Longmont City Council Regular Meeting – April 13, 2021

Video Description:
Longmont City Council Regular Meeting – April 13, 2021

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:

Read along below or follow along here: https://otter.ai/u/vY-2S_4-3NT5vw1MkfK2dlHQp9o

Unknown Speaker 0:02
Mayor, you may begin.

Unknown Speaker 0:03
Alright, great.

Unknown Speaker 0:04
Since we’re with the public online, I’d like to know I would like to now call the April 13 2021 Longmont City Council. regular session to order Can we please start a roll with a roll call?

Unknown Speaker 0:17
Mayor Bagley, I see you are here. And Councilmember Christiansen

Unknown Speaker 0:22

Unknown Speaker 0:22
That’s a memory. Duggal fairing here. Councilmember Martin. Here. Councilmember Peck. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez here. Councilmember waters

Unknown Speaker 0:34

Unknown Speaker 0:34

Unknown Speaker 0:35
you have a quorum.

Unknown Speaker 0:36
All right, I’ll lead us off the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

Unknown Speaker 0:43
of America and to the republic

Unknown Speaker 0:47
for which it stands, one

Unknown Speaker 0:48
nation, under God,

Unknown Speaker 0:50
indivisible, with liberty.

Unknown Speaker 0:55
All right, just a quick reminder, the public anyone wishing to provide public comment during the public invited be heard. Let’s go ahead and watch the live stream of the meeting and call in. When public comment is made available. You’ll call that number for all the information on the screen and then everyone will have three minutes to speak. Unfortunately, the chair will have to cut you off three minutes No matter how much I love or hate what you’re saying. So, alright, let’s go ahead. Do we have an approval motion to approve the minutes of March 30 2021. A regular session meeting. Councilmember.

Unknown Speaker 1:25
So moved. Second.

Unknown Speaker 1:27
It was moved by Councilmember Christiansen, seconded by Councilmember Naugle. fairing Seeing no revisions or dialogue or debate on favor of the motion say aye. Aye.

Unknown Speaker 1:36

Unknown Speaker 1:37
Opposed say nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously. Do we have any agenda revision submission documents? Your motion is direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas? All right, seeing none let’s go on to city manager’s report on COVID-19 parallel.

Unknown Speaker 1:54
Mayor council Actually, I’m gonna ask you Jean to join us today and talk about the changes that are going to be taking place in terms of the state rules and the county rules. The county adopted their new order last night, the governor’s made some changes. And so I wanted Eugene to take a second to really ground us on what the world’s gonna look like now as we move forward for the coming month. And then I’ll just have some just quick updates on high level on where we are in vaccination. Next week. Lexi is going to be here and she can really provide you with more detailed information on the vaccine piece. And by then Carmen’s going to have some information about how we may use you all as your work talking to your constituents to help us ensure we’re getting people into the system. That will be next week. Eugene, you want to talk about all the changes that are happening this week.

Unknown Speaker 2:53
Sure thing Harold Eugene Bay City Attorney. So last week, I previewed with council that we were expecting some big changes this week and the dial. And it’s starting to come into focus now, what our next couple of months are going to look

Unknown Speaker 3:08

Unknown Speaker 3:10
today at governor polis, his press conference, he announced that the dial is going to go away on Friday the state level dial and not be replaced by anything else. Except for large indoor events, thing, nuggets, abs, those sort of, you know, 1000s of people indoors, I think the state is still going to have some involvement to make sure those are conducted safely.

Unknown Speaker 3:38
On a separate,

Unknown Speaker 3:39
independent track, the masking order the public indoor space mask order is still in effect at the state level. And that was adopted on April 2, and good for 30 days, so we can expect that to continue. The real movement was last night, the Boulder County Board of Health adopted a new public health order in general adopting the state dial framework. And it’s going to be effective on Friday the 16th. And there’s two phases. The first phase, starting on Friday, the county will go down one level and we’re firmly in yellow. So you know by all expectations, we’re going to be in blue come Friday, that first phase will last for one month. not moving around, we will stay in blue. And most of the capacity restrictions in the state dial are going to be applicable in level blue. So I think that really reflects being responsive to the input. They’ve heard from stakeholders and businesses that we don’t want the dial you know, jiggering around and going between levels. So we’re going to be firmly in blue for the for a month. You know, they still have 22 industry specific categories with different capacity levels. A couple of highlights, restaurants can operate at 100% capacity. with six foot distancing, that’s really a theme that’s throughout all of their capacity restrictions, still want people to distance still gonna mask and try to keep with your own households, offices and retail generally at 75% capacity. And then on down the list for the different types of industry categories. For large outdoor events, greater than 500 people, the county is requesting that organizers submit plans to Boulder County Public Health, no approval is required to conduct that event. Boulder County Public Health wants to have the opportunity to have notice and review to make sure that mitigation measures are adequate for that size of event. Come may 15, we will move into phase two for three months, there is a new level clear, which has no restrictions, no capacity restrictions. But it’s level clear with a snapback provision, which if our hospitalization rate increases, then we would move to the appropriate level based upon our hospital admissions. And they changed it from a rod number to a rate per 100,000 for seven consecutive days on a 14 day rolling average. So that’s really going to sort of evened out the peaks. And focus on the metric that’s most important, which is hospital capacity here. incident rates is being taken out number of cases per day. And so, you know, that’ll get us into the fall. And you know, hopefully everything will be going well, by then Boulder County did reserve the right to move the county to a different level if you know circumstances on the ground changes.

Unknown Speaker 7:28
On the masking side, you know, this is important or relevant to Council’s desire to get back in person, I think the masking requirement is going to be the sort of constraining factor under the combination of the state and local masking orders. City Council if they want to be unmasked, I think our speakers to an audience or for broadcast, and therefore you would need to be 25 feet apart from non household members. So from each other. That would also apply to staff. You know, I know Harold is typically a speaker, and it would require a 25 foot bubble around the podium and things like that. So, you know, based on those logistical challenges, I think we would be looking to wait until we’re in level clear in May in the middle of May, before really going in person and then sort of planning maybe on a hybrid or something like that. Before that because of his distancing requirements, we would also have to manage the public six foot distancing requirements in the audience, the seated event. And I don’t think the capacity of city council chambers is over 500. So that map part one and apply. So that’s kind of a high level summary of changes. Happy to answer any questions or have Harold continue on with his COVID update.

Unknown Speaker 9:02
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez

Unknown Speaker 9:05
Thank you very badly. My question is for non public meetings such as executive sessions with the 25 foot rule, is this specifically a Boulder County issue versus the state because obviously we see press conferences with the governor and other members of his staff, and they’re within six feet of each other. So I’m just curious is this is a Boulder County initiative. And when we’re not having public meetings, could we maybe have an in person meeting

Unknown Speaker 9:45
so yes, the basket 25 foot masking requirement is a local public health order. Boulder County order applies to speakers to an audience or for broadcast. 25 feet apart. From non household members, for executive sessions, if there isn’t an audience or broadcast, the guidance release starts at 10 or more. And so I think there is some flexibility there. We would have to, I would have to think a little bit harder about if there was just counsel, no public, is that is that what you were?

Unknown Speaker 10:29
My question was not my question was not pushing back. It was just clarification.

Unknown Speaker 10:33
So but I could look at that.

Unknown Speaker 10:38
For instance, yes, an executive session meeting would be an example of that. So

Unknown Speaker 10:45
okay, I’ll take a look at that a little further. The order just came out this morning. And I’ll look at it with that scenario in mind.

Unknown Speaker 10:57
That’s verbal waters. Thanks,

Unknown Speaker 10:59
Begley. Just to clarify it early in the pandemic, we agreed that we were going to follow whatever guidance came from the governor. And I’m trying to recall did I think we did that by a vote? Did we not? Did we vote to follow that direction? Should we assume now that it relative to to guidance here, we’re not going to get more guidance from the governor? Is that fair assumption or not? And if we don’t, do we need to? Do we need to then take another formal action on what guidance we’re going to follow? Follow? So we don’t, we’re not in a debate about distances and protocols. And you know how we’re going to move forward.

Unknown Speaker 11:45
So I may not agree. Well, one thing,

Unknown Speaker 11:48
Eugene, and

Unknown Speaker 11:50
I may not have been totally precise, the governor did say the dial will stop being regulatory mandates. And we’ll just go into guidance status. So we won’t know exactly what he has in mind until Friday. And, you know, they’ve, I think a lot of the social distancing, say for outdoors and masking is now recommended. It’s not required. And so that may factor into how we want to define who and what we’re following.

Unknown Speaker 12:25
I think part of I think when we did this, if I’m remembering, we had a couple of conversations, I think councils that CDC, Gov cdphp, and then Boulder County Health. In that order, we’ll have to look at it. The thing that Eugene’s talking about that’s important is the masking order is still a state border. And so that’s the nuance in this in terms of how you set up and whether or not you have to wear masks, because you could theoretically be in the council meeting together based on a rule, but you have to wear your mask, as you’re setting up the bias throughout that meeting. And so that’s part of the nuance of the orders we’re trying to figure out.

Unknown Speaker 13:09
So is it so we can sit next to each other within 25 feet so long as we’re mast, and the rack can be unmasked? We have to be with with the body? five feet?

Unknown Speaker 13:21

Unknown Speaker 13:22
All right. Well, I’m not going to comment because we could be here forever. But it looks like we could just be on zoom meetings for a little while, because that’s a lot easier than spending time fighting with the with the county health department. All right.

Unknown Speaker 13:35
We think there will be we think there’ll be clarity in a month. This I think is really in between now and may 16, if there’s anything in our mind starting to say may 16. right in that timeframe, when we come out of it.

Unknown Speaker 13:49
Well, when we have a major league baseball, all star game, we’ll we’ll reassess. All right. council members, toggle fairing.

Unknown Speaker 13:58
So I’m actually Harold had answered what or what I was about to say with in regards to what our original statement was, was CDC, down through the county? So I don’t think we need to revise any of that. I did have a question though. So I mean, really, before we can make any assess the situation or make any decision, we’re going to have to wait until after the 16th. Is that correct? We can’t really make a decision tonight.

Unknown Speaker 14:29
No, well, no. And we’ll be as we get closer, but it looks like we will be in level blue now until May 16. And the plan is at may 16. To go into level clear as they’re defining it. What we don’t know is what masking rules will be in play because those still exist at the state level and the county level for indoor activities. Okay, even though the states are Relaxing masking order we know for a fact is still in play until I believe may 2.

Unknown Speaker 15:08
May 2, okay. Correct.

Unknown Speaker 15:11
Yeah, the masking is orders on a different 30 day time frame that the new dial, the new dials, 16 to 15. And the masking order was April 2, so presumably to may 1 or second.

Unknown Speaker 15:25
Alright, well with that, it sounds like thanks for the update. And if we need to take action, we’ll do it in a couple of weeks as we learn more. And we’ll go from there. I’ve got all kinds of things to say. But the reality is we walk into stores, and we’re all used to masks and we’re free to travel where we want and see life’s getting better, I think for all of us. So in this way, we all get to see each other’s beautiful, pretty shining faces every week. So the let’s go ahead, and I go on to special reports and presentations, anything else? Nothing, right?

Unknown Speaker 15:58
Well, just real quick, may 16 is also critical because of where they think there’ll be with vaccinations and like maybe next week, let’s see, we’ll show that to you all. At this point, we have about 53% of the eligible people in both people that are eligible for vaccinations to be vaccinated 53% of the total total eligible population. And when we look at 92% of the 70 plus are vaccinated 79% of 60 to 69. And we’re seeing that move through. So as they’re opening up, we’re seeing more. So that’s what everybody’s focusing on is really that piece. And they have a really good presentation to give you that data. We still really are working with our traditionally underserved populations, we’re still seeing differences. And hopefully by then we’ll have some more information for for you all, but that’s going to be our Ask next week is where we’re probably going to need some help and assistance on this and but we’ll cover that next week. All right, great. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 17:01
All right, let’s go on to first call public invited to be heard. So what I’d like to do, we’ll take a three minute break. But when we come back, okay, keep the list open for the first call that will allow us to do a three minute break and allow people six minutes to get in line. And then after that, cut it off, and then we’ll we’ll have our list. Is that okay, Councilmember though fairing.

Unknown Speaker 17:26
That is fine. As long as the public has time to call in.

Unknown Speaker 17:29
Six, six minutes. It’s a win win. All right.

Unknown Speaker 17:34
Okay. That’s right.

Unknown Speaker 17:35
That’s right.

Unknown Speaker 17:36
But it will take at least a three minute break and we’ll be back in three to start public invited. First call public invited.

Unknown Speaker 17:59
Okay, folks, you should see on the screen now the number to call in for public invited to be heard that number is 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, you will enter the meeting ID eight, five to 66779573. press pound when it asks you for a participant ID when you are led into the meeting. And you can hear through your telephone, my instructions or instructions. Please make sure that you mute the live stream. the live stream is delayed a few seconds

Unknown Speaker 19:00
Hey, Susan and counsel that’s on. I’m having some wonky banded with IF bandwidth issues right now. Okay, I may have to keep my video off and then only come in when I need to make sure I can hear what I’m trying to figure out what’s going on.

Unknown Speaker 19:18
If you need to leave the meeting now would be a good time to try.

Unknown Speaker 19:22
It’s not this it’s

Unknown Speaker 19:24
it’s my router. Okay. Very good.

Unknown Speaker 19:36
Susan, I’m gonna I come in on my computer.

Unknown Speaker 19:39
I’m gonna log out on my iPad but that’s alright.

Unknown Speaker 19:44
Stay on your iPad until you log in on the other device. That would be your your safety. Alright, thanks.

Unknown Speaker 20:10
Hey Susan, while we’re waiting Is it possible to overtax your overtax your router?

