Longmont Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting _07-21-2021

Video Description:
Longmont Planning & Zoning Regular Meeting _07-21-2021

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.

Read along below, or follow along here: https://otter.ai/u/IiNNiVa__TlOC6p3KgsEQfWJewk

Good evening, everyone Welcome to the July 21. planning and zoning commission meeting. The first item on our agenda tonight is roll call. Chairman chernykh. Here, Commissioner flake here. Commissioner Goldberg. Here. Commissioner height. Rosen. Commissioner honor on. Commissioner on Iran. Commissioner polling here. Commissioner teta. Here. Chairman, you have a quorum. Great. Thank you, Jane. Next on the agenda is communications from planning director Glenn venema.

Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here commission. I am going to reserve my comments till Communications at the end. And as a teaser, I would like to talk about with the commission, how we go forward and what our meetings are going to look like. So certainly liked to have all your input on that. And so that’s it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Sure. I have a script in front of me. And I’ve already missed an item on it on which was I was supposed to read this for everyone right after roll call. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard, which is items four and seven or during any public hearing items, which is agenda item number six, a will need to watch the livestream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen and it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. And each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the livestream when you were called upon to speak. So we are now going to item four on our agenda which is our first public comment session. This is for items that are not on the agenda. So if you want to talk to the commission about something that’s not on the agenda, not item six a Now is the time to do it. So Susan, again, we’ll put that card up. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home please call 1-888-788-0099 toll free in the US. When prompted enter the meeting ID 84557894049 when we’re ready to hear public comment will calling you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. To do this, we need a little bit of time technologically so we’ll take a five minute break. We’ll be back at 708 In about 10 seconds Cheryl dropped the slide and then we’ll wait for the live stream to get caught up All right, here we go. Great. Thank

you, Susan. So Susan, it looks like our we have two callers. Again this is for anything that’s not on the agenda tonight. just general comments. So color with your phone number ending in 088.

Chair give us just a second because the livestreams just catching up. Oh, sorry. So I want to you’re ready. No worries. I want to lock the meeting before we begin. And it looks like it is caught up so I’m going to lock the meeting. Somewhere along the line. We just lost somebody. There were two callers.

Yeah, I think it’s because I made it clear that this is for items that are not on the agenda. So okay, item 680 and there goes the other color that cleared that up. Okay. We’ll see them back in a little bit. Um, so we have no other colors left and on. Our participant list. So I will close the public comment period. We’ll move on to agenda item five, which is approval of our minutes from May 19 2021. Commissioner height, I’d move to approve those minutes. Okay. We have a motion to approve the minutes. Do we have discussion or a second? Commissioner Goldberg? Yeah, I’ll second that. Chairman. Okay. We have a second to approve the minutes. We’ll do this by roll call vote if there’s no discussion. Commissioner Poland? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Goldberg. Yes, sir. Yes. Commissioner unranked? Yes. Commissioner flake? Yes. Commissioner teta? Yes. Commissioner height. I and I also approve. And so Jane that passes unanimously seven to zero to approve the minutes. Next our public hearing items and we’re going to hear the Barrett utility sales and service Incorporated. Clark annexation concept plan amendment amendment, PCR 2021 dash six, Principal planner Eva para cesky will take us through her presentation.

Good evening, Chair chernykh. And commissioners if we could queue up the presentation. Thank you.

Next slide please. So this is an annexation concept plan amendment for the Barrett sales and service etc. annexation. general location again, this is the northeast corner of state highway 66. In Erfurt Street. The property size is approximately 36 acres. You if you go up Erfurt Street, you would run into one of the houses on the west side, which was built in 1975. And then there’s a farmhouse over on the east side that was built in 1929 Historic Preservation Commission looked at those homes at their last meeting and didn’t feel that either of those warranted any historic designation. To give you some background on this property again, we the city council annex did in 2008 and at the time it was annexed was p UD commercial zoning. And of course there was an accompanying concept plan, which we’re going to discuss tonight. Then 10 years later, when we did our master rezone of the whole city to align with the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan. The property was rezoned many of our P UD properties were we rezone to sort of straight zoning and this was rezone to mixed use regional and so this new zoning district, it does allow multifamily as a you know as a secondary use the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan designates this property as regional center. And if you were to look at our comprehensive plan in terms of the regional center designation, the comprehensive plan does specifically say the Regional Center serves commercial and retail needs of the city in the region, while also providing high density housing and employment options. Next slide please. And so this is the original concept plan that was approved in 2008. This is one page. There was multi pages there in your packet but the graphic that was on page two showed 107 like a big box 175,000 square foot retail store on the north side up there. If you look at the top of your screen, that is Park Ridge Avenue. That street is um it’s developed up to Erfurt street if you were to go up highway 287 you go you go past highway 66. There’s the next light and that’s Park Ridge if you were going into the Walmart shopping center, and then on your left side is what is Erfurt street that north south road on the left side. Thanks, Susan. Of course, highway 66 is down at the bottom running eastwest and then the BNSF railroad tracks are there on the right of this concept plan. And so in addition to the big box store, they also had a concept plan for seven retail buildings kind of these pads sites as you see here. Huge sea of parking and then the sit down restaurant over on the southeast corner of the property See there. The comp on the concept plan also At the time in 2008, planned for a new North South Street, that would be accessed from highway 66. And in the notes, if you go down I think is page four. In that document, it talks about other potential uses, one of which it contemplated apartments as a potential conditional use. So at some point during this concept plan, although it’s not showing in this graphic, it did contemplate an idea that apartments could be a possibility with a conditional use in that PUD see zoning. Next slide, please.

