are topics in this memo that P&Z Commissioners would
like specific information about at the meeting, please email the Director before the
meeting. Additional work sessions to discuss housing incentives will be scheduled when
meeting time permits. Staff looks forward to the P&Z’s feedback and questions.
Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 14