Unknown Speaker 20:17
Occasionally, I have to unplug the next light and the router and then start the next light modem and then start my router again. So yes, your your if you haven’t done that in a while, you may want to do that. But tonight’s probably not it.

Unknown Speaker 20:32
No, no, no, I’m just saying if you Oh, I mean, I’ve got kids that have been in school what you know,

Unknown Speaker 20:39
just think

Unknown Speaker 20:40
we’re a router more quickly.

Unknown Speaker 20:42
Yes, devices do not last I don’t know how old your router is. But if it’s more than three years, you have the potential of it just dying on you. So

Unknown Speaker 20:54

Unknown Speaker 21:03
You may want to look into QoS settings quality of service and assign it to a to you or your device. So that you have more bandwidth you the system gives you more bandwidth over the other occupants in your house. That’s another option.

Unknown Speaker 21:21
Okay. All right. That’s almost four minutes.

Unknown Speaker 21:55
Mr. Mayor,

Unknown Speaker 21:57

Unknown Speaker 21:59
We have the wrong sign up. I hope that hasn’t confused. Anybody we had sign up that says not quality, not time to call in. Right? We’ll

Unknown Speaker 22:08
take we have to

Unknown Speaker 22:11
x that was not very good on my part, was it?

Unknown Speaker 22:15
Let’s take another three minutes.

Unknown Speaker 22:21

Unknown Speaker 22:24
loader in the queue. All right. Back in three guys.

Unknown Speaker 22:29
Think my mouse must have

Unknown Speaker 22:32
stepped me back in my slide deck. I think we’re good. Now. We do have two callers. Mayor and we are waiting

Unknown Speaker 22:41

Unknown Speaker 22:42
Actually, let’s do it. Let’s let’s actually come back. Can everybody come back? Why don’t we just go ahead and take these two callers. Leave it up for the next leave the list leave it leave it open for the next? Actually, let’s take the three minutes because they’re gonna need to call the number right.

Unknown Speaker 22:58
Well, the number was on the other slide. So all the information is still the same. It just

Unknown Speaker 23:04
I will just just leave it let’s just let’s just leave it open then for let’s let’s go ahead with public invited to be heard once we’ll stay here. We’ll wait till Aaron and Marsha back. We’ll do the we’ll do the first we’ll just leave it open for the first call. And let’s

Unknown Speaker 23:22
let’s go for it. Alright,

Unknown Speaker 23:23
I’ll leave the screen up. Well, I unmute the first caller. So the first caller, I’m going to ask to unmute your phone number ends in 139139. Are you there? You should be able to hit there you go.

Unknown Speaker 23:42
Can you hear us? Good evening, I can hear you.

Unknown Speaker 23:46
Great. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record you may begin.

Unknown Speaker 23:51
Yes, I am Alyssa topping speaking on my own behalf at 4007 Florentine drive. Good evening mayor and council. I am in favor of the inclusionary housing amendments to the municipal code. But my comment today is a call for attention to critical needs type of residents and existing infrastructure and more specifically residents of mobile homes and manufactured homes. For today I’ll refer to both as mobile homes. mobile home parks are the nation’s largest source of non subsidized affordable housing and they serve a variety of family demographics whose needs are not met in the traditional homeowner market. mobile home prices are significantly less than single family homes in Colorado, making mobile homes

Unknown Speaker 24:41
a viable option

Unknown Speaker 24:42
for low and middle income households. Yet the increasing cost of renting the land under one’s mobile home threatens affordability. The city should explicitly protect the viability of mobile home living as a part of the broader affordable housing effort to begin The city might analyze whether the municipal code protects or takes for granted critical needs residents and mobile home parks. Given the unique tenant relationship and renting pad sites, the city should engage in community outreach with mobile home stakeholders to understand affordability needs. It could then utilize existing research findings from our close neighbors in the city of Boulder to translate to long months particular needs. This research is public and boulders manufactured housing strategy and action plan. Finally, and separately, the city should increase accessibility to information on rights related to mobile homes with a simple link on the city’s website, and amendments last summer to the mobile home park Act. The state has added protections for mobile homeowners, including an express prohibition on retaliation from Park owners. The city should help avail its residents to the right with a link to the mobile home park oversight program where residents may file complaints and enter dispute resolution with violating Park owners. In summary, my request tonight is to sustain the viability of living in long months mobile home parks. If the city is to prioritize affordable housing, then existing mobile home parks should not be overlooked. Thank you for inviting me to be here today.

Unknown Speaker 26:30
Thank you. Next caller.

Unknown Speaker 26:36
All right, may or the next caller, your phone number ends in 765. I’m going to go ahead and ask you to unmute. And mayor, I’m going to go ahead and lock the meeting. So no other callers come in.

Unknown Speaker 26:47
It’s been about

Unknown Speaker 26:50
another three minutes here. Caller 765. Are you able to unmute?

Unknown Speaker 27:02
There you are. Hello. Hi. Hi. Hi. My name is Anne Marie Jensen, and I’m here today on behalf of the East County housing opportunity coalition. And we are a group of affordable housing advocates in the eastern part of Boulder County, including Longmont. We have two Longmont members on our board of directors. And we wanted to just make some comments on your inclusionary housing ordinance revisions. First, I want to say that Marlin is doing a lot of really wonderful things with this inclusionary housing ordinance. And having done a lot of research into inclusionary housing years as one of the most interesting and creative and thoughtful in terms of trying to balance both for sale and for rent. And also the middle tier program that you have is really unique. And we applaud that. And thank you for that. It is kind of hard to get good data on what’s going on with your program in terms of how many units are you producing, and when they’re going to come online, I understand that information is available. It’s just not easy to find. So I would ask you to try to create a little bit more transparency about that. So those of us who are trying to follow it could follow it easily. I wanted to also say that, in your conversation, when you last reviewed the ordinance, you made the decision to do a five year limit on charging back when a developer converts a four month unit to a for sale unit. And we don’t think that’s probably enough time to create the disincentive that you want, you know, to get the keep the developers from paying the lower rate and I know you’ve considered 10 years. And we think 10 years is probably better. And I would ask you to reconsider that item. We appreciate the changes in deed restricted housing that protects homeowners from possible crashes. And we thank you for changing your ami to 50% of ami, on the credit that developers can get for the voluntary agreements. And then lastly, I know you’re not voting on it tonight, but you missed your last Council. You looked at items number 10 and 11 and 10 was the update to the sales price formula. We think this does need some additional work. If someone is paying 40 to 50% of their rent in housing, because you haven’t adequately accounted for the age. Away dues or property taxes or insurance, that is not the intent of an affordable housing program. Everyone has sort of agreed and HUD has put guidance forward that 33% of an income is what people should pay no more than. So we urge you to support this change in the formula that your staff are suggesting you look into, and we think it does need to be changed.

Unknown Speaker 30:26
Thank you, ma’am. That was over three minutes, but then we have to cut you off. But thank you point well taken. Thank you. All right. Was that for our callers?

Unknown Speaker 30:34
Yes. Mayor, that was the last caller.

Unknown Speaker 30:36
All right. Go ahead and read the consent agenda for us. That would be great. Of course, Mayor

Unknown Speaker 30:43
item nine a is ordinance 2021 dash 22. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter three of the Longmont municipal code on personnel rules rules public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 27 2021. Nine B is ordinance 2021 dash 23. A bill for an ordinance amending chapter 1404 of the Longmont municipal code, unmetered and waterline maintenance for arterial roadway, public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 27th 2021 90. Is ordinance 2021 dash 24. A bill for an ordinance authorizing the city of Longmont to lease the Real Property known as Vance brand, Municipal Airport hangar parcel h 52. gales shipper public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 27 2021 90. Is ordinance 2021 dash 25. A bill for an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Vance brand Municipal Airport parcel h 14 dash B lease, public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 27 2021. Nine E is ordinance 2021 dash 26. A bill for an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the band’s brand, Municipal Airport hangar personal nh dash D to lease public hearing and second reading scheduled for April 27 2021. Nine F is resolution 2021 dash 33 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County Public Health for its genesis project. Nine G is resolution 2021 dash 34 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Boulder County housing and Human Services, preparing education services. Nine H is resolution 2021 dash 35 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving a fifth amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for repair and remediation from flooding. Nine I resolution 2021 dash 36 a resolution on the Longmont city council approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between Boulder County and the city of Longmont for the environmental sustainability matching grant program for sustainability projects in 2021. Nine j resolution 2021 bash 37 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and victim assistance and law enforcement board of the 20th judicial district for 2021 grant funding for victim services. Nine Ks was a resolution 2021 dash 38 a resolution of the Longmont City Council in supportive immigrant families of the city of Longmont to access occupational licenses through Senate Bill 21 dash o seven, seven and benefits through Senate Bill 21 dash 199. Nine L is approval letter to the Attorney General regarding allegations that managers in the Colorado air pollution control division ordered their staff to falsify data and strongly urging an immediate and thorough, thorough investigation into these allegations. All right, well

Unknown Speaker 33:28
done. I’d like to pull. I’d like to pull else. Anyone else want to pull any? All right. We have motion for the counselor pack.

Unknown Speaker 33:39
Interior badly. Yes. I’d like to pull i

Unknown Speaker 33:41
right. Okay. All right. Let’s go ahead and do have a motion.

Unknown Speaker 33:46
Yeah, moved that we approve the consent agenda minus L and I.

Unknown Speaker 33:51
Okay. All right. All in favor the consent agenda minus L and I say aye. Aye.

Unknown Speaker 33:56
Aye. Aye.

Unknown Speaker 33:57
Opposed say nay. All right, the consent agenda minus i and l pass unanimously. Let’s go on to ordinances on second reading and public hearings on any matter. And actually this I, let’s go ahead. Can we Is it possible to address I and l right now. I mean, what I’m saying is, can we put up the the number on the screen so that people can call in for the opportunity to speak on the ordinances so we can we don’t have to take another break. Is that possible done?

Unknown Speaker 34:28
there? We certainly can. When the screen is up. You may not see all of Council’s videos though. Right? Well,

Unknown Speaker 34:35
let’s let’s see what happens. But let’s let’s invite the public to call in if you want to speak at the public hearing on any of the ordinances to be discussed and voted on pertaining to their second reading. Go ahead and call in now, please, Councilman Rudolfo fairing.

Unknown Speaker 34:51
Um, yeah, I

Unknown Speaker 34:51
just wanted to. So I’m following the live meeting on my other laptop, and I saw that the items that were pulled were Can l was that a typo? Did you mean to to add k in there?

Unknown Speaker 35:05
No, just I know.

Unknown Speaker 35:07
Okay. Okay. So I just want to make sure that that gets corrected for the record.

Unknown Speaker 35:11
Alright. I don’t want to discuss it, but I’m going to move approve. I’m going to move approval of item L.

Unknown Speaker 35:20
Got the second?

Unknown Speaker 35:23

Unknown Speaker 35:24
All right. All in all in favor of item l say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Nay. All right, That motion carries six to one. Okay, let’s go on to item I,

Unknown Speaker 35:40
I apologize. Mayor, who was the nay on that vote? I’m sorry. I was. You were okay. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 35:45
Um, can we go on to item I can SmartPak. Please.

Unknown Speaker 35:49
me badly. I’m curious as to why you voted against it. I would like that discussion. I’m just,

Unknown Speaker 35:55
I just I just don’t think we should be telling the state. I think that I personally think that this, I don’t want to have the discussion, meaning that that I mean, we could spend time on it. And the whole point was, we waste too much time on state issues, which are important. But this council I think, has really important work that we can be focused on here locally. That’s it. So I don’t want to waste more time.

Unknown Speaker 36:17
I just wanted to know what you what you thought that

Unknown Speaker 36:19
was it? I think I think the Attorney General should should do that. But I just don’t think that we need to weigh in on all the issues that are going on outside of Longmont. That’s it. All right. Thank you. But why don’t you go ahead and take the floor, keep the floor and talk about item I please counselor back?

Unknown Speaker 36:34
Oh, okay. Thank you. Yeah, I just have a couple of questions. Um, so this grant is for a list of categories. There was a list of categories that this funding can be used for. However, when I look at the grant, and what it is being used for, it looks like it is either for new hires or for salaries. Can somebody clarify that for me?

Unknown Speaker 37:00
Mayor Bagley and Councilmember Peck we from Melbourne sustainability Program Manager with public works and natural resources. So the list of categories that you see there is coming from the ballot language that was included in the sustainability tax where this funding is coming from. And it doesn’t explicitly state in that list of categories, staffing or salaries, but it is included in like sustainability planning, or if there’s staffing support that support any of these specific categories. And the the funding request that we have our for second year of the grant and residential program coordinator that we’ve funded through the sustainability tax last year with it, which is a two year term limited position, as well as a new similarly two year term limited position. That’s an equity and engagement specialist that’s helping to implement equity in our climate action recommendations. As well as a project that’s not staffing that’s focused on the climate risk and vulnerability mapping, which is part of one of the Climate Action Task Force strategies around a public health plan around the impacts of climate. Does that answer your question?