And so, um, this property has obviously it’s it’s sat for many years, the applicant or the property owner hasn’t been able to find the big box retailer, or the pad sites, they did get an interested buyer watermark development, look who wanted to do a multifamily apartment project on the north side of this property. And so in reviewing their site plan, we noted that, you know, one of the review criteria is that you have to be consistent with any previously approved concept plans. Because the although the apartments were noted as a type of use, that could be allowed in the notes, it wasn’t in their graphic. So we advised them that they’d have to come back to Council and get a new annexation concept plan, which is why they’re here. And so in this new concept plan scheme, as you can see, it would be a as instead of a big box retailer, we’re looking at 336 unit apartment complex, and then the southern half, as you can see on this graphic. So the we have our traffic engineers and transportation planners here to answer questions, but generally speaking, c.no longer would allow this North South Street that was previously contemplated on the old concept plan. And so Public Works asked the applicant to put in an East West access road here, which they did. And then that would connect to a North South Street going up to parkridge. But it wouldn’t go all the way to highway 66. So that was sort of a solution we all came up with. And then so the development on the south part of the site, they’re showing a contemplation of potentially a gas station with convenience store, an 8000 square foot retail building on the right side, and then a 5000 square foot sit down restaurant. And then as you can see, on the south east side, this thing was a big square, as you can see on the right side, there’s no development proposed here. So it would just remain undeveloped. And then at some point, if someone has a development proposal, you know, we can take a look at it then. But at this point, this is what watermark is proposing for the amendment. Next slide, please. So in terms of outreach, once we determine that, like I said they had a site plan in for review, because apartments aren’t allowed us here administratively. Because we determined that it wasn’t in alignment with the old annexation concept plan. We said we just start this process over. So we had them do a neighborhood meeting, which they did in January 1000 foot notification radius. We had five attendees, it was a virtual neighborhood meeting and the minutes are in your packet. But no specific objections were raised or anything like that. They were mostly general questions. And then we sent out a notice of application once this was formally requested and applied for in February, again, sent out the notices. I got one email, I believe it’s in your packet, but it was generally questions questions about, you know, what, what’s proposed how long construction would take that type of thing. And then we sent out a notice of public hearing. I did receive this is incorrect. Actually, I did this PowerPoint on Friday, and that over the weekend, I got two letters, which were forwarded you forwarded forwarded to you today. The two letters were concerned about a pedestrian pathway across highway 66. And, again, I’m going to introduce our team. Next slide, please. Yeah, I thought that was the end. Um, so I’d like to introduce our team. We have Phil Greenwald. He’s our transportation planner, happy to answer questions about the pedestrian crossing or potential for it. We also have Caroline Michael, from traffic engineering. So if you have those traffic questions, Caroline is here. Cameron fox is From Public Works civil engineering, he’s co project managing this apartment thing with me. And Christopher from public works engineering. Our engineering administrator is also here to answer questions. And so with that, I will turn it over to the applicant. Jessica Tuttle with watermark residential. She has a short presentation, and then we’re all happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thanks, Eva. One second, I get the screen. Figured out. Okay, can you hear me? Okay.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners for your time tonight. Appreciate walking through a brief presentation. Eva hit the highlights. But I will try to be brief. So I’m Jessica title and VP of development for Thomson thrift. with me tonight. We have our land use attorney Tom wreck. Nettie. And then our engineers. If we get into those details, they can help us answer. Let me Oh, next.

Thank you. So, Eva took you through the site location nor site along month. It was annexed in 2008. Next.

So here’s just a zoomed in. portion. If you click again, Susan, that is our proposed plan. Nice aerial, or behind the Walmart loading dock. As Eva mentioned, there has not been any retail interest since 2008. But our company Thompson’s direct, we do develop retail, and we develop multifamily. So in 2021 see that took away all access points along the properties for frontage. It took away any viability for us to propose commercial and back at the property. And so this was the highest and best use, we could we can do with our seller to have multifamily in the back and then the retail paths in the front. Next history of the site. Eva already mentioned but it was annexed with the concept plan. Had it been a bubble plan, we really wouldn’t be here but because that site plan went into that detail. Staff asks us to match our site plan to an amended concept. And then, as Eva mentioned, we were rezone to him You are that does allow for the proposed uses 2020 c came along with Tampa commercial in the back with the access that would be needed for that volume of traffic. And then we do match the comp plan. It does allow for the uses. And lastly, we have gone through two site plan reviews with the city of one month. So we’re pretty far along gives us really good confidence that we don’t need any variances for what we’re proposing tonight. Next, old concept Plan B keep keep clicking Susan. So there’s the access that was removed. That removed the viability of the commercial, I pointed out the rough and ready dead. With our proposed plan, we are able to preserve the majority of the ditch so a lot of natural habitat is preserved with our amended plan and click and just pointed out there’s a Boulder County access easement through the site had commercial ever come along, they would have to get Boulder County to approve it and remove that access easement. Our plan does not need their approval, we may still ask for it. But otherwise the access easement curves around our buildings next. So this is the exhibit straight out of C dots 2020 access plan. As you can see, it removed all of the access points along the frontage. And actually, it made the seven acres east of our property landlocked So, as Eva mentioned, we will build an and have room for a new public right of way that will come through our property and then serve an additional seven acres for potential development in the state.

Next proposed plan again, I think you get the gist by now next. Okay, so

planning asks us to go through the review criteria. I will try to be brief. This is section 15 oh 255 the code. Basically, we are consistent with the comp plan. We’re consistent with the current zoning and no variances are required for this proposed plan. And then we do comply with all city standards and now state access requirements. We have gone through staff review we do have utility capacity for the proposed uses and we are compatible with the surrounding property. And as I mentioned before, we actually increase the chances of development to our east with this proposed plan. And then we don’t adversely affect surrounding properties. Same statement there, we actually help surrounding properties with access. The traffic study is already approved. So that was submitted for staff through the site plan review. And we do have multimodal transportation with bike bus and vehicular access. Next. Okay, so, section 1502 sixty.ie, don’t limit the ability for surrounding land to develop, we just went through those, the development will not create lots of burden by costs. That is true for both the property to the east, but also, the way that this site is set up. There are significant reimbursements and fees that are paid back to Walmart from the infrastructure that they built. And also that were part of the annexation agreement. And so those fees would make retail really not viable here along the frontage. So how our company has been able to do this is we put the bulk of the fees on the multifamily portion in the back and make the retail performance work in the front. So with this proposed use, it really gave us more viable retail out front. And then lastly, there is adequate public infrastructure that’s been through staff review. Next. Last section 1504 30. So this is talks about secondary uses being compatible, is compatible, it’s approved in the comp plan, it’s approved in the MMR re zoning. And the secondary use in the back is what’s really allowing for the primary uses there in the front edge with the fees as I mentioned, and then the secondary use is also creating primary zoning opportunity to the east that otherwise wouldn’t exist. Next. So love working for this company. We love to serve communities with different mixed use developments like this. Something that makes these developments work, and work well are our own site criteria. And that is near major thoroughfares. The site checks those boxes, we have you highway and main streets, and then near high end housing. So within a five mile radius, both the average income and the home values are much higher than the national average. And then near other retails so you have the Walmart you have the existing retail to the west and then our new retail. There are a lot of new highway next. You can keep clicking. Thanks, Susan. Here’s our commerce city resale development. We work with Wendy’s Sherwin Williams, Dutch Brothers. I’m missing a few but others for that retail development. similar story here next. And this is just a restaurant that we just built and really just like the building, I think it looks nice. It’s a nice Tavern next.

Here’s a Havana it’s a cigar lounge. We just built this one in Indiana next.

Mad pizza could be an example of what happens here next. And then lastly, some strip retail burger bar all uses that we would propose down along the highway Next. Next

and then lastly, multifamily in the back. This is one of our newer developments similar to what we would propose back in the back acreage. Next.

