Mask Wearing Recommended while at Longmont Public Media. More information here.

Note: Effective October 1, 2021, proof of vaccination is required to enter Longmont Public Media.

City Council Regular Session – December 14, 2021

Video Description:
City Council Regular Session – December 14, 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/VSnGzKCLUJX4cOWwY-_VF6INrcA

Unknown Speaker 13:28
Perfect. In that case I am going to start the live stream Give me just a moment Mayor Peck, we’re live.

Unknown Speaker 13:55
Thank you. Welcome and I’d like to call the December 14 2021. Long month City Council regular session to order and for our public these meetings are being held remotely due to the ongoing novel core Coronavirus pandemic. You can watch the meeting live stream at Bi T li slash Longmont YouTube Live or at the Longmont public media.org/watch Can we have the roll call please

Unknown Speaker 14:28
done? Absolutely. Mayor

Unknown Speaker 14:30
Peck Mayor Peck is present. Councilmember Daga? fairing Here. Councilmember Martin? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez Here. Councilmember waters here. Councilmember Yarborough? Here. Mayor you have a quorum.

Unknown Speaker 14:46
Thank you, let’s say the Pledge of Allegiance. So I pledge

Unknown Speaker 14:51
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which stands one nation nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

Unknown Speaker 15:07
all. So as a message to the public, anyone wishing to provide public content during public invited to be heard, must watch the live stream at the meeting and call in only when I open the meeting for public comment. You can see this on your screen at the moment. callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time. The toll free number is 888-788-0099. Watch for the instructions to be displayed and write down the meeting ID when it’s displayed at the beginning of the meeting. So let’s move on right to the approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the November 30 2021 minutes? I’ll move approval.

Unknown Speaker 15:57
We get a second. Who was that? I’m sorry.

Unknown Speaker 16:03
I’ll second. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 16:05
thank you. Let’s vote. All those in favor?

Unknown Speaker 16:10
Raise your hand. All those opposed? That carries unanimously. Do I have a motion for the December 7 2021. Regular Session minutes minutes.

Unknown Speaker 16:25
I’ll move those as well

Unknown Speaker 16:26
move. Well, thank you, Tim. And Chiquita, thank you. So that has been Moved by Councillor waters and seconded by Councillor Yarborough. Let’s vote. Please. Raise your hands for those in favor. Those opposed? That passes unanimously. Don, do we have any agenda revisions or submission of documents?

Unknown Speaker 16:54
We do not mer?

Unknown Speaker 16:57
Thank you. Councillors. Do we have any motions to direct the city manager to add agenda items to future agendas. Councillor waters,

Tim Waters 17:05
thanks, Mayor Peck. Last meeting, we appointed applicants to boards and commissions. Every time we go through that process, we have some conversation about ways to improve tweak kind of reconceptualize process. And I’d like to move I met. So I’m gonna offer a motion with some direction with the understanding that what would come back to the council would be would be a plan on which we would vote, then all I would like to do is to get this plan in front of us. In the in the motion is this, that do we direct staff to bring us back a process and timeline for the appointment of boards and commission members that would start with interviews being conducted by boards and commission member, continuing members of boards and commissions with staff involvement? With recommendations coming to the Council of those candidates who they are recommending to us to appoint our interviews would be of those people recommended by boards and commissions, which mean we would only interview as many members or as individuals as there were seats available. And then and then make appointments after after our interviews of those candidates. So the motion is to bring that process back to us with a process to do it in a timeline for doing it for the appointments that would occur in June.

Unknown Speaker 18:28
Okay, on to anybody want a second that I will if no one wants to. So I second that motion. Counselor waters. Can I just restate that you would like to bring you would like to direct counsel to bring back a process and timeline for the boards and Commissioner applicants to be interviewed by the the boards and commissions for which they are applying? Correct? Okay. So I second that all those Do we have any discussion on it? No. All those in favor? Raise your hand. Opposed? That passes unanimously. So let’s go on to city manager’s report. Harold, do you have a report for us on COVID?

Unknown Speaker 19:19
Yes, Mayor I do. If you will give me a second to share my screen do you all see the

Unknown Speaker 19:34
little COVID Yes.

Unknown Speaker 19:38
Oh, I just lost something here. There we go. So um, we did have our administrators meeting today. And when I talk a little bit about you can see the points that they’re talking about here. One of the things that they they spend a lot of time on today and you’ll see some other slides on this is really the the impact of the health care system and the strain that they’re continuing to face. And you’ll see that in the numbers that we talked about later, and they’re in, they’re still really in crisis standards of care, as they continue to move forward. And so we spent a lot of time talking about that in the administrator group. And I guess, you know, the key component in this is, as folks continue to look forward in terms of, you know, different county orders and things like that, what I wanted you to know is that they’re really starting to look on, look at the health health care system, and how is that informing different strategies? And so at the next meeting, I think they are going to talk to us about some of that in more specifics. What they’re, what they’re trying to reconcile is what really is the impact if we have an order in Boulder County? And, and we don’t have one in Jefferson, how does that impacting it, and it isn’t making a difference, because there’s they’re showing us some data, I’m going to ask them to join us at the next meeting that we have that really shows how some of these orders you’re seeing tangible differences in terms of number of cases and hospitalizations. If you remember when we met with Boulder County Public Health Friday afternoon, and they showed you the example of Larimer County, where they were pretty high on hospitalizations. And then once they implemented their masking orders, their hospitalizations brought even more. They’re following that, and they’re continuing to see that trend. And so they’re really working through through all of these issues. So as we go back to the beginning of this, and we said, it’s really all about the hospitals. That’s what the conversation is, it’s really all about the hospitals and where they’re sitting. In terms of cases, you can see where we went down, we popped up, we’re down again, I think there is, again, optimism and some hope that we can continue trending, but when you see our wastewater, he will, you will have a sense of what that’s going to look like, or what we can expect in the future. But we’re really sort of just hanging out in that zone, relatively stable. Again, Hi, we’re still in high transmission in Colorado. And this slide actually, I think, changed at one point this afternoon, based on what I heard, but still in high transmission. Boulder County, you know outs on this list outside of Bear Creek, we’re still performing above most of the other counties in the metro area, you can see the case trends, you can see how they dropped and then how they p it peaked a little bit, and then how they leveled out that’s really relating to the data that we’re seeing in that flattening of the cases. Then when we look at race and ethnicity, you know, this is kind of this 18% 17% is really where we like to be. But once again, when we talk about where the predominant number of cases are, we can see that Longmont is still the bulk of the cases in Boulder County. And so when you look at that compared to the race and ethnicity graph, because our Latinx population is larger in Boulder, in Longmont than it is in the other communities in Boulder County. That’s where we’re seeing that connection point there, and why that can be higher. And this is our wastewater numbers. And so this is what we’ve really been watching. And again, if you look at this slide, and you kind of see what’s happening with this, you can see that the cases in blue are really following that trend. And you can just see the same movements lagging our wastewater numbers. And so you can see on this point where we were really hopeful that we were going to continue on that downward trend, and then it popped back up. And then we’re here. So we’re waiting to really see what happens. And this is what the seven day look timelag. So you can see. Here’s the cases that are reported. And here’s the wastewater results that we’re seeing. And in terms of that, what I wanted to let you know is that Casey Campo who’s been working on this, send an email to us today and really talk about how they are working with CSU and testing the Omicron variant. GT molecular they’re in the final steps of getting that in their testing protocol. In terms of the testing on the autoCrat variant, what they are saying from the state is I think they’re going to report report those results. Every two weeks, not every week, like we’re seeing some of the others. I think GT molecular once they actually get that going it’ll be will be reporting on a more frequent basis. So hopefully in the near future we’ll start seeing that

Unknown Speaker 24:45
so now let’s talk about the healthcare system. And what we what I started off with the average number of hospitalized confirmed COVID-19 patients stayed relatively the same it this week compared to the previous week. ICU beds, we were down to 3%, down from 4%. Last week, what I want to talk about here is that it changes daily. So, literally on Tuesday, when I gave you all the presentation, I give the same presentation twice a month to the city staff. And I think there were eight beds available at that presentation or there was, let’s say, our date, when I presented on Thursday, there was actually only one bed available. And so that’s how this is moving on the hospitals in terms of what they’re dealing with staffed med surge beds, you know, again, that’s down from four to 3%. This is the key piece, it’s the reporting the tide staffing, so you’re continuing to see that that change. And so, you know, now it was 50%. Last week, it’s 63% this week. And so when we really talk about that, you may have beds. But if you don’t have the staff there, then you can’t really count that bed. And I know that Marika sent you all a link to the Boulder County Health Board meeting that they had yesterday. And that was the basis for a lot of these conversations. And so I would encourage you, and I would encourage the members of our community to take it to go to the Boulder County website. And really watch that video because they had some medical providers come in and really talk about what they were seeing and what we can do to help the hospitals. Again, you can see that pediatric confirmed cases holding steady and once again, the pharmacy piece that was new before and it’s still holding. So this is what it looks like in terms of hospitalization. So you can see how we’ve just been climbing it has been steadily decreasing. So we’re hoping that’s the case. And let me go back a little bit. So when I showed you the the wastewater 99% of the cases we’re seeing, of the testing that we’re doing is still showing the Delta variance projection is is that eventually the Omicron variant will be the predominant variant because of how contagious it is. So when we go back to this slide, you can see what’s really happening in hospital. So even though we decreased, we’re still at a pretty high level compared to where we were. To kind of put this in perspective, if you remember, in November and December, when we talked about this, we were talking about it being a level of hospital admissions a year ago, where that was really high. And you can see that we’ve seen we’ve surpassed that at times. But the fact that we’re still at 70. And you put in perspective, in terms of the hospitalizations that we’re seeing, related to the fact that the vaccine is there were still pretty high. And same with the staffed ICU beds. And again, you can see the difference in the slides and how that numbers moving. Again, this information is provided by Boulder County Public Health, you can see where we are in Epi capacity, still really in that same position. And then you know, the one thing that we did also talk about is, again, just the number of deaths that we’re continuing to see when you look at some of the health data and if you go and listen to that presentation for the Board of Health. But you know, what you’re really going to hear is it is a predominantly when you see who’s hospitalized and who’s not hospitalized, it’s related to the vaccine component. The The other thing is, those that are unvaccinated tend to be older. There was a really good graph that I was trying to get from the meeting today. But it was it was a shame. It was a shader graph that really highlighted the difference in hospitalizations and who was being hospitalized, hospitalized and why? In saving the data so you can see the positivity rate is going down. Again, to kind of give you a sense of the numbers we averaged. If you remember last week, we averaged about 1900 tests per day. The previous week, we’re at about 1600 tests per day. Now we’re averaging about 2000 tests per day versus a 1900. So we’re seeing the number of tests increasing. We think that that is due to a number of things, one,

Unknown Speaker 29:22
what we’re obviously hearing in the messages that are being put out regarding the need to test to a number of employers have emulated similar requirements like we have that said that if you’re not if you’re not vaccinated, you’re going to be tested weekly, really following the protocols that were established by the CDC. So we’re seeing that number go up. And we’re seeing what’s happening in terms of the positivity rates. So we’re going to continue to watch this dataset to really see if it proves out what we were thinking. Again, you know, vaccinations can continue to move in the right direction, in terms of what we’re seeing. Again, Boulder County residents that have received at least one dose at 4.5. The 68.5 on the two doses is again, because of the now opening up a larger category of folks who are qualified. And then when we look at the percentage of the eligible population, you can see the difference in where we are there. So they are really starting to once again focus on the social equity component, and really work with our bipoc Park populations, especially for younger children. And so you can see a focus coming from public health there. And then again, this is the what we’re seeing in terms of the uptake on the booster doses. So yellow is the percent receiving a booster fully vaccinated. The blue is receiving a booster of the total population.

Unknown Speaker 30:55
And so

Unknown Speaker 30:56
Mayor council that is my presentation today, again, I would strongly encourage everyone to check that link out from Boulder County Public Health, because I think that’ll answer a lot of questions that I’m not able to answer, but I’ll be happy to do my best right now.

Unknown Speaker 31:14
We have any questions from council for Harold. Harold, thank you so much for that, and for keeping us updated on this. It’s very, it’s very important that we know what’s going on and you do a good job. So thank you for that. Thank you. You’re welcome. We do have a special report tonight. It’s going to be on sugar mill and the steam sub area plan. Who is who’s going to give us that update?

Unknown Speaker 31:43
Good evening, Mayor pack.

Unknown Speaker 31:44
Council members.

Unknown Speaker 31:45
Hi, Aaron. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 31:50
And I’ll ask Dallas to go ahead and pull up the presentation. While I’m just making some quick opening remarks. This is the presentation under seven a thanks, Dallas. So for those of you that I haven’t met, my name is Aaron Fosdick. And I’m a principal planner with the Planning Division. I want to mention that tonight I’m also joined by Tony Chacoan, our redevelopment manager, Glenda Nijmegen, the planning director, as well as some members of our consultant team who you’ll meet here in just a second. We’re really pleased to be able to present information tonight, to council as we kick off the sub area planning for the sugar mill and steam area. We did provide some preliminary information as an info item in your November 16 packet. But we’re excited to be able to be here sort of live tonight to present to you. We know that this project is a council and a community priority. And we’re really excited to be partnering with a dynamic consultant team that’s led by Stantec. And tonight, they’re going to provide a high level overview of the project including opportunities and challenges, market information and some additional thoughts on our engagement strategy. So with that, I’ll go ahead and introduce Rhonda Bell who’s a senior associate with Stantec and the staff member that’s managing the project for our consultant team. And we will go ahead and get started. And Rhonda if you want to go ahead and unmute yourself and start your video you can start the presentation

Unknown Speaker 33:15
here and give us just a minute. Thanks

Unknown Speaker 33:28
fantastic. Looks like I’m on both audio and video. Thank you Aaron.

