Longmont Planning & Zoning Commission 11/17/2021
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/V1o7A6mK2A33Kv14LKAnPhT__RE
Unknown Speaker 0:02
very much. Welcome everybody to the February 16 2022 lawmen planning Zoning Commission. I call this meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is Roll Call.
Unknown Speaker 0:13
Chairman Polin, here, Mr. flag here. Vice Chairman Goldberg. Here. Commissioner height. Mr to catch here. Mr. teta? Here. Commissioner Saunders. Here. Chairman, you have a quorum.
Unknown Speaker 0:32
Thank you very much. And I want to welcome on board. Commissioner Saunders. I’m right now I have to I have a thing here. Anyone wishing to speak during public and private to be heard, which are items number four, and number eight on our agenda, or during any public hearing items, which are items six, eight and six B 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 when 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 live stream when you’re called upon to speak. At this time, we have communications and we have done portrait planning manager.
Unknown Speaker 1:33
Good evening, everyone Poland, members of the commission. Dawn filling in for Glen tonight. The only thing that I wanted to do was make a quick introduction. We have a new planner who is attending the meeting tonight. And her name is Jennifer Apperson. She’s a senior planner for us. And Jennifer comes to us by way of the city of Loveland where she was a senior planner there. Her experience is in development review long range planning and historic preservation. And for us, she’s going to be doing primarily development review in the historic preservation so you will be seeing her at some of your meetings and we just wanted to introduce her and see it a face with a name when you saw a staff report. So that’s all that I had for tonight.
Unknown Speaker 2:19
Thank you Dan, and welcome, Jennifer.
Unknown Speaker 2:21
Unknown Speaker 2:24
Next item on our list is item number four which is public comment. Comments are limited to five minutes per speaker. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing through Hold, please dial 1-888-788-0099 which is the toll free United States number. When prompted enter the meeting ID 84589092559. When we are ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. We will take a five minute break to allow people to call it thank you
Unknown Speaker 7:24
Chairman Poland we are about 15 seconds out from the five minute mark. Currently we have no callers. Okay, thank you. Once I see the rest of the team online, I will drop the slide and still no callers.
Unknown Speaker 7:52
Okay, we will go ahead and close out the public comment. Next item is item number five, which is Approval of the minutes for January 19 2020. Do we have any questions? Any Commissioner height? Moved to approve last month’s minutes. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?
Unknown Speaker 8:20
Commissioner Goldberg Oh, Second. Chairman.
Unknown Speaker 8:25
We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Any comments? If not, let’s go ahead and take a vote Jane.
Unknown Speaker 8:34
Chairman polis. Yes. Commissioner flake? Yes. Vice Chairman Goldberg. Yes. Commissioner Heights High. Commissioner to catch. Yes. Commissioner teta? Yes. Commissioner Saunders abstain. Chairman Kolon that passes six in favor one abstention.
Unknown Speaker 8:55
Thank you very much. Next item is item number six public hearings. The first item is Item A six a an amendment to the downtown Longmont master plan of development planning manager Don Pritchett presenting.
Unknown Speaker 9:11
Thank you Chairman Polen Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Don birch planning manager again with the city of Longmont. And with me tonight is Kimberly McKee, the executive director of the LDA Dallas if you would mind starting my presentation, that’d be great. Thank you. Item we’re here to discuss tonight is a proposed amendment to the downtown Longmont master plan of development. Next slide. The current downtown Longmont master plan of development was adopted by the city council in 2017. The plan is very similar in function for the DDA, as the comprehensive plan is for the city and that it provides a future vision for the downtown to guide development and investment. Well this plan has many goals and objectives. their applicability is only to those properties within the district. The proposal before the commission tonight is a request to amend the boundaries within the plan to include five new properties. Next slide. The properties requesting inclusion are 721-720-3727 in 729, Main Street, and 33 South prep Parkway. The map on your screen right now, on the left shows the current boundaries of the LD da. And the map on the right shows the proposed additions. And while they are a little small, if you look at the top most of the map on the right there’s a little box that is read along with a white arrow that says proposed addition. And that is the north main properties that would be added. And then to the bottom left is a larger red box and that is the 33 South Pratt Parkway property also proposed to be added into the district. Next slide. As noted in the staff report, the Planning Commission has no review criteria to use when reviewing this request. But the Planning Commission has been asked to make a recommendation on this request to amend the master plan and your role as an advisory board to the city council. To help you in making a recommendation. We’ve noted for findings that we believe supports the inclusion of these five properties into the district. And I’ll go through those quickly. Number one is that the Envision long multimodal and comprehensive plan includes goals and policies that support the expansion of the DDA boundary and support redevelopment and investment in the downtown area. Number two, the LDA Master Plan contemplated expansion of both the LD D LD da easy for me to say and God boundaries in its current plan, and this plan was adopted by the city council in 2017. Next slide. The next supporting fact is that five property owners have submitted petitions as required by state statute to allow the DDA to include them into the district. Inclusion would allow for each to access programs designed to improve properties within the district. And finally, the purpose of the DDA DDA is to prevent deterioration of property values within the district and to assist with the development redevelopment of the district, which inclusion of these properties would allow them to have access to any assistance that is available from the LDA. Next slide. The role of the commission tonight is to advise the Council on this plan and then making a recommendation to the Council on this proposed expansion. Next slide. As noted in our staff report, staff is recommending approval of the amendment as reflected in PCR 2022 Dash three and we’ve also included a resolution for a conditional recommendation of approval, and then also a recommendation of denial. The Commission feels that this is not appropriate. So those are in your packet. At this time, I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have. Or if you wish, we can also ask that Miss McKee make her presentation, and then answer questions after that. And with that, I concluded my presentation. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 13:38
Let’s have Miss McKee. Make her presentation and then we’ll go to public hearing.