And then I did want to mention, we love being in the city of Longmont. This is our existing harvest junction project. So we own and operate there just on the other side of Longmont. It is 98.9% occupied very good operating property it shows a strong demand for more multifamily in the city. A lot of times we have a waitlist and so we are just ready and excited to invest in in Longmont. Again, I think that’s maybe it, Susan, all of the projects we’ve developed through the throughout the country, but I’m in the West so I work on the projects here in Denver along on Fort Collins. Next, here’s our team. Cheesy picture next. Okay, that is it. Thank you for your time and then Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. I’m actually before we do questions from the commission, I would like to open up the public hearing part of this. We did have a couple of people who probably will call back in and this is a public hearing item. So, Susan, if we could put the card up on the screen. So now’s the time to call and make comments about this particular project. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home, please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 84557894049. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. To do this, we need another five minutes, we’ll take a five minute break and be back at 735.

In about 10 seconds, I’m gonna go ahead and drop the slide and then we’ll wait for the live stream to get caught up. Great. Thank you Susan. All right. Here we go. And let’s give the live stream just a few seconds to get caught up and then we will continue looks like we have one caller at this point. Ready? One moment. Alright, I’m going to lock the meeting looks like the slide has caught up with us on the live stream. And we can begin. We have one color. That color your phone number ends in six to five. I’m going to ask you to unmute. Call her six to five. Are you there? Hit star six. There you are the meeting. caught up with us on the live stream. Sir. You’re going to want to mute the live stream or you’re going to hear

that caller your phone number ends in six to five. I’m going to ask you to by mute. Sir, can you mute the live stream for us? Great. Go ahead. State your name and address for the record. And you have five minutes. There you are the meeting. Officer. Sir, you’re going to want to mute the live stream or you’re going to hear Okay, that caller your phone number ends in a minute. There we go. Got it.

Okay, listen for instructions in your in your phone. Do you hear me? Yes, I do. Okay, perfect. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. You have five minutes.

Hi, my name is Tim Cassidy. My address is 1789. State Highway 27. Edison New Jersey, and my company is SR consulting LLC. Our team develops active living that we brand as enhanced active living. We have a relationship established with Pat and Mike areas that I believe are listening in the audience and will be proposing entitlements in the near future for the Clark farm property to the east of the water mark proposal, as well as the huge cottonwood property owned by Pat and Mike under two separate LLC is the part that parcel to the east and south of watermark plan development. You know, is you know, currently before the board and again, we’re going to put together a package and plan on submitting in the next 60 days or so. We’re working as a development capacity for Mike and pat on the you cottonwood property and looking to acquire the Clark foreign property subject to approvals for, again active living. Collectively, we’ll be proposing a mixed use community, somewhat similar to watermark but smaller, smaller piece of property. As for the watermark proposal, we see great interconnectivity. We’ve had conversations with Jessica and and a little bit their team seeing what they were going to do before the hearing. And we really liked their plans. We have proposed what we’ll proposed, sorry, what they proposed in the east west direction as a town road, we would propose to finish that road, which they are planning as a right away for an access to our properties in the future in our future proposal. Our proposal will meet the requirements of moderate income units, which I believe is 12% within our project, versus the cash in lieu of the interconnectivity they proposed near their building g as a fire access would be connect to us, as would our property front of their north south road. So the interconnectivity is ideal, as Jessica mentioned earlier, for the property to the east, ie both of both of the properties I mentioned. We look forward to finalizing our proposal and our concept plan and submitting it to the city in the next 60 days. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. Susan, Do we have anybody else? Oh, chair. That was it. Okay. All right. Seeing no other colors. We’ll close the public hearing portion of of this item. And we will go to questions and discussion amongst the commission. Anybody want to kick us off Commissioner hype Thank you. I do have a couple questions. Eva, possibly you can clarify when I was reading the materials, this, and as I listened to you today, this is a 36 acre parcel. And Jessica, please add your information as well, too. So it’s 36 acres in total.

A chernick. Commissioner height, it was 36 acres at the initial annexation. This concept plan amendment is slightly smaller, because as I mentioned in the presentation, there’s a chunk on the east side, that’s not part of this concept plan amendment.

So what happens with that parcel? What does that where does that sit? Where does it stay? I’ll defer to Jessica.

So we are developing the 29 acres of the overall 36. And so that’s the retail on the front, the multifamily in the back, and then the property to the east. We’re not under contract to buy that property. So that’s an additional seven points three acres, that were part of the concept plan, but it’s not under our ownership.

So of the 29 acres, you’re developing 21 of that, as I understood is multifamily.

Yeah, I think with right away might be in slightly less. But yeah, we did the maximum we can deal with retail ads out front with the access and how it works. Because there’s not access to you highway on the east side, it really limited the viability of retail. And then the ditch really created that natural dividing point between the retail creating the access that’s needed for the site and then the multifamily.

I logged you as a applaud you. It’s a good concept, I think, when I’m a little stuck on MLR, which is multi use regional, which has as its primary purpose to serve large scale commercial and retail needs of the city and region. as was noted, as you will know, as a secondary use multifamily is permitted. But our definitions of secondary use, specifically section 15. Oh, a one c three, if you’re following along at Home Secretary uses cannot diminish the availability of land for the primary use. I think you just explained that 21 acres of either 29 or 36 acres are going to be used for multifamily. And it seems to me that possibly that’s the tail wagging the dog, it’s it’s more secondary use than primary use could possibly even be made of the rest of the site.

With that I’m going to defer to our attorney Miss Tate and or Eva. Eva, your presentation explains that the Walmart facility, which is a different lot in my mind, to the west,

also zoned mqr. When you look at that site with this site, it’s a majority regional center. But are we allowed to do that take neighboring sites and and look at what’s going on next door when we’re looking at a specific site and its development and its zoning and how it meets the zoning go seem seem different to me. Yes, chair? Sure, Nick,

Commissioner height, that’s when we look in city planning at secondary uses. Or we don’t look at it on a macro scale of one lot. And what are all the uses and what’s primary, what’s secondary. We zone as you know, by districts and so there’s a mixed mixed use Regional District in this area. And if you look on page two of your staff report, you will see that I laid out the various well at least for some of them. The acreage and so the Walmart property is 20 acres. There’s another mixed use regional lot north of Walmart and Park Ridge on the west side, east side of highway 287. And so we take that into consideration with this. This is the district of mixed use regional that is how city planning interprets this. And so if we calculate the aggregate of the acreage in the mixed use regional than the acreage of the apartment complex is secondary in that it is way less than 50%. One thing I might just I mentioned to, you know, because we do do retail, it’s hard to do commercial to the back of the Walmart, the way the Walmart was oriented at faces Main Street. And so there is a big, I think, even imagined 10 acres north of the Walmart. That’s right on Main Street. So that would be good retail land. And Main Street actually has more traffic than you highway. But that’s when we discuss with planning. We’re still below the the allowable secondary uses in the contiguous zoning district.