Unknown Speaker 38:22
Did um, but Lisa, I’m in that list of things that we want to accomplish? I’m curious as to where the funding for some of those things? And do you have projects for 2021 that these people are actually going to be working on? Because what I would like to see is something out of this, you know, something that is going to affect our, our sustainable sustainability in our city for our clients. But if it’s only if it’s only grant money to hire people and to get more studies, and that’s frustrating for me. So do you have a list of projects that you’re going to be working on for 2021? And a timeline for those

Unknown Speaker 39:08
council member packets? Yes. And I’ll be coming to you in the coming weeks or so with an update on that list of projects from the Climate Action Task Force and what the status on each of those is the staffing support that we’re requesting through this funding that this staff capacity is one of our limiting factors right now and implementation of those projects. So those staffing requests will specifically help support implementation of some of those projects that have been identified. Such as well, the implementation of the equity recommendations, the equity checklists that the equitable Climate Action Team, formerly the just transition plan committee put together that’s using two that we’re using to advise as we get into the implementation of climate action strategies to make sure we’re doing In an equitable way, and the project that is listed here, the climate risk and vulnerability mapping project, yeah, is specific to one of those climate action recommendations, the public health plan. This is a data gathering focus that will help feed into that plan that our OEM folks didn’t really have the capacity to do in 2021. So we’ll be focusing on that portion in 2022. But this is helping together data that will inform that project.

Unknown Speaker 40:31

Unknown Speaker 40:33
Thank you very much. And I look forward to that presentation of where we’re going to go with this. And yeah, so with that, I’m going to move 2021 36

Unknown Speaker 40:43

Unknown Speaker 40:45
By Cosmo repec. made the motion. Councilmember Christianson second have it. All in favor of item. I have the consent agenda, say aye. Aye.

Unknown Speaker 40:54
Aye. I was

Unknown Speaker 40:56
opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. All right. Let’s go ahead and go on to items on ordinances on second reading. Let’s go ahead and just keep keep the keep the line open. Mayor Pro Tem.

Unknown Speaker 41:12
Now you’re good. Sorry. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 41:15
Thanks. But let’s go ahead to item 10. Eight ordinance 2021 dash 18. A bill for an ordinance amending chapters 15.05. Sections 15 15.0 5.220 and 15.10 point oh two Oh, the Walmart municipal code on inclusionary. Housing. there any questions from council? right, seeing none, let’s go ahead and open the public hearing on ordinance 2021 dash 18. Is there anybody on the line? there? We

Unknown Speaker 41:39
have no callers that have called in during that time.

Unknown Speaker 41:43
Okay, we’ll just keep it open. All right. We’ll go ahead and close the public hearing then. Can we have a motion pertaining to ordinance 2021 dash 18. Dr. Waters.

Unknown Speaker 41:55
I’ll move approval of ordinance 2021 dash 18.

Unknown Speaker 42:01
Right. It was moved by Councilmember water seconded by Councilmember Martin. All in favor say Aye. Any dialogue or debate on this? Anybody want to speak against it? Councillor Christiansen?

Unknown Speaker 42:10
I do think we need to make some other additions of specifically having to do with the land donation portion of it. But we can do that at another meeting. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 42:27
All right. All in favor say aye.

Unknown Speaker 42:29

Unknown Speaker 42:31
Opposed say nay. All right, ordinance 2021 dash 18 passes unanimously. Let’s move on to Item b for item 10. b, which is ordinance 2021 dash one nine a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 4.79 allotment municipal code on fee reduction or subsidy. Kathy fetlar.

Unknown Speaker 42:52
Sorry, to interrupt. So on this particular one, there are a couple of additional changes that we caught. today. Actually. They’re not substantive, they’re cleanup items. And it is on 4.7 9.030. Item a, it’s changing. It says currently, each person or organization may apply for fee reduction subsidies along with building permit application using the form supplied by the Director of Planning and Development Services. We’re changing that to city because Planning and Development Services doesn’t provide that form. And then everywhere that it says the Director of Planning and Development Services Department, we’re changing to just Director of Planning or planning director. And I think that is pretty much all of the changes. So that’s kind of throughout the rest of the

Unknown Speaker 43:51
code section.

Unknown Speaker 43:54
Okay. All right. We have a motion. So do we need to make a motion as amended by that’s what need to do. Tim whole. Mr. Mayor, I

Unknown Speaker 44:06
believe you’d have to make a motion to amend and then and then vote on.

Unknown Speaker 44:10
I’m gonna move that we amend ordinance 2021 dash one nine, as explained by Kathy fetlar. Second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

Unknown Speaker 44:21
Opposed say nay.

Unknown Speaker 44:23
All right, the amendment. The motion to amend carries unanimously and I will move to I will move to pass ordinance 2021 dash one nine, as amended.

Unknown Speaker 44:33

Unknown Speaker 44:34
All right. I made the motion Dr. Waters seconded it. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously let’s move on to 10 see orders 2021 dash 20 bill for an ordinance approving the lease agreement between the city of Longmont, Colorado and the oligarchy irrigation company. Are there actually I don’t know if I had a timeout a second Was there anybody on the line?

Unknown Speaker 44:59
No There, we have no callers. The mean is still unlocked.

Unknown Speaker 45:03
All right. I don’t know if I opened it for public hearing. I don’t recall that you did. And I don’t either, but I didn’t. And so I will. If anybody was on the line, I would open it for public hearing right now and we’d revolt if that was the case, but they’re not. So we’ll continue. Right. We’ll go on to audits. 2021 to 20 adopt an ordinance approving the lease agreement between the city of Longmont, Colorado and oligarchy irrigation company with any questions from Council. All right, seeing none, let’s go and open the public hearing. Nobody’s on the phone call. So let’s go ahead and close it. We have a motion for ordinance 2021 dash 20.

Unknown Speaker 45:37
So moved.

Unknown Speaker 45:38
I’ll second it. All right. Seeing no further discussion from Council. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries unanimously. And then finally for second reading, we have item 20 ordinance 2021 21. The bill for an ordinance designated to hiatal Mellinger silo at 2000. You Creek drive is a local historic landmark. I know some people are gonna be happy there. All right. Everybody’s pretty much familiar with this issue, I think. But Seeing no questions or comments from Council, let’s go ahead and open it to public view. Sorry, Councilmember Christiansen.

Unknown Speaker 46:14
I just want to thank the public for bringing this forth. I know you thought we weren’t listening to you. But we actually were and I’m glad we could work with the mayor that the neighborhood could get a say in what they want to have happen in their neighborhood. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 46:31
Thank you. All right. So let’s go ahead. And there’s nobody in the on the call. Right.

Unknown Speaker 46:37
That is correct.

Unknown Speaker 46:38
Perfect. And we will open and close the public hearing on ordinance 2021 21. Do we have a motion?

Unknown Speaker 46:44
I’ll move ordinance 2021 dash 21.

Unknown Speaker 46:47
Second. All right. It’s

Unknown Speaker 46:48
been moved by darkwater seconded by Councilmember Duggal fairing Seeing no further discussion or debate All in favor of ordinance 2021 dash 21. say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously. All right, we’ve already dealt with the items removed from the consent agenda. So let’s go on to general business. So we’ve got three items tonight or 443. of substance we’ve got. So for 12. A, we’re going to start with the annexation referral, which is weird, simply giving staff permission to explore whether or not annexation should occur. We’re not actually voting on annexation tonight. So this is pertaining to 10161. You highway, it is a request for city council to refer the property located to this address into the annexation review process. Do we have a presentation by staff

Unknown Speaker 47:43
nearby Bagley members of council and fossick principal planner,

Unknown Speaker 47:47
you have information in your communication in your pocket. I do have a staff presentation that I’m happy to go through to give an overview and I also have the applicant.

Unknown Speaker 47:57
So I’m happy to do whatever council would prefer.

Unknown Speaker 48:00
Does anyone have any specific questions before we take a motion? Dr. Waters?

Unknown Speaker 48:06
You know, I don’t know, I don’t know if these are questions or simply messaging. But I looked at the materials. I saw that I saw the letter, I saw a reference to addressing drainage in detention issues as an extraordinary benefit for the community. I’m not an expert enough on on that or what is or is not an extraordinary benefit to form a judgment. But I but in the concept plan unless I missed something all I saw was a map with a and then a description a general reference to house the types of housing stock without many specifics. So the messaging here for me, I’m assuming Well, this would get approved or for referral. But I want that whoever the the applicant when this comes back for approval Personally, I’m going to want to see that this how this helps accomplish our housing objectives. Because I could not make that judgment. If there are extraordinary benefits, I’d want to see how they’re explained beyond what I saw on the application. Number two, number three, we’ve got we got two referrals tonight. And, and I’ve shared this with staff, I will remain concerned when we annex properties. And I By the way, I see this quite differently in terms of what we received for information from the one we’re gonna address in just a minute on the South side of town. But if if we’re gonna if we’re going to annex especially at the edges of town, which is going to contribute to sprawl, I want to be really clear on housing objectives. And I’d like to see at least a 30 year if not a 50 year impact analysis of what it’s going to cost the city. The developer is going to pay for infrastructure for initially but the city is going to pay for maintenance and replacement or rehab over an extended period of time. And I understand housing doesn’t always pay up way, but I’d like to see some evidence that we’ve done that kind of economic impact, especially when we’re annexing at the edges of town that it’s going to be, it is not going to be a drain on the city over the over the long run. So when it comes back, I just did the the APA guide. I know those are going to be questions I’m going to bring to the to the discussion.

Unknown Speaker 50:21
Mayor Bagley,

Unknown Speaker 50:22
Councilmember waters, I maybe should mention, this wasn’t my presentation, but just for everyone’s benefit.

Unknown Speaker 50:28
I think it was in the communication. But I do want to mention that this property is north of highway 66. In the state highway 66 mixed use area that formerly the cherry Lake neighborhood, it is within the Longmont planning area. So it is it is planned for eventual annexation and development within the city of Longmont. The comprehensive plan does show a mix of land uses that are really articulated more in that framework master plan. And that’s what the applicants concept plan is based on. So we would at this point expect to see that more general information and we can see at the time of annexation if the applicant is prepared to provide that level of detail. But often we don’t see that until later phases in the development process. So we can certainly have them. If you do refer this have them include even more narrative in their application materials.

Unknown Speaker 51:20
I also want to mention that there is some additional infrastructure that would be required, obviously at this area develops in there some plans collectors shown on the comp plan that this applicant would be responsible for a portion of so if if you want more information on any of those items tonight, we can provide them. But certainly I think the applicant heard your messaging of what you would be looking for at the time of annexation. If referred.

Unknown Speaker 51:50
You’re muted, you’re muted. I make one more comment, and then I’ll be quiet. Sure. And then I saw that I saw the narrative already about housing stock. In Nowhere in our objectives, do I see housing stock dresses, or that that asks for executive high end housing, we’re pretty clear on the need for mid tier working class homes. And, and an obligation on our affordable housing agenda or objective. So just to be just to refine the message in terms of what what you might be following up with. I’m done.

Unknown Speaker 52:26

Unknown Speaker 52:32
in the nearly eight years I’ve been on Council, I think this is the third time this property has come back. And like the mayor said with the sugar mill. Keep you know, this has always been previously agricultural land, it was perfect for agricultural land because it had a lot of water. But the problem is when we started building houses near it, it causes there’s a lot of flooding. It’s got a huge problem with drainage. And it would be good if you know potentially if we could resolve this problem working with the developer. However, I just, you know, once again, we’re looking at something that I don’t want to see it again. And I would hope as as Councilman waters said, I would hope to see more detail. Next time around I understand this is just early and you’re just doing bubble charts and things like that. But I would like to see I’m tired of seeing us annex good agricultural land, which was purchased cheaper than usual. Because it was agricultural land and then we annex it in and then it’d be then we rezone it and then we give waivers that. Yeah, so this is a problematic piece of land. And I know they know that. But I’m just saying going to be difficult. But thanks for trying.

Unknown Speaker 54:08
And I guess in is what we’re sorry, Mayor Pro Tem.

Unknown Speaker 54:13
Thank you Mayor Bagley. I knew that. You know, I might have a different outlook on this. But I’ve said for a long time ever since I’ve been elected to council that I’m generally pro annexation because that puts it in our jurisdiction. If it’s not annexed, it’s in somebody else’s jurisdiction and they can decide what they feel is appropriate there versus what the city of Longmont decides is appropriate there. And I will just make one example, in the sense that tonight, we have a piece appeal of a planning and zoning commission decision and completely different in concept but at the same time, it still puts that in our jurisdiction. Whereas if this was sable the county’s land, we would have no. No dog in the fight if you were. So I’m always pro annexation to bring things into our jurisdiction to make those decisions as we see fit as a city council as the elected representatives of Longmont, whereas if it’s not in our jurisdiction, and Boulder County can do it. It’s the same kind of argument that we had about the compost facility, for instance, in the sense that we wanted more say about the compost facility, but we don’t technically have it, because we’re not Boulder County. And so I think these you could say that if it’d be hyperbole, and I’m going to say it, because just to make the point is that Boulder County could technically save your compost facility and Terry lake. We don’t have control of that at this moment. I don’t think they will. And I guarantee you, they probably will not. But at the same time, we don’t have control of that property. And so I always like to refer things to annexation, with the understanding that we will then have further oversight over what gets developed or not developed in that particular piece of land. I don’t think that necessarily equates to urban sprawl, because we also have, you know, a footprint that’s set out for us by Dr. cog, I believe, the metro region. And so I don’t, I don’t particularly fear urban sprawl as a result of this. Because I mean, any of us have driven in multiple directions from Longmont, and there’s plenty of agricultural land that has been protected by conservation easements as well as open space purchases. So I’m not worried about open spots so much as I am about what gets developed in either adjacent to us, or within our, our footprint. And so I’m always a proponent of taking control of that footprint as much as possible. And so I will agree with this annexation. But I will also say that, what and what ends up being proposed by the developer will be of great consideration to how we go forward this

Unknown Speaker 57:23
Councillor pack. Thank you, Mayor

Unknown Speaker 57:26

Unknown Speaker 57:27
I agree with the comments that have been made. But it’s always amazing to me that people that developers or whoever buys land that cannot be developed the way they want it to be. And then come to the city and saying this is what we want, we know that it has all these problems, etc. Can you make it work for us? Um, it I find that very interesting concept instead of buying the land and using it for what it it can actually support. So I will vote for this. I agree with the mayor Pro Tem completely that we need to have these under these annexation parcels that need to be annexed within our control.