Unknown Speaker 33:31
Dallas, if

Unknown Speaker 33:32
you could go the next slide. I think Aaron covered what we’re going to talk about with you tonight. So who we are what we’re aiming to do and kind of where we are preliminarily. Next slide, please. So as Aaron said, I’m Rhonda, and I’m the project manager with Stantec. I am joined by Nancy lock, also from Stantec, who is leading the planning and urban design on the project. Also with us is Danika Powell from the Trussell strategy group who’s leading our public participation. And David Starnes, who I think may be familiar to some of you with struct and he is both updating a recent market study and adding a residential component to that and both of them will give us a summary. Next slide, please. So the project area is outlined in pink on this map. And as you can see, it includes both what you may have heard discussed as the steam area on the west side of the map and then the sugar mill area over on the east side of Martin Street. And I do want to emphasize that this is the sugar mill and steam plan. We’re not doing two separate plans. We really are looking at both of these areas together stronger together and how we can connect the development and make both areas stronger. We are scoped the project will look at opportunities and challenges and how we can get some creative ideas to mitigate those urban design and the character of the area. Connections This is a hard one, we’ll talk about this a little bit later on how you get into and move around the area, both locally and regionally. And then once we’ve kind of got our preferred plan, and what we think is the best options to move forward to how that should be phased from both the public side and the private side. And then of course, the infrastructure that we need to support new development in the area. Next slide, please. We do have draft goals. And again, these are draft goals, we like to make goals to kind of give food for thought for people to react to, instead of creating them from scratch. So we have five buckets up here that you can see. And we would be open to input both from Council tonight or later. And we’re going to take these goals out to the community to get input on these, our emphasis in housing is really attainable housing, as opposed to strictly affordable so that we have a whole range of products. Transportation, as I said, looking at not just local study area, but local and regional, kind of tying into the urban fabric of the entire city. development wise, we want to ensure that we’re connected across steam and Sugar Mill into the community. And that we’re complementing other development projects that are going on community wise, incentivizing some cultural arts facilities in innovation. And then sustainability, this is a great huge development opportunity, that we can maybe demonstrate some projects, that wouldn’t be possible in smaller development projects going on in this city. Next slide. From a contact point of view, this is a big one, if you look at the names that are pointed out on the map, and the 36 names that are on the top of the screen, and together, we have about 60 owners in the entire study area, and that’s 60 property owners in addition to those, there’s also a number of developers are other interests who have options to purchase land so that they are also very, very interested stakeholders. In addition to the community at large, we already held a meeting on December 1 with pretty much the the eastern portion of the study area east of Martin, to kind of just pick people’s brains and get them talking to each other concerns opportunities, start that conversation. And then we’re planning a similar meeting on the east side, kind of the steam area, I’m sorry, the west side, west of Martin, and that meeting is set to take place on January 7. Next slide. Context, you can see there are quite a few current projects going on, both in the study area and adjacent to it. And I’m sure that you are familiar with most of these projects. In addition, the two kind of ovoids that we have marked in there with purple dashed lines, those are two active pre applications within the study area. And both of those are for multifamily and mixed use development. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 37:52
So opportunities, this represents our initial analysis, since we are just getting started, first and foremost, a tremendous amount of prior work in the study area and nearby it and some of that is ongoing, as you can see recent and even further back. And all of these are important and giving us kind of ideas that were generated, as well as marking what the community really wants, like the main record or plan to pull into the study area. Things to keep in mind what’s important as we look at different options for the study area. fantastic opportunity as a gateway to Longmont, historically, and just physically from this location for visual entry features. We mentioned housing when we talked about goals, and then open space. This is a tremendous personally, you know, with adjacency, both to the St. Vrain river corridor and the open spaces that are there, there may also be an interesting opportunity with a mining that is planned to take place in the near term just south of the study area. And that’ll be restored. That might be an opportunity for aggregated open space that that can can benefit to the development and possibly even allow higher density in the development. And then as I hinted at, again, giant redevelopment area, pilot projects and best practices. This is a could be a great laboratory to try out some ideas or demonstrate some ideas that the city has already adopted into policy that they’re interested in carrying forward and complete streets, green infrastructure. Those are examples of some of those. Next slide, please. And of course, we’re not without challenges. And anybody who’s been to the study area knows first and foremost access is really difficult both getting into out of and moving through the area. Some of those issues have to do signalization possible extension of existing streets from the north into the study area. We’re aware of some safety issues at some major intersections abutting the study area. And then, of course, really, like I said before connecting the two the two halves the two sides of Martin so that is a fairly feels like a single development that’s greater than the sum of It’s parks. The railroad crossings are challenging. We know that there was one that was recently upgraded on the west side and the steam area. There are some existing additional crossings in the sugar mill area. Some questions that we’ll be looking at is can we relocate railroad crossings? Can we realign them and most importantly, when does realigning them become a relocation. So some sticky issues there. Open space and river access I talked about before and then environmentally, it bears saying that none of the development, redevelopment revitalization and the study area will take place before there’s some mitigation, particularly over on the sugar mill side. So the phase two environment analysis was recently completed, and a Brownfields Grant was just submitted on December 1, and that grant is for planning remediation. It’s not for the actual remediation itself. And then there are additional floodplain issues on a significant portion to the property. Next slide, please. With that, I’m gonna turn it over to David to tell us I believe, David, it’s nearing the end of his market update and tell you where he is right now. And some of the initial conclusions, David, that’s David Starnes, Dallas, if you need to unmute him.

Unknown Speaker 41:19
Oh, David, we can hear you.

Unknown Speaker 41:24
Okay. Good evening, Mayor Peck and council, I’m here to provide a brief update on the kind of supplementary market observations that will be used to help inform the Lanius plan for the SEMA Sugarmill area. And we’re gonna highlight a couple of things. One in terms of, there’s some pretty significant demographic shifts happening nationally, and here in Colorado and regionally that really will have implications for housing moving forward and the types of housing for number one is, um, our aging households and households without children will be the kind of primary drivers of housing going forward. And, as you may know, these types of types topologies of households have different housing preferences than for example, a single family house, you may not need a large house with a large yard, which provides opportunities for kind of that missing middle and alternative housing types. Interestingly, according to the Denver Regional Council of Governments, 82% of the increase in housing in the Denver region through 2050, will be from households without children. And more than half of all forecasts that have household growth will be among households headed headed by older adults. And again, these have different housing implications. In terms of the types of houses they prefer, whether it’s to buy or to rent, that will impact on Longmont, as well as the sugar mill and steam area for potential housing opportunities. In terms of the implications to Longmont, as I mentioned, this will result in kind of an increase in demand for more diversified housing stock, not only single family, but also what we call it this missing middle which can include townhomes, duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats, apartments, kind of that, for rent or for own opportunity that’s more attainable in price than, say, a single family home. As you probably know, in Boulder County, the prices for single family home is increasingly out of reach for most for most of us here. Another important trend to know is that’s happening nationally and locally. Over the next couple of decades will we call it decelerating growth in Longmont from past 40 years from 1980 to 2020. We grew about 2.1% annually, and our population that’s expected to decrease fairly significantly significantly over the next couple of decades. This is because of fewer births, more deaths as households age, slower immigration compared to previous decades, and so forth. And according to the state demography office in migration will be the primary driver of popular population growth in the Boulder, and Colorado area through 2050. versus, you know, natural increase, which includes birth and death, which are expected to slow dramatically over the next couple of decades. So, obviously, with Colorado and Boulder being a desirable place in Longmont, that will be the primary driver of population of population growth moving forward. And of course, this also depends in terms of the housing units, the availability of land, within Longmont to accommodate this growth in whether that land is appropriately zoned to accommodate housing have diversified on types. Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 44:46
Especially the economy, as you know, as you well know, you know, we’re slowly working our way out of this pandemic. I mean, we have business starts you know, we the recovery is gaining momentum But there are headwinds that continues to threaten growth. As you may be aware, obviously inflation is here at all time highs. We’re experiencing labor shortages and major different types of businesses and markets. And we’re still continuing to deal with supply chain issues in terms of products and delivery here in Longmont as well as in the in the nation moving forward into 2022 The major economic drivers for Colorado and this I think bodes well for Longmont will be continue to be manufacturing, data centers, biopharmaceuticals, aerospace and warehousing in terms of the E commerce, we believe Walmart’s well positioned with his concentration in these target industries to kind of continue to capture this growth. In terms of housing. Do you look at this the exhibit to the right I think this is fairly interesting. This is the ratio of long months housing units to households. And over the past 40 years, Colorado has averaged about 1.1 housing units to households, as you can see here in Longmont. For the past 40 years. We haven’t again, 1.1 it’s no it’s not there’s no magic number or new magic ratio. This is just what has been actual based on state demography office information on we actually actually hit that 1.1 this past decade for 2010 and 2020. But from 1980 to 2010. Our ratio was you know, below that 1.1, which is just that we’re not building enough housing units to meet the demand for household formation. Again, in terms of housing growth, you know, it has slowed statewide over the past decade, you know, Longmont did better. And then moving forward is really going to be that regional employment growth that will be driving the demand for housing. We’re experiencing record low inventories, and record price increases that contributing to the challenging housing market in Longmont. Next slide, please. And in terms of the implications for the CMA Sugarmill, area, you know, kind of some initial observations that will be fine tuned as we finalize kind of our analysis, but really providing meeting this housing demand in terms of the demographic shifts with a mix of housing types and tenure options is going to be important, diverse housing options, we, you know, obviously Longmont is not moving outward is, um, as it has historically in terms of annexations it’s more of there’s going to be more of this infill development opportunities are going to be the primary location to accommodate this growing housing demand. And to accommodate this demographic shift in terms of aging households and households, that children are more compact leading to high density housing, which we expect, you know, continue to grow and that we feel that the CME Chicago area is well positioned to kind of capture this demand as part of a mixed use community. The missing middle has been talked about before this is kind of an attainable housing. It’s, again, it’s not primarily single family detached, it’s more of a single family attached units, duplexes. triplexes stacked flats, at use again, on housing that can be for rent or for sale that’s at a lower price point, the more attainable to households have different income. But as I mentioned before, affordable is affordability issues around developers today are really struggle with increasing construction costs, finding labor, in terms of framers, electricians and having to be available. Increasing land costs, particularly in places like border County and here in Longmont was not laying the table, state and local regulations, the ability to get projects entitled in a timely manner to be able to build to meet this housing demand. And then pricing these are identified as really top real estate development issues and headwinds moving forward. And the last piece is again to buy or to rent. It’s one of the kind of third out there I mean, there is a continuing issue to affordability but there is continued growing demand for for a for rent product. And this can be rented by choice but also rented by by by need and this includes odor and air you know older residents and younger residents who prefer more of a fuss free, less flexible lifestyle. This will continue to drive demand for medium to high density residential including apartments and for rent townhomes as well.

Unknown Speaker 49:19
Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 49:21
And my last slide here is I’m switching from the housing but looking at kind of the commercial market looking at and just your office and retail I’m really epidemic has shown really some divergent outlooks for Longmont as well as the country real estate market by product type and you look at industrial that’s been the what we call the favorite asset class through this and pandemic is experiencing robust demand scarcity to supply accelerated brands. And this is the primarily driven by the rise the continued rise of E commerce and that kind of last mile delivery in terms of warehouse demand. We think Longmont continues to be well positioned in terms of the E commerce demand. really focusing on this smaller scale flex warehouse with r&d and Life Sciences, which is another emerging niche here in Boulder, for in Boulder County for space, looking at adaptive reuse of existing buildings, you know, many of long months of existing buildings are pretty outdated. It’s really they’re really not conducive or attractive to what modern businesses want today. And the ability to update this space to be modern, to attract potential spillover demand from Boulder is an opportunity that long months, you can continue to look at. In terms of office. Yes, as we probably all know, we’re all going through the great reset here. In terms of the where can we work and how can we work and, you know, work from anywhere? I guess, one of the major expectations of what we think moving forward and again, there’s a lot of prognosticators out there looking at Oh, everyone’s coming back to the office. Some people are, is I think people are confidently saying that there will be less office demand expected moving forward, particularly with the hybridization, the office space, you know, working three days in office two days in home or two days at home in three days, three days in office, you know, is showing that, you know, moving forward, there will be some expected less demand for actual physical square feet of office space. And we think long was pretty well positioned. They talked about kind of the growth to smaller, vibrant super suburban communities versus bigger urban downtown’s and Longmont, I think, with our location in border County, and the Denver region in the Front Range is well positioned to kind of capitalize on this growth to smaller vibrant communities. And then retail, retail didn’t experience some pretty significant headwinds with a pandemic. It has revived but hasn’t recovered yet. And again, changes continue to accelerate and, and how retail operators make their businesses work. Well, he had the impact of E commerce he had bogus which is, you know, buy online pick up in store, you know, which we were you seen in some of these retailers have these a little micro fulfillment centers on their back office of their store to come in to kind of pick up in store. Again, we’re Longmont an opportunity to get in focus on these micro fulfillment centers. experiential retail is critical. I think we’re the Siemens Sugar Mill, we’ve been talking about a potential with this Agra hub taking advantage of long months agricultural history, food and beverage and really focusing on neighborhood serving retail. And I guess, maybe four guys, two key themes that they’ve been talking about, in terms of the kind of real estate market is the importance of flexibility and convenience, that will be driving the next next decade in terms of how we work, where we were, and how we shop. And with that, as I have at this point, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 52:47
Dallas, if you could unmute down a couple she’s going to cover the last part of our presentation on engagement.

Unknown Speaker 52:54
Danica, you should be good to go. Great. Thank

Unknown Speaker 52:56
you. Good evening, Mayor pack and council in the Longmont community. A key part of this project is stakeholder engagement and public participation. As we’ve mentioned, it’s a very large and diverse area. So we’ve adapted our community engagement strategy to respond to that. So what we want to do in this phase of community engagement is understand the community’s needs and interests build on what’s already underway, what’s been studied, and what we already know, from other engagement practices, engaged, all affected stakeholders, which is the broader community at large to have an inclusive approach, and encourage and incorporate that community and stakeholder input to shape the final plan.

