Video Description:Longmont Planning and Zoning – December 15, 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/z6RvdIlVRSeY1bDmxo2L2qpbTFk
Unknown Speaker 0:03
To the December 15 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. First item on our agenda is Roll Call.
Unknown Speaker 0:11
Chairman Chernykh. Commissioner flag here, Commissioner Koehler here Commissioner height hear me Okay, gotcha. Present. Commissioner Polen Commissioner teta? Councilmember Rodriguez. Here. Chairman, you have a quorum.
Unknown Speaker 0:42
Thank you, Jane. Appreciate that. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard items for eight or oops. Currently, when Dallas puts the slide up, it makes my other things on my screen go away. So hang on a sec here. Let me get back to my script. Okay. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard items for an eight or during any public hearing items. Agenda Item six A will need to watch the livestream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. Instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen and it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the livestream when you’re called upon to speak. But before we do a first public comment. We have a communications item on our agenda. Director Glen van Lim Oregon Do you have any communications from
Unknown Speaker 1:49
Mr. Chairman I do not.
Unknown Speaker 1:52
Unknown Speaker 1:52
so Dallas now if we could put the slide back up again for for the public comment. Public invited to be heard. And the information is now on your screen for those viewing from home. Please call 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 86860861062. When we’re ready to hear your public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream you’re called upon to speak. We’ll take a five minute break to do this. We will be back at 708 chin we
Unknown Speaker 7:18
are just shy of 708. There are currently new callers.
Unknown Speaker 7:24
already. Thank you Dallas. Yep. We will close the public invited to be heard since nobody called in. We will move on to Item five on our agenda which is approval of the number 1720 21 minutes from the Commission. Do we have discussion or anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes? Commercial
Unknown Speaker 7:55
I move approval of the November 17 2021 meeting.
Unknown Speaker 7:59
Okay, do we have a second for the motion to approve the minutes
Unknown Speaker 8:07
Mr. teta? Second,
Unknown Speaker 8:11
all right, we have a motion to approve the November 17 minutes and a second from Commissioner teta. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll do a roll call vote. No particular order our Commissioner teta high. Commissioner Polen I Commissioner Koehler. Sorry. I wasn’t here. Got it. Okay. Commissioner. Hey, likewise have to abstain. Commissioner honor on
Unknown Speaker 8:51
a stay. I wasn’t there either.
Unknown Speaker 8:56
Mr. Flag I and I was there and I will say yes. And so Jane that passes, four yeses, zero nose and three abstentions. So the minutes have passed. And next on our agenda is Item six A, which is a public hearing item. It’s an appeal of an administrative decision to deny a short term rental permit for 226 Emery Street, PCR 2021 Dash 13 principal planner Dongba. Chet will do the first presentation.
Unknown Speaker 9:37
The main Chairman sure NEC members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Dawn Burchette. I’m the planning manager for the city along and with me tonight we have Dane Hermsen senior code enforcement and substandard housing inspector Dallas if you’d start the presentation please. The item before you tonight is an appeal of an administer decision to deny a short term rental permit for the property located at 226 Emory Street. Next slide. The applicant in this Teddy was denied a permit by Mr. Hermsen after he found that the application did not comply with the land development code section 15.0 2.080 d to be Mr. Hermanson determined that based on the information submitted by the applicant for the permit, that the owner was not a resident of Longmont, but as a resident of unincorporated Boulder County. Next slide, please. Land Development code section 15.02040k allows the property owner to appeal this decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a hearing for the commission shall review the case and either uphold, modify or reverse the administrative officials final decision. Next slide. In order to complete the appeal hearing, the commission should use the following outline for conducting the hearing. This information can also be found within your planning Zoning Commission packet on page four for future reference. The process briefly is first, there will be a staff presentation of the report, which is what I’m doing right now. I’m about two minutes into that presentation, followed by a presentation by Mr. Hermsen and myself of the application and the process that we went through that is limited to no more than 30 minutes. The appellant that will be allowed a presentation again limited to 30 minutes. There is an optional public hearing. This is not required, but typically is done. For in the city when we have appeals to augment the record or to consider additional evidence. The hearing itself should be limited to one hour. We recommend a two limit two minute limit per speaker, but that’s just the recommendation. If you do open the public hearing, you are asked to provide the opportunity for staff and administrative official and the appellants to rebut anything that is offered during the public hearing. The rebuttal for each staff and the appellant should be limited to 15 minutes each. And that’s an addition to the maximum hour for the public hearing. After that the Planning Commission can do discussion and questions of the applicant and staff. And then after you have had the opportunity to ask those questions, there should be an opportunity for rebuttal by staff, the administrative official and the appellant of the original presentations. Again, each of those should be limited to no more than 15 minutes each. And then finally after the rebuttal, the planning commission can do another discussion. If you ask staff questions or the appellant then you will need to offer another opportunity for rebuttal if you ask any additional questions during that discussion of either party. The Planning Commission then needs to make findings and consideration of emotion there are planning and zoning resolutions in the packet that give you three options to look at again to uphold to modify or overturn the decision. I will now give a a brief overview of the application which will be followed by Mr. Hermanson explaining how he came to his final decision. Next slide please. According to the land development code, short term rentals are allowed in all residential districts. All mixed use districts and in the ag zoning district are subject to conformance with use specific standards in Section 1504 030 D 23, which refers you to Section 15.02080 D, which is included as attachment two in your communication. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 14:03
According to D two of the code section for short term rentals, they’re only they’re only allowed in two instances. The first is when it occurs in the owners primary dwelling. And the second is when it occurs in an investment dwelling of a resident of Longmont, as Mr. Hermanson will explain in his testimony that the applicant submitted information that showed that the dwelling is not the owners primary dwelling, and that it was a second or investment dwelling and the owner is not a resident of Longmont. Staff determined that a resident of Longmont is someone who lives in the corporate limits of the city of Longmont. And the evidence attached to the communication clearly shows the owner is a resident of unincorporated Boulder County. I’ll now ask Mr. Hermanson to provide the commission with a brief overview of the application process and the steps he took in making this decision to denied the application?
Unknown Speaker 15:05
Thank you, Chairman commissioners. We received the application on September 23. Of this year for review, and during my review, I found that the owners home address was 9747 North 89th Street 80503. This is an enclave of unincorporated property within larger Longmont area. I checked with planning and with my boss as well to see kind of what they thought of the situation and we all determined that we really needed to consider a resident to be someone that lived within the incorporated city limits. At that point I notified the applicant and issued the letter of denial.
Unknown Speaker 15:53
The kidding. Next slide, please. In conclusion, the administrative official denied the short term rental permit after determining that the applicant failed to meet the standards in Section 15.02080 D two little b and specifically the property is a second or investment dwelling. An applicant is not a resident of long been the poet’s own letter attachment five states in the first paragraph that she resides at 9747 North 89th Street, Longmont, Colorado, which means he resides in unincorporated Boulder County is not a resident of Longmont. As such applicant failed to meet the requirement and the permit was denied. This concludes our staff presentation. Thank you
Unknown Speaker 16:45
Thank you, Don. Okay, so let’s move on to the appellants presentation.
Unknown Speaker 17:10
Good evening, everyone. Can you hear and see yourself? Thank you, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Ben Wilson and I’m an attorney in Boulder County. With me tonight is my client, Janet at the homeowner who says your application has been denied. The fact of the matter essentially undisputed Miss Katie lives just outside of the city limit of Longmont and that her application for an STR license was denied because she does not live within the city limits. First and foremost, the STR ordinance in the Longmont municipal code or LMC 15 dot O two dot O eight oh, subsection D does not actually require that a property owner be a resident of the city of Longmont in order to obtain an STR license. The ordinance uses various language and inconsistently. For the most part, the ordinance simply FERS as the presentation from staff showed to residents of Longmont and that is those are the parties to whom an STR license is restricted. Going through that ordinance just a little bit and staff would like to refer to it. It’s ordinance Oh Dash 2021 Dash 36 I believe is the most current version. So I updated this last July. put through a couple of points in that please. First, subsection D one of the STR ordinance says that a secondary investment dwelling such as would entitle one to an SCR at least consideration for one means a Longmont property owner secondary investment dwelling where the owner does not live the majority of a calendar year. Importantly this does not say a city of Longmont property owner. Second point in the ordinance is subsection D to small b also cited by staff refers to the dwellings is allowed it’s short term rentals include entire dwelling unit that constitutes a second or investment dwelling of a resident of Longmont. Again, it does not say a city of Longmont property owner or indicate in any way that the property owner must reside within the incorporated city limits. Third point is subsection D for small a in order to obtain an STR license. The STR property must be within the city of Longmont. It’s undisputed that this property at 226 Emory Street is within the city limits of the city of Longmont.