Unknown Speaker 58:11
Phillipsburg. Morton,

Unknown Speaker 58:13
I just like to say that I think we do make progress in every branch of engineering. And just because it’s been turned down before is not a reason why we can’t see a solution brought forward by the developer in such a way that it’s accessible the next time. So I will also vote to refer.

Unknown Speaker 58:36
And I’m gonna vote on this to Lauren, but I just wanted to let you know that so it’s the land. I mean, I, I seem to recall talking to a previous owner, and it was going to be eight to $9 million to fix the drainage issues. And so I’m going to vote for this too. But I don’t want you guys to waste money and time, I would not vote for it. I’ve said this to previous owners. If the developer is expecting you’re hoping that the city somehow contribute cash to this project with without explaining what the reason would be. So just just just I just put it out on the table that it’s not again, I said it not only for Council, but for you and your your clients that this is only Council’s blessing to explore annexation, it is not approval of the plan. So listen to staff and don’t waste money your time, please. I guess that’s my just friendly advice. Alright, so I will actually move 12 a, the annexation referral of 10 161 Highway. I made the motion and it was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and everybody it sounded like but we’ll go with you here. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the annexation referral is approved unanimously. So congratulations, Lauren, or maybe not. We’ll see. Thank you. All right. Right, let’s go on to 12. b. It’s also an annexation referral, same process, Somerset village kanemoto Estates a request for the City Council to review the Somerset village kanemoto Estates property into the annexation review process. And I’m assuming all our comments still hold true for this one. Right. Okay. Jasmine Christiansen,

Unknown Speaker 1:00:23
I won’t be voting to approve this, although it looks I mean, there’s a fabulous brochure and our presentation, it makes me want to move out there right away. However, this is land that has always been agricultural. It is currently being farmed. It is also an open space land. It is also has a conservation easement on it. And we’re being asked to overturn all of those and annex it, and I can’t vote. Sorry.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:02
Councilmember waters.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:04
Yeah, I’m gonna vote for this. As I read that, the developer is gonna have to deal with it with Boulder County and, and whatever it’s going to cost to buy out of the conservation easement. That’s explicit. But I wish every, every annexation application brought this kind of detail number one, and this kind of commitment to the housing stock to the mixed use to to a childcare center that’s designed into this, if we want to grow that capacity this for me, this is this epitomizes what could be considered extraordinary benefits to a community to this community through an annexation and, and as the concept plan gets advanced, and we had a chance to, to approve or pNz approve a development. So I’m not to make the point I was trying to make earlier if annexing at the edges of town, I think has implications in more implications for long term cost. But when when the value or the benefit to the community is is what we will see reflected in this proposal. It’s an easy vote for me to refer it forward.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:17
Alright, customer learn.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:20
Now, I’ve been waiting for this development to come back in the form that it has, has come back It is a positive contribution to the vision that we have for a sustainable city. And it It supports other things that we have through advanced Longmont 2.0. And yeah, I think it’s a positive conduct conversation, con tribution. And even an extraordinary one, if the concept that has been described is fulfilled.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:59
Alright, so I’m gonna actually move annexation approval the annexation referral of Somerset village. Second. It has been moved and seconded. Now before we vote on it, is there anyone else? So Councillor Christiansen hold on second. Is anyone else who has not spoken? Would they like to speak against the motion? I know Councilmember Christiansen dead. Okay, Councillor Christiansen? Gemma, the comment before we vote?

Unknown Speaker 1:03:26
Yeah, I’m sure this will pass. And I do think it looks like a lovely thing. And it has as a councilman waters said, they have a great detail and everything looks just terrific. But when someone puts a conservation easement on their land, they do that in the good faith that it will stay in perpetuity. And I don’t think we should take lightly just getting rid of it. So that we can, you know, create a development that spreads things out and is in contradiction to our legend. commitment to supporting agriculture in the in our comp plan.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:13
Alright, so there’s a motion on the table to approve the annexation referral? All in favor say aye.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:18
Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:22

Unknown Speaker 1:04:23
All right, it has been passed six to one with Councilmember Christiansen in the ascent. Alright, let’s go ahead and go on to 12. See, let’s take a five minute or three to five minute break is we let staff and are the appellees the pillars and all those people get ready. So we’ll be back in Let’s shoot for three but we might bleed over a little bit. And then Harold if or dawn, if you could make sure that we announce how much time we have so I can keep track and keep everybody keep it all fair. And keep it on lockdown. That’d be great. So we’ll see him Okay guys

Unknown Speaker 1:08:32
alright, let’s start coming back.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:14
Just hang tight for Aaron Paulie while we’re waiting, Don, what is the time limits? You want to run those bias again?

Unknown Speaker 1:09:26
Mayor I would ask Eva to come on and give us those if you don’t mind. I was looking at the Council common I don’t see those there.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:32
So I just saw Eva

Unknown Speaker 1:09:37
Good evening Mayor Bagley, council members, Eva offski Planning and Development Services. I am looking for that right now. So, um, I believe the time limit so staffs gonna make the presentation, give you the background, the appellant is going to come on. They have a limit of 35 minutes and then you would Oh Open the public hearing. And the limit is two minutes per person on any public discourse that if anyone calls in, and no more than 60 minutes total, according to the scripts that we typically use, I don’t anticipate that we would go that long. And then there’s a rebuttal part after questions. And the rebuttal is limited to 15 minutes.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:29
All right, so, so 60 minutes total for this process. 60 minutes for public hearing.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:36
60 minutes for a public hearing? Oh, yeah, that’s for the more acrimonious ones where you get a lot of people coming to public invited.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:43
Alright, so the is it? Eugene, can I ask you a quick question?

Unknown Speaker 1:10:52
Right there.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:53
All right. So my question is just a just so as we as we get going here, we’re gonna have a so at the end of that 35 minute period, and at the end of the public hearing in law, when we’re having a trial, before we offer a defense, you know, it’s possible just to say, look, Your Honor, if they proved they met their burden, and we can go ahead and have a vote, the judge can say, No, they didn’t. The defense does not even need to put on a defense, we’re done. Is it possible to have such a conversation after that? Meaning? Is it part if they if they do not convince us do it? If they do not convince us? Do we need to have the rebuttal. But this is a procedure. I have no idea what’s going to happen?

Unknown Speaker 1:11:41
No, I don’t think you do. We have to have the rebuttal. No, I don’t think you do. Okay, good. Thank you present their case and cheats. If you do have to rebuttal. You need to get both sides the opportunity. Correct.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:51
So what so what I would like to do is before we have the rebuttal if there’s somebody who, anyway, I just want to have a discussion prior to the rebuttal, and if we don’t need the rebuttal, we won’t have the rebuttal. But if we need the rebuttal, we will have the rebuttals that makes that

Unknown Speaker 1:12:08
I would make that clear at the beginning of the hearing so that all parties and the public

Unknown Speaker 1:12:13
and that is the that

Unknown Speaker 1:12:15
the contemplated process?

Unknown Speaker 1:12:17
Correct? Are we not back? Are we not on? Are we not live right now?

Unknown Speaker 1:12:21
I don’t know.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:22
I think Yeah, we are. So I’m making that clear. So I’m making that clear. I just don’t want to if they don’t meet their burden, and they don’t persuade us, then I’d rather you know, I mean, no need to have a rebuttal if it’s not needed. But anyway, so let’s go ahead and start with the appeal the planning and zoning commission decision regarding South more retail Plaza, conditional use site plan and variances from landscaping and building design standards. We’ve got two options tonight, I guess we have three that we have to presented in our packet, we have a resolution, basically upholding the planning and zoning commission, we also have a resolution saying that we are going to overturn it, I imagine there would be a third option, which is some type of hybrid. But who knows what but we’ll see what happens during the hearing. And so well, let’s go ahead and turn the time over to staff with the presentation. And then we’ll go in and give the appellant an opportunity to take up to 35 minutes to present their case. And then we’ll have the public hearing and we’ll go to that point in today’s regularly scheduled program. All right. So staff, Eva, do wanna start.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:30

Unknown Speaker 1:13:31
Thank you, Mayor Bagley and council members, we’re going to pull up the slideshow here. Again, this is the appeal of the South Mar retail Plaza conditionally use site plan and variances. Next slide please. So I’m just going to give you some background on this, and the applicant will discuss further their point of view, I’m just here to give you the background on it. So again, this is an appeal of a planning and zoning commission decision that was back in February of this year. And I’m going to go into more detail about what this application is. But in general, they sought an approval of a conditional use site plan for a 15,000 square foot commercial building. And they had to conditional use means that you have to get approval from planning and zoning commission. With that request, they also requested two variances. The first one they asked to plant less than the required number of trees per code. And I’ll get into that in the next couple slides. And the second request was to provide less than the required windows on the south side. The North side facing Ken Pratt Boulevard was fine. It’s it’s on the other side of the building. So we had a public hearing. The Commission approved the conditional use site plan, but they denied both variances. All of this and the minutes are in your packet. In the resolution. They stated that the reason They were denying the variances that is that they were self created hardships. Next slide, please. So again, I’m just going to give you a brief orientation on the background of this project. So I don’t know a pointer, but there’s the red box there. And if you know this property, if you’ve lived here long enough, you know, it’s very unique because there’s a ranch house in the middle of a very busy commercial area. On Ken Pratt Boulevard. There’s the South Moore Plaza at the corner at the southwest corner of Ken Pratt Boulevard and Main Street, and this would be just immediately west of it. And then there’s like, there’s a 711, there at Ken Pratt and Pratt Parkway. And this would be just immediately east of that. And so the site for development is just short of two acres, the zoning is mixed use

Unknown Speaker 1:15:53

Unknown Speaker 1:15:54
and the exe, there’s, again, there’s just an existing Ranch House, I’m sure you’re all familiar with it. Its current configuration. It looks like a square a rectangle in this picture, but it’s actually three lots and I’ll get into that in the next slide. Next slide, please. And so their proposal that they took to the Planning Commission was two things. One was to, again, develop the property with a one storey 15,000, and some change square foot commercial building. You see it right here. Thank you, Susan. And so what drove the conditional use now normally, this would be a use by right, and they would do a site plan review with the city’s development review team, and it would move through the process. But what drove the conditional use is that on the right side of the building, which would be the east side of the building, thank you, Susan. So they were proposing a drive thru type of coffee shop there. And so that’s a conditional use under that zoning. So they had to get approval from planning and zoning commission. Just some other factoids about this, the remainder of the tenant spaces were planned to be some retail, and a couple of sit down restaurants. They had 81 parking spaces. As you can see, it kind of goes all around the perimeter. And the project met all of the development standards except for on why it says former code. I’m sorry about that. It’s the current code, except two things. One was the building design standards in our code, say, and I’m going to get into that in the next couple slides. But essentially, the South Side, which is the bottom right there, thank you, Susan. Um, that is planned to be Grand Avenue. It’s not built out like that Grand Avenue. Actually, if you’re coming in from Pratt Parkway, it dead ends right into this property. So if you were to go there, right now, you’ll see nothing but vacant land. Thank you. Yes. And so on that facade, or that side, they were supposed to have a certain percentage of Windows. And then the other variants, again, was to plant a little bit less trees than required in the landscape buffers, and within the right of way. Next slide, please. So that first variance that we were talking about, comes from our design standards. In the code, there were a couple areas. The code says that when you have a building facade that faces onto a public street, and for them even though it doesn’t appear, so as you saw from the area, Grand Avenue is planned as a public street, those must have arcades, windows, entry areas, awnings, etc, on 60% of the horizontal link. And in addition, the ground floor facing a public street must provide 50% windows and doors. So essentially, they need to provide a minimum of 50% windows and doors on Grand Avenue, plus maybe another 10% of you know awnings and other dressy features, as you can see here. And so if you look here on the right, the building elevations, the one on the top is cam Pratt Boulevard. It meets all of our code standards. The one on the bottom is the one on Grand Avenue that faces the South. And they’re proposing 8%. And the basis for their variance request is they said, you know, the front facing camera is where, you know, that’s where the public’s invited. The backside off of grand is more for deliveries. The way we do floor planning for commercial buildings, they say that would be the delivery room, the bathroom, the stockroom, the kitchen area for the restaurant, and therefore those types of spaces aren’t really you know, they’re not amenable to having a bunch of big display windows where people are working and You know, stock rooms. And so one of the staff recommendations is we said, well, maybe we can add some awnings to the back of those exit doors for some additional treatment. Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:14
And even while you’re getting that next slide, just a quick question on process. What you’re explaining now has all been approved. It’s not de novo, right? It’s not this is this is all this is the APR, everything was approved by planning and zoning that we’re hearing right

Unknown Speaker 1:20:28
now. That’s not the so the site plan to have, I guess, the building footprint and everything else there was approved. What was not approved, is if you saw on that backslide, the Grand Avenue facade, they’re doing 8% transparency, if you will, where they need 50 and, and 60 with awnings. And

Unknown Speaker 1:20:50
so as you’re explaining, can you make it clear, what would I mean, because right now, we’re just approving or unapproved? So if it’s what you’re saying, is that, so planning and zoning said they asked for eight, but they declined it.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:05
Correct. So your role would be to decide whether Planning Commission made an error in denying that variance? And did they have the grounds for approving it, what they’re requesting?