Unknown Speaker 53:41
Next slide. So

Unknown Speaker 53:45
in order to do that, we have a a short this project is not a lengthy project. So we are really working at out, you know, putting our engagement out there. So right now we’ve been getting the word out. So that includes articles and publications, the newspaper, Rhonda mentioned the developers meeting that we had on the east side of the study area, which we will continue with the west side. And we had a presentation or a board at the Longmont lights, and we’re launching engaged Longmont page. So really just letting people know what this study is, what the goals are, what it isn’t. It’s not a rezoning effort. It’s not a redevelopment effort, and really just getting people socialized around the idea of this study, and that this is an area of change and getting feedback. In the beginning of next year we’ll be really doing targeted informational feedback meeting. So really going this is kind of the first of those going to city council, then to planning and zoning and through the different boards and Commission’s that have interest in this project. Also at the same time we’ll be working on more focused outreach with groups that have interests pertaining to the issues we’ve had identified in the opportunities, so environmental advocates sustainability, housing, and other stakeholders, and in March and April will be really bringing all all our alternatives and ideas out to the community and also doing this really deep dive with youth engagement partnering with growing up older, and doing engagement, micro engagement leading up to a larger activity in the springtime, where we’ll be able to partner with several Longmont institutions and the street fair, and really doing really tangible concrete planning activities with the community. So all of this, our goal is to do really great, targeted personal engagement, micro engagement, pop ups, and while utilizing the city’s tools that are already in place to let people know that this is happening. Next slide. So right now we have a project page on the city’s website, you can see here on the right, and we’re launching our it’s actually been launched, there’s basic information on the project on Engage Longmont, and we’ll be putting up activities and hopefully in the past, we’ve been able to reach some larger diversity through the Engage long one site as well as through our pop up activities. Next slide. And with that, I’ll pass it back to the team for questions and discretion. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 56:45
Do we have any questions or comments from Council on this project? A Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 56:59
Thank you, Mayor Peck. First of all, just a couple of comments real quick. I personally have made comments previously to planning and development that I don’t agree with combining the steam and the sugar mill sub areas. I think they’re very different neighborhoods, specifically that they have very different access points. And Martin has always kind of been in a dividing line. And I think it also is the antithesis of having more localized walkable neighborhoods that are a little bit more contained, to promote not getting in our cars and driving everywhere. So I don’t really agree with including them together. The other thing I’d like to comment on is that the missing middle to me doesn’t include rental housing. Everything we talked about in this last campaign, over the number of years, over over this last year has been more based upon the fact that we’ve been building a lot of apartment buildings and a lot of very large apartment buildings throughout town and that we’re not building enough for sale properties. So to me, that’s the true missing middle, at least in the concept of what Longmont is looking for. It still is the same thing as far as duplexes, triplexes, attached housings, condominiums, I assume that’s what the stack flats means. In this this concept, and I think that you’ve seen that in the market as far as the the rental prices has have increased in our market over the last year or so. But they have not increased at the same level as for sale housing has increased. So I don’t quite agree with that, that look at the missing middle as was previously stated in this. And I think that will also come up on a later agenda item tonight that we’ll probably be talking about. But as such, you know, I’m very much for the steam aspect of it a lot more than I am for the sugar mill, partially based on the fact that the city of Longmont has much more land at its disposal versus private developers in the steam section versus the sugar mill section. And so those are those are my concerns. With this, I feel it’s out also traveling at a very brisk pace. That, to me seems maybe a little premature. At the end of the day, though, obviously, I’d like to see the sugar mill redeveloped or that that piece of land, I just think it should be a very different concept than something that’s more closely connected to the rest of Downtown for instance, I think that provides different opportunities for density and for commercial and for academic possibilities such as annexes, and for the hotel restaurant concept versus what would potentially go in more in the sugarmill section. That’s why I just don’t think connecting them makes a lot of sense to me. And I’ve stated this before, but it’s just a reiteration.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:03
Thank you, Councillor waters.

Tim Waters 1:00:08
Thanks, Mayor Peck. Maybe just as I listened to Mayor Pro Tem, I appreciate the concerns, and he certainly has a sharp perspective on both the history and the whole process for land use. The one thing I might disagree a little bit with is timing. Especially if I were to bifurcate, the sugar mill area from the steam area, I’d like to see us pick up the pace, at least in the steam area, with with what comes next in terms of the kind of the work that this project is going to address. Especially since we have a number of other things kind of gonna hang in the balance. There’ll be tough to make decisions on what to do with a feasibility study for a performing arts and conference center other development opportunities if we if we if we don’t move forward, at least in the steam area. And with that thought in mind, the one question I have for the team. In the steam, one of the one of the products that deliver a deliverable, if you will, from the steam project was what was intended to be a collection of narratives that would dit would describe the vision or elements of the vision that the team that did that work developed over the period of a number of months in in 2019. That document resides, or is hosted or posted on the Engage Longmont site. There are actually eight categories in which the narratives were to have been developed, if you go and look at them. Some are pretty well developed narrative. Some are, are more like bullet bulleted lists of ideas, but set but eight areas, kind of seven pretty well specified areas from transportation and land use to building type to, to architecture, and then kind of a catch all of all other issues, along with a preamble the made a statement of value prior to the narratives that that that eight teams worked on. And I’m just curious, is any attention being given for this consulting team? Any I heard I heard the presentation. That other work that’s been done for the main street quarter to seem to other planning processes are being considered. I’d hate to see this move forward without at least acknowledging the work that that group did. And and an answer to the question, when asked, and I hope, I hope we are asked. So what are you doing with the results of that work we did in 2019? Who’s paying attention, if any, to any of the ideas, not that those were the only ideas? That was a starter discussion more than anything else to move this forward? But there were some pretty interesting and robust and exciting ideas that were developed. What kind of attention or considerations giving being given to any of that work? Specifically, what’s posted on the on the engaging online

Unknown Speaker 1:03:11
page? America?

Tim Waters 1:03:16
I’d like an answer. Yes,

Unknown Speaker 1:03:19
I’ll start and then I obviously would invite the project team to weigh in. As Rhonda mentioned in the presentation, a lot of work has been done. And I think a big body of that work for the steam area is the work that council championed pre pandemic. And so we do have, we have given the consultant access to all of the materials that that advisory panel came up with, including those narratives, the drawings, the notes, I was fortunate enough to listen in on some of those discussions. So have a little bit of prior knowledge. But yes, absolutely. That’s the basis for a lot of the work that we’re picking up with, you know, kind of choose the phrase building steam on. So yes, that’s absolutely work that we’re taking a look at, you know, those stakeholders that were involved in that process did spend and you yourself spend an incredible amount of time on that. So we certainly don’t want to lose sight of that. We also have linked that project on the Engage site to this new project. So folks can go back and sort of pick up those breadcrumbs and see the work that council in the community had done in the steam area. So that’s absolutely being factored in as sort of a starting point. Similar to what we’re looking at with some of the other plans that Rhonda mentioned in her presentation. You know, this isn’t this isn’t a planning effort that starting from scratch, we are able to build on what we’ve heard from the community what we’ve heard from property owners and stakeholders what we’ve already heard from counsel and so you’re you’re spot on, we’re using that information. The consultant team has that and we’re still keeping a live link to that through the project pages on engage. And Rhonda I don’t know if you or anyone else on the team want to add to that,

Unknown Speaker 1:04:54
again, in a more concrete answer as well. We do have that meeting coming Coming up on January 7, for property owners and interests in the the steam area and the area west of Martin. And I think that’s a great opportunity to kind of fact check. Not I don’t know, I shouldn’t say fact check, but talk about those those profiles that you described and see if they what changed if people have more specific ideas. And I don’t know at this time, if the participants in that steam visioning effort, how that compares with the the invite list for that January 7 meeting, but it would, we will definitely put that on our list to compare those invite lists. So we know if do we have 90% of the same people, it would be great if we had maybe 50% of the same people and 50% new people so that we can get even more opinions on? Did we get it right? What’s nuanced? What has changed, and then move forward from there. I mean, I think that’s a, I’m excited to have those there as a place to start instead of from zero. And then it also gives us information and how people’s thinking has evolved both over time and with the changing context.

Tim Waters 1:06:08
I appreciate the response. And I would say full steam ahead.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:14
Councillor Martin? Thank you, Mayor Peck.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:18
I’m extending the ideas expressed by the Mayor Pro Tem and Dr. Waters. I have a couple of questions about this. The east and west of Martin seem to be very differentiated in terms of the number of unknowns we have about the parcels on each side of Martin. So you know, in the original study, the west of Martin area has been studied pretty hard. There is a lot of city property there. And it’s sort of its its fitness for the public amenities aspects of the project has been studied considerably

Unknown Speaker 1:07:00
on

Unknown Speaker 1:07:02
on the other hand, that we have a lot of unknowns about the east side, especially, we we don’t understand how much hazardous substance how hazardous materials mitigation is going to have to be done. There is a property owners consortium. And we I mean, you may be in the process of finding out but certainly the council doesn’t know what their vision is, and whether it aligns with the public vision of steam. And then finally, I don’t think we have a good idea what the what the transit vision is east to west, as the Mayor Pro Tem was saying, it’s easy to envision either side as a walkable neighborhood, it’s the right size. Without we need to understand how the East West connectivity is supposed to work. In order not to kind of shatter the the unity of those neighborhood pockets and get us into traffic situations. So I would really like to see a multimodal transit plan for an area this long and narrow and what’s really envisioned there.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:33
We have any other comments, or does Councillor Martin, did you want an answer from from staff on this? Or

Unknown Speaker 1:08:44
I suspect it’s too soon to ask for an answer about the transit. But I would like to know what you know about the hazardous waste mitigation.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:57
Mayor pack

Unknown Speaker 1:08:59
council members of council This is Tony Chucktown. I can advise you that there has been a environmental sampling going on at the sugar mill properties. That includes the build the historic buildings and the actual grounds that entail what Dick Thomas owns. And then that parcel is effectively an outdoor storage facility presently, they just concluded are first of all, let me just say that the work actually was conducted by a group called Terra Tech, which was consultant to the EPA and the EPA was gracious enough to effectively pay for the cost of that assessment work. So they stepped forward that phase two sampling has more and more recently concluded. We anticipate having the results that completed within the next two months and possibly within the next two three month period. We’ll know What quantities of environmental contamination there are out there, which will then give us an idea of what needs to be remediated and some general cost ideas what the remediation costs might be. So that effort has been running parallel with this planning effort. They’re not part of the same endeavor. But that information is being fed to the Stantec consulting team as we go along in this planning process. Thank you,

Unknown Speaker 1:10:29
Tony, are you? Are you satisfied with that answer? Okay, great. I would like to chime in a little bit on this, I feel that we really do need to separate these two the steam from the sugar mill, because housing is probably going to be the number one thing that we need. And it seems like the sugar mill site, this is just my opinion, would have more of a attraction, I guess, for middle range housing, and not to combine everything I also would like to, even though I really appreciate David Starnes input and his knowledge, I like to push back a little bit on the for sale. It’s I don’t know that we actually know, I know, trends are what we follow. But in 18 years, are we really going to have such a mobile, mobile population that they want to rent and not own and earn their own equity, and I don’t like making those assumptions about people in advance, it would be nice to some people would like to have control over growing their own equity in their home. without, without having to depend upon rent all the time, and not being able to control that rent. So whether it’s townhouses, condominiums, single family paired, whatever it is, I would like to see definitely some for sale units. So that’s it. But I do know this is a longer process, I would love to have it all up in six months, it isn’t going to happen. So as we walk through it and see a concept plan, it’ll be easier to visualize what we’re actually talking about. So thank you. And I really, really appreciate the community reach outreach. I think it’s really important. So thanks for all of your work.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:41
Councillor Martin,

Unknown Speaker 1:12:42
one question that I neglected to ask is, what was the basis for combining the two study areas? What was the thinking in terms of doing that?

Unknown Speaker 1:12:57
Mayor Pat, Councilmember Martin, I’ll, I’ll take a shot at answering that. And certainly other city staff can jump in, you know that, obviously, these two areas are in proximity to each other. I think it is important to recognize that while we’re looking at this as one, one sub area plan, there are going to be different components in the steam and Sugar Mill. One of the things that I think Rhonda emphasized is really how do we knit these together? And so how do we create, to your point, that connectivity between the steam area and the sugar mill area, but also between the sugar mill and Mill Village, the sugar mill in areas to the north and the sugar mill and steam to kind of the downtown core. So I think what I’m hearing from counsel is there’s a little bit of a concern that we’re trying to make one homogeneous plan for the whole area. And I don’t think that’s the case, we do want to look at opportunities and constraints sub area wide, but there is an opportunity to look at these specific character areas differently. The thinking behind combining them was it’s a way to maximize our funding, you know, we can combine engagement, we can combine existing conditions, we can look at important things from you know, conductivity, floodplain environmental remediation, things that do that both kind of sides of the site have in common, you know, and I think they’re both priorities for the community and for council. The Sugar Mill is part of the East highway 119 gateway and envision Longmont it’s one of four focus areas, one we haven’t done a sub area plan for, that continues to be a priority for the community. And I think with the development that we’ve seen out east, there’s a lot more increasing interest from developers, and we really felt like this is an opportune time to take a look at how we coordinate that. From a city perspective, you know, what kinds of public investments do we need to be looking at as the private sector is making those investments? And so, you know, certainly we know steam is a priority for council and we saw that as an opportunity to kind of combine these planning efforts. But I think what we’re hearing you say tonight is it does make sense to take a look at those areas a little bit individually. where it’s appropriate. And I think that message came across loud and clear. I don’t know, Harold, if you have anything you want to add of why we why we combined those, but I think, you know, efficiency was a big reason.

Unknown Speaker 1:15:12
Yeah, thank you, I think it was, as Aaron described, part of that is maximizing the dollars, typically where I’ve seen this in other places, it’s not that you come at it, where it’s one consolidated plan, but I tend to see it as two sub plans, that you understand the interaction of the two together. I think what’s really interesting about and we’ve talked about this a little bit. What’s really interesting about what we’re seeing on the eastern part of our community right now to the point is, when they showed the slide, he actually saw two active development projects in that area, where there’s tangible interested in, you combine that with the development that we’ve seen with the hospital that we’ve seen with the housing development near there, they pointed out the Costco project, there’s a lot of interest really starting to happen on that Eastern part. And that’s part of why we wanted to look at it, so we’re ready for it. But we definitely hear counsel and the way I see it personally, where I’ve dealt with this is it’s almost like you have a sugar meal plan. You have a steam plan. But you’re understanding the linkages between that. And then to Aaron’s point, we also have to understand in that area, how that’s linking to the eastern part of our community. So I think that was what we were thinking, and I definitely hear what Mayor Pro Tim, and the rest of the council are saying on this.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:44
I do we can talk and kind of work on on that. Separation, but togetherness, but you want to pull it apart, but keep it together enough so that they’re so that they’re in congruent with each other. Well, I work with Aaron on

Unknown Speaker 1:16:59
that. Yeah, like thank you both. I think that

Unknown Speaker 1:17:01
helps a lot.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:06
Thank you. I do think for the people who are watching and have no idea what steam is we should tell them what the acronym stands for. So do you want to tell us Aaron I know what it is but it’s your it’s your planning

Unknown Speaker 1:17:22
the mayor pack I’ll take a shot and then if council member waters I know it’s a little unique to Longmont, science, technology, engineering, arts and and maker space, I think is what we refer to steam as typically I think it’s math in the original context, but I think we refer to it as maker is that is that what I put

Tim Waters 1:17:41
on there? For maker space mathematics and maker space? Couple of aliens.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:45
Okay, to me, we got

Unknown Speaker 1:17:48
it. Mayor Council, I did want to kind of also, you know, when we talked about the steam concept, if you remember, when we when we entered, we had representatives from universities. That’s right. I think the other thing is reaching out to them also and understanding it because they’re going through change right now. And their model is shifting real time in terms of what they’re looking at, and, and we see where office space is going. And if you I happen to have a kid in college right now and just the opportunities for them to, frankly, go online, and so many of their classes and what that’s really going to look at, we need to be mindful also, as we’re looking at this and have conversations with him to talk about what is really the future of education and how that’s gonna look 10 years down the road? And maybe the answer is how do we leverage our next slide capability to really have rooms where if my daughter’s here and wants to take go to her class in Texas when she’s here visiting, there’s rooms where they can come in and actually do that and I think those are things we’re moving so fast right now in the world and you’re going to hear that on the employment side in about a month. Those are all things I think we’re all trying to really understand and understand quickly.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:10
Do we have any other comments from counselors for for staff? Thank you very much, Aaron. This is really exciting actually as we move on grow Longmont and it’s a it’s a huge project.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:24
I didn’t see you

Unknown Speaker 1:19:26
counselor Donald fairing

Unknown Speaker 1:19:29
I just realized that when I it’s the same color as the background, my hands so if you can’t see it, so I’ll pick my hand purple or something. But anyways, I was in a meeting last was it early? It was last week with folks from different organizations and it was that and maca from the museum who started it and I believe that might have been it was Danika were you there?