Unknown Speaker 19:40
And the fourth point,
Unknown Speaker 19:43
which is subsection D for small a small Roman for refers to the proof of residency that’s required of city of Longmont residents who own and str license but it doesn’t say anything about what forms of identification or proofs of residency might be required to someone who lives in Longmont, but not within the incorporated city limits. Because it’s undisputed that the Emory house is located in the city of Longmont. The only question is whether the owner Miss Katie is a resident of Longmont within the meaning of the STR ordinance. The code does not provide a definition of this phrase resident of Longmont doesn’t even define the term resident. And as evidenced by this dispute, the city is attempting to impose a meaning of resident of Longmont, which is not located in the code. The code does provide some guidance as to how to interpret phrases which are undefined in the code. Code section 1.0 4.0 to zero meaning of terms not specifically defined states that in all cases where the definition or meaning of a word used in any section is not sufficiently apparent in its connection with the subject. The definition given in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 11th edition 2003 They’ll be taken as the true meaning. So I had the privilege of buying a copy of this dictionary a few weeks ago before the previously scheduled hearing. The only relevant definition of the word resident in that dictionary is one who resides in a place admittedly not particularly helpful. The issue is circular. And the question is not answered by the code or the dictionary which the code references. So after her STR application was denied, Miss Katie inquired of various city officials what the working definition of a resident of Longmont was. And Miss Katie received responses regarding residency requirements to run for city council and serve on various city boards and commissions, which do both clearly require residency within the city of Longmont. But they did not address the question here. So all occurred in the first week of October 2021, which was after Miss Katie’s STR application had already been denied. This raises concerns that that denial was actually based on provisions of the city charter related to eligibility for public office rather than on the STR ordinance itself. In our view, the STR ordinance is not ambiguous. To be eligible for an STR license. The property owner need only be a resident of Longmont, as the term is commonly understood, including residents of unincorporated areas and Boulder County. Possibly other counties near the city of Longmont. Miss Davies residents qualifies her as a resident of Longmont. If you’re detecting that, this, that this ordinance might be somewhat ambiguous if the STR ordinance is ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires that a law imposing restrictions on property be strictly construed against the government. Colorado court cases dating back to at least 1880, to have uniformly recognized that principle. In 1882, the Colorado Supreme Court stated quote in case of doubt or ambiguity, that construction must be in favor of the public and quote, and this was a this principle of law was reaffirmed as recently as 2017 by the Colorado Supreme Court in the city and county of Denver V expediate. Case. So in other words, were an ordinance like the SGR ordinance is not completely clear, must be construed in favor the citizen here that would mean that the SGR ordinance must be construed in favor of Miss stating that the city must therefore an issue in STR license for the emery house to her. Moving on, even if the law did not require that the city issue ms, KD and str license for the hammer house, which it does, there are several compelling public policy reasons why the city should issue her an STR license.
Unknown Speaker 23:50
First, and in a similar vein to what we discussed earlier, as well settled law in the state of Colorado, unless it is clearly prohibited for a valid reason, property owners should be able to make free and unrestricted use of her property. Colorado courts have recognized this principle in cases such as the Edelweiss condominium case 218 p 3d 310. And that is the Colorado Supreme Court in 2009. And at least as recently as Houston V. Wilson Mesa ranch homeowners 360 p 3d 255. Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2015. Second, city council has held several meetings discussing the STR ordinance. The purpose of the limitation SDRs to Longmont residents was to bar absentee landlords with no connection from law to long mode or ability to quickly address possible problems from creating nuisance properties in traditionally residential neighborhoods. While misstating understand the city’s desire to prevent outside entities with no connection to the community from obtaining an STR license, this lady is not the sort of absentee owner the council was concerned about. She’s not a corporation or conglomerate of investors. She’s an individual woman and asked To a person who owns a home and a business in Longmont. She’s an active member of the Longmont community. She buys groceries in Longmont shops and eats on Main Street walks her dog alongside her neighbors and Willow Farm Park, which is a 10th a mile a 10th of a mile from her home and ironically within the city limits. In short, Miss Katie is invested in involved in Longmont in exactly the way that city council hoped in honor would be when limited STR licenses to Longmont residences. Residents Excuse me. Were also mindful the city council’s stated concern should a problem arise with an STR N STR host that does not reside in Longmont would not be able to manage guests or address issues in a timely manner. In contrast, Miss Katie lives under three miles five minute drive from the Emory house. She will have an ongoing presence at the Emory house when guests are there to deter any nuisance behavior and can respond quickly if the need arises. Third, there are numerous addresses within city limits that are significantly further away from the proposed STR Emery house than Miss Katie’s residences. This also highlights staffs problematic construction of the phrase resident of Longmont. In fact, if Miss Katie live just 30 feet to the east, she would reside within the city limits. We would not be having this conversation here tonight.
Unknown Speaker 26:21
For the Emory
Unknown Speaker 26:22
house, his location is not in a traditionally residential neighborhood that the STR ordinance was designed to protect and preserve. The surrounding neighborhood is not a traditionally residential neighborhood, nor is it anticipated to become one neighborhood that the emery house is located in zoned mixed use downtown. There is a taco restaurant directly adjacent to the property’s backyard. Budget rent a car right next to that, and acupuncturist and a tax agent right around the corner. A large commercial space is currently being developed at the end of Emory Street as part of the downtown Longmont revitalization project. The Emory house faces the police station, a radiator repair shop, an Asian restaurant and a large brewery. The neighborhood is already mostly commercial and str there would not further commercializes neighborhood, but would instead provide an option for accommodations in an already commercialized district that is walkable to the many attractions of the Main Street and South Main Station districts. It also bears noting that the ongoing commercialization of neighborhood makes it less appealing to homeowners or long term renters, as evidenced by the vacancy of a similar property just two doors north from the Emory house.
Unknown Speaker 27:31
Fifth, if the city issues Miss
Unknown Speaker 27:34
Talian STR license, the city will receive lodging tax on our income from the MR house. However, if it does not, the property will eventually become a long term rental in the city will to receive no tax revenue from it. As one final note, the members of the Commission may recall that this hearing was initially set to take place last month on November 17. That day, however, Miss Katie was notified that because there had been an error in the standard review asserted in the communication that had been issued before the hearing. The hearing would need to be rescheduled for today, and new communication was issued. That standard review was not however, the only difference between the two communications. The communication that was issued in advance of the November 17 Hearing stated in part as follows. Quote, The following is a summary of the appeal issues identified by staff in reviewing the appellant letters. Code Enforcement interpreted the definition of resident of Longmont too narrowly in denying the application. It was not the city council’s intention to borrow Longmont residents like the applicant from STR ownership when passing the STR ordinance. And the location of the proposed str is not a traditionally residential neighborhood that the ordinance was decided, excuse me designed to protect and preserve. The new communication that was issued in advance of today’s hearing did not repeat those emissions. That said, I could not have said it better myself. For all these reasons, we ask that the Commission reverse decision of staff and find that the denial of Ms. Katie’s application was incorrect, and that her STR application complied with the SGR ordinance and that she’s eligible for a license. At a minimum, we asked the commission to reverse the denial, find that the decision was incorrect and impose any reasonable restrictions on that application. Thank you for consideration and please don’t hesitate to ask if the Commission requires any further documents or information.
Unknown Speaker 29:31
Thank you, Mr. Wilson was Teddy. This is I’m going to consider this a public hearing item. It is optional for us. Commissioner Polen
Unknown Speaker 29:45
do we have to move for that? Do we have to make a motion to allow it?
Unknown Speaker 29:51
Well to be
Unknown Speaker 29:53
perfectly thorough, we can.
Unknown Speaker 29:57
So I will move that we allow a public Pushing public to be heard for this item.
Unknown Speaker 30:03
Okay, motion to have a public hearing on this item Commissioner heights will Second. Seconded by Commissioner hight will take a roll call vote. Commissioner height? Aye. Commissioner Polen. High. Commissioner Koehler. Commit. Okay, yes, Commissioner honor. I Commissioner flag high commissioner teta. And I will also say yes. So that passes unanimously to make this a public hearing item. So we will proceed with that. One thing we did not put in our motion was how much time to give them. But I I believe that two minutes is too restrictive. as was suggested to us. I would like to up that to three minutes per speaker rather than the five which we normally do. Is there any commissioner who disagrees with me on that? Okay, so we’ll, we’ll go with three minutes. Dallas if we can put the slide up, please. So if anybody would like to call in about this particular item, we’d love to hear from you. The information is being displayed on your screen right now, please call 188878880099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 868-686-1062. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we’ll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to I’m sorry, three minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. This does take us five minutes to do. We’ll be back at 737 chair, we
Unknown Speaker 36:03
are about 30 seconds out from the five minute mark. At present, there are no callers
Unknown Speaker 36:24
Unknown Speaker 36:25
Sorry, I was away from my desk just momentarily. Okay, callers,
Unknown Speaker 36:30
no callers, I will drop the slide.
Unknown Speaker 36:36
And you should be good.
Unknown Speaker 36:39
Alright, thank you Dallas, we had no callers. So we will close the public hearing on this item. Before we go into our discussion amongst the commission, I’d like to just kind of review what our process is. And and I do have a question for city attorney Eugene May. Because we don’t do appeals that often. And the process is a little bit different.
Unknown Speaker 37:08
So we now
Unknown Speaker 37:13
enter into this, if you have those seven steps, which Don Byrd Chet put in front of us, and it’s in our packet as to what the process is. We’re at step four, which is planning commission discussion and questions to all parties. And then there can be a rebuttal by the city staff or the administrative official, and then also by the appellant and then further Planning Commission discussion. And if we ask further questions of staff, then there can be another round of of rebuttal. My question to city attorney may is in this procedure, if there are further questions to staff, does that mean, does that include you as the attorney who is representing the planning commission?