Can you weigh in on this? You’re looking at it as a I guess I’ve never looked at the zoning district versus this specific site. Before.

commissioners, to be frank with you, I’ve I’ve not looked at that particular issue. And I did not know that that would be coming up this evening. If the commission requires an answer before it can make a determination. I’m happy to do the research I can before the end of the meeting. or certainly there’s an option to continue the meeting

on all chime in, Commissioner I this is a Ava’s explanation of it has been the explanation that I’ve heard multiple times over, gosh, the past eight or 10 years from all the planners who have come in front of us and when this issue comes up, my understanding has always been that that we’re looking at the aggregate, you know, district level of, of how much use is occurring at the larger scale, not at the individual lot that’s being developed right in front of us. So historically, anecdotally, I when I was going through my packet, I understood that regional made sense, because we’re looking at regional use in the larger picture.

Commissioner, I right. Do you want to follow up on that? Do you have anything further? Oh, take it any information. Appreciate it. Okay. Commissioner Bowen.

I saw on that, Eva, was there any consideration given to rezone this to something maybe like mixed use corridor? Was that ever considered?

A chair? Sure, Nick and Commissioner polen? Um, no, it wasn’t because, as you may recall, in 2016, City Council adopted the Envision Longmont plan, and we came up with specific land use designations and corridors of where we wanted everything to go. And at that time, the mixed use corridor was really our vision for Main Street and highway 287. That’s mainly where you see mixed use corridor in the city. And because of the super center there in this area, we really felt that anything that’s near a major arterial highway is more could be used as a regional center, because of you know, the the large, the large, multi lane road, if you will. And so this wasn’t intended to be mixed use corridor that’s really intended for Main Street. Okay, thank you. Other comments, questions? commercial,

I guess, getting to the two letters that were written to us concerning the walkability of this area. And and while I am not going to put any conditions as to wanting to put something in there, I’m just wondering from the city’s point of view, is there going to be any kind of pedestrian either overpass underpass put either off of Main Street or off of US Highway to ease people wanting to walk to and from, let’s say, the Walmart, or as they mentioned in the pamphlet, or in the in this presentation, they mentioned walkability? And they mentioned the the King soopers Well, to get to King soopers from this development, you do have to cross you’d highway, which is no easy chore. I mean it is walkable by distance, but it’s not the most convenient walk I’m just wondering, in the future does this have any plans?

Yes, chair. Sure. NET Commissioner polen. I’m gonna bring Phil Greenwald up our transportation planner. I will just say briefly before Phil gets on, we do have a regional multimodal transportation plan that Phil will talk about. And in the original annexation agreement for this property, they are obligated to pay $300,000 into that multimodal transportation plan. It’s sort of broken up by areas of size prorated, if you will, but so not to put the onus of that whole capital project on this apartment developer, they will have to pay a fee but they will participate in this And with that, I’m going to turn it over to Phil

thanks, Eva. Oh, Phil Greenwald, transportation planning manager with the city of Longmont Thank you cherish your neck and other members of the of the commission just wanted to point out our bicycle facilities map and our why it also shows some walking facilities and trails from our envision Longmont process. So this should show that we do have planned underpasses on 66, just east of the site at both the BNSF railroad crossing. And further east that Susan’s pointing out there as well as and I think this is addressed by one of the letters we do have a planned underpass on Main Street, just south of 66. There, Susan, if you could point that out. Yep. And so that crosses right there at 21st Avenue. So a number of things are planned. We’ve also been working with the recent Mainstreet plan update that you’ve seen recently, within the last six months or so, maybe less. And we do certainly have some projects that actually have some capital improvement pieces that we don’t need this one, Susan, but we have some capital projects planned for Main Street as well. So just wanted to point that out. And if you have any questions of me, please feel free. So I have a follow on question, because you kind of alluded to this, but it directly ties to Mr. Burt’s letter. Clearly, he’s, he’s been passionate about this for 25 years, which is great. And that’s what we want. That’s why we love living in Longmont, people like him. Um, but it’s coming through that he’s also frustrated. Um, and, and as I was thinking about his letter today, was thinking part of what is getting in the way is the funding. And, and so there’s all this planning that he’s referred to, and but the missing piece seems to be, you know, getting it built and getting it funded. Can you educate us a little better? And hopefully, Mr. Burns watching on the YouTube channel, educate us as to how do we actually get funding for an underpass on that would go under a C dot highway? How are we going to get funding for the improvements on North Main Street that you just alluded to? Should Mr. Bert and others be going to city council? You know, what’s, what else is going on to actually make turn this from paper into bricks and mortar? Yeah, that’s a great question. Sure, Nick. Um, again, I would just point back to the idea that we are including this in a in the next year’s Capital Improvement Program. And so that underpass is part of that program to improve Main Street specifically. And as we get funding from the city coffers to make that a reality. And if that’s not going to be enough, you know, we we do have a budget crunch, obviously. But if that’s not enough, we use that to leverage money that we can also get from the state and the federal programs. And we’ve been very successful getting those grants, as Mr. Byrd points out in other parts of the city. And we do need to focus then on now on North Main Street in the northeast area here. So those are, those are our specifications from council that they’ve been very specific about us going after projects in this area. It’s also an equity issue. So we’re looking at the equity elements of this project and how it can really help people who are really dependent on bicycles and pedestrian activity in order to move around our city and get to transit access. So that’s the plan here. There’s also a transit bus station planned for just north of Walmart. It’s an end of line kind of Park and Ride station for for RTD should be mentioned here in talking about this. And so that’ll provide some of that better access when you talk about having to walk a long distance to get to groceries. Even if you’re not if you’re not shopping at home. Part of that is that, you know, we’ll have bus access free bus access, you know, with the city’s ride free Longmont program, we’ll have that free bus access up and down Main Street plus the new access on Bus Rapid Transit from this section of town, all the way to Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, up to Fort Collins, quite frankly. Okay, and so just expanding on Mr. Burt’s letter. Eventually we’ll be developing eastward along Highway 66. I’m in the collar. Mr. Cassidy is involved in the next potential development that

will we be able to make connections across 66 as we continue to develop? I mean, this is this is a bit of a sidebar from from the issue handle now, so I apologize, Miss Tuttle, but now’s a great time to talk about how 66 and pedestrian connectivity works. Right, if we can put up that last, that first map that you showed, Susan from the Envision Longmont plan, we can put that back up and just going to show the 66 chord where there you can kind of see the arrows pointing north on 27 and the arrow pointing east on 66 at the top of that map, right. And then we show all the different elements of that corridor that are kind of missing in the dashed areas. And those are things that we’re currently working on trying to get funding for in the future. And one of those elements is actually when you look to the west of 287. On 66, you’ll see a dotted blue line to hover anyway, if you see it for go beyond hover, but that is actually being worked on today as being in a critical element that we’re trying to improve with some design work that we’re working on now. And then will that will lead to funding. The plan is to do a similar project to the east as well. You know that the one to the west is been developed for a long time. And you know, they would talk about 25 plus years of dealing with that, to the east, it’s about the same but a little less. So that’s the next one on our project list is to get 66 improvements. And that includes cypass with your trails, you know, kind of the wider sidewalks that aren’t really attached to the street there, side paths off the street, off the major highway here. And so that’s kind of the next round of looking at things and you’ll see the two dots again, the the US represent underpasses, but they could be overpasses as well, they just represent a great separation along that section, the corridor and we can add them, this can be amended as well. So in our next round, as we update this plan, there may be more underpasses added or overpasses added to this element of the plan. Great. Thank you, Phil, I really appreciate that Commissioner flag.