Unknown Speaker 1:19:57
Yes, I was. And that was it. upholder convened that meeting that you were at. Yes, that was

Unknown Speaker 1:20:03
it. So we had different representatives, I kind of I spoke a little bit in my council capacity as well as an educator. And the thing that I really appreciated and I’m excited to be involved with is looking at the community outreach and connection with our youth. So they also have a voice in, hey, this is, you know, when I define culture, or I define what what it is to be a Longmont residents. This is, you know, this is what I think of and how I’ve been able to incorporate that into into this work. But it just, it seemed like as I was listening to folks talk, that it’s all very much like a design challenge type Initiative, where we’re just kind of putting all the ideas out on the table, and kind of seeing what, you know, what, what would be most desirable, and also what would be most sustainable and effective use of that of that space. So I’m really excited to see what comes down, and having the opportunity for our members of the community to be to be a part of this process. So I mean, I’m excited to see. But again, being able to have these conversations about this is not going to work in this space, that this will work in that. So you’re just kind of keeping that open mind and being flexible. I, you know, I’m kind of one that are we okay, let’s throw ideas, let’s come up with stuff. And other people really want to have that plan already laid out. And that visualization, but I really see that, you know, folks are trying to you know, we’re creating the vision as we move along. So I’m excited to see what what evolves.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:46
Thank you. I agree with all of it. Great presentation. Thank you very much.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:53
Thank you. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:56
Now we’re the exciting part of our agenda, which is public invited to be heard. So um, we have on the screen for those of you that are interested in calling in, please dial the toll free number, which is 888-788-0099 into the meeting ID 86333902947. And when you’re asked for your participant, Id press your pound sign. And please mute your live stream when you call in you will be put into a waiting room. And when you’re when it’s time for you to speak, we will introduce you by the last three digits of your phone number. So thank you we’re going to take a five minute break while people call in

Unknown Speaker 1:27:04
All right near Peck. We’re coming back at about the five minute mark. Perfect. I am going to drop the slide right now. I do see we have three callers in the chat waiting right now. And once we are back live on the live stream, I will let you know. Okay. Okay, I am seeing you live. Are you ready for me to call on the first? Caller?

Unknown Speaker 1:27:39
Yes, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:43
Dallas give us just a minute let’s wait for all of council to get on screen.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:27
Perfect, I believe all council members are back Mayor Peck?

Unknown Speaker 1:28:33
Yes. Would you like? Yes. first caller please.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:37
Perfect. We’ll do. All right. To those calling in. Just let you know that you will have I will be calling you in the last three digits of your number. You will hit I believe it is star six, six. Yes, star six to unmute yourself. And you will have three minutes to speak and during that time, you need to start by stating your name and your address. And with that we are going to start with Give me just a moment.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:15
And Dallas, you may want to remind them to mute their live stream and listen through their telephones.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:21
Yes, absolutely.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:22
If you are listening through your live streams, please mute yourselves and listen through the phone. And we’re going to start with the last three numbers of your phone number our 498 caller 498 Would you unmute yourself please?

Unknown Speaker 1:29:43
Good evening, Mayor Peck and members of the council. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. My name is Sam safey I America denting Longmont, multicultural committee tonight. You have seen me in other roles in the past. I’m here to introduce myself again as a member of the multicultural committee. And basically thank you for your support of the multicultural committee and activities that we have done and we are doing. You’re probably aware that the last 20 years, we have been involved in many act events around the city. I’m going to list a few of them just so you will be refreshed. In January, there is Martin Luther King’s Day, the MLK Day. In February, there is Chinese New Year’s celebration. In May we have Cinco de mio. In June, we have June, June teen. In July, we used to support rhythm on the river, but now that has become mature events and they are on their own so they don’t need our support anymore. Which should, that’s our goal with all the events. In September, we you probably have participated in Inclusive Communities celebration, by the way that one, we started in the city Civic Center, then we moved it to senior center, and now we are removed then we will get to the museum. And now the museum’s too small for so it has grown over the years. And the last but not the least is Day of the Dead. So we celebrate we help we fund a little bit not much. If you $100 Here, you $1,000 Here and there. But in either case, we appreciate your support and your funding being as part of the budget of the city small budget of the city and know that we are here to help you to support you and to do whatever the city wants and be a voice for our multicultural community with within Longmont to you and others. Anyway, anyway. So thank you folks, and appreciate what you do. I was listening for the last hour and got a taste of the things that you do so thank you okay, and Mayor Peck, are you okay, moving on to the next caller? Oh, yes, please. Perfect.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:10
All right, call the LS

Unknown Speaker 1:33:11
one. Mayor Peck, are you going to be timing them? Or shall we? Oh,

Unknown Speaker 1:33:18
I suppose I could time them.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:20
Okay, we just, we didn’t want to override your your timing system if we started at a different time.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:28
Okay, good. Now we’re all on the same page. Okay, we will let you do that. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:33
Excellent. All right. And with that color 949 Would you unmute yourself please call her with the last three digits of your number 949. Please unmute yourself. I can see there. Hi there.

Unknown Speaker 1:33:51
Hi, this is Ruby Bowman, airy. 1512 left hand drive. Following are my comments regarding the river town annexation. When the concept plan is not in compliance with the proposed zoning of mixed use employment. The intent of this zoning is to encourage and promote primary employment. However 90% of the development will be residential housing, which is the secondary use. The developers should go back to the drawing board and revise its concept plan to show primary employment has a predominant and primary use on this property. Do as a condition of annexation require the installation of a multi layer vegetative buffer between the development property and the creek corridor, as well as fairground lakes and Rogers grow. The land development code requires that manmade facilities shall be screened from off site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area. What I’ve seen of new development near my neighborhood Long left hand Creek, it doesn’t seem as if the city enforces this regulation. Number three, the environmental planner must be actively and deeply involved in every phase of the development planner must conduct ground truthing surveys to ensure that the RIVERTOWNE habitat assessment reports are accurate. Several years ago, I read an update of the habitat assessment for it for development along the St. Bryan near Martin Street. The update was short with few words. It was as if the environmental consultant took five minutes to look through his binoculars to come up with a conclusion. There was no wildlife present. This report should have been should not have been accepted by the city. For the combined impacts of river town, mountain Brook and river said developments will generate enormous traffic question on Hoeber and nearby roads require a comprehensive traffic study of the area to assess the impacts. The number one complaint of residents is traffic congestion. I am a homeowner. I was a renter for many years of my life. Don’t build equity when you rent an apartment. In fact, you lose money. The river town development with its 320 apartment dwellings won’t do much for employers who say they want their employees to invest in community build equity, that paying primary jobs that pay a better wage and provide good benefits with a 401 K or pension would do more to help the situation than building more apartment buildings with high rents. Thank you so much. Perfect timing Ruby. Thank you. The next caller please.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:58
We’ll do all right caller with the last three digits 323 Would you unmute yourself please.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:05
And we see you now. Thank you Jamie CML 1020 Venice Street. Thank you, Mayor and council members for allowing me to speak tonight. Some of you have already heard my concerns regarding the river town property. While I have no issues with bringing this property into Longmont proper, I’m strongly of the opinion that there must be conditions to this annexation. As I’ve previously mentioned, the resilient st brain flood mitigation project is most likely going to take the form of a split flow channel so that the bulk of the trees that Rogers Grover preserves and surrounding properties aren’t flooded. However, as currently envisioned, this split flow channel will go right through nothing big fall habitat and waters grow. Thanks follows our Boulder County species of special concern the nest and only a handful of known locations in Boulder County. As a condition of annexation, the river town property owner must allow a conservation easement on their property so that the split flow channel does not impact of nesting habitat. My main concern regarding this annexation involves the concept plan for the development the property owner would like to build. I understand this is just a preliminary concept, but I’m concerned that 90% of the plan consists of residential uses. This area’s zoned mixed use employments. Longmont needs more good employers so that its residents don’t have to commute to Boulder or Denver. Adding in mostly housing doesn’t satisfy the primary use of the property being industrial slash commercial zoning. I’d like to rebut the frequently stated but unsupported us assertion that any development of this property would be better than what’s there right now. Yes, with housing there will be industrial runoff or heavy machinery excluding the grading process of course, going housing and people comes increased traffic and human presence that will certainly impact Rogers Grove and river corridor. Currently the land directly adjacent to Rogers Grove and the favoring is undeveloped. With apartments and duplexes comes more stormwater runoff from more pavements and especially more sound and light pollution, especially after work hours and even wildlife moves at night and river corridors or wildlife moving corridors. I want to city keep residents from making social trails down to the river and accessing it there rather than from the intended access point on Dickens farm. City council communication mentioned several times how the residential portion of the development would be a compatible neighbor to the creek and Rogers growth because these major areas would provide a quiet and peaceful setting for the residential buildings. Municipal Code apps the new building be compatible with the current surrounding area not that the surrounding area be compatible with the new building. Another point raised has been a lack of affordable housing in Longmont. This area is next to a highly desirable natural and public amenity. And anyone seriously tell me that the developers going to be putting in affordable units here. And these units will mostly be rentals. How will this help our workforce build equity in their own community? I ask that any development on this property be thoroughly vetted for its adherence to the municipal code. And the Longmont new environmental planner be heavily involved in this and any other potential future development adjacent or not. areas to ensure that they are truly compatible with the surrounding habitats. For example, multi layered native vegetative buffers should be installed between the development and the natural areas. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:13
Do we have any other callers?

Unknown Speaker 1:40:15
And with that we have no more callers. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:40:18
so we will close the public invited to be here and move on to what our readings are on first ordinance. But before we read the ordinances, I assume because there are so many of them, and a lot of them are debatable that I would like to remind council that we can speak twice on each of these ordinances that you pull five minutes for the first time in three minutes for the second time. So with that, Don, would you read the items on the Consent Agenda?

Unknown Speaker 1:40:52
Absolutely. Mayor packets. Item nine is ordinance 2021 78. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the RIVERTOWNE annexation and concept plan, generally located north of Boston Avenue and west of Sunset Street at 21 self centered Street and zoning the property MMU dashi mixed use employment, public hearing and second reading scheduled for January 11 2022. Nine B is resolution 2021 Dash 129 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the city of Longmont services contract for public educational and governmental access television services. Nine C is resolution 2021 Dash 130. A resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the lease between the city and Longmont public media for the Carnegie Library building for 57/4 Avenue. 90 is resolution 2021 Dash 131. A resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the City and Regional Transportation District for the Ecopath program. 90 is resolution 2021 Dash 132 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the City and Regional Transportation District for fare reimbursement on the Longmont local routes and accessorized services. Nine F is resolution 2021 Dash 133 a resolution of the Lamont City Council approving the 2022 intergovernmental agreement for bus service between the city of Fort Collins and the city of Longmont. Nine G is resolution 2021 Dash 134 a resolution of Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Adam State University for a memorandum of affiliation, permitting educational experiences and counseling. Nine H is resolution 2021 Dash 135 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Vocational Rehabilitation for paid work experience agreements from December 2021. Through December 2022. Nine i One is resolution 2021 Dash 136 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with the Colorado Colorado Enterprise Fund. Nine it is resolution 2021 Dash 137 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with visit Longmont. 993 is resolution 2021 Dash 138 a resolution of Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with the Longmont economic economic development partnership. 94 is resolution 2021 Dash 139 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with the Latino Chamber of Commerce of Boulder County 95 is resolution 2021 Dash 140 a resolution of the Longmont City Council approving an agreement for economic development services with the boulder Small Business Development Center nine j is except for capital improvement program amendments approved by the City Manager 9k is approved 2022 city of Longmont water principles Colorado Municipal League policy statement and National League of Cities priorities in preparation for the 2022 state legislative session. And nine L’s approve one capital improvement program amendment.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:54
The counselors like Thank you Don would the counselors like to pull any of these items? Anybody? Council Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez

Unknown Speaker 1:44:07
Thank you Mayor pack I’d like to pull nine a please.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:10
Okay. Any other any other councillors want to pull an item?

Unknown Speaker 1:44:18
Having seen that can I have a motion to pass the Consent Agenda minus nine a

Tim Waters 1:44:26
move the consent agenda minus nine a

Unknown Speaker 1:44:30
thank you, Councillor waters. Councillor Martin? Do want a second that Okay. Second. Thank you is been Moved by Councillor waters and seconded by Councillor Martin to move the consent agenda minus nine a.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:46
All those in favor? Raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:50
Thank you all those opposed, that carries unanimously So we’re gonna read the ordinance on second reading and public hearings on any matter. First one is a ordinance 2021 Dash 71. A, a bill for an ordinance making additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1 2021. Public Hearing and second readings scheduled for December 14 2021. Okay, are there any questions from Is there a staff report on this? By? No? Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez,

Unknown Speaker 1:45:39
Mira Peck, since we have to do public comments on on second readings, yeah, I might I suggest based on how we used to conduct the meeting, the last time we were virtual is that we have been up and let people call in for any of the items. And then let them raise their hand, if they want to comment on any specific one. Otherwise, we’ll be you know, opening it up and closing and opening and closing it virtually, which is, you know, kind of cumbersome. That’s just a suggestion.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:07
Thank you for reminding me. I have forgotten that. It’s been a while since we’ve done this virtually. So Dawn, can we have the public invited to be heard to comment on any of these ordinances if there’s one specifically that they would like to comment on. So if you want to comment on any of the ordinances on second reading, please call in at 1-888-788-0099. Don’t forget to enter the ID of 8633390 to 947. And press the pound key when you get your to get your participant ID you’ll have three minutes to comment on any of the ordinances. And without let’s take a three minute break.