Unknown Speaker 1:21:19
Got it? And so who who is appealing? the appellant is the developer.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:24
Correct. And they’ll come on next and discuss further. I’m sorry, I’m just trying to go through the background. That’s right,

Unknown Speaker 1:21:29
keep going. Sorry. I just wanted to be clear. Sure, if it was for me, I just wanted to understand.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:34
Sure, no problem. And then that second variance request, again, we require landscape buffers along street facades. So in this case, at the top is cam Pratt Boulevard, we require a buffer up there. And then at the bottom, because Grand Avenue will be a street, they have to provide the buffer there. And so they’ve got it, you know, they’ve got the buffers, that’s not a problem. But the code then has very specific amounts of trees and shrubs that you have to stick in each buffer. And so on the ken Pratt frontage at the top, they would have been required to have 10 trees, but they can only provide six. And I’ll get to that next. Because there’s, it’s the same reason for all of it. At the bottom of the Grand Avenue frontage, they’re supposed to have 10 trees, they could only get two in there in the right in the new right of way tree lawn area, they should have seven trees, they weren’t able to get any in. And then this water quality parameter, it’s actually not to be confusing, but it’s inside the landscape buffers. And so the code would have said you need 14 trees which could have overlapped with that buffer on that side. But they only provided seven. And so the applicants justification for all of these variances is they said look, in every on camera and on Grand Avenue, we have a utility constraint and Longmont power and city of Longmont public works. And the planning departments, landscaping consultants have all said you can’t put trees there because the roots will conflict with our utilities. So they had to be creative in planting their trees. And they couldn’t get that full number because of these utility constraints. Similarly, on Grand Avenue in the right of way, the city, there wasn’t enough width of right of way. And so there wasn’t enough room to facilitate tree planting. And the way the applicant tried to mitigate that loss of trees is so again, there’s a prescribed number of shrubbery. And so whatever that number of shrubbery was the applicant tripled that amount in their plan. So if there were supposed to be 10 shrubs, they provided 30 in each case, to try and mitigate that down so that the neighbors to the south and the north, they can still get that landscape buffer, it just won’t be all trees as much. Next slide, please. So in summation, so they have the public hearing in February, the council voted five to two again, they’re approving that conditionally you site plan. They just deny both of those variance requests on the Grand Avenue frontage of the architecture and the trees in their resolution PCR 21 one B which was in your packet. The basis for that denial states the variance request did not meet the review criteria for approval, in that they are self imposed hardships did not go on to elaborate, but you do have the minutes in your packet. So the site plan itself was approved with two conditions and one of which was set suggestion that they add awnings over the exit doors on the Grand Avenue side to sort of provide a little bit more, you know, detail on that facade to kind of bump up their percentage from 8% to something more, and that the applicant complete any outstanding red lines from the development review committee, when we did the site plan review, there were just a few loosened engineering comments. And so they just that’s a typical boilerplate condition, when we take a site plan up, that hasn’t been fully approved by our staff team. So again, the minutes are in your packet. And so now what I’m going to do is turn it over to Tom Davis from pw n architects, and he’s representing the applicant and with him is Scott own of grounded by design, and he can talk about your new landscaping questions and the constraints Dana uses here. He’s representative for TiVo properties. And lastly, I just want to let you know that Christopher from public works engineering is here from our team to answer any of staff’s questions about the engineering and the utilities related to this. So I’ll turn it over to Tom.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:16
And before we end, so Tom, I’m going to click the I’m going to start your 35 minutes as soon as I point to you. But Councillor Martin, you have a question or comment quick?

Unknown Speaker 1:26:26
Yes, I do. I think this question is for Eva. I live near harvest junction. And they don’t have that transparency on the backs of their buildings. And there is a road that goes behind there. Could you please explain the difference, especially since there was a lot of discussion in the pNz minutes about that section of grants not going through ever? And so I don’t understand why. Quite this requirement sticks.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:00
Sure. So when harvest junction was developed, that was probably 1518 years ago, maybe more, we now have our new our new and improved zoning code that was enacted in 2018. So we have new and different and sometimes stricter design standards than what we had in the old code. So that was not a requirement. When harvest junction was developed. It is now a requirement under the current zoning code. And just for clarity, is I don’t think we ever said that Grand Avenue is never going through. What we said was it’s going to stub out to the end of this property. And when the city’s public works department can get the right of way from the property ownership on East of that they will continue to work through getting Grand Avenue moved all the way to mainstream.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:52
Alright. Alright, with that, Tom Davis, you’re on the clock before evening. Good evening, everyone.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:01
Can you hear me?

Unknown Speaker 1:28:03

Unknown Speaker 1:28:04
Excellent. Well, let me just preface first let me say thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council for your time tonight. preface this presentation that the project team believes that these are very simple, reasonable and unavoidable asks, that’s why we’re having appeal. And also that we’ve been working with engineering and planning for 15 or 16 months to try and develop the best possible project for the city and for everybody. So with that, we’ll get started. Next slide, please. Okay, so our request for city council is to approve planning staffs 217 21 recommendation in their staff report for the planning zoning meeting restated conditional approval of requested variances due to hardships for existing site conditions, because applicant meets the variance request criteria for approval. So we’re quoting that out of even her group’s recommendation. Next slide, please. So let’s take these one at a time. First is the inability to meet the landscape requirements as Eva described, in that as to try and make up for the inability of this existing utility site conditions. The applicant proposes us a 60 additional shrubs as kind of a substitute for what we could do because of the existing condition or restrictions that we were up against. Next slide, please. Okay, so a landscape buffer is 20 foot buffer from the property line, okay, so it’s nothing. This is where we’re having a real struggle with a self imposed hardship because that’s just a given condition of the code 20 feet from the property line. So we’re showing This slide is, first of all, number one, there’s an existing tree screen that’s in the right of way on Chem crap Boulevard, which is kind of the intent that we’re not able to meet. But we feel obligated to point that out or kind of being met. That there’s a condition a contextual condition of a tree screen that is between our site and kimbra. Boulevard. And then the two white horizontal areas at the north, there are utility utility easements, preventing tree planting. And on the south side on grand, which doesn’t exist today. And we’re gonna get into this, but the the land dedication, the payment for the session of grant is by our project team, is it their power line, so we’re going to show some other slides on grand why there’s no trees, because there’s power lines there, it’s hopefully that’s easy to understand, or we’ll try to illustrate that with slides. Next slide, please. Okay, so here’s a little bit of what’s going on today. And really, the prominent element on Grand Avenue right now are power lines. And you can you can see that there, there’s many of them. And there shouldn’t be trees around them for safety standpoint. And that’s why we can’t get the trees in this area. Even you can see in photo two at the bottom where, you know, there are trees, and it’s kind of probably a safety concern for those powerlines. So I think the simple argument here is that they’re powerlines, they’re gonna stay, we can’t plant trees around them, because they’re powerlines there. So hopefully, that’s, you know, understandable enough, I don’t know how to explain it

Unknown Speaker 1:31:42
in a different way.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:45
Next slide, please. And then this is what I was mentioned before, if you look in plan up top and the right of way, there’s a nice landscape buffer that’s in the right of way with sidewalk and a tree screen. It’s not on our site, it’s adjacent to our site, but it’s kind of filling the bill with the intent of the landscape buffer with the trees to create a tree screen to the arterial Street.

Unknown Speaker 1:32:13
Next slide, please. Okay, now

Unknown Speaker 1:32:17
we’re on the north part of the site by Ken crapple. have already can see the right of way green space I was just describing. So here’s where we’re bound by utilities, Mrs. Eva was alluding to where we cannot plant trees because of the rules of utilities and water quality. So red is a water easement. Yellow is a gas easement. And green is a sand filter. We, as I said in teamwork with engineering, we asked them about underwater detention, water quality as an option that was denied they wanted on the surface. So we This was pretty much mandated. We tried to negotiate. And we were told, this is the way that the water quality should be designed. So we did. So you can see the leftover areas is there, we did get the trees we could get in. But again, we find it hard to understand that’s a self imposed hardship because we’re not allowed to plant trees there from the standpoint of their utility easements.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:19
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:26
So this is the same conclusion for variance request number one that it’s reasonable Longmont planning staff believe the applicant met the criteria for variance request and standard. So in their staff report, which you all have, and that’s their conclusion at the end, they recommended approval of variance because of the existing site conditions. Next slide, please. This is variance request number two. And hopefully we’re starting to understand from Ava’s explanation, hopefully we can add to that. In 2018, there’s a new part of the code that says there’s a transparency, which means windows and doors to face major Street. And we believe the intent to that was so that if you were on, you know, typically there’s one major street condition. And that’s really emphasized and welcoming and transparent and open and community communicating to the community. But well, we have a unique condition where we have two fronts, and we have a building type to just have one front. So that’s why we’re asking for consideration of an exception. And then the other part of this is that the Grand Avenue doesn’t exist today. And we wouldn’t need to meet that requirement except for our client is being asked at their own expense and dedication, the land to extend grant Avenue behind our sight. So somehow seems a little bit ironic that we’re being asked to provide the street and then being held to a standard which the building can’t really be developed by functionally. Next slide, please. So this is just a graphic straight out of the land development code. So hopefully it helps illustrate the issue the A, that the transparency is defined by the windows and doors, and there should be over 50% on a major arterial.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:21
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:25
The other thing that wasn’t brought up yet, but as part of the land development code for the drive thru was, we were required to put a six foot opaque fence, which we also see the trash enclosure, which essentially is the similar thing. So maybe counterintuitive to transparency, because you know, seated in a car, even if it’s there, over 50% of the rear elevation is is screened on purpose, because there is a car queue there. So we felt like that was a compelling argument against transparency, because, you know, it’s, it’s not really visible, you could say, you know, you can see over six feet and you know, this and that, but you know, seated in a car or walking, you’re probably not going to see the back of the building from Grand Avenue due to this screening condition that’s required by the code for the drive thru. Next slide, please. This is just an elevation of the rear facade to show how that opaque trash enclosure and opaque six foot screen impact the rear elevation in terms of, you know, it’s transparency. We’ve also discovered through this process that we calculated the transparency wrong. The 8% is just the windows and the attempt was to try and meet some of the intent of the code by getting some transparency back there, I think it is effective in terms of creating a front presence. But the way it’s actually calculated is even with those little pink doors, so we’re actually 19%, still not near 50, but better than eight. So that was our own error and calculating that I want to point out. Also, just that, you know, as part of the functional in the building in the back, there’s water entry room. And that’s, you know, full of engineering stuff, and, you know, doesn’t really want to be seen through transparency. And we’ve got to put it somewhere, we can’t really put in the middle of the building. But there’s a natural front and back, like there’s a shoe that has a place where your foot goes in and a soul where, you know, meets the bottom, and it’s a pretty standard solution. Next slide, please. This is the kind of functionality diagram for retail planning that Dave alluded to, you know, basic retail planning. And again, it’s maybe one of the council members suggested 99% of these types of buildings do have opaque backs. I think she mentioned everything except for security, security is a big issue. They do bring transparency and confusion of which way to come in is problematic for the tenants, they want to control through through one access. But the back of the leased space needs to be secure, receive deliveries, and how store rooms restrooms, kitchens and utility rooms, making it you know, problematic and difficult not impossible, but antithetical to this, this building type to have transparency on the back.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:20
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:24
Additionally, when we talked to a structural engineer about this, this building type is also designed specifically to have a shear wall which supports you know, the lateral loads by having a solid wall. So if you see the blue line on the slide, there’s a specific structural approach to this building type to be solid to support the building. to punch a lot of openings in it, we have to create a steel brace moment frames, which is a lot of steel to interact loads, again, kind of counterintuitive to how these buildings want to be designed to have them transparent on both sides. Also from a structural standpoint. Next slide, please. And then the other thing is asking everyone’s seeking context Grand Avenue, we’re not gonna be able to save the world here. As I mentioned before, the the most prevalent aspect of this elevation and the will be are these power lines, which aren’t particularly attractive. If the other existing buildings, even though it’s a new code, and we applaud it, and we support it, really. But the reality is, is this is always going to be kind of a back to Ken Pratt, and historically for blocks and blocks. We have opaque facades, no landscaping, power poles. And we just think that context should be taken into account with what we’re trying to do to make it a presentable designed facade and meet the intent of addressing Grand Avenue in a way that’s that’s realistic to the function of the building. Next slide please. Further down Grand Avenue again, no landscaping, no transparency, really, it’s it’s a service. It’s a service road. Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:16
This more of the same existing Grand Avenue. Next slide, please. Again, see the problems with the trees and in the prominence of the

Unknown Speaker 1:40:28
the powerlines, really creating the facade for Grand Avenue. So we just thought that context was important in terms of consideration for a variance request.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:39
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:42
And lastly, we just like to end on what we believe is a strong design value proposition to Grand Avenue in different from the previous four slides that you’d seen. A lot of efforts been made to make this a three dimensional building with canopies on all sides. There’s three distinctive material transitions so that we have different colors and variation and trying to make it look very presentable to Grand Avenue. unavoidably we can see we have the scuppers and the drainage, which is what’s going to be there. There’s contrast in decorative bands, we do have 90% transparency, we have a roof height variations, we’ve tried to take some architectural interests to this facade and care about it. We propose to add the decorative metal canopies per the conditional approval, the planning proposed. And we think those really help add to creating a front elevation without functionally hurting what the doing wants to do. That the fact that transparency was added and obvious laughter. likely that glass will be filmed. So there’ll be some light shared, but from a security standpoint, it wants to be not see through. The massing has been articulated with protruding volumes. It’s just not one elevation, like we saw a bunch of those other buildings in the care was taken in the design. The Grand Avenue wasn’t forgotten, but it was it was articulated in a similar way, but in a way that functionally supports the building type. And again, we already talked about the landscape walls.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:23
Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:27
And similarly, to the first zoning request, the planning staff I did recommend for a conditional approval, and they thought that the project met the met the criteria for variance requests and stated so on their staff report. Next slide, please. So again, our request is for city council to approve the planning staffs recommendation for conditional approval of requested variances due to hardships for existing site conditions, because the applicant meets the variance request criteria for approval.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:04
Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:08
The chair would like to thank Mr. Davis for leaving us 20 minutes left in your time. So I’m aware of of how quick and condensed that was. We appreciate it. So I would like to hear the rebuttal. So I mean, I’m assuming that if we if we were to vote, vote one way at this point, because it’s that the applicant is the developer, it’d be a little a little strange. So let’s go ahead and who’s going to provide the rebuttals? It’s city staff,

Unknown Speaker 1:43:38
and Mayor Council, we can rebut. Again, this is a unique situation, because this isn’t being appealed by a third party citizen. Maybe saying staff made an error or something in that case. You know, I don’t really have anything to read. But we do have to open the public hearing, we are obligated to do that as well.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:00
Right. But my point is that there is no private citizen or group saying we don’t want this. It’s just no one is I mean, staff. Staff doesn’t care, right.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:14
Man, I don’t I don’t know that we don’t win.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:18
I guess just just to just to recap what I’m hearing, again, not to argue but just to recap, what I’m hearing is they asked for the variances. The staff agreed with those variances planning and zoning said no, and they appealed. And I guess the rebuttal would be planning and zoning, theoretically, if they were here to offer rebuttal.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:39
Right, right. All I can say is that I know that in the discourse of it again, it said the minutes they felt it was a self imposed hardship. I think the applicant has demonstrated that they didn’t create the utility easements they didn’t create the overhead power lines. They didn’t say We want to build right away on Grand Avenue, they were told by the city to do that. So in all those instances, I don’t know that the applicant created that.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:10
So so if we, if we, if someone moves in so I see the hands, we’re gonna, we’re gonna, everybody’s hands up. Okay. So if we so if we I just want to understand by process, right, so if we someone moves resolution 2021 39. b, it’s basically saying let the developer proceed with the 19%. transparency. The limited tree space is for all the reasons they said, right?