Thank you, Chair. Sure. And I feel I have some additional questions in regards to present day. So we’re going we’re talking about the present proposal and pedestrian access. So there is presently a signalized intersection that people can technically walk across. So what needs to go into that intersection to enable people to walk safely across 66? And then they can go to the west and walk down Main Street. So what needs to be done there? And is there also a pedestrian connection to more walkable, safer streets into the adjacent neighborhood?

That’s a great question, Commissioner flying. When you look at that intersection, it actually is we’ve actually had some folks who are doing walkability studies walk this whole corridor with that, well, not the walk the whole corridor, but walk that portion of the corridor with us and cross at that signalized intersection Erfurt that you’re mentioning, and that’s a collector Street, north of 66. That that originally connected south into the neighborhood. And we did close that street, because there were concerns when Walmart was built that people would drive across. So that’s actually now a T intersection with really good pedestrian facilities to the south. So we feel like the the signalized intersection that you spoke of, though it is a rather long crossing, there are some mediums that help people cross that. And those are the things that we’ve already been doing to to complete the crossing piece, but it does, you know, it it’s something we’re looking at, and seeing how we can improve it, but I don’t I’m not sure how we make it better currently, without doing more of that reconstruction. If we were to do some reconstruction today to help the pedestrians better cross I’m concerned that not sure if it would help it might stand pedestrian More than what help. And then we’re also going to have that other project that comes through. So we’re concerned about those two elements.

I have an additional question regarding that additional project. So presently, the speeds in that area around 5055 miles an hour, I think I recall. And it’s four lanes of really fast traffic through there. And in past meetings with C dot, that the discussion of people who live along Highway 66, and adjacent neighborhoods has been to bring down the speeds of that particular area, from about pace on West to make it a safer crossing so that people are not going so fast, they cannot have the ability to slow down and treat it more as a Boulevard than a highway. So what are the city’s thoughts on that aspect?

Like requesting Commissioner flag again, we are working with C dot about the speed limits to the west with the project that is to the west of this of the intersection of Main Street. So at the same time, we can bring this point up and to look at this section east of Main Street as well. What c dot typically does is a speed study. And so they require that a speed certain study be done. And I think that a speed study will show that there are lower speeds in this area because of the new signal. It’s not so new anymore. But the signal at Erfurt and the railroad crossing and all the traffic that’s kind of come along in the last couple of years with the development that you’ve been working on in that northeast quadrant. So we can certainly request that and make that see if they can change the speed limits based on that right now. Thank you. Toronto fever. Could you put back the site plan? Susan would be able to put the site plan up. Sure. Give me just a minute. Okay, thanks.

Well, I better Cipla with the color rendering, maybe that’s a that’s more helpful. Oh, that was Jessica’s. Okay, one more. I mean, this shows it but the color rendering is much clear. And All right, let’s try this. Perfect. So I’m looking at the southern last building, if I’m living in that building, and I want to go to some of the retail on the South icsi side, well, that terminates and it doesn’t connect to the south, nor does the road. So I need to go all the way to the north, and take a road south and get into the retail. So when we talk about pedestrian connectivity, these connections matter. The sight line showing me that there’s no connection is kind of like a red flag for me, that is to say, this plan doesn’t really care for the pedestrian connectivity. Now, I would strongly recommend not only the sidewalk, but the road being connected so that, you know, the residents can really walk or bike to the retail. Now, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, you know, what we have here is that we’re providing a lot of visitors. And the seat up is not allowing us to provide junctions to get into the site which encourages speeding, which is in conflict with pedestrian continuity, that is to say if the people who are going to live here, you know, 200 units to go south. They need to fight against that. You know, it doesn’t matter what the speed limit is, when you eliminate junctions, you’re encouraging speeding, you know, quite honestly, you know, I just want to put this in the record that it is shameful that see that eliminates those junctions, because if we really investing in the, you know, pedestrian connectivity, and on top of that, we’re suggesting that they’re going to be more people living here. Those junctions actually come All the traffic and slows down the traffic. eliminating them encourages speeding, no matter what the speed limit you’re going to put there. So that’s kind of alarming. And for one, I would like to, you know, raise our voice to see that not to do something like that. Because if this area is being urbanized, and we’re seeing more residents moving in and more pedestrian activity happening in, we need those junctions, we need those access points to slow the traffic. So, again, you know, that’s something we cannot control as a commission, but I just wanted to raise that concern. But at the least what I can say for the site plan, Jessica, that you can control right now. increased the connectivity. That’s all thank you.

That’s a great comment Commissioner on Iran, I think we we definitely missed those connections to the south, because that East West road is a new addition to the site plan. We weren’t originally building and putting that local road through the middle of the two uses. So we’ll absolutely add pedestrian connectivity and sidewalks and take a better look at that. Thanks for your comment. I was just gonna add to that, I think the applicant was trying to do it, because they put in a public street there, you’re required to have a landscape buffer. So I think that they had, you know, put landscaping there because that was a requirement. However, you can have some pedestrian interruptions in a buffer. And so that’s certainly a really great suggestion and Commissioner on Iran. And that’s certainly something that we can finesse as well as we’re working through the site plan. Absolutely. And even

just to clarify for everybody. So this is a concept plan. So we’re not to the site plan level of detail yet correct. On

this is a concept plan that you’d be approving a site plan is administrative. That’s something that we work through with our development team. Yes.

And also, just to clarify, we are the recommending body on this tonight to city council, city council has the final decision on on this concept plan

to share, Nick also, I don’t know do you need Phil to respond to Commissioner autoruns statements regarding the elimination of junctions? Or was that more of a comment than a question? We weren’t sure if you wanted Phil to address that.

I just wanted to put that in the record that, you know, at least one person in the commission is not okay with eliminating those junctions.

I’ll make it to people who have a condition or not okay with that. So more discussion, more questions. Commissioner Goldberg.