Unknown Speaker 1:46:59
And wait for people to call in. I should probably read

Unknown Speaker 1:47:07
these ordinances. I’m wondering if if that should be something if we should read these ordinances.

Unknown Speaker 1:47:19
I go we know

Unknown Speaker 1:47:20
why. While they are calling it I’ll read the other two ordinances. The second one is 2021 72 and ordinance authorizing the refinancing of the lease purchase agreement dated August 1 2014. And the 2014 certificates of participation. I’d say 2021 73. A bill for an ordinance amending chapters 14.0 414 point 1214 point 24 and 14.50 of the Longmont municipal code on fees and charges assessed in utility bills. Public Hearing and second reading scheduled for December 14 which is.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:09
May or there are three more would you like me to read those for you? Was that a yes? Sorry. I was looking down.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:19
No, I already done. Thank you. Okay. I forgot to turn the page. So Item D is 2021 74. A bill for an ordinance amending section 4.0 8.040 of the Loma municipal code on city rebate programs for income qualified residents and affordable housing operators. Item he is zero 2021 Dash 75. A bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a portion of Emory street right of way associated with a 210 Emery street City Council regular session December 14, two and 21 Page four minor subdivision plat and site plan generally located at the northeast corner of Second Avenue and Emory Street. Item out 2021 Dash 76 a bill for an ordinance approving the concept plan amendment for the Daniels annexation located at the southeast corner of state highway 66 and alpine Street. I think that’s it

Unknown Speaker 1:49:35
and Mayor we are coming up about 20 seconds away from that three minute mark that you set. At the moment I’m not seeing any callers. Okay. That case I am going to live. Okay, yes,

Unknown Speaker 1:49:52
comments on the second lady. So let’s start over for 2021 71 This was the bill for an organization Additional appropriations for expenses and liabilities of the city of Longmont for the fiscal year beginning January 1, are there any questions from Council on this ordinance? Does anybody else want to speak? Can we have a motion for council member? Can somebody move this ordinance?

Unknown Speaker 1:50:22
Move ordinance 2021 71.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:25
I’ll second that. All those in favor? Raise your hand.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:30
Mayor? Yes. Doing the public hearings on the ordinances? I’m a

Unknown Speaker 1:50:34
little unclear. Well, what we did Eugene is read all the ordinance and then open up for public hearing on any of the ordinances. If anyone, is that, okay to do that, I should have checked with you first.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:49
That that would be fine. Just separate votes on the ordinances.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:53
We thought that it was perhaps too cumbersome to read one open up public hearing, and then close it and then read another one. And to just do it all in

Unknown Speaker 1:51:01
one. One package deal. Okay. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:08
So all those in favor of 2021 71? Please raise your hand. All those opposed,

Unknown Speaker 1:51:14
carries unanimously

Unknown Speaker 1:51:17
be an ordinance authorizing the refinancing of the lease purchase agreement dated as of August 1 2014, and the 2014 certificates of participation. Um, just as a clarifying statement, these are the CRPS on village with peaks.

Unknown Speaker 1:51:35
Yes, they are Mayor Peck members Council. I’m Jim golden, the Chief Financial Officer. So yes, these are the certificates of participation that were issued in 2014. To finance public improvements at the village of the peaks, we issued about almost 29 and a half million dollars of CLPs dam. They are outstanding through 2037. The current annual debt service ranges from 2.1 8 million a year to $2.29 million a year, we have currently 25.1 2 million left outstanding for those CLPs. Again, they will be through 2037. So we’re taking advantage of the current low interest rate situation to be able to refinance these CLPs and hopefully, hopefully be able to make some savings for the city and reduce this debt payment. We are projecting at this point that we should be able to generate a net present value savings estimated about nine and a half percent, the projected average annual savings should be about around $175,000 a year. Those are based on rates three weeks ago or so when we prepare this communication. So the market of course can change and we will not go into sale until January 12. So it could go in either direction between now and then it’s actually a little bit more to our advantage currently. But again, things can change between now and then it’s a another full month almost off. So that reduction in debt service in on the CLPs. From this refunding will reduce the reliance on the sales tax to from the village at the peaks to to make future debt payments on the CLPs. So I had to answer any questions. They also had the financial advisor and bond counsel available to answer questions.

Unknown Speaker 1:53:40
So Jim, I do have a question before I turn it over to council members. Did I hear that perhaps with this debt reduction, we would be able to get at least one of our buildings out of offer this lien on the buildings.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:00
Man, you didn’t hear that from me. So what it’s going to do, we are changing it’s the the sequence of when they can be released. But there it’s still going to be relying on as we pay off the debt and reduce this amount of CLPs outstanding, we’ll be able to release some of those buildings one by one, as as, as that amount of value of the building is is reduced from the amount on state outstanding. We’re not. We haven’t reached that yet. For any one building. We are changing the sequence with this issuance so that we can release the library first and civic center second, but it still will be a number of years before we reach that point.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:52
Okay, great. Thank you and good work. Are there any other comments from the other councillors? Councillor waters?

Tim Waters 1:54:59
Thanks very much. Jim, let me go back to the implication of this refinancing of the CRPS. In the in the report we got from you this week, right, in terms of overall revenue generation that the comprehensive and very thorough report we get from you each month. You reported that currently seven and a quarter percent of of sales tax is currently used for that debt service. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Unknown Speaker 1:55:32
So yeah, what what that was, is that of the total debt service only sales tax is only used for seven and a quarter or so percent of the total debt service, I believe is what that was

Tim Waters 1:55:45
in this in this refinancing reduces that percentage.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:49
You know, theoretically, it does, as, as some of you may be aware of, you’ve read that email thoroughly that we have had a reduction in the amount of the property tax TIF because of an abatement. And so that’s actually going to probably offset somewhat, how much less would have gone to this. So I think what’s going to happen is, is we’re not going to have to pay more in the long run, it really depends on how much savings we get out of the sale, we may get some sales tax savings, and have less sales tax going to it than we do currently. But we will certainly have less sales tax going to it than we would otherwise without the refund.

Tim Waters 1:56:32
Yeah. And I you know, one of the question that the mayor asked about the implications for liens on buildings that that the specter of that right liens on buildings and in what the city how the city collateralize that financing. Your number of years ago, I still think people walk around with concerns or questions about whether or not city buildings are at risk. And if anybody had a chance to read the monthly update we get from you on the overall financial performance of village of the peaks. It’s pretty doggone impressive. At least from my perspective, I I ran for this this seat four years ago, with a with a set of assumptions about the deal that was made on villager the peaks in and learn fairly quickly that the performance of vilja the peaks is pretty impressive financially. People can can like or not like and I didn’t the amount of asphalt and that we don’t it’s not mixed use the way some people hoped and all those kinds of things. But bottom line financial performance, it’s pretty impressive. Would you agree?

Unknown Speaker 1:57:40
Yeah, I, I’m really pleased with how it’s gone. Council member waters. In fact, we finished the Ura tax year at the end of October. And it was $5.3 million of sales tax generated the village of the peaks. Which way if you compare to what was being generated before the Ura was created, so when the Twin Peaks mall was still open and operating, it was it was less than $800,000. So we’ve we’ve gained over four and a half million dollars of annual sales tax to this point. So yeah, I think it’s done very well. And we most of that sales tax is going into the general fund public Improvement Fund, very little of it is needed to pay these, this debt service, property tax from the property owners is what really pays 85% or more of this debt service.

Tim Waters 1:58:31
Yeah, I just want to say I was one who was a critic of that deal when I was made and I and I’m now believer that the VAT Council and the staff and the folks the business side of this involved in the financing plan in the overall performance have done a remarkable job and to be able to take advantage of a beneficial interest rate right to potential potentially reduce the percentage of sales tax are not growing the percentage of sales tax required to service that debt. I think is is a is a really profound statement in the right direction. So Good on you in good on the merchants, you know in the overall management of the of the project. Thanks. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:12
Any other comments for Jim golden? With that, can I have a motion to pass 2021 72?

Tim Waters 1:59:22
I’ll second.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:24
Okay, it’s been Moved by Councillor Martin seconded by Councillor waters. Let’s vote. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? That passes unanimously. ordinance C on second reading 2021 73. A bill for an ordinance amending chapters 14.0 414 point 1214 point 24 and 14 point 50 of the Longmont municipal code on fees and charges assessed in utility bills. Are there any questions from Council on this? Okay, Seeing none, I will move to pass 2021 or 2021 Dash 73. Second seconded by Councillor Martin, all those in favor?

Unknown Speaker 2:00:16
All those opposed?

Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
Thank you That passes unanimously. ordinance 2021 74. A bill for an ordinance amending section 4.0 8.040 of the Longmont municipal code on city rebate programs for income qualified residents and affordable housing operators. Are there any questions or comments from Council? Seeing none, can I have a motion to move? 2021 74? So moved. Thank you. Second.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:50
Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:51
Councilwoman O’Donnell. Sorry. Seconded. I saw her hand first. And that was Moved by Councillor waters. All those in favor. All those opposed? That passes unanimously, e 2021. Dash seven, five. This is a bill for an ordinance conditionally approving the vacation of a portion of Emory street right of way associated with a two to 10 Emory street City Council regular session, December 14 2021. Page four minor subdivision plat and site plan generally located at the northeast corner of Second Avenue in Emory Street. Do I have any questions or comments from Council? I would just like for anybody in the public that’s listening. I do believe that this is the right of way. The vacation of the portion of rightaway that is connected to or in line with the transit station development. Am I correct on that? The Brian bear development?

Unknown Speaker 2:02:02
Yeah, this is the area that’s related to the 150 main development correct, Brian?

Unknown Speaker 2:02:08
Yeah, that’s correct. Mayor and Council. It’s part of the South Main Station redevelopment and

Unknown Speaker 2:02:12
Okay, great. Thanks. Do we have any comments? Oh, everybody asked that. All those in favor of can I have a motion? Ah for 2021 Dash 75.

Unknown Speaker 2:02:23
So moved.

Unknown Speaker 2:02:23
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim second. Sorry. Councillor Yarborough. Thank you very much. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All those opposed? Thank you That passes unanimously. We have one last 120 2176 which is a bill for an ordinance approving the concept plan amendment for the Daniels annexation. Located at the southeast corner of state highway 66 and alpine Street. We have any comments or a staff

Unknown Speaker 2:02:54
comments, Mayor. We do have a brief staff presentation on this. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:03:01
Thank you, Mayor Peck council members. Eva Jeff ski principal planner. I do have a brief PowerPoint if you’d like to see it. Dallas, could you queue that up for us? Thank you so much. Next slide please. Just to give you some background on the location of this property, this is at the southeast corner of highway 66 and alpine Street. We have the Prairie Village neighborhood just to the west of it there where KB Homes is currently building some homes there. There’s the village Co Op you may be familiar with. It’s a three story Co Op building multifamily building, you can see it off highway 66 as well as Alpine streets. And this the land area of this parcel when it was annexed was eight acres. However, the land area of this amendment that we’re talking about today is little less than two acres. If you look there in the red box, this is the area that was annex that we’re talking about the Daniels annexation, and it’s this area on the outside on the east or on the right and in the bottom, if you will going around the new street. They’re called Lily CT. And it was annexed in 2006 as a PUD residential zone, and then it was rezoned again to residential mixed neighborhood in 2018 is part of the city’s overall rezoning and the new zoning allows multifamily homes as well as paired homes as you can see here, the village Co Op is a multifamily home. The envision Longmont comprehensive plan designates this as mixed neighborhood and the allowable density for this property goes between a minimum of six dwelling units per acre to a maximum have eight dwelling units per acre. This is a range of 48 to 144 dwelling units based on the size of it. And so they’re proposing 16 units, there’s 52 units in village Co Op. So there’ll be a total of 68 dwelling units, again, really on the lower end of the allowable density in this area. Next slide, please. And so this is the original concept plan from 2006. That City Council approved. And the hatch line that you see there at the corner of highway 66, and Alpine. That’s the village Co Op apartments that’s sitting there now. And then as you can see on the right, and on the bottom side, which would be the east and the south side. They envisioned eight single family lots separate lots, as you can see there. And they all sort of have been the Pleasant Valley, single family residential neighborhood. And so that was the the plan the concept plan, there was a local street planned to be accessed from Alpine street. That’s Lillie court, that cul de sac. And that’s currently built out. Next slide, please. And so, this amendment, so what happened was this, so this property was annexed, the village, Co Op apartments were built, and the eight single family lots were planted. So those are planted lots. What they’re asking to do is replant this from eight to 16 lots, so that they can have paired homes. And that’s consistent with the KB Homes that’s over west of this property that’s going on. It’s essentially, instead of having one house on one lot, you’ve got one building that has two homes, and each home is on its own lot. Again, the total density would bring it to 68 dwelling units, and the zoning allows up to 144. So this is on lower end. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 2:07:05
And so we had some public input, obviously, we had a neighborhood meeting in January of this year. This was virtual because of the pandemic. So we had 22 attendees. And there, the general concerns raised were regarding the additional eight homes that would be there and the traffic impacts that would result from the eight houses there. The eight additional houses sorry, they then filed an application and we send out notices to the neighborhood to 1000 foot radius. In March, we got two written objections, again, about the increased density of eight more houses, and the traffic impacts that would ensue on and those written objections are in your packet as well. Well, it was in the planning commission packet. And then we sent out a notice of public hearing in October of this year. Again, we got one objection prior to the packet being sent out similar concerns. And again, that’s in your packets. And then this ultimately went to Planning and Zoning Commission in October 27 On October 27, and they recommended approval on a seven to zero vo after a lengthy discussion with the traffic consultant. Next slide. And so the applicant is here to do a presentation if counsel desires or if you just want to ask questions, let us know how you’d like to proceed.

Unknown Speaker 2:08:41
Counselors. Do you have any concerns or questions? Mere ProTeam? Rodriguez?