Unknown Speaker 1:45:39
The number two option, right,

Unknown Speaker 1:45:41
okay. Just want to make sure we understand. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to go, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, the release of Councilmember pack, there we go, Councilmember Martin, then we’re going to Councilmember Christiansen, I think counts memory jogger fairing. And then Dr. Waters, he wants to say something

Unknown Speaker 1:45:59
very badly of the two.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:01
I just wanted. Okay, I just want to disclose that I’m the liaison for planning and zoning commission and was also a party to the arguments that staff has alluded to, as well as the appellants. In the sense that I was there, I listened to all of it, I may not agree or disagree with it as a decision maker on this point of view. I just want to make sure there’s disclosure there that I was there. Unlike my fellow council members who are not necessarily present for the discussion by the planning and zoning commission. I’d be happy to opine on it at the appropriate time. But I just want to make sure that it is known that I was party to all of those arguments in the sense that I was present.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:47
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and I don’t think it’s inappropriate for you to participate and be here. So appreciate that. All right, we’re gonna go with Councillor pack.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:58
So Mayor Bradley, this is time when we can make our our comments about about the presentation about

Unknown Speaker 1:47:04
what I mean. So when I say a lot of times, I know that council members have gotten frustrated when I say someone make a motion. So what I’m really saying is, if there’s not a motion, all we’re doing is showing our opinion in in our opinion doesn’t really matter. It we need for people that direct staff, or in this case for people that make a decision in a quasi judicial capacity saying proceed forward. So so we can either you can either move resolution 2021 39 A, which says sorry, developer, you can go ahead and build a project, but you got to do it. But but the variances are denied. And you’re gonna have to figure out a way to come up with more windows and more trees. or number two resolution 2021 39 B, which is we agree with the arguments is presented by staff and yourself. You can proceed with your project with the 19% window space and the limited trees. If you have emotion like

Unknown Speaker 1:48:03
I do. I’d like to move 2021 dash 39 a

Unknown Speaker 1:48:09
resolution. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:13
Did you second that Councillor Christiansen?

Unknown Speaker 1:48:17
All right.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:17
So there’s a there’s a motion on the floor resolution 2021 2039. A. And it has been seconded by Councilmember Christiansen Alright, so Jones, you have any other comments to make?

Unknown Speaker 1:48:28
I do. And I wanted to explain why I said that. You know, I read everything in the packet. And there were a couple of comments made one that one comment that was made was that they think transparency has been a hiccup in the code. And the other thing is about grand Street, it’s not a hiccup in the code. It was put there specifically so that we can build differently in this city. The land to the south that is behind your development is open space. I mean, undeveloped land, I don’t mean open space. And more than likely that’s going to be residential. More than likely. And in the plan, the comp plans grand Grand Avenue is going to go all the way through, then we just need to get the right ways. So your development will be there 2030 years, we we don’t know I shouldn’t say wait. I like the Envision Longmont plan because it’s about equity. If we build behind these buildings that are all commercial, then we are not being equitable to people who have to are going to be buying affordable housing or lower income housing because chances are those will not be million dollar homes. And it’s already got Habitat for Humanity homes behind it. So I understand that the other buildings the other commercial buildings on grand don’t have this transparency But that was before the code was changed. So um, I don’t want to give you the variances on on that the other.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:09
The other issue was the shoot versus

Unknown Speaker 1:50:19
the windows, I also read in the, in all of the discussions that you don’t have to put huge big windows display windows in the back. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about people who are living in those homes, or not seeing a big commercial building as they’re what they’re looking at. So yes, right now Grand Avenue is not going to go through, but in 10 years, 15 years, when those residential homes are built, it will go through to 287. So those are my two. Those are my two issues right now.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:56
Right. So we’re going to keep here talking, we’re going to hear from counsel, once where I would just ask that we make our comments, then we’re going to have a public hearing. But when we hear the public hearing, I just don’t want to redo all the comments. Can we agree on that? Okay, then Councillor Martin?

Unknown Speaker 1:51:17
You’re muted. Yes.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:19
I actually don’t know which way I’m going to vote because I have two questions that I need answered in order to determine how I’m going to vote. So first of all, is there anybody from lpm? Here? I’m going to ask the question anyway, if maybe Dale’s here.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:39
Although what I’d like to just as a point of order, so if we allow them. So I would like to ask if it’s possible, if we could get staff to answer the questions. That would be great, because my understanding is if we allow the applicant to say more, we’re I mean, theoretically, there’s no rebuttal. But

Unknown Speaker 1:51:59
theoretically to

Unknown Speaker 1:52:00
ask staff go nuts, Dale, okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:52:03
Staff. I know that we have a long range plan to bury a much greater percentage of our power lines, and those power lines look like prime candidates. And that has a lot to do with whether we take when we take grand through, right, because I’m thinking that it’s going to be easier to bury those power lines before grand tries to go through than it would be to build them to bury them after so am I correct in that assumption? And do we know when we’re going to get to burying those power lines? Councilmember Martin, I’ve

Unknown Speaker 1:52:49
got Chris Harper here on the line from public works engineering, he

Unknown Speaker 1:52:53
can take that.

Unknown Speaker 1:52:55
Yes, sir. Mayor and Councilmember Martin Criswell for Public Works natural resources. I am not an LPC. I’ll say that first. And I’m basing my answer here on comments that they made on the plans. From what I understand the power lines that are back long Grand Avenue right now, our transmission lines, and they’re costly to underground, and we would need to underground a larger section of it than what is being planted right now with this development. So yes, it is intended to be underground in the future. They have reserved the easements on the plat in order to do that, and it will be outside of Grand Avenue, but it will most likely be going through the landscape area that they’re showing on their plan right now. But it’s also my understanding that we can implement boring type processes to not have to dig all that up at the time that that goes through.

Unknown Speaker 1:53:58
A Thank you. And and my other question, because I really don’t like asphalt and I think we need to be pairing that how much of our city is is paved down on this, the staff suggested that rather than them adopting item one or item two, that we could split the difference. And I would like to suggest to others that what we should do is is say don’t need 81 parking places. Let’s put some more trees in little in the little parklet areas in some of those parking lots and and you know have 75 so if I had a fate, you know what my preferences is to vote no on this and suggest that we make them put in some more trees but leave the rear facade. Wait is

Unknown Speaker 1:54:55
right. Eva,

Unknown Speaker 1:54:56
do you want to take a moment?

Unknown Speaker 1:54:58
Thank you. Yes. Sorry, mayor

Unknown Speaker 1:55:00
and council member Martin, I just wanted to add to that. That is that is obviously an option for council to require them to put trees in their parking lot. What I just wanted to remind Council is, that would not remove the variance because the variance, the landscape buffer has to be that first 1015 feet right off the property line. So that’s where the trees are required to be. So you can ask them to put trees in the parking lot, but they would you know, that it’d be a condition of a variance approval because the trees are required in the landscape buffer not in the parking area. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank

Unknown Speaker 1:55:40
you. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:42
Is it something that we can do or not?

Unknown Speaker 1:55:47
It is okay. Sure. That can be a condition of approval.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:50
Are you done, Marcia? Sorry. Alright, customer Christiansen and then Cal summer double fairing? You know,

Unknown Speaker 1:55:59
I’ve gone through several, quite a few of these actually. And what frustrates me is that we never actually do have a rebuttal because we have staff present, basically for the developer. And then who recommended this to go to planning and zoning. We never invite planning and zoning to explain themselves, although we have the notes. And I think they did a very thorough and thoughtful conversation and discussion about this. I particularly like what and I appreciate both the comments, Councillor Martin and peck, because we have to think about this is an infill project. And we all know that’s much more difficult, and I appreciate Tebow properties for doing this, and I think it will also enhance their property to the west, it will be helpful for them to be able to tie the two of them together. However, TiVo property, it’s my understanding that they also own the property just to the south and intend to build residential there. So we have to and and the intent is for Grand Avenue to go through. So the intent is really to create something that is workable, and also safe in terms of if they do build residential to the south, it will be important for Graham to go through for safety purposes, because the there is a really nice little neighborhood to the south of that themselves more and in poplar Grove. And a lot of those houses are habitat, I’ve worked on a couple of them and people have, you know, builds those with their own hands and hammers, and we want a neighborhood that’s healthy and safe for everybody. We don’t want people looking at the back of a warehouse. So it is important to have I understand the the explanation from the architect about the steel continuity and all that. But you know, you’re taking a giant building that faces south and you don’t want to put any windows in it. We’re talking about passive solar and really trying to think about how to make buildings and all of our uses more, not only more equitable, so that people aren’t facing a warehouse, but also more sustainable. So even, you know, if you had some passive solar windows higher up, it would, it would be helpful, and it wouldn’t be so bleak to look at. And so you know, if that is indeed a warehouse, it will need deliveries on Grand Avenue, which will really heavily impact the people themselves more Park and the people in that residential area that will be built there pretty soon. So we’re, I think this council is trying very hard like the planning and zoning board to think about the future and something that is really good for Southport park for poplar Grove, which is that little part of sticks to the north there and create something that’s really wonderful. And I am sure that t bo also wants to create something that’s wonderful. So I think we can work together but I, I am not inclined to change our code for this. I do see the problem with the trees to the south. But you know, bushes are not the same as trees. They don’t provide any habitat for birds. They don’t provide any shade for the buildings so their trees are not the same. I think that’s a problem though, that it would be worth us trying to think about how to fix how to make it possible for them to put more trees Put the required number of trees in. Given that they have to put them maybe too close to overhead lines. That’s the only problem I have. But I’m not inclined to overturn planning and zoning. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
counsel for the offering. And then Dr. Waters. And then Aaron, I saw your I saw your hand again. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:00:23
we’ll get there. Oh,

Unknown Speaker 2:00:25
thank you, man. So my question is for Eva around the code revision. So you said that the code was changed in 2018. And I just want to know, what the rationale was, for those particular areas. What Why was it needed? Why do you feel like it was needed to to change?

Unknown Speaker 2:00:45
Is the mayor and council member Hidalgo fairing? i? Yeah, you know, Brian Schumacher worked on the code update. But I think the intent of the additional requirements on building design was, again, to provide some sort of interest on a street frontage. And again, you know, some of these buildings that we’re talking about harvest junction and the neighboring properties, you know, in that case, Grand Avenue wasn’t really a fully built out Street, so I don’t think it was maybe required of those projects. Again, we just wanted some more architectural interest facing a public street, something that looks more inviting.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:27
Okay. Okay. And so, you know, I do have a comment. So this area is actually, actually so I’m a full time teacher, and the school that I teach at, which is above 94%, free reduced lunch. So a lot of our students are come from families in poverty, and time and time again, they are dealt the short end of the stick with quality of living with, with, you know, just how, where they live. Um, you know, so I think that, you know, for aesthetics is, you know, and meeting the needs of our, our people who don’t necessarily come in and, and voice like, we heard a lot of people coming in from Erie and lookout road, who were able to have the time to come to call in and make a case for their concerns, a lot of our families are working two and three, three jobs in order to sustain any kind of quality of living. So I feel like, you know, our, our is my responsibility. And my, you know, I speak for the people of our community who live our residents. And, you know, I just I, and I also have a lot of Trey’s faith and trust in what the planning and zoning commission say so yeah, this would be one where I would, I would side with them, because I believe that they are the experts in this. In this issue, I read through the comments, I read through the minutes. And, you know, I’m inclined to lean towards their decision rather than, than making a variance. And also speaking for the people who don’t necessarily come in and call and say, Hey, you know, I’m not good about this. And you know, that these are my families that I’m their teacher, to a lot of these students. So, you know, I, so I also feel like I have a moral obligation to, to, at least in this sense to advocate for them.