Unknown Speaker 38:10
Chairman and Planning Commission using may city attorney, I would think generally not in a quasi judicial setting. It’s about the evidence. And if you introduce additional evidence, then that would trigger the obligation to provide rebuttal opportunities for both the appellant and staff. Generally, advice from the attorney to the planning commission is not considered evidence it would be more in a legal nature or interpreting code, statutory construction, those sorts of things. And though that that’s not really considered evidence, like factual evidence from the parties,
Unknown Speaker 38:46
okay. And then also attorney made, just can you explain to everyone that, because I just made reference to this, that you’re representing the commission, but we also have our assistant city attorney Tasi, Bob’s are Titlow. Did I say that right. And can you explain her role, please?
Unknown Speaker 39:09
Certainly, Chairman. So in this situation, the city attorney is representing two parties in this I am here to advise the planning commission. Miss pasar is here to represent staff and advise them presenting the staff reports. We create a confidentiality wall within my office, when we engage in these sort of dual representations where myself and the Tasi do not speak substantively about this matter. We may talk about procedural matters, like the rescheduling and the past hearing just to coordinate but nothing of the substance of the matter or the issues involved.
Unknown Speaker 39:53
Okay, so if if any commissioner has a legal question needs legal advance advice, it’ll be addressed to to you. Correct?
Unknown Speaker 40:02
Correct. Exactly. Alright, great.
Unknown Speaker 40:04
Any questions from other commissioners about our procedure? Okay, thank you, Jane. Let’s go into discussion. Commissioner. Hi, are can you turn on your camera? I, I keep thinking that I’ve lost a commissioner. Okay. Great. Thanks. Let’s see. Anybody have any questions to start with Commissioner right.
Unknown Speaker 40:34
Now that my cameras on and now I’m on muted playing director Newmont in reviewing section 1510 dealing with definitions. There’s a somewhat of a catch all the provides for terms used in the development code that are not defined there in in the definitional section, which is 1510 or otherwise, in the municipal code. I’m good to go to you. For your interpretation. Have you made an interpretation can extend payments ever even asked you to do so? Because I think there’s a procedure to do so. As to what is a resident of Longmont and then often in Section 15 Oh, 2080 D four. There is something called an official quote city of Longmont address. Have you had the opportunity or have you otherwise provided your interpretation? Those terms mean?
Unknown Speaker 41:37
I’ve never been formally requested. But when this matter came up, I think I was the first one that thought, well, if you’re a resident, you participate in the election process or onboarding commission. And immediately I felt that they don’t meet that test. But that as far as I’ve dealt into the definition of a resident
Unknown Speaker 42:08
terney My Is it is it appropriate for me to ask Glenn? Now for his interpretation?
Unknown Speaker 42:17
You can certainly ask questions of staff.
Unknown Speaker 42:21
I’m just saying you know, it would be appropriate to ask him now for that interpretation. Now.
Unknown Speaker 42:32
Yes, okay. So all right.
Unknown Speaker 42:38
directing him wagon word, what’s your interpretation?
Unknown Speaker 42:41
Resin is somebody who can participate in all the election processes of a local government? I would also say Are they a property? Is their principal residence are they do they pay property taxes? And in this case, no. So my interpretation is the appellant is not a resident of city of or of Longmont.
Unknown Speaker 43:14
One more question I had for you. So in the provision regarding short term rentals, section again 150 Oh, D, subsection four proof of residency, subsection Come on. Subsection A applicant should provide the following showing a quote official city of Longmont address, do you have an interpretation of what a official city of online address would be
Unknown Speaker 43:50
would be an address that would be issued by the city of Longmont and not Boulder County?
Unknown Speaker 43:57
Would it be within the corporate jurisdiction of the city of Longmont corporate boundaries. I have nothing further right now. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 44:14
Unknown Speaker 44:17
Yeah, Dane, I’m just wondering if in the past and I believe that this is still relatively something new for us, but have we ever turned down an application for a rental unit? Whether it was because of the the residence being rented or because the owner was not an official city of Longmont resident has that ever happened before?
Unknown Speaker 44:48
There’s one other case I can’t remember the address, but that resident also lives pretty close. She wasn’t actually like this happen. applicant was where she’s completely surrounded by city property. This one was just north, across from Highway 66, across from the Walmart. But we did deny that one for the same reason. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 45:16
Eugene, may I have a question for
Unknown Speaker 45:18
you? When we were
Unknown Speaker 45:22
faced with a term such as resident, and it’s not modified by the word city, but that term is being used in the city of long ones code. How does the law look at how one should understand a a word that does not mean does? Does it word like Resident always have to be modified by the word city when it’s being used within the city’s very own code?
Unknown Speaker 45:59
Commissioner Sure, neck. So there are a number of rules of statutory construction that are pretty well established when interpreting laws. And I think the first canon of statutory interpretation is plain language, you know, what would the ordinary person interpret that to mean? And then, you know, there’s many other canons of statutory interpretation. If the plain language is clear, and unambiguous, you should stick with that don’t look at other things. Otherwise other methods of interpretation? If it’s unclear, you can go look at legislative history and the words around it context of the statute. And so, you know, to your question, I like to provide the standards to the commission and have the commission apply them. I think, you know, I don’t want to offer my opinion. But I would say start with the plain language of the statute. If it’s clear, that’s the end of your inquiry. If not, then you would look at other surrounding words or the structure of the ordinance to try to get more information on what you thought or what you think that the city council meant when they passed that, and I hope that answers your question.
Unknown Speaker 47:27
Yes, it does. It does give some some guidance. Thank you very much. I’ll put this out to the other Commissioners, given what we just heard from city attorney may, to my question. I cannot support the appellants argument that the city should always be defining the term resident with the modifier of city in front of it, when we’re using that word within the city of Longmont code on the city of Walmart’s website, in the city of Longmont ordinances, everything is based, obviously, on the city of Walmart. So if we’re saying resident resident means a resident of the city of Walmart, it does not have to expressly state city in every single line of code, because it’s understood, we’re talking about the city of Longmont. We’re not talking about Firestone we’re not talking about Lafayette it’s Longmont, who else would we be talking about? Certainly not Boulder County. So I I personally reject the appellants argument that the definition of resident is questionable. Because it was never modified or not never, but sometimes not modified by the word city. Commissioner polling?
Unknown Speaker 49:06
Yes, you. Yeah. And also in terms of that, when I’m looking through the conditions that we’re asking them to meet, and I go to, and I’m just going to go to the for a Section IV for and then, which is at least two of the additional documents indicating that either the short term rental is the applicant’s primary dwelling, or that the short term rental is a resident of the city of Longmont second investment property property. When I look at his resident of the city of Longmont, one of the things that looks for is Item B which is proof of voter registration. To me that indicates that the city is looking for a resident who can vote in the city of Longmont. So I would agree with your interpretation that To me the city’s code when I read it and I look at the ABCDE when I look at B, it definitely shows to me that they’re looking for a city of Longmont resident who can vote.
Unknown Speaker 50:17
Mr. Hermsen. I
Unknown Speaker 50:20
just wanted to clarify, we don’t require voter registration specifically, that’s one of the possible documents they can submit that shows their current address where they live. Correct.
Unknown Speaker 50:31
But it’s it shows there also shows there. To me, it’s indicating one of the things that city is looking for his showing a residency in the city of Longmont to define a resident of the city long that one of the things we’re looking for is somebody who could vote in the city of Long, that’s one of the, to me, it’s, it’s it’s to me that’s going towards what the city actually looking for.
Unknown Speaker 50:54
Unknown Speaker 50:56
Mr. Hermsen? Since since you have your camera, I have a question for you. There are other Boulder County enclaves within the city limits of Longmont. Um, I live near one and it’s got a marijuana dispensary on it on as code enforcement for the city of Longmont. Would it ever crossed your mind that you could enforce code on a Boulder County dispensary if it’s surrounded by the rest of the city, but it’s not part of the city? So do you feel that you have any ability to to to project the city of Longmont code onto a county enclave?
Unknown Speaker 51:50
No, never. We’re there outside of our jurisdiction and we can’t enforce
Unknown Speaker 51:55
anything on that property. Okay. Thank you. Um,
Unknown Speaker 52:01
to the commissioners. The reason why I asked him that question is because it appears to me if I am understanding the appellants argument correctly, they are saying that that Miss Teddy is lives in an enclave surrounded by the city of Longmont. Therefore, she should be able to take advantage of the city of Warren once shorter term rental
Unknown Speaker 52:27
code. But the city
Unknown Speaker 52:31
cannot will not would never occur to the city to to say hey, we would like to do some things on county land, such as the dispensary. That’s next to me which the city if that dispensary was in the city limits to sit, the city very likely would have denied it? Because we have a restriction on how many dispensaries we have. So it doesn’t go both ways here. You’re either in the county or you’re not in the county, you’re part of the part of the city or you’re not on the argument that that while she’s close enough to the city, therefore should be able to to use some of the city’s code to her advantage. In my mind that’s that is undermined by the fact that the city does not have any purview over county property. Commissioner Koehler?
Unknown Speaker 53:31
Yeah, I guess I have a question. I’m not sure whose best to answer it. But if we’re not talking about the city of Longmont, what what border are we talking about? How else would Longmont be defined?
Unknown Speaker 53:48
Do you want to address that maybe to planning manager for Chad or to Glenda min? Morgan?
Unknown Speaker 53:54
Sure. Maybe are PICHETTE would be the best answer that.