Unknown Speaker 2:08:49
Thank you, Mayor Peck probably have a somewhat unique perspective on this as it was still going through planning and zoning while I was a commissioner before my election in 2017. And has been, you know, in the works for quite a few years as was demonstrated there. And I don’t necessarily need a presentation from the applicant in the sense that I think if we look at it from a couple perspectives, one, one that we’ve already kind of talked about in the in the steam Sugar Mill talk was the missing middle. And that tends to deal more with attached housing and a little higher density housing. One that we use we did talk about a good number of years ago is transitions from higher density to lower density uses. And so to me, it seems that these paired homes actually provide a better transition to the single family homes that are adjacent to the the the neighborhood the village Co Op is obviously a very high density comparison to paired homes and then to single family homes that are on the south and east sides. So I don’t feel that it’s a big stretch. I think that it’s you know Something obviously, that we’ve talked about before as a council that the city very much needs, as well as providing us. You know, that kind of transitionary buffer that we haven’t talked about a lot, since we installed that in, you know, specifically more downtown. But I think that’s a very important thing going forward as we continue to talk about increasing densities and how we buffer that with other residential uses. And so I don’t like I said, need an hour presentation by the applicant. But I think that this is probably not as deleterious have an effect, instead of saying that, hey, you know, based on the the mixed neighborhood zoning the residential mixed neighborhood zoning, now you could go even more denser quality, or more denser products, such as straight row homes, not just paired homes. So you know, I think, to me, it sounds almost more like a very good compromise that I think will benefit the city overall. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:06
I do have a question. Why, since there, it’s it’s done to hold 144 units? Are we only putting is the developer only putting in 68? That may be explained, but I don’t I don’t understand it, is there?

Unknown Speaker 2:11:23
Well, we do have the applicant here. Okay. But what I could say is that when the city built the village, Co Op building, and they planted the eight residential lots, they put in all of the utility utilities and all of the infrastructure for that level of density. So I think that doing well, a couple things, but one is transitionally. I think duplex or paired homes, make a much better transition from the single family homes next door then to you know, really large, high density development. But secondly, the infrastructure is already built on that whole street. And so I think, really, and I’ll let the applicant speak, but I think, you know, that would be very difficult to have to rip up all the streets to add more water and sewer, but the applicant is here. I think we have Joe Siemens and Ken Voss here. I don’t know if either of you on there. There we are.

Unknown Speaker 2:12:20
There they are.

Unknown Speaker 2:12:22
Hello, hello. So Ava’s Ava’s that made sense. Her explanation made sense to me. I was just kind of curious about it. But one other question, Are these going to be market value for sale or rental?

Unknown Speaker 2:12:44
As they’re currently entitled, with a single family detached eight lots, it would be market value, and they would be for sale probably that’s the best guess. The developers current intention is to continue to

Unknown Speaker 2:13:00
have

Unknown Speaker 2:13:01
that they’re in the background, there’s a discussion about whether or not there would be for sale or for only for rent or whatever. And that is really going to be determined by market conditions at the time of delivery. However, this also does kick in the city requirement for affordable housing, which does not previously exist on the eight lots. So of the 16 Lots, then there will be the affordable housing requirement that will impact the required ratio on those lots. So that that will have an impact as well on the financial performance, if you will, of the project. Isn’t this one.

Unknown Speaker 2:13:35
Okay, thank you. It looks like Councillor Martin also has a question.

Unknown Speaker 2:13:39
Yes, a comment first, to the developers, which is it’s relatively easy to make duplexes attainable, which would mitigate an unexpected need to pay fees in lieu. You know, because these are not necessarily going to be affordable properties. So, you know, consider that consider attainable for sale, because that’s what we think we need as a council. But the question that I wanted to ask you was about the traffic. You know, just, you know, I didn’t go and read the whole planning and zoning report on this. There are always neighborhood objections about traffic. Can you just summarize quickly for us what the traffic study said and why you are confident that this is not going to be a problem?

Unknown Speaker 2:14:43
I believe the applicants traffic engineer is here as well. Right? Is Matt here. Yes, I’m on earlier so that would you like to jump on and there we go.

Unknown Speaker 2:14:55
Matt knows. We did the traffic study for the original lesser number of units and the extra units are going to have a very small impact on the on the traffic. As was reported, when it was passed a number, shall we say? We’re talking about single digit increases in, in traffic, so it’s gonna be small will will people notice it? Certainly, you know, that’s a given. But, but it’s, you know, the street system is there, it’s adequate, and it can certainly handle the additional traffic.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:47
Okay, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:48
Seeing no other questions. Oh, there it is a counselor waters.

Tim Waters 2:15:53
Just building on the comment about minimum amount of traffic. Just talk a bit about parking. And and whether it’s eight or 16. What are the what what are the parking options or plans for that development?

Unknown Speaker 2:16:08
So

Unknown Speaker 2:16:11
I’ll jump in before Matt, that Lilly court has parking availability on both sides of the street, there are no restrictions. It’s called a sack. But there there is parking availability. For the residential homes. It’s my understanding, and it was a requirement that they have at a minimum of two cars parking garage for each unit. And I believe in their concept plan. That’s what they showed. I can punt it back to Ken and Joe, and Matt. But I believe that’s the plan is to put two car garages Plus they’ll have two cars that can park in the driveway behind the two car garages. And then there’s also parking, a significant amount of parking on the lead court on both sides.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:57
Now, just to clarify on the parking, so we’re talking each duplex has a two car garage, and a two car driveway. So each duplex with Park four cars.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:08
Thank you hypothetically,

Unknown Speaker 2:17:11
each individual unit of the duplex apart okay, look, it seems

Unknown Speaker 2:17:23
like there’s no other comments. So thank you very much for that presentation. It explained a lot and allowed us to ask them questions. So can I have a motion to move? 2021 76? Moved. Thank you. Second. Second. Thank you. It’s been moved and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriquez, seconded by Suzy Hidalgo, fairing all those in favor.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:51
All those

Unknown Speaker 2:17:55
opposed? That carried unanimously so that is it for the furnaces on second reading Councilwoman Yarborough. Um, you just said that you might have to leave early. I’m wondering how early is that? Because I would like you to be here for the compensation review for municipal judge. And you can wait that long as we go through the agenda or

Unknown Speaker 2:18:27
mayor it will be beneficial for me to leave by 930 My flight leaves at midnight tonight. 1230. So I need to get to the airport. So um, yeah, so I don’t want to be late, and then I’ll be staying at your place for the holidays. So.

Unknown Speaker 2:18:49
So I would like to revise the agenda to in order for us to be able to vote on the compensation review for municipal judge. So that Councillor Yarbro has a chance to weigh in on that. Can I have a motion to do that to move

Tim Waters 2:19:05
on move that we change the order of business? Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:19:09
Thank you that was Moved by Councillor waters, seconded by Councillor Hidalgo, fairing. All those in

Unknown Speaker 2:19:16
favor? Opposed.

Unknown Speaker 2:19:20
Thank you. So the compensation review for the municipal judge. Are we going to have any kind of a presentation on that or just a vote?

Unknown Speaker 2:19:30
Do we have

Unknown Speaker 2:19:34
I believe there will just be a motion.

Unknown Speaker 2:19:35
Okay. Councillor waters? Yeah, thanks.

Tim Waters 2:19:39
All for the motion. Okay, the city of Longmont the one city of Long Run employee whose 2022 compensations not yet been adjusted to reflect the city’s philosophy and approach to salary being at Market Plus 1% is Judge Robert Frick to bring Judge frics salary in line with The city’s philosophy and approach commensurate with other city of Longmont employees, it needs to be set at one $175,431 I therefore move adjustment of Chief municipal Judge Robert frics. salary to 2022 salary to $175,431.

Unknown Speaker 2:20:22
I’ll second that. Is there any discussion? From councillors? Seeing none, let’s vote. All those in favor. All those opposed? That carries unanimously,

Tim Waters 2:20:38
and I say, Thank you, Judge. Thank you to judge for.

Unknown Speaker 2:20:41
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Councillor Yarborough for hanging out with us to get that vote in. Now we will revert back to the original agenda and do the items removed from the consent agenda that was by Mayor Pro Tim, Aaron Rodriguez, you move nine you can pull 90.

Unknown Speaker 2:21:04
Yes, thank you, Mayor Peck. It’s well known amongst my colleagues here on council as well as I think in much of the public how I stand on annexations, which is that I’m pro annexation to pull in these pieces of property for jurisdiction within city development and review. We’ve heard a couple calls. I know that we’ve received emails on this one. So there’s definitely questions. My question is not necessarily with the annexation. I will be voting for annexation, but I will state and I want to state it fairly strongly. Similarly to an annexation that happened north of Highway 66, across from a Walmart that the concept plan holds some concern. First of all, I’d like to say that I am pro high density residential, I think it’s much more sustainable environmentally, I do think that we need to, though, as we’ve spoken multiple times about tonight, get a lot of for sale product in this market. And we don’t already have. So that that’s one concern I have is that at least reading the communication, this company tends to hold these things as as rental properties. That’s that’s a concern with the concept plan. As you can imagine, Another concern is that this is an area of very large environmental sensitivity. So I would urge that any wildlife studies and and similar environmental impact studies be undertaken with the impeccability, that there will not be much scrutiny that could be that could be placed on the studies. You know, I’d be very careful about that as an applicant, because we’ve made it clear that we have the 150 foot setback, it will go through the SCS most likely that we’ve put into place. And of course, unlike in some past years, this will come back before the city council versus just the the Planning and Zoning Commission. So I just like to maintain a couple of those aspects. And it is also concerning to me, that mixed use employment states that high density multifamily residential is specifically a secondary use. So those are just some concerns I have with the the compatibile are I mean, the concept plan, also understanding exactly that. It’s that just a concept plan. So it’s it’s one of those things where yes, I’m going to vote for the annexation, by have a lot of concerns, I probably would be surprised if I was the only council member with a number of concerns. I do agree with the column, the statement that was made earlier that just because it’s quiet and surrounded by nice open space kind of amenities and parks type amenities doesn’t necessarily make it the best place for residential. So doesn’t say that there shouldn’t be residential because mixed use employment does specifically talk about certain kinds of residential, high density being secondary use, but live work being much more appropriate, for instance. And again, I’m still more concerned, I think, with also the concept that these will just be another large kind of multifamily rental development, where I don’t think that we necessarily have the best public transit available, and that it’s not close enough to amenities like grocery shopping, and even though because it stated that in the planning and zoning minutes that Some said it was close. I’ve done that walk in that stretch before and there’s no way I would walk and buy groceries and walk back. It’s that’s a very considerable walk, or bicycle ride, if you will. So those are just a bunch of concerns I have for the applicant as they move forward with an actual development plan, not just the concept plan. With that said, I will move ordinance 2021 78.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:23
Second, and I have a comment. Okay, Councillor Barton? My comment is that, yeah, well, I agree with Mayor Pro Tem, that that rental is probably not the best use of, of, you know, the housing space available. I read over all of the code and land use definitions this weekend, not necessarily with the same expertise that the Mayor Pro Tem brings to the problem. But I didn’t see anything that talked about what the proportions of primary and secondary use ought to be live work was mentioned. And I think it’s an obvious application, at least for the east end of, of the residential development, because there is an industrial section there. And I also don’t see much of a problem with the environmental concerns, because in 2018, we did a lot of work to make sure that areas like this would be handled property properly by environmental concerns, I got some letters and those letters really talked about, you know, doing good, good supervision while the land was being disturbed for the construction. And yeah, we definitely need to as a as a city, make sure that the that the contractors are not careless with, you know, the runoff that happens in the, into the riparian area. Well, the soil is being disturbed and all that. But I think that as long as the setbacks and and the surface restriction requirements and stuff are except our observed, that, you know, we need this housing, and we should go forward. So I will also be voting in favor.

Unknown Speaker 2:27:37
Are there any other comments from councillors? I weigh in on this, then as I was reading through all of the materials presented on this ordinance, I could not other than looking at the concept plan, decide what the primary use was going to be, as stated, because the codes, everything within the materials stated that housing and the economic part of the commercial part were both secondary uses. So if those are going to be stated as secondary uses, what is the primary use? Is there anybody available to answer that?

Unknown Speaker 2:28:21
Yes, Mayor Peck council members, Eva Jeff ski with planning department. Yes, we had a lengthy discussion about this, the Planning and Zoning Commission. When we talk about primary uses and secondary uses, or we don’t really take it on a parcel by parcel basis, we take it on a zoning district because that’s how the land development code is written when we talk about, for example, secondary uses. So if you were to look at a zoning map, and I’ll bring this up in the presentation when we have our public hearing, but this is a this area, this whole area on Boston Avenue is designated as mixed use employments. And so if we take the total acreage of all this land that is zoned mixed use employment from end to end, as we call the district, and then we say can we we add up the aggregate of that acreage. The primary uses in that zoning district are typically the industrial users we have. You know, the biggest one there is the lefthand brewery. But we have several other different companies there that are primary employment type of businesses. And then the code does allow residential high density residential as a secondary use. So we take the total acreage from this annexation that’s proposed to have the high density residential. It’s less than half of the total aggregate acreage of the mixed use employment zone. And so from city planning perspective, that is a secondary use In that mixed use employment district in that neighborhood,

Unknown Speaker 2:30:05
it does not look like that from the concept plan that was in the packet. And going self from the railroad on Sunset, it is all commercial except for the school that is there. So, I have concerns about putting putting residential in a place that does not have what residential rentals or even for sale houses, have they, in their concept plan or in their write up, they said that there was going to be proposed transit from Boston Avenue, that there isn’t going to be any stops at all. So that multimodal aspect is not right. That though that bus is only coming from 119 and going up Boston, but there are no stops. So people will not be able to board or off board from that. And has this area all been

Unknown Speaker 2:31:05
designated blighted. And if so,

Unknown Speaker 2:31:11
who did that study? And when was that designated? And is it in an enterprise zone?

Unknown Speaker 2:31:16
So I know Tony Chicon is on the is on the meeting here. And I’ll I’ll defer to him. But to my understanding this is not designated yet by the city council as blighted I believe the applicant is doing a study and David Starnes is representing the property owner. He is also on the meeting. So with that, I don’t know if I’m sorry, Tony has left the meeting. I’m sorry, after the steam presentation he left. David Starnes is here. David, do you want to provide information about the Blight study?