Yeah, thanks, Sharon. Listen, I think we’re kind of running that corner. You know, I think just kind of taking a step back. I certainly heard Commissioner heights, concern about how we should be looking at this projects. I definitely feel honored Commissioner Arranz concerns around connectivity, and touring, it’s a safe place to live and walk and get around. But kind of backing up a little bit, as I look at, you know, kind of my role for today. You know, I guess I think the project does a lot of things for us, it’s desirable for our city. And it provides a lot of units that we need in our city. And that’s not something that we’re always looking for. I think it’s a creative use of the property with a mixture of residential, commercial, you know, retail and restaurants. I’m comforted by the reasoning and justification that Eva and Chairman chernykh provided as to looking at the project from, you know, kind of district wide, not just on this one lot. And I think that’s kind of what we’re here to do as a commission is to review that and, and bring in that color in that perspective that maybe isn’t as can’t be translated onto the onto the map directly. So that’s what we’re here to do. And given the fact that it meets the review criteria, A through F. Listen in our packet. And given the feedback from Phil that we have some underpasses coming down the line, both across highway 66 and 287. I’m optimistic that that will give Mr. Burton Mr. Kissinger a little peace of mind that might not happen right away and I know it took 25 years but hang in there another couple and maybe we’ll be able to see that come to life. So with that, and I’m open to more discussion from the rest For the commission, but I’d be inclined to support the project here and look forward to hearing from the rest of the team.

Thank you, Commissioner. Hi. I have two questions. Jessica, are this total, the county raise a comment regarding their easement to access their open space to the north. And I think you commented that your plan doesn’t mess with their easement rights. As I look at it,

specifically, with respect to the concept plan amendment that the A they had prepared for us, which appears to show that he’s been overlaid on top of where your buildings go, it looks awkward, if not impossible, for the county to use its easement, which would go right through the middle of your pool, through the middle of your courtyard, and next to one of the buildings. Is that what you’re proposing? Or do you have something worked out with the county? How’s that easement gonna take? shape out? shape? shape up? Yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner height? That’s a great question. So this is a little bit of awkward area where we are building new public roads. So Park Ridge Avenue, you go up Erfurt Street, you turn right on Park Ridge, and you get right to the county’s access easement. So any inspector or anyone with the irrigation that just will use those public roads to go around our site and then get to that county access easement at the East End of parkridge that we’re building. The county to be completely honest with you, we just were nervous about another public hearing after we came through you for approval. So as a backup plan, we’ve made it so that we don’t have to vacate that access easement. And for some reason, they don’t want to, they can still use it through our site. If the pool is showing up over the access easement, that’s a mistake. That’s it’s just old line work that will fit them in any space around it so that they can still use the access easement. But realistically, no one will even really know that access easements there, because they’ll be using the newly constructed public roads, that will provide a much easier access point to get to the the northeast side of the site into your open space.

I understand. And Mr. Reagan Eddie, your attorney will tell you too, that that can be a big problem. And I’m

my next question is going to reveal where I’m sitting on this issue. But to the extent that this is approved, and you still have in this easement here, your concept plan could be in jeopardy. That’s all I’ll add. My second question for you is, I guess it’s your burden to show me or convinced me that this

regional multiple use center standard applies to there’s four of them that are in our city of these MLR zoning districts, that that that the secondary use standard applies to the to the region. And I don’t know if it applies to all five of them. But with respect to the one that we’re talking about here at 66 and 287.

That the secondary use standard only applies the entire region to the entire zoning district here as opposed to the lock. Do you have any insight into that?

I do. So the history with planning is how I understand that it’s not actually it’s not the entire district per se, it’s contiguous zoning districts so it doesn’t include the acreage West Main Street or south of new highway. It is only the acreage that is immediately surrounding the Walmart. And even when you just include that acreage, I think it came in the 20% range for residential so we’re much lower than the 40% secondary use for the contiguous MLR zoning district. So I hope that helps. And then just back to the easement. We have had conversations with the county, they are anticipating vacating it with our site plan approval. You know, with any public hearing, you just err on the safe side. So worst case, a lender doesn’t come ask us why we have an easement through a building. We’re able to keep it on the site if the county wants to leave it on the site.

I’m going to make one more plea. Theresa, if you found anything to help me through my questions. Regional versus lat or district versus long

and I’m sure not Commissioner height. Oh, what I can tell you is that the comprehensive plan and here we’re talking about envision Longmont looks at use corridors. And so certainly as we’re looking at the corridors, we’re looking at a variety and and rather than looking site by site, we’re trying to make sure we have the right mix of things to accomplish the goals set out in the comprehensive plan. And I was not able to find anything that would consider that spot zoning.

So I’ve just raised this for everyone’s consumption in the desert, the first to come with an apartment complex scheme, scheme plan

prevails over the others. This seems odd to me, but I guess that’s what I’m hearing. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions, comments concerns? statements? dictums commercial Goldberg.

Yeah, Chairman. Well, I guess it’s, I’m not seeing any more hands go up. I think I’ll go ahead and make a motion. So with that, allow me to just read off the packet real quick. recommend approval of the various sales and utility services, Inc. and clerk annexation concept plan amendment. application to city council finding that the review criteria has been met as reflected in PCR 2021 dash five a. That’s actually six a 2021. Forgive me. Okay, great. Commercial polling.

I’ll second that because I also find that this does beat the Craig review criteria as defined in the code section 15 dot o two dot o 558. Through. Okay, so

we have a motion from Commissioner Goldberg to approve PCR 20 21.6. A, it’s been seconded by Commissioner Poland. They both find that the review criteria has been met. I myself will chime in I am in agreement that the review criteria have been met. I also like to make the comment that that regardless of of what goes on to this lot, there will be these pedestrian issues and there will be these traffic issues. You know, getting in and out of there, there will be the speed issues. So those are not reasons unto themselves, in my opinion, to not approve the concert plan amendment. Either way, those things still are problems. Commissioner flake I saw you had your hand up. I’m sorry, I missed a rush to fly. Okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay, let’s take a voice vote. Commissioner owner on? Yes. Commissioner polen? Yes. Mr. Goldberg?

Yes. And forgive the the misstatement earlier. Okay. For sure. No, that’s

fine. Commissioner Jetta. Yes. Commissioner flag? Yes. Commissioner hope regrettably nay. Okay. And I will vote yes. I’m so that passes six to one with Commissioner hight dissenting. And this item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you’re unfamiliar with council procedures, and intend to appear before counsel, please contact the planning division for further information at 303-651-8330. Let’s toggle on to the rest of your team. Thank you for being here tonight to present to us and to answer our questions. Really appreciate it. I’m Eva, thank you for walking us through the project. And we will move on to the rest of our agenda. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, commissioners. Nice to meet you all. Nice to meet you too. item seven are on our agenda is our final call for public hearing. Again, items that are not on the agenda. So anybody who wants to call in we’d love to hear from you. The information is being displayed on your screen right now. For For those viewing from home, please dial 1888780099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 84557894049. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream. When you are called upon to speak. You need five minutes to do this. We’ll take a five minute break be back at 824.

I’m going to go ahead and drop the slide. We’ll give our live stream just a few seconds. Thank you Susan and we have no one that has called in Alright, looks like our live stream is back and you may continue.