Unknown Speaker 54:02
Sir Kohler Chairman Chernykh. I think that as I understand that, I do not want to speak for the appellant. They would look at the Longmont zip code as a way to try to define whether a person is a resident of Longmont. Again, this these are my words, not theirs. It would probably be good if they would explain their thinking. But that is my interpretation of what I read in the appellant letter stating that they felt that we defined it too narrowly.
Unknown Speaker 54:38
In Do we have any other instances in the code that were where it would apply to the zip code at Longmont and not the city? I’m assuming no, right.
Unknown Speaker 54:49
None that I’m aware of.
Unknown Speaker 54:53
Can we can we ask the appellant then or their or their attorney to possibly respond to that?
Unknown Speaker 54:59
Sure. I was
Unknown Speaker 55:00
just gonna check to see if you wanted to pose that to to the appellant, Mr. Wilson and Miss Teddy, would you like to answer the question
Unknown Speaker 55:16
I think we need y’all to start our video again, please. Allow us to
Unknown Speaker 55:26
Dallas if if you could get their video turned back on first is Yeah, it
Unknown Speaker 55:31
is available to them. I’m not quite sure why.
Unknown Speaker 55:35
There we go. It’s available now one sec.
Unknown Speaker 55:37
Unknown Speaker 55:39
Unknown Speaker 55:41
All right, anywhere again. With respect to the specific question regarding zip codes, and that’s one of one of several indications that Mr. AD is a Longmont resident. I’m looking it up the way some of you might be by looking for the phrase zip code, and the Longmont municipal code. And, you know, before I before I get to that the two phrases mean different things resident of Longmont and city of Longmont, resident or address. This ordinance was signed last summer by the former deputy city attorney and words mean things and when you’re using multiple different phrases. It’s possible they mean the same thing but it’s also possible that they mean different things. seems most most intelligible to me that city council meant two different things by Longmont resident and city of Longmont resident, or else why wouldn’t they say the same thing in each instance that there was a proofreader on this ordinance. And it was presumably duly vetted. There are numerous meetings discussing the precise language of the ordinance what activities would be permitted in which would be restricted. And before I move in, and I’m going to try to avoid making it you know, sort of refined each point that’s been raised so far. But without having a sight to the code at hand. I think this is pretty good evidence. And I don’t know if we can see this and I didn’t provide it beforehand, but Longmont, co eo 503 And that’s where Miss Katie lives. And I think that too, to assume that the ordinance meant to or actually does mean, a resident of the city of Longmont, rather than someone who lives in Longmont, as the term is commonly understood, is an overly technical reading and superimposes words that aren’t there into the ordinance. And respectfully I don’t believe that’s legally permissible. Although I agree in general with that city attorney Mays statement of some of the canons of statutory construction, which are all applicable to a municipal ordinance like this, or utility bills are issued by the city of Longmont paid to the city of Longmont mailing address city of Longmont driver’s license that you just saw, states that she lives in Longmont, Colorado, 80503. And, you know, there’s some Reliance issues here, also, because this property was purchased as a rental property. And, you know, the construction of it of a statute or an ordinance, as the attorney may, I’m sure can, can confirm for you as a matter of law, there’s not really a right way and a wrong way. And if there is even the suggestion of ambiguity, the law requires it to be construed in favor of the property owner and of the for use of property. So it’s a little bit of a rambling way of answering the question, and I don’t have a map with the boundary on it for you, but I don’t think we need one in order to in order to make this decision correctly tonight. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 58:53
Commissioner Kohler, do you have any follow on?
Unknown Speaker 58:57
I have an additional question, not necessarily a follow up. Um, so if she lives, she doesn’t pay taxes in the city. But the rental property is I assume the taxes for the short term rental, they follow the the rental, not the ownership, is that correct?
Unknown Speaker 59:16
That’s correct. They pay lodgers tax like any other hotel within incorporated city limits.
Unknown Speaker 59:21
But she doesn’t pay the city of Longmont tax based on her residence where she lives now. Correct? No, I don’t have any further questions for now.
Unknown Speaker 59:33
Thank you, Commissioner honor on
Unknown Speaker 59:39
Well, this is a tough one. I agree with a lot of the interpretation about the word and the common meaning of the word. Chairman Medtronic, you talked about the dispensary example. I think that example is kind of irrelevant because we’re trying to understand the meaning of rule, the rule could have been easily said 30 marks in proximity, then we’re really expanding that is to say, the city is allowing or regulating something that is happening within the city limits, but then the language can extend to larger residence. So what I’m struggling is to really understand the intent of this particular rule. And that’s why you know, I’m, I’m really hesitating to really jump into the conclusion easily. To me, yeah, long mount resident mean city of LA, but at the same time, did really counsel told about this as the city that is, you know, I see the argument of proximity. And I see the argument of, you know, distance, we’re trying to prevent this and ownership. And so, I haven’t made my mind up, but I’m really struggling with those two issues. That is the, the common meaning of the term, but also the intention of the rule. Because at the end of the day, when we ask ourselves, how do we interpret a rule, it’s the intention that matters. So for the time being, that’s all I want to express.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:20
Thank you, Commissioner flag.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:25
Thank you, Chair. Um, I don’t know who to whom I would direct this question. But I know I live in a zip code that is shared by Firestone. So can I then go and claim residency or particular benefits in Firestone? See, I know that, I think I know that the post office decides on zip codes, and what their boundaries are. And that has caused for many jurisdictions No End of discussion of whether a person within a zip code is also within a city. And to the best of my knowledge, and I admit, I’m not an expert, it would seem that where I pay my property taxes are where the abode in which I live, where the property taxes are paid, because I could be in a rental. And that would determine in which jurisdiction I reside. That would seem appropriate to me. And the other part is that I think I was on this commission when we worked on this matter, and discussed it at length and the reasoning for putting the requirement that people who own such a rental property for short term rentals be within the city. So that yes, they would be available and they would have a vested interest in how the short term rental was rented out, who stayed there, and how it looked over time. I do have a question for I think, Don for shet. I understand that, even if it’s not a short term rental, to the best of my knowledge, would it then still be able to be rented out? So that would there would be some benefit to the owner of the property?
Unknown Speaker 1:03:43
Commissioner flaig Chairman Chernykh. The the regulation would not preclude any rental, over 30 days or more. So you could do what I would term a long term rental or a month to month lease for a year lease. So there would still be the opportunity to lease the property to generate income on the property.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:14
done while you’re there. And maybe this is also Mr. Hermsen. Is Commissioner flay correct that zip codes are established by the US Post Office? And does the city have any input as to what is included in a zip code or not?
Unknown Speaker 1:04:38
It’s my understanding that those zip codes are determined by the post office and the post map I believe the postmaster get together and and work on the determining where those boundaries were back in the day. And they do cross county lines. They they go into Cities when City’s annex we do not have to annex into, or we’re not precluded from annexing into another person’s zip code. So we could annex for example into Firestone. Firestone is annexed into the city of Longmont or into our zip code. There’s nothing to preclude that. was another question there. I’m sorry.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:24
Um, no, but I have more. So I’m in a similar vein, how does the DMV determine what somebody is addresses on their driver’s license? And does the city have any input into that?
Unknown Speaker 1:05:45
I’ve never had a contact from DMV, so I can’t, I would be making an assumption that it’s based on your mailing address of where you live and where you received your mail. But that is an assumption on my part, just of what I’ve had to prove to get licenses renewed or new licenses for my kids when they become the age of able to get a driver’s license.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:10
Sure. I’m Dallas, we just lost somebody from the meeting. I think it’s Commissioner Bolen
Unknown Speaker 1:06:21
seeing that we will try and contact him real quick and I will unlock it serve someone
Unknown Speaker 1:06:33
we’re going to pause until Commissioner polling is back I don’t want any commissioner not being part of the discussion.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:21
Sorry everybody, when this happens it it takes a little bit to get to get the person back.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:55
I’ve just sent him a an email with the invitation. But if anyone has a phone number or contact number for him, in case he lost power or something along those lines and wants to contact him, that would be great. Jane, do
Unknown Speaker 1:08:26
you have his contact info?
Unknown Speaker 1:08:32
I don’t have it right offhand. It might take me a couple minutes to find it.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:39
Sure, Nick, while we’re waiting, and I believe these, this discussion point is not substantive. But it gets back to the process, which is how we are proceeding here. Which we open it up to for a public hearing. None of the public deemed decided to participate. As I look at what we’re doing now we’re having discussion and questions of all parties. We’re not necessarily deliberating. Is that your understanding?
Unknown Speaker 1:09:12
Right, we’re having a discussion. And yeah, we’re on item for signing session discussion questions. All parties. Yeah. Okay. So we have we have not yet had rebuttals. Got it? Okay, looks like he’s coming back with his hand raised with his hand raised. Actually, I I still have a few more questions. And then we’ll get to commissionable. donburi chat. Um, can you explain? I know that there’s been a fair amount of development history. Ms. Teddy lives in the Schlegel neighborhood Can you explain to me why does the unincorporated Schlegel neighborhood have its utilities provided by the city of Walmart? Why would she be paying her utility bill to the city at Walmart?
Unknown Speaker 1:10:18
That’s one of the few subdivision that was built before I started. So probably not going to be able to give you the right answer. Chairman, I could, I can wager a guess. But I’m, I would be guessing, and I don’t I don’t think that’s fair. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:37
Um, would it would it be?