Unknown Speaker 2:31:50
Your Can everyone hear me? Okay. Yes. Good evening, Mayor Peck council member. Um, I’m here representing the applicant. And um, we did initiate a blight study for what we call it the River District. We actually just got a draft report from our consultant and our next step is to plan to share that with Tonisha cone, you know, the staff redevelopment, urban ODE is to discuss next steps. And what in how he would like to proceed in terms of working through this process. So yes, we did. We just did a play study, we actually just finished up last week and we just got the report. So we are reviewing it. But our plan is to meet with Tony to see what he would like to do. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:32:37
I guess I’m really concerned and I because I haven’t got it in my mind what the primary use of this land is going to be. And I understand Eva that you set on Boston Avenue. But this isn’t on Boston Avenue, this is on Sunset. So it’s a different than on Boston Avenue, the primary uses and secondary uses were dedica basically be a primary use for for residents, that it was all mixed use zoning. But this is on Sunset, which is a very different traffic pattern. And since it is probably our biggest development to date next to the river corridor, I’m very concerned about basically what Ruby said really struck me as having an environmental planner, making sure that all of the codes and things were were kept up per the city codes and zoning. So I wish we had a better concept plan for this annexation at this moment. So I’m not going to vote for this unless there’s a caveat that the primary the secondary use of of the residential is really outlined in in a good concept plan, because I don’t know what what we are annexing and what they’re going to do with it. So I won’t vote for it unless there’s that caveat that that the primary use is mostly commercial. Councillor Martin,

Unknown Speaker 2:34:19
I just want to say to clarify whatever said, which is that the proportion that you’re talking about, is not based on the parcel, but the entire zoning area. And that’s that’s what the the proportions that she talked about. Well, so this is still an employment zone with residential in it. And I mean, I think, you know, just for the social equity concerns, honestly, that we have a housing shortage. The time to apply pressure on the developers is is when we want to incentivize them to build the right kind of housing But getting getting the opportunity to build is really important to us now. So that’s why I support the annexation.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:09
I agree with with what you’re saying, I just do not believe that this commercial area is a place to put high density residential, it doesn’t have. It doesn’t have the walkable amenities that we’re talking about we want in our urban areas. It’s like a little island of homes in a huge commercial area. So I’d rather see the concept plan. Councilwoman,

Unknown Speaker 2:35:41
dog fairy. So I do have a question for Eva is too far and maybe for the developer or somebody to represent. So in looking at this concept plan, is he tied to this particular idea of the residential duplex development taking up that much space residential apartment taking up that much space? Or is Is there still room for flexibility as far as reducing the number in the apartments? My concern with that this, we’re just putting more rentals and I would really like to see more opportunity for for purchased properties. And so go ahead if you can answer that question first. And then I have something else.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:30
Sure. Thank you, Mayor pack, Councilmember Hidalgo. So the question is, are they tied in? You know, again, just just to reiterate, this isn’t a construction application or development project. It’s a high level concept plan. This is only the only question that is being asked to view for this application is can this property be in city of Longmont and not in Boulder County? Okay. If it were annexed, then they would have to come in with a development application. And then that’s where we start getting into the details about environmental planning and so forth. Yes, absolutely. We would do that. But to answer your question, Councilmember Hidalgo, fairing, yes. This. So this is the concept plan. And what it’s saying, generally speaking, we want to have 20,000 square feet of commercial facing sunset Street. And then we’re going to have these apartments over on the, you know, kind on the center, the north and the west side, will have these townhome units, I would presume for sale. But again, David is on the meeting, and you know, the the applicant can speak to whether they’re for sale or for rent. But generally speaking, yes. So our development code says if you’re annexed, and you want to come in with a development application, one of the criteria is your development should be generally consistent with a concept plan that was approved by city council. That’s often why you see me here bringing amendments to you. Generally speaking, we can tweak things if they want to have a few units last because it won’t work for, say, an infrastructure or the the engineering design, we can tweak things mildly. But generally speaking, yes.

Unknown Speaker 2:38:16
So and, you know, primarily, my question comes from unclear what you know, seeking clarification comes from people’s calls, emails, just things, concerns that I’ve heard from the public. So just wanting to kind of clarify that issue. And this discussion around the the 90% housing, but being deemed as a secondary use, I heard that when I was watching the planning and zoning meeting, that discussion happened. And there seem to be two different philosophies or interpretations of that code, where one is looking parcel by parcel, having it be primary, and another viewpoint was looking at the whole district and having that district. Um, so, you know, I can understand, you know, the the argument on both on both sides. But I would, you know, my I guess my recommendation would be for, you know, I approve of the annexation, but I’m not that thrilled with the concept plan. And I really hope that he’s flexible or the developer or is really, you know, looking, taking into account concerns, how to rectify some of these situations and really kind of address more of our priorities as a council and a community. So that’s all I have to say.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:35
Thank you, Councillor waters.

Tim Waters 2:39:39
Thanks, Mayor Peck. As I’m listening to the conversation, both as a council member and if I were just listening, after all, after all the words about housing, both in council meetings and outside council chambers or outside council meetings, all the words about the kinds of the housing inventory, we need the variety in the numbers. And then and we and we have said, please bring us proposals for that for housing of various types that we can argue about how many of these should be rentals and in the preference for bid tier, missing middle for purchase homes. I agree with that.

Unknown Speaker 2:40:22
But But I also

Tim Waters 2:40:25
have been in these conversations, as well, when we’ve talked about the two areas where we could help as a city, reduce the cost of construction, that might result in more proposals for mid tier for purchase housing, that missing middle type of housing, as opposed to the number of apartments we get the two areas we could help. One is the reduction of the time associated with permitting, which adds every day, unnecessarily, that process adds cost. And the second is to do everything we can to bring tools into the toolbox that allowed developers to figure out how to finance the cost of infrastructure. And we’ve said you can’t use those tools. why we’ve taken we’ve said to the developers, you got to play by a set of rules that make it more and more difficult to take. Give us a yes. To the question we ask, can you build us what we need? Yes, but help us in these ways? And we say and not so quick? We don’t want it there. We don’t want to see secondary use that it’s a permitted the secondary use is permitted use in this district. What’s been proposed is a permitted secondary use in this district. And it’s a permitted secondary use that’s responsive to what we’ve said we need.

Unknown Speaker 2:41:46
Councillor Walker. Yes. Thank you. Um, I think that

Tim Waters 2:41:52
I’m the only one on the clock. No, you’re not the only one. So if I’m not finished, I don’t get to finish.

Unknown Speaker 2:41:59
Finish your sentence, please.

Tim Waters 2:42:02
Well, maybe I have more than one sentence to say,

Unknown Speaker 2:42:05
I know. But we have a time limit. Thank you.

Tim Waters 2:42:09
Well, let’s let’s be consistent. If we’re gonna, if we’re gonna apply the time limit. Let’s be consistent in how we apply the time limit and apply it every time. I’m going to vote for this. And I think I think we have an obligated obligation to be clear on what we’re expecting. And if you read the planning and zoning minutes, the discussion of secondary use, it wasn’t a variety of use, there was a single PA, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission who voted against this and expressed a minority view. It was not consistent with either the staff or the planning director on the definition of secondary use and how it’s applied to a district.

Unknown Speaker 2:42:51
Thank you. Are there any other comments?

Unknown Speaker 2:42:55
So,

Unknown Speaker 2:42:57
Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, would you like to move this ordinance since you pulled it?

Unknown Speaker 2:43:02
I technically already did move the ordinance. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:43:05
And we did have a second. I’m sorry. Councillor Martin seconded. All those in favor?

Unknown Speaker 2:43:11
Raise your hand. All those opposed?

Unknown Speaker 2:43:17
So it passed with air the mayor in opposition. So that brings us to the last part of our meeting, which is going to be

Unknown Speaker 2:43:36
general business.

Unknown Speaker 2:43:37
We already did the merit the judges compensation. So now we were looking at the Longmont climbing collective conditional use site plan. Is there going to be a presentation on

Unknown Speaker 2:43:49
this? And who

Unknown Speaker 2:43:54
is going to present?

Unknown Speaker 2:43:56
Right, exactly. It’s gonna person.

Unknown Speaker 2:44:00
And Dallas has the staff presentation first, we pull that up.

Unknown Speaker 2:44:06
Okay, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:44:09
All right. Good evening, members of council Mayor pack. Zack Blazic, associate planner Planning and Development Services here to present the Walmart climbing collective conditional use site plan, development review application, dowsing go to the next slide. So we have a development proposal. It’s here at the north northwest corner of peak app and see it how we want it so just north of sandstone ranch Park and South Brito kitchens and Smuckers to roughly 12 acre parcels zoned non residential primary employment, and it’s currently vacant. The other thing that I want to point out is just to the west of the parcel is the spring Gulch number two, which is a city owned property to us, you can go to the next slide and so here we have kind of a zoomed out view of the entire Post Development, you can see that we have proposed construction in the northeast corner of the site. The post construction is a commercial recreation facility which is a private use or development providing amusement or sport. Specifically, what we have here is a rock climbing facility. The other thing that I want to point out just in the zoomed out perspective, here is the line towards the Western property line that marks the 150 foot riparian setback we can see here in this view that all of the proposed construction is outside of that setback area doesn’t go to next slide. Here we have this more of a zoomed in look at the proposed construction in the northeast corner of the site.

Unknown Speaker 2:45:40
Next slide please. So the next

Unknown Speaker 2:45:43
couple of slides including this one are just some looks at the proposed elevations and just proposed building on the site. Next slide. This is the southern portion of the site. Next slide. And then here on the west southwest facing edge, we have a small outdoor portion that is an outdoor rock climbing

Unknown Speaker 2:46:06
facility specifically. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 2:46:11
So the proposed use again as a commercial recreation facility, which is permission permitted as a conditional and secondary use in the NPV zone district with use specific standard that is shall not exceed 25,000 square feet. For the staff review portion and for your final decision making subject to the review criteria for all applications and section 12 or 15 Oh 2055 as well as for secondary uses and 15. Oh, next slide please. For the staff review portion, the project we found met land development code requirements for conditional use site plan in the Southern District. So I reviewed items like maximum height setbacks, building design standards, exterior lighting, circulation and pedestrian language. And at the conclusion of our most recent review, we did have some minor remaining comments, but nothing that wasn’t, you know, completable for this step of the review. Next slide. So as far as community input on this application, we had a neighborhood meeting in February of this year that did not have any attendees from the public. We notified the whole usual list of referral agencies and Xcel was the only one to respond with general comments. We sent the notice of application for the first reviewed velopment in June when we accept the application for review. And we sent out notices for the public hearings on November 1 planning Zoning Commission and December first for this meeting. For all of those notices we received no comments from members of the public. Next slide. So the reason why we’re here this evening is the project site is located adjacent to a city on Park premier open space again, that’s sprinkled in number two. So based on a new ordinance that we passed in March, the planning Zoning Commission serves as the recommending body where typically they’re the decision making body for condition a site plan. This time Council is the deciding body going off of that Peasy recommendation. So this is the first time we’ve seen an application for a CU SP adjacent to a city on property being taken to you for consideration following implementation of that ordinance. Next slide. So Council can consider the following options when reviewing the CU SP application you can approve finding the review criteria have been met, you can approve with conditions or you can deny finding that review criteria have not been met. Next slide. So Planning and Zoning Commission last month voted unanimously to bring forward the recommendation to conditionally approve the conditional use site plan with the condition that the applicant shall complete all the outstanding remaining red lines in site plan and obtain approval from the development review

Unknown Speaker 2:48:57
committee. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 2:49:01
So we do have an applicant presentation. Again, that’s at the discretion of council prefer to see

Unknown Speaker 2:49:06
that skews me I couldn’t get my

Unknown Speaker 2:49:14
speaker on it. Does anyone on council want to see the site plan? It was in our packet. But if you would like to see it here, it doesn’t look like it Zack. So once again, what were what were our council options that you need tonight.

Unknown Speaker 2:49:35
So you can vote to approve this evening. You can vote to improve conditions or you can vote to deny the application for construction.

Unknown Speaker 2:49:42
Okay, I’m going to move that we approve the site plan.

Unknown Speaker 2:49:49
Second, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:49:53
May protein rhetoric is

Unknown Speaker 2:49:55
just a clarification on that. Does that mean that there’s no longer the conditions were recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission

Unknown Speaker 2:50:08
do they need to do they need to bring in? Do they need to make the motion to include the conditions for planning and zoning?

Unknown Speaker 2:50:14
That’s actually up to them. They’re the decision making body Council’s decision making body so you can approve with those conditions or you can approve without them.

Unknown Speaker 2:50:25
So I, I would suggest that we approve with the recommended conditions. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:50:31
So Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez amended the motion that we approve with the recommended conditions.

Unknown Speaker 2:50:38
I’ll accept the second.

Unknown Speaker 2:50:41
Thank you. So we need to vote. All those in favor? Opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Zack. The next thing on our agenda then is the presentation and approval of the 2022 human services funding allocation. And I see Karen Maroney is here.