Unknown Speaker 2:03:29
Right, Dr. Waters. Thanks for your bag like

Unknown Speaker 2:03:35
Yeah, this one, this one is a an interesting appeal. Because what I hear a council members saying is that this the staff analysis and the staff recommendation, the planning and zoning was off, right that the staff recommended approval, because of what we were expecting from the developer in terms of Grand Avenue because of utility easements. What I what I, what I read on page 16, I think of the staff recommendation, the staff did not see a self imposed hardship. In the staffs recommendation was approval, I could find nothing and maybe I missed it. Cuz I read it, I could not find what the planning and zoning commission members specifically identified or named as the self imposed hardship. And maybe it was the size of the building, or maybe it was the drive thru. I couldn’t find it. I saw the reference to it over and over again, without definition. So I don’t know what to do with that other than scratch my head. But I will say this, there are both moral obligations and ethical obligations. And when I I would before I came on this council, I was sitting in the gallery when I saw brown Aaron, make the initial presentations of the code updates. If I heard one word over and over and over again, during those presentations, it was flexibility. One of the reasons and I if if Aaron or Brian, if they’re interference, still dial into this wants to come back in and comment on that I’m not certain that that’s appropriate in the hearing. But, but I raised questions about what’s the what’s the vision? What are we really trying to get done with these code updates. And there was never a really good response to that ultimately, when I came on the council, but I do recall how important it was that that flexibility giving staff and us flexibility with the new code was kind of the mantra, and in an objective we were trying to accomplish. Now the staff is making recommendation, applying that that principle, flexibility or that option, and pNz rejected it, and now you’re the council rejecting as well, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I do wonder when I look at the at the I don’t know, anything of I saw that the house was built in 1956? I don’t know who occupies the house? I don’t know. But I look at that land and think is that the best and highest use of the land? as it sits right now? And in? My answer is, I don’t think so. And I’m not certain, you know, what’s the what’s the imagination that that somebody ought to bring for what goes on that land, and I understand the property behind is owned by t bo as well, then I know, there’s been discussions about the kind of housing that might go there, guys, she seems to be in terms of fairness, to say, we expect you to donate the land and in finish grand. And now when you do that, you kind of apply this other standard. It’s just a gotcha. It’s it sounds to me like and I just, I understand the cotton the arguments made by by other council members, and in consideration of sight lines and those kinds of things. But but that, but whatever we do with this is not going to change what they’re looking at in the rest of those buildings. And I look at that piece of ground and think what’s a better use? We are we think we have a an imagination for the imagination for the or recommendation for the better use. Maybe we ought to offer that up. But gosh, it seems to me, we do this. People bring forth ideas, and then we want to we do everything we can to catch them. So we can say no to what they were proposing. The last thing I would say is this. I just want to go with that. So I want to hear more discussion if there’s going to be more discussion. But I’m, I’m inclined not to. I’m not I’m inclined to support the staff recommendation originally, which would be I guess, resolution be here.

Unknown Speaker 2:07:55
Right? I’m Erin I’m before I’m just going to say my two cents before I call an exhibit Saturday, I’m going to vote against it only because I’m gonna vote for resolution B only because the the window argument, what I heard was, you know, the design of the building is a bunch of storage space in the back because it’s commercial, retail or commercial space in general. And putting, the only way to do that would be what put storage in the middle of the building. It just doesn’t make much sense. The building currently exists the buildings next to it already have, you know, less transparency than 19%. And the the actual plot itself sounds like you can’t fit a bunch of trees on unless you actually substitute for shrubbery. So I’m going to vote against it. And if there’s a motion for resolution 2021 39 B, I will vote for that. Mayor Pro Tem Thank you Mayor Bagley, can

Unknown Speaker 2:08:49
I just get a reminder from staff? There are three criteria that allows for an applicant to appeal the ruling of planning and zoning commission. Can I get a reminder of that as well? I believe the appealing party is only asking two of those items not all three. If my understanding and recollection is correct.

Unknown Speaker 2:09:12
mayor and council Eugene may city attorney so the permissible grounds for appeal from a decision by the pNz. His decision not supported by any competent evidence in the record. Decision is plainly inconsistent with review criteria as shown by clear and convincing evidence or three decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the municipal code. As you saw in the materials, the appellant is proceeding under basis, I believe two and three repeat the review criteria

Unknown Speaker 2:09:48
and exceeded jurisdiction repeat those again in detail. Eugene, please.

Unknown Speaker 2:09:51

Unknown Speaker 2:09:54
Three permissible grounds for appeal. One decision of pNz is not suitable. By any competent evidence in the record, but they’re not arguing, they’re not arguing that to decision is plainly inconsistent with review criteria as shown by clear and convincing evidence, higher standard than preponderance of the evidence. And three, the decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the municipal code.

Unknown Speaker 2:10:24
Thank you, city attorney may. So number one was not being appealed. Number two, I think the code is fairly clear. So I do not feel that the variance or the the denial of the variance was outside with clear proof that it was outside of the authority of the planning and zoning commission and outside of the code, as stated clearly. And I also think that based on how our city government is set up, especially considering the authority of the planning and zoning commission, they were not outside of their jurisdiction. This, in my opinion, is a clear case to vote for a to uphold the planning and zoning Commission’s authority. I will state clearly that I don’t agree necessarily with what they decided in that meeting. For instance, I think that the landscaping variance that they requested was reasonable and not self imposed. That’s one example. But that is not what we’re deciding here today. And as such, I will be voting in favor of upholding the planning and zoning Commission’s authority, as well as their decision, regardless of the fact that I may disagree with it. I was just convinced by Mayor Pro Tem,

Unknown Speaker 2:11:52
I think he’s absolutely right. I would have I don’t want to. But you’re right. Mayor Pro Tem. So let’s go ahead and open this up to public. Lloyd. I hear I see Dana raising his hand, I need to use the restroom. So let’s take a just a break. Let’s open it up for the public hearing. So while we’re gone, let’s get people in the queue. And then Mr. boosah, when we come back, we will we will let you That sounds like a dress maybe some of the concerns that I just heard you that that hand was going up. So let’s take a three minute break. We’ll be back. All right. Thank you. All right, we’ll start coming back. All right, don’t we have anybody in the queue?

Unknown Speaker 2:16:04
mayor, no one has called in. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:07
So we’re going to go ahead and open the open the public hearing. And we’ll close it as soon as the rest of us are here. Guess what, it’s all of us, isn’t it? Alright, so let’s go ahead, and there’s nobody. So I’m gonna go ahead and close the public hearing at this time since nobody called in. And anyone object to me permitting. Mr. boosah, to have a comment to address some of Mayor pro tems. In my own comments. Mr. boosah, do you want to go out and say something?

Unknown Speaker 2:17:44
Sure, I appreciate it. And hopefully, I won’t bore you by repeating some of the things that were previously said, I just wanted to sort of look at this from a longevity perspective, and that we’ve actually been working on this project for over 36 months. So when we started, the code was not changed. As it is now. I think, I think Councilman waters brought up a good point. And that’s when they were talking about the change in the transparency for the second street or the rears of buildings. Or However, you may define them, that the intent was pretty clear. And that is, you know, we don’t want to put up an offensive front to other neighbors that may have access to the, to the vision of the back of the buildings. And so, look, we’re all we’re all good stewards of the community are we tried to be and certainly when you’re a large property owner, you want to do your best to be part of the community and contribute as much as possible. And so we took a lot of those changes that came into the code, you know, we had to because it was changed in the code, but we had to redesign the entire building from the way it was previously designed. And so we did our best to take into consideration all of those changes. And I think we did a pretty good job. Obviously, 19% transparency or, or glazing or however it’s defined is not 50%. But when you look at the back of the building, it doesn’t look like the back of a building. It looks like a pretty decent architectural, aesthetic facade, that anybody should be interested in looking at. We talked about the land of the South. The Habitat for Humanity has a development there now and I would hope the town would be pleased to know that we’re talking with them on the vacant lot as well. And so part of working with habitat is also more sessions and more contributions of land at at no benefit to us, but to the town and of course to the development for that, and it’s the right thing to do. But my understanding, and Tom can correct me if I’m wrong, but Grand Avenue is private property on our section of the property right now, we had not designed this building to take Grand Avenue into consideration because it was not a street and there was a long time coming for when it was going to be a street. The city really stepped up and said, You know what, even if you build the street there, we still can’t get the street all the way to 287. Because there’s other owners that haven’t done anything with their portion of the land. And so it can’t be a right of way, right? Meaning that the property between us and 287 on the south side. So they, they asked over a long period of time, if we would consider donating the land. And of course, we stepped up and did the donation. More importantly, than they asked if we can build the property, build the street. So not only are we donating the land, but we’re also constructing the street for the town at our own cost. For those who were interested in the overhead, utilities, we also propose to underground the utilities for the city. And they refused to let us do that. Because we were looking again at the long term planning for the city. So what’s interesting is that, and I know it’s difficult because I’ve been on planning board councils for years and city board meetings as a member. And I know it’s difficult to come in and listen to a 18 to 24 a month, back and forth between city staff and a developer, how can we help this is what we need to do. So a lot of time and energy and effort went in. And to be able to sit and make a decision in in 45 minutes to take into consideration everything that was was reviewed and conceded to over 18 months is a difficult thing to do.

Unknown Speaker 2:22:15
So Mr. Bush, I

Unknown Speaker 2:22:16
guess that so I’m just sorry to cut you off. But essentially, though, I mean, if I was on planning and zoning, I would have approved the variances. You know, I understand, I think I think Mayor Pro Tem also would have approved the variances. But but based on the criteria that Eugene major said, right, what I would be interested in hearing is what is your argument for that? We’ve got to find it based on one of these two things and use your each. So I’m gonna have Eugene, go ahead and say the the two different criteria in what is the developer’s argument that planning and zoning got it wrong? I mean, again, I am with you. I’m looking for a way to vote for it.

Unknown Speaker 2:22:56
But if this is the legal

Unknown Speaker 2:22:58
hook, what is the what this is the legal hook? Tell me how to vote with you with this criteria.

Unknown Speaker 2:23:06
Okay, go ahead. Sorry.

Unknown Speaker 2:23:07
That’s all right. No, I’m just looking for an answer. I’d love to vote for you. You know, we’re with you.

Unknown Speaker 2:23:13
So the two criteria, the PCs decision is plainly inconsistent with the review criteria criteria, as shown by clear and convincing evidence, and what or

Unknown Speaker 2:23:24
what was that criteria, Eugene, the review

Unknown Speaker 2:23:27
criteria. They’re pretty lengthy.

Unknown Speaker 2:23:36
If you want me to the basis of their review criteria was that for a variance, the variance has cannot be because the applicant did a self imposed hardship. In essence, they created a project that created the problem. And staff feels that that is not the staffs opinion, that’s not true. Correct. The existing utilities and the overhead lines and all of that are requirements of the city. They weren’t created by the applicant.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:11
That is the hook. Okay. The Okay, that’s what I was looking for. So, so,

Unknown Speaker 2:24:16
yeah, so to answer that, the second scenario is that the review criteria was made by the staff and that we, you know, it was certainly not it was certainly not self imposed,

Unknown Speaker 2:24:32
hey, jump in here, because as part of our appeal letter, we address that and I can read it verbatim, just real quick. So for its belief of people properties that the combination of criteria two and three become the basis of the appeal criteria to in the review criteria response provided by the applicant in the form of written variance request, as required by the city of Longmont planning staff stated they believe that the variance request was met the room The review criteria for variance stated so on their planning report. So that’s kind of our explanation for number two and number three was, the applicant believes that the provision for variance requests are provided in the land development code for situations where the requirements cannot be feasibly met. The applicant believes that in the submitted written variance request review criteria responses, evidence was credibly presented by the project was unable to meet the letter of the land development code due to existing site conditions and conflicting site planning requirements by the city and not a self imposed hardship. Okay, and that’s in appeal on page two.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:41
All right. Mayor Pro Tem, do you want to say the last thoughts have you been convinced at all before we vote?

Unknown Speaker 2:25:54
You know,

Unknown Speaker 2:25:55
I hope that all of my colleagues here on Council, and I trust that they did read through the minutes, and the discussion of the debate of the planning and zoning commission. And I think it would become clear to anybody that did read those minutes, that it was a tricky piece, it was a tricky piece, because certain things, like I said, in my opinion, were not self imposed. There are other things that I could argue are self imposed. That becomes an argument amongst whichever deciding body that is, which in tonight’s case is not us, we are hearing an appeal. We are not hearing, you know, it’s not our turn to necessarily weigh in on specific legislation or policy ideas that are pieces of the code, we are simply hearing a quasi judicial hearing based on an appeal. And as such, I don’t feel that the planning and zoning commission was out of line, or incorrect in their arguments, I just happen to disagree with some of them, not even all of them, but some of them. And so my point of view is that I do not have a position to overrule their decision based on any information that was provided tonight. While I may disagree with them, as I said, there are some, I guess, some may argue, broad language that would allow you to argue that it’s not self imposed. But you could turn around and say that it is based on as already stated, highest and best use? Well, I’m sure that the developer did the highest and best use analysis. But did it? You know, was that all presented to planning and zoning was it all presented to us this evening, because they’ve already, you know, have an architectural design that they’ve paid a lot of money for. And so they’re not going to present us an alternative for that, because it would make economic sense for them, even though there could be an alternative. Obviously, based on what was presented us tonight, they asked for a conditional use that was approved, that would that being the drive thru and the extra, I guess, fencing or shielding of sight lines for the drive through that these all technically could be argued one way or another as far as self imprisonment is concerned. So I still just don’t feel that there’s enough evidence to overturn the planning and zoning Commission’s decision on this factor. But you know, I’m one vote of seven so like, right,

Unknown Speaker 2:28:44
so so I was gonna say there’s a let Marsha or customer Martin say something, but we’ve got a motion currently on the floor, which is resolution 2021 39. A it was made by Councilmember Pac is a resolution along with City Council upholding the decision of the planning and zoning commission approving the South more retail Plaza conditional use site plan and denying the variances from landscaping standards and Code Section 15.0 5.040. And building design standards and Code Section 15.0 5.120. based on the criteria previously mentioned by by Eugene Mae. So Councillor Martin,

Unknown Speaker 2:29:21
maybe I’m the wrong here. Um, but the way I feel about this because I do feel like this is it. I give a lot of weight to Mayor pro tems argument that this is probably the wrong decision but we are not empowered to overturn it. The reason that I think it’s a wrong decision are two things. One is about Councilmember doggo firings argument. I actually think that the likely in the restaurant that caused Coffee Shop and small retail that would go into this building would do the have the opposite equity effect, that it’s likely to be something that would enrich a low to moderate income neighborhood. And so I don’t understand why you, if if that had weighed in the decision, I think it would weigh the other in the other direction and say this would be a good thing for the neighborhood behind the installation. And the other thing is, I think that the planning and zoning board was remiss in not providing any information about in what way this was a self imposed hardship, because I think that, that they had a duty to, you know, possible future quasi judicial hearing. To explain just exactly what they meant by that. I don’t see it. Um, you know, I think we should go on with the vote because there’s no more information to be had, but I just wanted to get those out there.