Great. Thank you, Susan. Nobody has called them for the final call for the public invited to be heard. So we will close that part of our meeting. Next is items from the commission. As usual. I want to thank Susan for her help on getting us through all the technicalities. In Jane, of course, as our executive secretary keeps us on the straight and narrow. For item 10. Glen, if I could ask when you discuss items with us, could you give us a little briefing on how the city of Longmont ensures that there’s enough water for developments that are going to occur? There have been some headlines recently about some cities that have have actually stopped issuing building permits, because they don’t have enough water. And so I you know, if you could just give us a quick primer on how that works when we get to your item. But first, um, did we ever have council representative? And Rodriguez join us? No, chair, he did not. Okay. So, um, is there any other items from the commission?

Seeing none, Glenn, item 10 are on our agenda. Anything from you?

Mr. Chairman, and planning commissioners, thanks again, for your effort. The water issue, I still see Chris huffer is in the meeting. And perhaps he could give you a much more accurate answer on that. So I will kick it to Chris. Thank you. Glen, thanks for the eighth and what I can say here, but Chairman schoeneck. The The city has a water portfolio. That is all the water rights that are owned by the city. And that’s our raw water rights. And so we’ve got

a couple of different supplies that come to the city, obviously have Ralph Ralph price reservoir, which is surface water, that we have the rights to, that we provide to our

treatment plant. Then we also have shares in CBT, or Colorado, Big Thompson. Those are our two main water supplies. And so the city has built our portfolio over a long period of time, from the

time of inception of the city. That was one of the first things that the founding fathers of the city did was purchase water rights and put that into place. And then in the 20s, they built the first reservoir, Longmont reservoir, that’s just blew off price reservoir.

So at this time also, anytime a land is annexed to the city, they are required to turn over any of their historic raw raw water that they are using for that property. And then at the time of development. any area that is planted is required to provide to the city three acre feet of water. So if you had a an acre and you filled it three feet deep, they need to provide that amount of water to the city before they can develop. And if their raw water that they gave us an annexation yields that amount, then they don’t have to provide any more. If they have less than three acre feet per acre, then they are called what’s called a deficit. They have to meet that deficit before we can approve the plat. And then if we were to have a large water user come into the city, and it was determined that their annual consumption of water was greater than that three acre feet per acre, then they’d be required to provide additional water as well.

Great, Chris, thank you so much for explaining that it sounds as if all the mechanisms we have in place are such that that we would not be approving development that can’t have water. Yes, that is definitely the intent. Yes. Okay. Great. Super. It also seems so he brought up when the founding members of the Chicago colony started Longmont that they bought water, so that would be extremely senior water rights. And in Colorado, my understanding is that some of the towns I’ve read about have no senior standard, they’re extremely Junior water rights and that’s why they can’t seem to get any water. So thank you very Much, Chris. You bet. Thank you. Okay. Well, what did you have for us?

So last week, you probably noticed the city has rescinded the emergency proclamation for the community and Boulder County is in the clear level. So our city clerk really wants to ask you, the commissioners, how you would like to go forward with meetings. And we have a few options. Number one is you continue online, as you have it now. Number two, we go back to our in person meetings. And then number three, I add caution, because the council has gone back to in person meetings. But it’s a hybrid, they allow the public to not only show up in person, but also call in. And I think Susan or Jane would tell you, it’s still a system where they’re trying to work out the bugs. And it’s a little bit complicated. So with that, we would like to kind of have your input on what you would like to perform going forward. It does require us and the reason we’re kind of asking at this point is we may have to amend the bylaws, or we may have to amend the actual code to make sure we’re following what’s in the code. we’ve, we’ve done this on an emergency basis. So it’s it’s been fine. But right now we’re out of that emergency. So that’s why I’m bringing that up and turning it over to you.

So Glenn, you’re asking this question, just in time for the Delta variant. Yeah. So so. But seriously, what might happen if we, I mean, I, again, so I headline, you know, I keep saying, Hey, I read in the paper. But Austin, Texas, is looking at stepping backwards, one one level, possibly in the next few days. What would put us in a position to have the most flexibility in terms of like not having to change our code or our bylaws back and forth?

Yeah, well, we certainly have this system down. I think we probably would. And maybe Teresa can weigh in. If we continue, like one thing we thought of is maybe to the new year. And we kind of see where we are at that point. We may want to make those amendments anyhow. I don’t know that that’s really that big of a problem. Versus Yeah, bring everybody back and then send everybody home. That might be a bit disruptive to to everybody.

Curious in case you’re not commissioners. If you want to retain the ability to do online meetings, either in whole or in a hybrid mode, it would require a small amendment to that procedure that you adopted, because that procedure is contingent upon there being an emergency declaration. It’s not necessary that it be contingent upon that, but currently it is. So one thing we could do, one thing you could consider as a commission is making the black bylaws flexible, such that you could notice the meeting for either in person or online. And if you all would also like to have a have a hybrid option. While logistically difficult that that is an option. And so you could you could have a variety of things in there. Such that as long as we are properly noticing the meeting. You could you could hold the meeting a couple of different ways.

That tonight is from the condition as much as I miss you all. And truly I think that we work better face to face. I don’t think the world’s quite ready for public hearings.

The way we used to run them. I’ve been vaccinated but don’t think that it’s probably appropriate for us to get that close. It’s my opinion. Michelle’s like

I think I agree with Justin i think it’s it’s too early. I like the idea of taking another look in November and December and seeing where we are

Mr. Owner, I agree as well. And I was wondering if there’s any way we can require vaccination or test for people who would like to attend in person and walk into the hall? If that is not in our ability, then I would say, let’s keep in zoom.

Yeah, city attorney, I figured you’d want to chime in on that suggestion.

So at this time, um, the city does not require proof of vaccination to participate. And you can imagine that there are a variety of obstacles that that presents, including for those individuals who are medically unable to be vaccinated. And so, it is my impression, and certainly I cannot speak for the City Council. But it is my impression that the city council would not support any of the boards or commissions seeking that kind of documentation from individuals.

And I’m not an attorney, but I work for a state agency that has informed all employees that we cannot ask about vaccination status, because it breaks the HIPAA medical privacy laws.

It is confidential medical information. And as such, the city of Longmont also has heated the legal advice to not inquire about vaccination status, even with its own employees. Mr. Tuttle,

I would vote that we get back together in person. And I think that the the call and protocol that we have in place for the zoom meetings is more difficult for the public to be part of and I think that that’s reflected by the lower numbers of people calling in I I think people would welcome coming back. Measures over.