Unknown Speaker 2:51:07
Oh, yes. So Mayor pack and members of city council Karen Ronnie with community services. And actually, Alberto Mendoza with Community Services is going to be making the the brief presentation to council. And I believe our housing and Human Services Advisory Board Chair, Caitlin Abbott, think she’s still she’s still in the house. But she will be available if there are questions that that council members might have. So so this is our annual set of recommendations that we bring to city council the housing and Human Services Advisory Board. Basically, process the application make the recommendations to council and council is the deciding making body on on to accept or to modify any of the recommendations for human service agency funding for 2022. So I would invite la Berto Mendoza to turn on his camera, his mic, and Dallas we’re we’re ready to cue up the the PowerPoint, if you will, please. Good evening,

Unknown Speaker 2:52:20
Mayor Peck and councilmembers my camera is on I’m not sure if you can see me. Yes, we can. Okay, great. So good evening. And thank you for listening to our the housing Human Services Advisory Board’s recommendations for the 2022 Human Services human agent service funding. So as Karen can do it, next slide Dallas. Next slide. So as Karen mentioned, this, this funding is a set aside from the general fund, and we have been, the city council has slowly increased it and have reached the goal that the housing and Human Services Advisory Board had requested of 3%. This allowed us to increase our funding for human services agencies to a total this year, we are allocating 56% of this funding to safety net services through our online application process for a total of 1.2 million. And we’re dedicating 44% to our increased our continuing support of housing insecurity and adult homelessness services. Could you pass the next slide please? So how the SIR human services funding works is we contract with agencies that are providing safety net services to low and moderate income residents of Longmont. All of our funding is connected to our 2020 Human Services needs assessment. As a reminder, the Human Services need system has become in alignment with our HUD mandated five year Consolidated Plan, even though we do have the option and we’ll take the opportunity to update in between those five years what the 2020 human services needs assessment demonstrated that was that the priorities that were identified during the 2017 human services needs assessment remained to be remained the most important priorities to have and so we’ve continued we’ve continued them needs the areas of housing stability, food, nutrition, health and well being self sufficiency and resilience, education and skill building and Safety and Justice. And so the housing Human Services Advisory Board works with staff and our partners, Boulder County and the City of Boulder to do a joint application and make recommendations to the Council for approval. Next slide please. And so how the allocation process works is we receive the applications we ensure that the programs that are being proposed address their priority areas and addressing the community needs demonstrated, and that are demonstrating some sort of community impact and also ensuring that the agency’s applying have sound financial management and operational practices. And we have it We’ve implemented a formulaic process based on average scores of both staff and board. And the final score, the total score, when you add those two, determine what percentage of the request to be funded. In 2022, it has changed between the year between two, it was the lowest score an agency could receive was 74. If you received before that you would not be recommended for funding. Next slide. So we have reset based funding to zero and we wouldn’t be considering historical funding, we said priority ceilings, for each of the priorities that we would these are kind of our our guidelines or where we’d like to be not necessarily they have to be that way. But that’s where we’d like to spend, and invest this this this funding. And we also created a individual agency ceiling. In other words, no agency can receive more than 50% of the total priority ceiling depending on what they ask and how they scored. Next slide. So this year, for 2022, we received 30 application 39 agencies to fund 45 programs, which requested a total of 1.4 5 million have we as we usually do every year, we conducted public agency hearings, board and staff review to scored each application. And we did our allocation based on a formulaic approach. And this year, we’re recommending to fund 36 agencies that for and 43 programs at $1.84 million. Next slide. So as you can see, we are not exactly completely aligned with all but that’s a lot of it has to do with who applies and how much they apply for, and how many services are out there. So typically, education and skill building, there is a lot of those services in Longmont in the in the receive this year, a larger portion of the funding. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 2:57:19
So this year,

Unknown Speaker 2:57:22
it doesn’t usually happen, but it did the between the scoring and how much was requested. We still have 105 100 100,575 to be allocated. And so the housing and Human Services Advisory Board has met and has these recommendation that we are working through trying to decide which is the best way to move forward. We could do some of the options, we could allocate funding to our homeless outreach team out there, elder is applying for the counties applying for a grant from the state. And if we don’t receive that grant, then we would like to support it. That’s one potential thing, right? Because we feel that the of their the outreach is is an important part of our our strategies to address homelessness in Longmont or we could leverage this funding to address pandemic related services like utility or rental assistance, child care, mental health, these are all important issues. Another very important issue to the board is the continued emphasis on equity. And so we could use some of this funding to provide training or consultation to agencies to help improve how they’re working on equity. Or we could we could take some of this money and and see what unintended unanticipated or emergent needs appear in llamo. Because those those do come along. And I think the goal of the board is to determine the approach by the end of q1 of 2022. Or we can make a combination of these two, that the board is looking at what is the best way to move forward with this unaccounted unallocated funding? So I think that next slide, I think that is the end of the presentation and would love to have either questions about recommendations or the city council to adopt the recommendations between two

Unknown Speaker 2:59:22
funding. We have any questions or comments from counselors on this presentation.

Unknown Speaker 2:59:30
Counselor waters

Tim Waters 2:59:32
on thank good protection for the presentation. More importantly, thanks for the great work that you do and and the board. The advisory boards done on this. I’m really I just want to make an observation. I continue to appreciate the work that gets done. And I know Karen and Alberto, it’s the work you do with those who submit applications. And when we see what people are doing with objectives and measures and I appreciate that It’s not perfect still, there’s still work to do. But I do want to I think this is the first year we’ve seen the output and Outcomes Summary, isn’t it?

Unknown Speaker 3:00:13
I think that’s a great question. I don’t remember.

Tim Waters 3:00:16
I went back I actually went back last year, I thought I went, I appreciate it. First of all, I like it, I liked it, you did it. It is the follow on to the goals and objectives that people actually do collect data, right. And if submitted, and you’ve had a chance to see the effects, whether it’s an outcome or an output, I think that’s a big step in the right direction. And I did go back to last year’s agenda in the attachments, I didn’t see it. And I’m pretty certain it wasn’t there before that, because we we just weren’t far enough along with, you know, actually setting objectives. So I think that’s a huge addition to what to what you provided, in addition to the applications and the recommendations to see even a, you know, a kind of a big picture, even if it’s a fuzzy picture on on the outputs, if not outcomes of the work we funded in the past. So thanks.

Unknown Speaker 3:01:08
We have any other comments.

Unknown Speaker 3:01:14
Harold, did you were you going to make a comment?

Unknown Speaker 3:01:18
I saw your Yes, Your Honor.

Unknown Speaker 3:01:22
I think I think we talked about that we were heading in this direction. We’re looking at Karen and I think this is the first year that we’re seeing what we were we talked about where we were moving to your point on the outcomes. I’m trying to remember back, that’s what we talked about.

Unknown Speaker 3:01:38
Yeah. Yeah. I think what I would add is that? I think so yeah, we did not include the outcome information last year. The timing didn’t work out. You know, we didn’t have the 2020 outcomes to report when we were making recommendations for the 2021 funding. And, and we had also had worked with trying to strengthen those outcomes. So we’ve, we provided those in previous years. We did not provide those this past year. So So we’re working it. Like I said, Not perfect, but but we’re really trying to focus on on outcomes, because that’s really important to know how our investments are really paying off in terms of of helping to change people’s lives in the community. So it will be an ongoing process, I’m sure.

Unknown Speaker 3:02:33
Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Peck.

Unknown Speaker 3:02:37
Just a quick question. Is staff asking us for a recommendation or on the outstanding amount is still not allocated? Yeah. 100,000.

Unknown Speaker 3:02:49
So what I would Mayor Pro Tem, Council Member Peck and council, I think primarily tonight, what we are asking for is for Council action on the recommended amounts for the agencies that is in your council packet. So that’s what you’re looking for, either approve those or ask or provide direction to modify those. I think what we wanted just to do at this point in time is to inform council that we do have this ending and allocated money. We are working through that. And we will bring back to council the recommendations sometime in the first quarter of 2020. To what what we are proposing to do with those funds, and then Council can take action at that point in time. If that’s acceptable.

Unknown Speaker 3:03:36
Yes. Thank you very much. As such, I will move the recommended allocations.

Unknown Speaker 3:03:43
I’ll take it back. Okay, it’s been moved by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and I second to that, let’s vote on the recommended allocations.

Unknown Speaker 3:03:55
All those in favor? Opposed. That passes.

Unknown Speaker 3:04:01
Five to 05 to nothing, unanimously. Thank you, Karen. Thank you, America.

Unknown Speaker 3:04:08
Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Unknown Speaker 3:04:12
Okay, we are now at the end of our agenda. Really, it’s a second final call for public invited to be heard. So it’s time to call in now the information is being displayed on the screen. Please mute the live stream and dial in now. We’ll take a five minute break to give everyone time to dial in

Unknown Speaker 3:09:29
They’re Peck. We’re coming upon the five minute mark right now. I’m not seeing any callers right now.

Unknown Speaker 3:09:37
I do know some a couple of people that are trying to get in.

Unknown Speaker 3:09:42
Gotcha. Would you like to give it another minute? We’ve been open, but I’m not seeing even anybody coming in or out. Oh, okay. Would you like to give it another?

Unknown Speaker 3:09:55
Yes. Let’s give it another minute and see what happens. Sounds good.

Unknown Speaker 3:10:00
Don Can you try to get in

Unknown Speaker 3:10:05
that’s what I’m doing Harold

Unknown Speaker 3:10:47
I am seeing a color Dawn is that you with 404 at the end

Unknown Speaker 3:10:54
that is not me Dallas so that is a real live caller.

Unknown Speaker 3:10:59
Let’s let’s hear what they have to say.

Unknown Speaker 3:11:02
Okay, perfect. I will admit them and Trump the screen.

Unknown Speaker 3:11:10
Okay.

Unknown Speaker 3:11:13
See two people now.

Unknown Speaker 3:11:15
Yes, I see we have two people and actually a third just got in so not sure what was happening there. Oh, it must have been done. Okay. Number four to seven.

Unknown Speaker 3:11:29
Oh, that was me Dallas. Sorry. That one was that one.

Unknown Speaker 3:11:33
Okay, we just lost two numbers. So I didn’t get a chance to write down what those were but we do have number 073 color with the last three digits. 073. Would you unmute yourself please?

Unknown Speaker 3:11:53
Okay, I think I’m in here. Yeah. All right. We can hear you. Okay, shall I proceed? Yes. Would you please state

Unknown Speaker 3:12:01
your name and address?

Unknown Speaker 3:12:04
Okay. I’m making tea Lester. I live at 1517 Mayfield Lane in Longmont. Lefthand Creek runs behind my house. Good evening, Mayor Peck and Longmont city council members. I’m calling in tonight to comment on the river town annexation proposal. I hope you’ve all had time to look at ideas offered by Stan with our st rain Creek concerning this proposal. If not, I would be very glad to send you a copy. I hope you understand that the members of stand with our st. Brian Creek are normal residents have long lat without special interest, just real people who live around here. And yet, we know that as taxpayers we are the ones who will pay for the infrastructure this proposal requires including flood mitigation, we will suffer the traffic congestion, when more than 3000 vehicle trips per day are added to the overburden roads in the area. And we are definitely the ones who will mourn the loss of wildlife habitat, which will come with development along the creek corridor. Whether you ever look at birds and wildlife or not that will happen. And you should know that many people who live in Longmont feel the same way we do about these facts. So thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of comments from your constituent constituency. I do support improving this property. And when I read the City Council communication about the annexation proposal and listened to your debate this evening, I felt that many of our concerns are being addressed, particularly the habitat and species assessments and evaluation of Northern leopard frog population. However, in Section C of the communication, a memo states well the application proposes development compatible with surrounding properties in terms of land use site and building layout and design and access. Unfortunately, the explanatory paragraph below that says the residential portion would be a compatible neighbor to the st bring Creek on the north and Rogers Grove nature area to the west as these nature areas would provide a quiet and peaceful setting for the residential buildings as councilmember Rodriguez also noticed, this is completely backwards. The residential buildings will interfere with the quiet and peaceful setting of the nature areas on the north and Roger Rogers grow to the west Let’s speak the truth about development in General and this development in particular, it’s been a pleasure to watch your civilized and congenial meeting this evening. Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration of comments from the community. Thank you maybe,

Unknown Speaker 3:15:21
okay, Mayor Peck IDC. We have one more caller. Okay. Screaming in great color with the last three numbers 452 Can you unmute yourself all right, we see a color 452

Unknown Speaker 3:15:40
Hi, I wasn’t able to get on earlier. Sherry Malloy 1632 sermon way speaking to river town. After the 2013 flood and the 500 year mitigation plan, a group of residents started stand with our st. Frankrijk. To promote to protect our corridor from damaging development. We are not alone. In 2018 we submitted 750 postcards asking how to catify protections in our development code. Online customer survey found 74% rated protecting nature areas from development is very important. 800 acres of privately owned and developable floodplain lands along our Greenway have benefited from our tax dollars. With a massive public investment. 400 million and counting these property owners and developers now want to capitalize on our investments. The river town developer intends to do a blind study, which means still more public dollars will be used. Same green Creek has tremendous ecological value. Portions are designated as critical wildlife habitat and identified as having an immense conservation value. 90% of all wildlife depends on riparian areas for survival. So protecting habitat is essential. The biggest impact of the floods, damage and costs was on property. The land did okay. Open land actually helped keep the flood from being much worse. The worst damage was the home namely the completely wiped out mobile home park. Thing Brian has seen 11 floods during the best. Despite the best mitigation efforts this corridor will flood again for the river natural respond to what’s happening with climate change would break the law of physics. Putting people in property in harm’s way is morally wrong and fiscally unwise. Wherever count is 21 acres immediately east of Robins Grove and fairgrounds Lake Lake is home to an abundance of birds and other wildlife. Roger Jones donated 55 acres to our city so residents might always have a place to connect with nature learn and enjoy a quote. There is nothing in the river time proposal that suggests any respect for Rogers Grove fairgrounds lake or st Frank Creek with share 50% of River County border. This proposal doesn’t meet the required code requiring to be compatible with surrounding properties. Development in this corridor needs to be Greenbelt LEED certified with an abundance of native vegetation. Any development in this exceptional corridor should be exceptionally designed to propose high density 320 residential units is way too high for this sensitive area. development proposal should honor and enhance this special area not exploited in overburden it. For property seeking annexation along our st grade it is prudent to apply the standard concerned with protecting the common good, which is not necessarily what’s required from the planning commissioners. This additional common good lens must safeguard people’s well being and homes reflect good stewardship of our public investments and protect our riparian habitat and the wildlife it supports. This annexation agreement needs to include many common good and common sense protection provisions before being approved for second reading. Thank you. Thank you, Sherry.

Unknown Speaker 3:18:53
Is that are those all the colors we have?

Unknown Speaker 3:18:56
That’s correct. There are no more callers.

Unknown Speaker 3:18:58
Thank you. So now we are at the end of our meeting for the mayor and council comments. Council members. Do you have any comments that you’d like to make Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 3:19:10
I just want to thank all the folks that came out to the Longmont Lights parade on saturday, it was very well attended. It was very beautiful. I saw a lot of things and I don’t think I’ve ever seen in one of our long run lights parades before some dancers with some very beautiful, you know, costumes that were just fantastic. So thank you all for braving the wind and you know, a little bit of cold weather. And it’s great to have that sense of community back again, you know, even when we do it, hopefully in a safer and socially distanced way. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 3:19:45
Thank you, Aaron. Anyone else? I would like to say the same thing I think we had I saw more people who attended this parade than I have in past years. But I also want to say that Our Congressman Jonah goose is going to be in Longmont, December 20, at Las Palmeras restaurant at five o’clock. And he’s very excited that long mountain his new CD two. And he would like, as he stated to me to know more about long month and what we want from him how he can help us, etc. So if you’re interested, you can put that on your calendar. Um, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone. Be safe, wear your masks, and we’ll see you next year. First of all, now we need city manager content comments here. Oh, do you have anything? Comments? Mayor, council, city attorney. Eugene, are you still on?

Unknown Speaker 3:20:51
Do you have any comments still on and no comments?

Unknown Speaker 3:20:54
Thank you. Can we have a motion to adjourn?

Unknown Speaker 3:20:57
So moved.

Unknown Speaker 3:20:58
Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 3:21:00
And I’ll second that. We all those in favor region. Thank you that passed unanimously.