Unknown Speaker 2:31:05
Customer customer waters.

Unknown Speaker 2:31:08
Thanks for your bag. I agree. I appreciate beer per Tim’s logic on this. And in the rationale, it’s it is persuasive and compelling. So before you vote, I do need to ask the staff I think would disagree with whether or not there’s sufficient evidence. I would I based on, you know, tonight’s presentation, I would vote differently than than the majority of pNz on this. But is it fair for me to ask, does that a number to the decision plainly is inconsistent with review criteria shown by clear evidence I would the staff be appealing or the staff recommendation to planning and zoning must have been that it did comply, or was consistent with review criteria? And there was evidence to support that? If that’s the case, that’s the counter right. To the argument number two would be I appreciate hearing your response from staff.

Unknown Speaker 2:32:13
mayor and council member waters,

Unknown Speaker 2:32:15
I think

Unknown Speaker 2:32:17
you’ve read the record, staff obviously made a recommendation for approval, we felt it met the review criteria. But ultimately, this is Council’s decision based on the record that you’re hearing tonight.

Unknown Speaker 2:32:30
And so before we go, I was just gonna say one thing, I’m gonna actually vote against it, because I think that the hook was met. And I totally respect what councilor or what Mayor Pro Tem is saying, I see that, but we can, I mean, look, we can move, we can approve this. There is nobody objecting to it. meaning there’s no citizen, there’s no group, there’s no, there’s nobody here. Mean, staff is saying, you know, it was it was they think was the wrong decision. And the crate staff is not saying that.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:10
mayor, Mayor Pro Tem.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:13
I would like to just specify if they’re actually saying it was the wrong decision or that it met the criteria to request a variance. Correct. That That’s what I’m saying. And who approves the variance, the planning and zoning commission? Absolutely. And I All

Unknown Speaker 2:33:27
I’m saying is that we’re acting as a judge, and there’s nobody here. Nobody here is telling us not to do anything.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:34

Unknown Speaker 2:33:36
one more thing, sorry. Sorry. I, you said there were two, two options, there are actually four options. In the sense that we agree with the planning and zoning Commission’s decision, we disagree and completely throw it out. We modify it, or four, we send it back to planning and zoning. There are technically four options here.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:59
What would you want to do? Mayor Pro Tem. Oh, Lord, I think is we’re about ready to vote. And so if we’re gonna vote,

Unknown Speaker 2:34:07
there’s a motion on the table. So let’s see how that motion goes.

Unknown Speaker 2:34:10

Unknown Speaker 2:34:12
All right. All right. So

Unknown Speaker 2:34:12
let’s go ahead. Councilmember Christiansen and then let’s,

Unknown Speaker 2:34:15
let’s vote. I

Unknown Speaker 2:34:17
would like to point out that no one was allowed to oppose this from planning and zoning. I mean, you know, we had staff essentially supporting this, and we had, we didn’t hear it any opposing view, because we weren’t allowing any opposing view. We only heard from the developers side and from the staff side who sent it to planning and zoning. We didn’t hear from planning and zoning.

Unknown Speaker 2:34:47
That that’s that would be that would be like a district court judge showing up in arguing for the appellate court that that just doesn’t happen. But But let’s go ahead and vote and I know you want to say something, Mr. boosah. But

Unknown Speaker 2:34:58
But before you vote, One last thing.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:01
No, unfortunately. I mean, we already go ahead What the hell? Anyone object?

Unknown Speaker 2:35:07
Okay, go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. boosah.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:10
You’re muted, though you need hit your spacebar.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:14
If there were an option I heard mostly that people would like to see more trees, and that they’d be more likely apt to vote for the, the 19% skin that we put on the back, and so forth. And I think we would certainly support that decision. Because as long as the code allows us to take away a couple parking spaces and so forth, you know, we want as many trees as possible to with there’s just no room to put them so if we can approve the, the the facade and the back because we made more than enough attempt to make it look more than presentable. And habitats from humanity also likes it just want to throw that in, then we would, we would be in favor of that type of thanks.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:01
So right now the motion is though, for option C one, again. upholding the decision of the planning and zoning commission straight out. So all in favor of resolution 2021 39 A say aye.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:17
Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:20
Hey, all right.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:22
That was a I from you, right. Councilmember Lago fairing. Okay, so the motion passes resolution 2021 39. Eight passes. four to three with council members. Christiansen. Iago fairing pack. And Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Four. So the Motion passes. So that’s it. So thank you very much. And I know that’s not what the appellant wanted to hear. But that’s how it went. So.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:52
Alright, let’s

Unknown Speaker 2:36:53
move on to 2021 legislative bills recommended for city council position.

Unknown Speaker 2:37:01
Hello, Mayor Bagby, members of council Sandy cedar assistant city manager. We have three bills for your consideration today. The first one is House Bill 1233. Concerning modifications to the requirements for claiming income tax credit for the donation of perpetual conservation easements. Currently, people who donate conservation easements can have up to a 50% tax credit, this bill would actually increase that up to 90%, which honestly gives people more incentive to be able to donate this conservation easements to the city. So our staff recommendation is that city council support Senate Bill 1233.

Unknown Speaker 2:37:37
That’s my Martin. I’ll make a motion.

Unknown Speaker 2:37:39
I move supporting it.

Unknown Speaker 2:37:43
Alright, let’s vote on favor of supporting this and following staffs recommendations AI,

Unknown Speaker 2:37:49

Unknown Speaker 2:37:51
the post in a Alright, the Motion carries unanimously.

Unknown Speaker 2:37:55
Next man.

Unknown Speaker 2:37:56
Second bill is House Bill 1238. Concerning the modernization of gas energy efficiency programs had to read this one a few different times to make sure I understood how the bill actually works. But it updates the methods used for cost effectiveness for demand side management when it comes to public utility selling natural gas. Essentially it currently we don’t reflect any the future benefits of cost avoidance in this demand side management formula. And so this bill, if it passed would actually put that as part of the way that the formula goes. And so it really takes into account you know, some of the avoided costs of having natural gas when they’re taking a look at the formulas for computing costs and efficiency moving forward. So it does benefit our Climate Action Plan and so staff recommends the city council support Senate Bill 1238.

Unknown Speaker 2:38:48
I move to support.

Unknown Speaker 2:38:50

Unknown Speaker 2:38:52
it’s been moved by Councilmember Lago fairing seconded by Councillor Martin that we support the bill upon Cal city staffs recommendation All in favor say aye.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:00

Unknown Speaker 2:39:01
Opposed say nay. All right, Motion carries unanimously.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:05
The third bill is sort of the same. vein House Bill 1253 concerns of general fund transfer to the local government severance tax fund to fund new grants to local governments for renewable and clean energy. Currently Dola has a plan a program like this to be able to get grants for planning for sustainability programs. We’ve been part of that in the past. This bill would transfer $5 million dollars from their general fund into these grants for local governments to be able to move forward on sustainability efforts. So because this supports the council’s Climate Action Plan, city staff recommends that city council support House Bill 1253.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:46
We’d like to make a motion. Jasmine Martin.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:49
I moved to support House Bill 1233.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:52
I’ll second. All right. All in favor say aye.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:55

Unknown Speaker 2:39:57
Opposed say nay?

Unknown Speaker 2:39:58
All right. The

Unknown Speaker 2:39:58
Motion carries unanimously Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 2:40:02
All right, let’s

Unknown Speaker 2:40:03
move on to a right. So let’s let’s mix it up just a little bit. The good news is about this whole weight thing for final call public invited me call or anyway, so the good thing is, let’s move on to mayor and council comments. But in the meantime, throw up the screen. And if people would like to call in, let’s see if we get any. By the time we’re done with mayor and council comments. Let’s see if we get some people who want to speak it public invited to be heard. So if you’d like to speak, call in. And let’s start now with Mayor council comments. Does anyone want to say anything? And if not, then we’ll just take a three minute break. And we’ll wait. Don’t speak up if you want to say something cuz I can’t see everybody. Anybody?

Unknown Speaker 2:40:41
I did. I do, Councilman. Councilmember pack,

Unknown Speaker 2:40:45
why don’t you go ahead and pick the floor.

Unknown Speaker 2:40:48
Okay, um, I want I don’t talk about my children, because they’re pretty private. But my son said, I could share this with you because it’s kind of important. Um, last the end of last summer he contact he contracted the COVID virus and became pretty ill he got over it. But he had what is generally known as fog brain, but we decided it was c midbrain. And it was pretty devastating. And I won’t go into any of the details of it. But we, with the recent research and data that came out and said that if you if you had had the virus, then you got some antibodies, so you only needed one shot. And it would act as the second shot, which would give you the added antibodies. So um, needless to say, I was pretty scared for about nine months for it, because it’s some of the things that happened during this time, time period with his brain. So he got this shot on April 5 last Monday. And my other son called who said, Have you talked to to my brother, and he is he’s different. He was totally different. And he was excited he is he told me, he said, all this stuff’s going on in my head that like it used to. And he’s a cyclist, and has not been able to get on his cycle his bicycle at all for nine months. But this weekend, he went on a 90 plus a ride 90 mile ride, with three over 3000 feet elevation. I’m so excited for him, because it totally got rid of the lingering effects of the virus. And the reason I am saying this is to the people who are afraid of taking the shots who don’t think that it is worthwhile or that it helps, or that it’s a conspiracy theory that the democrats or republicans are doing this or Bill Gates or whatever it is that it really works. This is a real thing that we all need to get vaccinated to protect each other. So I’m really excited because shanice is signing up for the AR, big ride in August. And some little rides in between me so excited about it, that he’s back. He’s got his mojo back. And it was just because of this shot. So this is a message to go out to our residents, that we shouldn’t be afraid of this, we should just do it and protect everybody. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor

Unknown Speaker 2:43:44
Beck. And just my comment for the night is I have my first shot scheduled for Monday. So I will follow your advice. And all my council members examples. So thank you, Cosmo Martin.

Unknown Speaker 2:43:57
Thank you Mayor Bagley First of all, I am happy for for Councilmember pecked and, and her son. So that is a great local proof that that what we’ve been reading in the national news is accurate. And I’m just delighted to hear it. I can’t help looking back to all of the times that we have interviewed people for the various city boards and commissions. And I remember when we interview people for planning and zoning. The question always was asked, Will you apply the code exactly as written.

Unknown Speaker 2:44:48

Unknown Speaker 2:44:51
that seems now to be inconsistent with with with the staffs Eager promotion of the new codes that they were intended to be flexible. So I wonder if we don’t need to fix some disconnect. Because I think we have just, you know, reversed what would have been a good project and a good project for the neighborhood. And I am I am sorry that it had to happen. That’s all.

Unknown Speaker 2:45:33
Alright, so I do not see anybody’s hands up because I’m just going to try to get the first call by the final call taken care of and then we’ll get our screen back. Is there anybody here

Unknown Speaker 2:45:43

Unknown Speaker 2:45:47
Anybody in the queue? Mayor? Sorry, there is not by me. I was trying to get back to my other screen there.

Unknown Speaker 2:45:55
Let’s go ahead and close

Unknown Speaker 2:45:56
the Okay. We’ll

Unknown Speaker 2:45:58
call public invited to be heard and give me my screen back. Anyone else have their hand up anxious to say something? Perfect. That is that look at that. I’m just look at that. We’re just using time left and right. effect efficiently.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:10
Alright, so

Unknown Speaker 2:46:10
let’s go ahead then. City

Unknown Speaker 2:46:12
Manager. Do

Unknown Speaker 2:46:12
you have any remarks?

Unknown Speaker 2:46:13
No comments, Mayor Council. Okay. And

Unknown Speaker 2:46:16
then Eugene, made you have any comments?

Unknown Speaker 2:46:20
No comments there. All right. Great.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:22
Then Do we have a motion to adjourn? Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:30
Let’s go home.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:31

Unknown Speaker 2:46:32
Let’s get out of here. All right. It was I will say the motion was made by Casper Christiansen was second right. Seconded by Councilmember waters. All in favor say aye. Hi.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:41

Unknown Speaker 2:46:43
Was that an eye Casper Christian Center? Do

Unknown Speaker 2:46:44
you have a comment?

Unknown Speaker 2:46:46
Just hold my hand up to delegate.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:49
Anybody opposed?

Unknown Speaker 2:46:50
All right. The

Unknown Speaker 2:46:51
Motion carries unanimously. We’re we are concluded for tonight. We’re adjourned. We’ll see everybody next week. And then I’ll stop by and sign things in the morning. All right. Thanks, guys. Good night.