I yeah, Chairman. I’m in alignment with most of the chair members here. I think that let me try to say what I’m, what I’m trying to say is really my where my interest falls in is what provides the most access and engagement by the public. Because I think we have proven that we are capable here. You know, we both staff, the applicants and our and ourselves as a commission, I think has proven to be very productive over the last year or two. So that said, I think it’s definitely easier for you know, I think, Commissioner to this point, the calling and processes burdensome and tricky. But in the spirit of really providing the most access to everyone. I wonder if especially with the return, you know, with some concerns around Delta with concerns about even la increasing restrictions, and indoor settings as well, given all of the reasons mentioned. I wonder if while it does hurt, some participation, if at least for now, for the next several months, continuing with the call and approach in the remote approach would grant the most access to those who are vaccinated or not vaccinated or at risk or can get the vaccine or can’t get the vaccine? And then when hopefully we get back beyond, you know, delta or whatever, then maybe we can look back at going back in person. So that would be my take. Commercial polling? Yes.

While while I do agree with Commissioner height that I do believe we do better work when we’re we’re together. And I I do agree with Commissioner teta that I do find that the phone system appears to be a buffer for the public to comment for us. I do believe that they’re having issues and that that does prevent some people from chiming in. With all that, I think what’s best for the commission. And actually what’s best for the public at this time is for us to continue in the short term happened. We do so well at this format. Commissioner honor

I was wondering if there’s a way we can continue online, but allow public to show up in the city hall in front of a camera and speak if they have difficulty with They’re on technology. I mean, maybe we can provide them to easy access to a camera in the city hall. But we are all online.

I’m Jane. Susan, I believe that you did do that for city council at one point.

A chair and commissioners, the only thing that city council is experimenting with for the month of July currently, is to allow the callers to call during the first public invited to be heard, no public hearings, and no second call in. And so far we’ve had just one caller. So they’re going to reevaluate whether or not that’s going to be continued in the future. So we have not had anyone virtually show up on camera. But

what Commissioner on our on around suggesting, I think is the converse of what what Council is doing, with me councils meeting in person and having people call in remotely? Could we meet remotely, but have people show up in person at council chambers in order to be piped into our meeting via video?

You know, that would take probably a lot of staff resources that I’m not sure planning is prepared to handle because I am no longer really prepared to continue doing virtual meetings once the emergency order was lifted. So that would have to be reevaluated with staff resources. Okay,

I want to make a comment. There’s a phone call waiting to get in. I’m assuming we we lost?

Chairman polen. So I don’t know if that’s him. Does anyone know if his last three digits or 732? Jane, do you know that? Glen? doe anyone? Number? I don’t know either. I can let them in. He may have had problems. And this is his way of trying to get back in the meeting. So give me just a minute. Let me let him in. And we’ll see if we can figure out who he is. Caller that ends in 732. We just let you in. Can you please identify yourself? I’m going to ask you to unmute 732. Color 732 it’s Michael Poland. There you are. Okay, very good. We Sorry, my computer died on me. We, we thought this might be you. So I’ll go ahead and lock the meeting. Sure. So flipping that around share is not something that we have tested or tried and could be more laborious than staying completely virtual, to be honest. Okay.

Commercial polling just bring you up to speed. We were talking about some possible our ultimate ways to hold our meetings Commissioner owner on his head suggested people might be able to be on video in council chambers while we were meeting remotely. But Susan is telling us that that is too high of a technical hurdle to jump. So Glen, one of my biggest concerns about going back to council chambers. I know it’s been remodeled we haven’t met in there since it’s been remodeled. But it’s really nice paint and nice new upholstery. But did they do anything to the air handling system because the we have had a long history of sweating through planning and zoning meetings because the air handling system shuts off at like 9pm or something. It’s all my it’s all my fully on for city council meetings or something like that. Johnny was always struggling with this for us to meet in person in my opinion. And even though it seems like a big room, when there’s a dozen people and then people in the audience, the amount of air per person is pretty restricted, especially if we’re not having enough air turnovers per hour in the room. I know that that one way that the offices, okay, I work at CU Boulder. One way that facilities at CU Boulder has managed classrooms and offices so that people could be In rooms that do not have operable windows, is by upping the turnover rate to a much higher degree, creating a positive pressure situation. So that basically you’re blowing any sort of virus load out out the doors. Absent that, I’m not very comfortable being in a room without operable windows for it, because our meetings can go for three, four hours. That’s a lot of viral load into that airspace. So right? Yeah, I don’t know. In other words, right.

I don’t know if they changed Ah, back. I was there till like 11 o’clock last night, it felt comfortable. It was loaded at a portion of the meeting. And I just noticed here, I’m in my office and the air shut off, I think it’s seven o’clock. So that would be something we’d have to check out. And then on top of that, there is a whole new AV system. So there would be a learning curve, where we’d have to get the commission in there and comfortable with the new system. We upgraded it and then immediately the pandemic hit. So it’s been kind of mothballed. And I don’t know, if you’ve watched a council meeting, they’re still struggling with the mic system and everything. But there would be a learning curve just on using the equipment, as well. But I could ask around and see, you know, if they tweaked the, the turnover rate on the on the air handling system.

We know that that’d be a step in the right direction. But I’m not sure that that actually overcomes everybody’s concerns. Sure. And, and what I’m hearing it seems to be and people can correct me if I’m wrong, but I hear two main concerns. One is going back in person too soon, until we know more. And so your suggestion of like maybe, you know, December ish, somewhere in there seems like a lot of people are agreeing with, but also the other major concern like Commissioner teta said, Commissioner Goldberg as well about if there’s anything we can do to to heighten or increase or improve our public participation. I think what I’m hearing from everybody is that we’d all be further for that. So possibly, to kind of conflicting goals there. But maybe we can achieve that,

Commissioner honor, a question. You know, I’ve been part of some conferences and large gatherings in zoom, where there is no restriction for attendance to show up. Why are we restricting the public to show up because we don’t usually restrict them in in person, they just walk into the room, right. And then they raise hand and then we allow them to speak. Why not allowing them in the zoo to show up and show their faces.

So it was determined early on that it would be a lot of work to handle an unknown amount of the public in with cameras, there have been known issues where people came in and started doing not an inappropriate things with their cameras turned on. And it gets a meeting could get out of hand with them. Zoom bombing is the term. And so in order to reduce that, because we live stream many of our meetings, not all this happens to be unique, that the Collins would just call in, and that reduces our liability to maintain the meeting and give them access to mute and unmute as needed. Now, I know some other organizations did that differently, and maybe they had more staff. But the tools that we use, it’s pretty difficult to manage a very large list of participants like that.

Right last thing, in my opinion, last thing we want to do is put more work on to onto the staff. So Glenn, I don’t know if we’ve given you anything definitive Do you have what it is you need, but I

think you want to stay in this motel at least December and we can check back. See where we stand as far as the virus And our technology, and I think would probably then go ahead and make some minor amendments to the code and bylaws. treason. Okay.

I would be happy to prepare a draft for the Commission’s review at the next meeting.

That’d be great. That’s great. Well, that’s all I had. Okay. Well, thank you, everyone. Unless somebody objects to it. We’ll be adjourned. Take care.


Transcribed by https://otter.ai