Unknown Speaker 1:10:42
Let me let me phrase it in a in a more broad sort of question. Does the city sometimes for provide utilities to addresses that are not officially in the city of Walmart’s boundaries that are in unincorporated parts of of the county?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:03
Chairman Schoeneck. We do? Yes, we do. Okay,
Unknown Speaker 1:11:07
and if we provide utilities then that address in that property on our pays utilities to the city of Longmont, but are they there for a resident of the city of Longmont because they’re paying for for gas and electric or gas but electric that they used from us?
Unknown Speaker 1:11:23
Chairman Chernykh they’re, they’re not considered a resident. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:31
I have more questions, but we have more hands up. So Commissioner polling.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:36
Thank you, and I’m sorry about that. I had that nasty old computer battery run out. Real quickly done. Can you explain what the differences between having a long mailing address versus being a city resident is? So
Unknown Speaker 1:12:00
again, this is this is my, my understanding is that a resident of Longmont as someone who lives within the corporate limits of the city of Longmont. They pay taxes to the city of LA, someone who has a llama address could live in any of our zip codes that were determined to be considered Longmont by the post office. We have no sandals. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:27
And I also do want to make no to that. I did come across this a few years ago, in looking at our the residency requirement to serve on a board committee or commission it does say live in the city of Longmont for one year and I do know that that does not mean have a law my mailing address that it means being in the incorporated Longmont area, actually. So just want to also make note of that.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:58
Commissioner hug Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:09
Between a terry Wilson raised an issue regarding interpretation of legal standards and what’s the appropriate legal requirement. And when I start looking at the level of review that was referenced in our packet, it’s 15 Oh 2040 K eight. appeals of decision final actions by the director or staff are made to Planning and Zoning where we hold a de novo review. I think I understand what the normal is but could you attorney may explain to the Commission what the novo review entails.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:55
Certainly Commissioner heit, de novo review means a new so you are not bound by the previous interpretations of the planning director and you are able to receive evidence and base your decision on that new evidence presented at this hearing.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:15
So, to be more specific, I asked brand director then we can guarantee his interpretation of what city resident of Longmont what that term meant, what an official city of Longmont address, man, we’re not bound by that. We the commission gets to make its own determination, which is subject to review for abuse of discretion. But we need to make our own decision as to what these terms mean. And that’s what we’re asked to do tonight. Correct?
Unknown Speaker 1:14:46
Correct. And at the Davo hearing is a new correct that’s all I had.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:54
Unknown Speaker 1:14:56
Yeah, I have a question, I think for planning manager brochette as well. I’m in SGR requirements to, or I guess the definitions to provide proof of residency. Based on the discussions tonight that we’ve had so far. I don’t see how any of those by themselves would prove that they live in the city of Longmont. One is proof of a valid motor vehicle registration, proof of a voter registration, federal or state tax returns or other financial documentation, a utility bill. Um, I don’t see how any of those on their own, they could all say, you know, the appellant has a utility bill that city along that she has a driver’s license, how do any of those show that you’re actually in this city?
Unknown Speaker 1:15:58
missioner Kohler Chairman Chernykh. The documentation that we’ve asked for common items, that would be official documents that would contain an address that the person has stated as their official address, we would then use that and look on the city’s website or our Boulder County tools through the Boulder County Assessor’s to determine whether or not that address is within the city of Baltimore. So that just gives us proof that the person who’s claiming to be a resident of Longmont has an address that’s officially recognized by more than one group as their official address. And we’re then using that to confirm whether or not they’re a restaurant. Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:56
I have a question for our council representative. Council Member Rodriguez. Commissioner on Iran brought up a very good point, my dispensary example was not the best. And Commissioner on pointed out that the issue of proximity is is really what’s at play. What can you tell us about the city council’s intention as Commissioner Oberon pointed out, we need to know the council’s intention. What was your intention about proximity? And what does the council shall we say view as the the driving intent the primary intent the the most important reason as to why the STR property on our needs to be a resident of the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:12
So I think it’s somewhat inappropriate to talk about a previous counsels intent, because we’ve gone through an election cycle. And I do not have the ability to talk about the current Council’s intent when we are speaking on this. As well as it’s not really appropriate for me to speak on the previous councils intent in the sense that I am one of seven voices in that I guess, decision. What I will tell you is that the council wants to ensure that we do not have folks that also have Longmont addresses, it could be say based in gun barrel for instance, because there are Longmont addresses and gun barrel. These are United States Postal Service decided addresses. We have Longmont addresses in Frederick and Firestone, if you will, and so, so we’re trying to ensure that we do not have folks who are say running for counsel, because we’ve heard allegations of that for folks that live in in Frederick and Firestone. And we’ve seen similar kinds of techniques based out of folks that live in places that are unincorporated, such as portions of gun barrel, general other unincorporated places in Boulder County, as well as Weld County. So I think that if we’re really going to talk about Council intent, we need to have the council’s input on that. Not just the liaison for this circumstance. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:09
Thank you very much. Commissioner Koehler. Sorry, I just
Unknown Speaker 1:20:16
forgot to lower my hand.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:18
Okay. All right.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:25
More questions? I guess I
Unknown Speaker 1:20:36
do have one more. Yes, please go ahead. Um, so given that we’ve already, they’ve had at least one denial before of the previous situation. And then we have this appeal. Has staff had any discussions on clarifying the definition in the text, or maybe related to any other issues like this as in the code? Commissioner,
Unknown Speaker 1:21:09
excuse me, sorry, Commissioner Koehler, Chairman, chair, neck. You know, the, the code itself, as we use the code there, there’s always items that we find that need to be additional clarification or minor revisions in order to ensure that we have consistency and that it’s, it’s clear for everyone. You know, as I’ve gone through this, in preparation for this meeting, and looking at it, I do think there are some things that we should clarify, and in this to clean up some of the ambiguities that have been pointed out in the hearing by the appellant. Personally, I don’t think they’re ambiguous. I think that, you know, it says, a resident of Longmont. And I think that’s pretty clear. But if, you know, we, we believe that there are things that should be cleaned up, then we would do that. But right now, we’re we’re not we’re not looking at making changes to the section.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:21
We believe it is clear. Commissioner polling, did you have a question? I saw your hand up earlier. Yeah, no,
Unknown Speaker 1:22:35
I I was thinking about but then not going to ask it. So.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:39
Unknown Speaker 1:22:41
I have a question for city attorney may.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:46
Unknown Speaker 1:22:51
As our council representative rightly pointed out, he cannot speak on behalf of of counseling and the prior counsel on their intent. How do you advise the commission? When we are trying to think about counsel intent? Can we are we restricted to looking just at the code of the ordinance? What?
Unknown Speaker 1:23:21
Chair? In this circumstance, the overriding concern that I see is that the Commission make his decision based on evidence presented at the hearing. legislative intent in our legislative process, or primarily Council communications from when the ordinance was passed by city council, and then the discussion at the City Council at that time, you know, that evidence has not been presented at this hearing. Maybe it’s something in future hearings that the Commission may be interested in being apprised of or contained in the packet. But, you know, given where we are tonight, right now, it would be difficult to discern legislative intent based on the evidence in the staff president.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:12
Okay. Then I also have a have a question. I’m not an attorney. And Mr. Wilson, presented a principle of law from 1882. About finding in favor of the public, I’m wondering, attorney may Could you give me your interpretation of what Mr. Wilson is referring to?
Unknown Speaker 1:24:42
I think it was the principle that there should be free use of property. If there is ambiguity I have to say I don’t know that case. There was no brief provided for review. These are just citations you know, Verbal Citation. that I’m not familiar with.
Unknown Speaker 1:25:03
Unknown Speaker 1:25:07
a number of different principles, I think applicable here. We went through some of the statutory interpretation type principles. There are certainly common law and other statutory principles regarding the use of real property. And I think that the commission would consider all of those. Four making this decision, I mean, goes into the mixer. And if staff would like to rebut, that’s an opportunity to hear another viewpoint. I don’t think it’s really my role to address particular arguments made by the parties. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:00
Further questions before we go to rebuttals? Commissioner pollen?
Unknown Speaker 1:26:08
I guess what what this boils down to me is in for a for where it talks about the pieces of documentation at the short term rental is a resident of the city of Longmont. It I guess it comes down to what we interpret as the resident of the city of Longmont. And to me does that means she can be a resident of unincorporated Boulder County where there are certain jurisdictions and certain code that she needs to do certain things on her property and can then she also be a city resident of Longmont, where there may be conflicting codes. For instance, if she wanted to rent her primary residence right now, would that be considered a city of Longmont a resident of the city of Longmont? Or would she be considered a resident unincorporated Boulder County? Or does she get to pick and choose which one because obviously, to me sheets, first a unincorporated Boulder County resident and that would take the primary jurisdiction but that’s just my thoughts like to hear some other thoughts on that.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:24
Okay, well, we we might get to to that deeper discussion after the rebuttals but Commissioner height
Unknown Speaker 1:27:33
as I said, before we started going down that rabbit hole, I think we need to listen to dogs. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:40
We’re before we discussed Commissioner Colin’s point where we’d like to go through rebuttals first. So, let’s see. Okay, we will do the rebuttals in the order that the presentations were done. So city staff will reboot first.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:08
Thank you, Chairman Chernykh. Dane, do you have anything that you would like to get into the record first, before I go,
Unknown Speaker 1:28:15
and nothing to add? Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:20
I have a few things that I’d like to point out and make sure that the commission has an understanding of first I believe the ordinance is clear. The term that is used is resident of long. That is the question that’s here. There is another term Longmont resident, but it’s used in a different section and the choose to determine whether or not a person is a real person so that a corporation can’t own a property and claim to be a person.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:56
Unknown Speaker 1:28:59
in the council communication, which is a printout from Boulder County website, which shows trying to hold this up even though attachment against six is in your packet. There’s a map, it shows the location of that applicants residence, the primary residence shows that it is not located in the city limits of Longmont. It is in an unincorporated Boulder County and it also says what jurisdiction it’s in it says jurisdiction unincorporated Boulder County does not say long. It doesn’t. So when we look at the information that we have available to make the determination of whether or not this is in fact a resident of Longmont
Unknown Speaker 1:29:54
Miss Teddy is not
Unknown Speaker 1:29:57
and we don’t have the ability to interpret in the way this She asked us to, so it was denied. And that’s all that I’d have for you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:08
Thank you done. Mr. Wilson and Miss Teddy. If we can have your rebuttal.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:18
Sure. And before we deliver that, just want to thank the members of the commission and everyone present tonight for your time and consideration. I touched on this in response to a question a little bit earlier, but all of the evidence needed to rule in misstated favor is in the STR ordinance itself. It says two different things resident of Longmont RIT Longmont resident, but there’s a third, there’s a third phrase or a third meaning, which is separate and distinct from both of those. And that’s a resident of the city of Longmont. And in the ordinance itself, that appears in in two places. The first of all, the STR property has to be within the city of Longmont. And then there are also options for factors documents that could be considered is sort of a factor tests. No one document is dispositive showing that an STR belongs to a resident of the city of Longmont, but it doesn’t appear anywhere else in the ordinance. And I think we’ve already heard in some of the discussions just now, at least an understanding or consideration that may be the ordinance could stand to be cleaned up a bit. I also heard directly some of this ambiguity. And I seize on that because there is no there is no question with respect to the governing law that if there is ambiguity, the ordinance has to be construed in favor of the property owner in favor the free and unrestricted use of property that that’s binding Colorado Supreme Court precedent. And respectfully, all of this, you know, we’ve talked about a few different issues turn this feel the sun in a few different ways talking about zip codes, which are of course signed by the post office, driver’s license. Gosh, I remember the last time I fill out an application must have been when I moved to Colorado 15 years ago. But none of those are dispositive at all. I mean, as city attorney may noted, at the beginning, I believe and correct me if I’m wrong, I know someone mentioned it. And I agree wholeheartedly that the analysis ideally should begin and end with the plain language of the statute, or the ordinance. And this case, there are several different phrases being used and presumably, words meaning things, those phrases need to mean different things. It’s possible that there could have been a proofreading error I can see as between the phrases resident of Longmont and Longmont resident can’t really form a principal distinction between those two, but as between those two, and the definition of a resident of the city of Longmont as a different thing. There’s no question at the Emory house is located within the city of Longmont. And we didn’t get to get to the point where the commission or or staff or anyone else could have weighed in on what forms of proof of residency might be required as someone who lives in Longmont, but not within the corporate limits, such as mistake. And couple of individual concerns that I would like to I would like to respond to sites that we did have some discussion about the purpose of the STR ordinance, and about how there was there is and was a valid concern. My view that that the property owner who owns who has an STR license owns an STR property be invested in Longmont. There is no doubt that mistake he is invested in Longmont, she’s already invested more than $30,000 in improvements to fix up the emery house. In contrast, next door to the Emory house, there’s a long term rental, not subject to this ordinance or any of these debates, which is in severe disrepair, and a dead tree fell off onto her electric box a couple of weeks ago, sometime in the very recent past, because of the dogs were the damage. So when we talked about the policy of being invested in Longmont as a prerequisite for obtaining an STR license. We agree wholeheartedly, and we don’t believe that that any perceived lack. First of all, there’s no principle distinction between the investment of a short term rental owner of a short term rental property and the owner of a long term rental property. And in the case of this exact block, it’s actually the opposite. There are no requirements like this for a long term rental anyone buy anything rented to whomever. And there are legitimate concerns about responsiveness, availability, those sorts of things. Those have all been met here. And
Unknown Speaker 1:34:59
there has been no evidence from staff regarding their thought process. As to the determination that Longmont resident or resident of Longmont meant resident of the city of Longmont, where that language doesn’t appear in the ordinance. Respectfully, it seems like we’re after the fact talking about what they might have thought. But as the attorney may noted, in Novo hearing, this is a new record. And the decision should be based on the evidence and argument presented at the hearing. And, frankly, there’s not enough information on the record anywhere to know what staff thought when they denied this application. mean that with all due respect, but it there’s there’s no meaningful way to know what they meant. And we haven’t heard any evidence tonight that provides any compelling basis for how these three different phases somehow all mean, the same thing. With respect to we’ve also talked about investment in the community through the form of payment of taxes. And it’s ironic, because what mistake is asking for here is to obtain a license, which would allow her to pay taxes to the city of Lima. And the options are, you know, a short term rental license and in which case, the city would receive, you know, a percentage of it three lodging tax, and a long term rental license, in which case the city would not receive anything like that.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:39
Just one moment, please just want to make sure that I’ve mentioned everything that I meant to. Think I have I just think in conclusion, respectfully as the commission I resist the temptation to superimpose language onto the ordinance, it’s not there to take a hyper technical interpretation of one possible form of proof of ownership, such as a zip code. So such as whether or not she’s running for city council, those are, those are totally separate issues, and respectfully not at all relevant to what we’re talking about here. Miss Daly would like to take the opportunity to speak directly to the commission, and for the remainder of our rebuttal. And again, thank you all for your time tonight and for your attention and care to this matter. Thank you permission.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:30
Longmont is where I work as a small business owner, Beaumont is where I play and recreate. In short, I am a proud and invested resident of Longmont with exactly the type of commitment to the community and immediate access to my STR that city council designed the STR ordinance to encourage based on the language that was available. I invested in a property pursuing an opportunity to not only make additional income, but to share everything I love about my community with visitors to Longmont in a way that supports locally owned small businesses and restaurants. I believe in Longmont and have invested in the city as a result, I plan to operate in a manner that is beneficial and respectful to fellow members of the community that I am a member of and in which I myself live. Thank you. And I just might add that I have lived in a number of places. And I just want to thank Dane and dawn for their kindness throughout this whole process. And I don’t think I’ve ever encountered city employees that were as helpful and friendly as them so thank you to both of them.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:52
Thank you very much Miss Teddy and Mr. Wilson. He are now in number six on our procedure Planning Commission discussion. If we ask further questions to staff, then we would have another round of rebuttals. Doesn’t mean we can’t ask questions to staff. You’re not precluded from doing so but then we will go through more rebuttals. So let’s proceed with our discussion. Anybody want to take it
Unknown Speaker 1:39:28
off? Commissioner Hey.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:37
Are we gonna unmute myself lower by hand. So at what we’ve been presented holistically with a fresh look, we’ll be next to by the appellant to agree with her the terms used in the short term rental statute are ambiguous, specifically that the term and protection I guess it’s for the record 15 Oh 2080 d to be entire dwelling unit constitutes second investment dwelling resident dwelling of a resident of Longmont is ambiguous. Visa V. The language used in subsection four a four, which requires showing documentation indicates short term rental is applicants primary resident or that the short term rental is a resident of the city of long lives, second, or investment property. So the two terms are, one.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:47
Whether or not it’s a
Unknown Speaker 1:40:52
dwelling of a resident of Longmont versus whether or not the short term rental is a resident of the city of Long lines second investment property. The language is not exact, but I’m not convinced that the use of the exact language means two different things. To me, the clear intent of the statute is ordinance is to require that a rental property a second non primary resident property that’s going to be used for short term rental has to be owned by a resident of the city of Longmont. And that’s for sure that it’s an artful the way it’s presented. But regardless, it’s clear to me that a person who is not a resident of the city of long lived cannot own a short term rental are cannot be granted a license for short term rental in the city of LA. So I’m going to have to vote to uphold the determination of staff and deny the appeal.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:03
Unknown Speaker 1:42:07
you when I heard the rebuttal, and I know that planning manager Burchette hold up a sheet illustrating or showing basically, if we could have seen it exactly where the property is located. I’ve had some familiarity with working with property searches in Boulder County for my own purposes, not relating to this property. And since staff has done their research, and can verify where the property is, and indeed it is not within the limits of Longmont. I think I have to again support staff decision I’m not sure. Well,
Unknown Speaker 1:43:06
hearing from attorney may, made me realize that, you know, the code language itself is the only way we can interpret the into the intention behind it because, you know, we cannot ask to counsel I mean, even though it makes sense in terms of planning wise, but the code, use the Longmont resident, it doesn’t provide a map, it doesn’t talk about proximity doesn’t give a mileage it says Longmont resident, and that kind of limits our focus on the language itself. And when I’m confronted with that, I agree with previous comments that that means the city of Longmont is that is to say that’s the right interpretation of that term, in my opinion. And even though I sympathize with the appellant a lot in this particular case, I need to agree with Commissioner heights that that’s and Dumbo chat about the interpretation of the term
Unknown Speaker 1:44:12
Oh, add my two cents that I I also feel for Miss Teddy. In terms of I absolutely don’t doubt her intention of being a really great person who works in Longmont and has bought this property and wants to do good things with it. But there is a slippery slope problem we’re faced with as well. And I think this becomes really clear just how slippery that’s what gets, given what we learned about the zip codes. If we were to
Unknown Speaker 1:45:00
open up our
Unknown Speaker 1:45:05
permits for an STTR to somebody who is proximal to Longmont, or has a mailing address with a Longmont zip code, or one that’s considered warm on zip code. Then it actually turns out as we learned from councilmember Rodriguez, that that could include people who are living in gun barrel and in parts of Firestone, and that is what I mean by slippery slope. Miss Teddy is correct. She’s very close. Um, she’s very close to the property that that she bought. But, um, but if we were to give her an exception, then I think it will open floodgates to many other people asking for a similar exception. And then we’ve lost the purpose of the ordinance, which is to not have absentee landlord. Commissioner honor on another question.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:14
Unknown Speaker 1:46:15
sorry, I forgot to.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:16
Okay. All right. Commissioner teta.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:24
So I am personally very sympathetic to the apple and I I would like to think that the intent was to keep outside interests from owning properties that were turned into short term rentals. And I’d like to think that we could consider the greater Longmont area. And if you lived in gunbarrel, for example, I think that would in fact, be close enough. I mean, I realized that this requires revisiting the code, but we were part of the code. Construction, I think to begin with, and I’m not I’m not convinced that it was the intent of anybody who wrote the code that that the primary resident had to be within the city specifically.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:18
commissionable? Thank you. Um,
Unknown Speaker 1:47:25
you know, as we talked about, it’s the simplest reading of the term and I agree with Commissioner hight, whether you go to 15 Oh, D to B, or you go to 15 Oh, D for a subsection for the term, whether you say a resident of the city of Longmont, or resident of Longmont. To me, it’s both clear that we are looking for somebody who resides within the incorporated area of the city of Longmont. Whether that’s right, whether that needs to be reevaluated at some point, that’s not our Determined Determination or determination is reading what the code says. And based on what I read the way I interpreted the simplest way, it means that it’s a resident of the city of Long, Matt, which means somebody who is incorporated in Longmont. So I would be in favor of upholding the Planning Commission or the planning refusal of this commission.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:38
Yeah, I’m gonna have to agree with the other Commissioners, I do think that the code applies to the city. You know, just as you Chairman Chernykh mentioned that we wouldn’t be able to apply code to unincorporated Boulder County residents, so it doesn’t seem like the opposite should be be true. I think the city council intended that this applies to the city of Longmont. Now, personally, I don’t I think that should be revisited. I don’t know that this is the right answer to have someone who’s but for all intensive purposes, you know, living in Longmont recreating in Longmont to not be able to take advantage of this, but I do think it’s what the code requires. And so I do hope that if this is revisited that the appellant would reapply and try again then.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:28
Thank you, Commissioner Paul.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:31
Yep, thank you at this time, based on the discussions we have I would move that we approve PCR 2021 13 Eight
Unknown Speaker 1:49:44
Okay, we have a motion to approve PCR 2021 13 A, which to be clear, would uphold the denial of the STR license. Basically, it’s a It’s agreeing with the plan directors decision. Do we have more discussion? Do we have a second? Commissioner height second. Okay. Commissioner height has seconded Commissioner Poland’s motion to approve PCR 2021 Dash 13 A. Any more discussion amongst the commission see none what’s take a roll call vote. Commissioner High. High. Commissioner flaig Aye. Commissioner teta Nay. Commissioner Koehler? Aye. Commissioner on our own. I Commissioner Polen i i will vote also vote. Yes. So James that passes six to one with Commissioner teta. dissenting, dissenting. Thank you. I couldn’t remember the word. I do not have a process statement that gets read at this point. So, Mr. Wilson, Miss teta? Teddy, thank you very much for coming and explaining your appeal to us. And we wish you well. We have more to our agenda. So we will continue on with that. Thank you. Thanks again. We’re moving on to item seven, eight, which is our electronic participation policy discussion. We all received this in our packet. And then we also received an updated document from Jane and by email, which you all should have. Commissioner hate? Would you care to why I believe you made some of the edits in what James sent to us, would you care to walk us through that?
Unknown Speaker 1:52:29
Certainly, I will. And I apologize. jch version two, I didn’t realize at the time that version one had already been included in the packet. So we don’t really need to pay attention to version two. Back when we were first going to discuss this maybe in the spring or summer of this year, what we’re going to do with the continuation of COVID and how we were going to conduct meetings electronically. We needed to develop a process to do so I’d written version, one of my comments to send to then assistant attorney or deputy attorney, Teresa Tate was some comments of what I thought she might want to take a look at and changes coming around. But in encapsulates what I think we might want to address to the extent that this document can be I think it was originally prepared to apply to all conditions. And if we can adopt it just for planning and zoning, these are the things that I thought we would talk about, specifically, if you pull up the first document, not version two, but the first document in the statement of the general policy, you know, subpart, two subpart. A, you know, we get to make a determination of when we’re going to have this electronic participation meeting for good cause shown.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:58
I think we should
Unknown Speaker 1:54:01
backtrack into that by having a certain number of days by which we’re going to make that determination. Sometimes you probably can’t do that if it’s truly an edge circumstance, there’s a tornado and we can’t be we can’t meet or there’s a tornado that acts out the whatever, the building gets knocked down, and we’re going to have to meet somewhere else. Otherwise, we should make this determination a certain number of days beforehand. So I had added a placeholder, so to speak for the possibility of discussing the determining what would be the number of days by which we would make this determination and how would we meet this number of days beforehand? Would we email we’re not really supposed to have a meeting more than two of us without notice, but we have to make this determination. I thought possibly we could just delegate the determination to the chair Could the chair make this determination? So that’s what’s going on in subpart? A. Section two subpart. B, the technology needs to everybody here at least hear and fee. I guess we’d like but do we absolutely have to have that? What do we think about? Do we have to be able? Does it have to be audio and visual, this kind of electronic participation?
Unknown Speaker 1:55:36
We should think about that.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:42
subpart C, everyone should be allowed to speak. There must be more than speaking as involved. Participation sometimes includes making an audio visual presentation, there’s, you know, we have, you know, slide decks that are routinely presented to us.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:02
Unknown Speaker 1:56:05
we should encourage that, do we have to? Is the meeting no good if we can’t allow someone to present their PowerPoint presentation? Thank you. Another thing to think about. D was to allow the public to oversee what we do. It’s a public meeting, you know, in days of yore, people could come to city council meetings and watch us they wanted to, we were on television, people could watch us on television, like we’re on television now. So we should make sure that the technology allows that to occur. He goes by roll call, we do that. Already. minutes, we we do that already.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:59
So G was what the what notice came out? Again, was there a time period by which we have to give notice, before we have this electronic participation form of meeting it you know what that notice needs to require. So part three, I really just tried to make it more consistent with what happens now, which is that, you know, our recording secretary Jane Madrid reaches out to us and says, you know, hey, we’re going to have a meeting next week. Here’s the packet, please let me know if you’re going to participate. We indicate back to her. Yeah, we’re going to be there. No, I’m not going to be there. The day of the IT coordinator, Dallas today sent us an email of how we’re going to participate or an email link of how we’re going to get into the meeting. I just tried to make the part three consistent with with those issues. And again, to prevent tampering, to allow an ability to get back into the meeting like commission Poland had to deal with this this evening. So those were my comments to our electronic participation. Protocol.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:28
Anybody have any thoughts are? Actually, Glenn and Dawn, quick question for you. Do we need to approve a version of this tonight? Are we going to have a problem for January if we don’t come up with something tonight?
Unknown Speaker 1:58:53
Um, maybe I’ll ask Jane. I think we are still under the previous policy or was that determined it had to we had to determine an emergency in order to use it or or Eugene would probably give us a good good answer on that
Unknown Speaker 1:59:12
commission, eg may city attorneys.
Unknown Speaker 1:59:16
So the board and
Unknown Speaker 1:59:19
commission electronic participation policy sort of followed what council was doing. The council electronic participation policy was implemented in response to the global pandemic for COVID. It was triggered by a declared state of emergency disaster. That determination or declaration was rescinded by the city manager sometime in the summer. So planning Zoning Commission I understand has been operating remote for several months with a new policy under consideration. I think that this policy would establish the expectations and put into practice what the commission has been doing. I think for Open Meetings purposes, it open meetings law purposes, open meetings law, specifically contemplates electronic meetings. And so we are in violation of state statutes. And, you know, if you want to get technical if you are, have an ordinance or policy under consideration, you can act like that, while the formal process takes place. So, short answer is no, I don’t think you’re in trouble. If you meet in January, or today or tonight, electronically, I think it is best practices to have an electronic participation policy in place creates expectation for the board members and the public, you know, on how these meetings are going to be conducted. But from Open Meetings perspective, I think we’re fine.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:06
Okay, thank you, Commissioner bowl.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:11
Thank you. So Commissioner. Hi. I really think I, to me, the one thing to be discussed is section two a, where it says number of days prior to meeting exigent circumstances. So is that like, basically Part A and Part B where we can say, if we decide that we need to have this meeting electronically, we need to provide seven days, 14 days whatever the notices, or if there is an exigent circumstance that eliminates the need to do a number of day prior notice. And does exigent circumstance mean? weather related doesn’t mean a health issue? Like COVID?
Unknown Speaker 2:02:03
So a couple things. Yeah. It does mean that we should pick a number of days before our hearing by which we’re going to make a determination if we’re going to have you back Tronic participation. If we’re going to adopt electronic participation in response to something that we think is going to be long term, ie like the pandemic has turned out to be, we might want to set that date in our determined in our initial determination. exigent circumstances, in my mind are things that are completely unexpected and immediate, to which you need an immediate response. So COVID kind of turned out to be a little exigent. In February of 2020. We had to do something we weren’t allowed to meet together, we had to figure out a new way to participate. Other circumstances that are going to be exigent, whether the building gets torn down by a tornado are going to be circumstances where we’re not going to be able to meet anyhow. We’re going to have to come up with a whole new way of meeting. So I don’t know if that answers your question. exigent meaning something that requires an immediate response. Well, I’m not going to be able to make a determination seven days in advance.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:33
Right. So I guess that begs the question, if we have an exigent circumstance, would we still want to follow through with a meeting?
Unknown Speaker 2:03:42
Probably not, right?
Unknown Speaker 2:03:46
Because, yes, so let’s say there’s a tornado in the area, do we really want to be Do we still want to have our meeting? Or do we do are we able to go ahead? I guess that’s the question to to maybe city attorney Eugene may something like there’s a tornado warning, are we allowed to postpone our meeting?
Unknown Speaker 2:04:13
Permission commission? You know, I think the first consideration is the safety of the board members. You know, and not to be cavalier, we’ll deal with the rest later. You know, like, judge is going to Dania for canceling a meeting, you know, a posted land use application. If you feel your safety is in danger. We would certainly support the board in doing that. And I think you raise a good point on it’s hard to imagine all the exigent circumstance you know, we had the big flood. We got COVID I don’t think any of us were thinking either those events were gonna go on. Yeah, no start. In the matter of the day today. We got you know, Oh, hurricane force winds out there. So, you know, I do think it’s a policy decision by the commissioner. And, you know, the direction from City Council in the city clerk’s office was let the boards decide what makes the most sense for them.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:16
So I guess, then for me the the number of days prior to the meeting, if it’s not an exigent circumstance to give the public good notice, I’m thinking what two weeks Does that sound about? Right?
Unknown Speaker 2:05:36
Unknown Speaker 2:05:39
Sounds sounds about right to me, but Jane Glenn Dawn, in terms of noticing and, and making sure that the process can be managed.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:52
From my end, noticing wise, I’m required to notice it in the newspaper times call five days prior to the meeting. So I mean, we can go up, we could make a decision up to that point. And notice that other than I shouldn’t say that, because we do have our notices that go out. Public Hearing notices that do go out two weeks before the meeting. So that’s probably a good time to decide. You know, whether you’re going to meet virtually or in person, and then again, if it’s an emergency, like you’ve talked about that would change everything anyway. So.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:30
And Commissioner polling, when you say two weeks, do you mean calendar days or business days?
Unknown Speaker 2:06:38
Unknown Speaker 2:06:39
Okay. Yeah, I think Jane has a two week deadline that that probably should be our deadline dude.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:57
Personally, I don’t I mean, Commissioner, I think your your edits are are spot on. I don’t have any issue with him. What I think we could do is I don’t think approving something tonight on on a version that I’m looking at that that has multiple red line. Comments would be appropriate. Instead, it’d be nice to see a cleaned up version come in front of the Commission in January and January is when a lot of housekeeping work is done anyway. And I would suggest that the commission would take a vote on on a cleaned up version at January’s meeting. Any thoughts on that?
Unknown Speaker 2:07:52
I would be acceptable to that. Yes.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:00
Eugene, I don’t really want to own this document any more than you already do? Do you have staff that can finalize it?
Unknown Speaker 2:08:11
We certainly do. We could take it from here.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:14
Unknown Speaker 2:08:18
Any any more thoughts or comments about it? Otherwise?
Unknown Speaker 2:08:22
Did you send us a word redline version? I can. I think I sent my last version to Jane was by we’re okay. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:34
I’m pretty sure. Yes. Yes, I
Unknown Speaker 2:08:36
think it was. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:41
Oh, by the way, I just there was one point. Commissioner height you asked about whether the commissioner should be visible. Should be seen during the meetings, if the meetings are electronic? My opinion is yes. Because I think it’s important for the public to see that we are attending that I mean, literally have our attention. I can turn off my camera and sit on the other side of the room and and have this going in the background but that’s not really attending to the meeting. So I think I think having cameras on really is an important thing here. So shall we pass this off to the city attorney’s office, they’ll clean it up and bring it back for January.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:34
I would agree with that. Yep. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:38
All right. Commissioner teta gave a thumbs up earlier. Commissioner honor on okay. Thumbs up Commissioner Koehler. Thumbs up Okay, so we’re all agreed it’ll come back in January to be voted upon. All right. Um, Item eight on our agendas final call for public Comment. So Dallas if we could put the slide up
Unknown Speaker 2:10:09
great. If anybody in the public would like to call in and make any comments to the commission, now’s the time, please call 188878880099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 86860861062. When are ready to hear public comment, we’ll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the livestream when you’re called upon to speak. To do this, we need five minutes we’ll be back at 916
Unknown Speaker 2:15:13
chair, we are approaching the five minute mark, and I am not seeing any callers in the chat right now.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:21
Okay, thank you, Dallas. We’ll give it just a little bit more time. Okay, so Dallas if we can get caught up with the live stream and just let us know.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:36
And you’re good.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:38
Okay, so nobody called in so seeing no one we will close the public invited to be heard. And go to Item nine on our agenda, which is items from the Commission. As always, thank you to, to Jane, and Dallas and to Susan, who have been doing all of the work behind the scenes, helping us with all the technicalities. can’t do without y’all. So thank you very much, Commissioner honor on now,
Unknown Speaker 2:16:09
lately, I’m getting a lot of interest about my professional planning and architecture work in Longmont. And because of that, I decided to resign. This is my last meeting, I realized that I can be much more productive and helpful in Longmont development as a professional service provider. So I really enjoyed my experience with you and enjoyed discussing with every one of you. And hopefully in the near future, you’re going to see me as applicants representation, representative and will come in front of you. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:51
Well, thank you. Park it really it’s been a pleasure serving with you and and having you on the commission and always have made me think quite a bit about what’s been in front of us. So really appreciate it. You actually have given me a great segue to what I was going to mention, which is we have some changes to the commission. So Michael Pollan, I believe, if I understand right, you have been reappointed for another term as a regular member, congratulations.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:30
I appreciate it. Thank
Unknown Speaker 2:17:31
you. I too, have decided to end my service. As of this. This is my last meeting. So it’s been 11 years for me, I’m serving on this commission as an alternate and regular member. So I’m ending one year early. My I was going to be term limited at the end of next year. But Commissioner Lukash, who has been an alternate for us, she’s been appointed as a regular member, she will fill the one year remaining on my term, we have a new alternate to fill Commissioner, the cautious, alternate position, and that is someone named Amy Saunders, who I believe has prior boards and commissions experience with the city. And so, yeah, I, this has been a great, great experience for me. And really, it’s, it’s just been a fabulous way to give to our town and I look around the city and I see projects that that we’ve been involved with, and and I think back on the discussions and what what’s changed, and I’m really proud to say that I’ve I can see good positive changes to Longmont. So thank you all Commissioner Polen. Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 2:19:03
I just want to say it’s been an honor both serving with Commissioner on Iran, and also with you, Chairman Chernykh. So wish you to both the best of luck in and appreciate all the work that you’ve done.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:14
Thank you very much. Appreciate that. All right. Oh, Commissioner flake.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:21
Yeah, you know,
Unknown Speaker 2:19:23
people say it all the time, you will be missed, but you will both of you be missed, because I look forward to the comments that are made. And I think they contribute to our discussions and our decisions. And, and I think chair you have run the meetings exceedingly well. And for that, I’m very grateful.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:47
Well, thank you very much. Sometimes have bottled a few things and the memory doesn’t always work quite right either. But thank you any items from our council representative Aaron Rodriguez.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:04
Well, this is a bit unexpected for me. But thank you so much to Commissioner on around for your service and as well as to cherish Munich. It’s been, you know, definitely a pleasure serving with you this entire time. And I wish you the best of luck in the future and Happy Holidays to all the commissioners and the staff that are still on the call. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:27
Thank you very much. items from our planning director Glenn Veneman again
Unknown Speaker 2:20:37
Well, I just echo the same feelings. I met Michael when I first walked in the door. So you’ve, you’ve helped me out quite a bit. And cork cat as well. I think both of you brought a little bit more depth to all the discussions so you will be missed and, and I like to thank all the planning commissioners. This was a tough one tonight. Everybody gave it their all and I really appreciate that. So yeah, enjoy your holidays. And it will be a new year when we’re back.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:09
Alright, thank you, Glen. Happy New Year to everyone.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:11
Take care. Go go.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:14
Good luck. Thank you. Thanks. The new year. Thank you.