Unknown Speaker 13:48
Great, thank you so much. I’m glad to be here. I’m Kimberly McKee. I’m the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority here in Longmont. And that was if you could just pull up that presentation, that’d be great. Thank you for considering our request. Next slide. I just wanted to go over a little bit about our master plan of development. I know that that some of you may be aware of it, but there are six big ideas and that is to extend the vibrancy of downtown into an 18 hour seven day Activity Zone adding more residents entertainment and jobs. You know, we are making some headway on the 18 hour economy and COVID seems to really retract that with people’s hours but we continue to thrive to get that back to a longer day of activity in our town. We want to build on the vibe of identity and real productivity that is happening and grow our employment base. We want to have more visible signs that showcase and promote and increase long months local creativity and culture. We want to increase safety and comfort. Make sure that we have a downtown that’s welcoming for all we want to prove in expand the infrastructure that makes downtown welcome connected, and then collaborate with a coalition of partners to share some goals and vision for our community. Next slide. Our Master Plan has six basic things versus economic vitality where we’re trying to grow retail we’re trying to increase sales and property tax partner with the private sector to invest in their buildings, business attraction, retention, placemaking and urban design. Everything from keeping it clean and safe to really keeping that historic character that we have wayfinding pedestrian infrastructure, our Creative District continue to evolve that as a destination for arts and culture, collaborate with our partners and encourage creative industries. Next slide. We’re also working on connectivity and access making sure that downtown’s well connected that it becomes a regional transportation hub safe and enjoyable pedestrian environment biking, alternate modes of transportation for land use for looking for a diverse mix of land uses compact urban form, multimodal transportation, diverse housing choices, redeveloping underutilized properties, activating our ground floors, and making sure that we advocate for positive development regulations. And then leadership and management through our board and our stakeholders trying to champion downtown as an asset, coordinate visions with our partners, advocate for downtown’s interest, collect data and coordinate marketing. Next slide. The purpose of an LDA is to prevent blight. So it’s not always A URA is, you know, taking care of like, like we’re trying to prevent it. We’re trying to make sure that we keep downtown performing that we’re able to make investments. These are some of the hardest buildings, sometimes to rehab because they’re aged because what they’re doing, but they’re also so much of our history and the character of what we’re doing. And we have hit or miss places where there’s some just really underutilized properties and others that are really performing really well. Next slide. So as Don mentioned, there were five properties that have signed petitions to the LDA. Wanting to come into the district. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 17:15
A little timeline. So in June, we were contacted by adjacent property owners that wanted to be part of the LDA. I took this to our board of directors and ask them what what they wanted us to do. One of the things that we had talked about back in our 2020 Retreat, which is really right before COVID, was looking north to see if folks were ready or willing or wanted to annex into the DDA, we did not get very far on this once COVID hit, we didn’t really kind of pick that up as an initiative. So interestingly, a June of last year, some folks came to us, I brought it to the board, and the board said go ahead and reach out with letters to property owners between Long’s peak and ninth, really just to explain that, hey, some of your neighbors have expressed an interest to annex into the DDA. And would you like to talk more? Or do you have any interest about learning about what we’re doing, we made it very clear that it was not a requirement that nothing would change for folks that they didn’t want to annex in. But just wanted to open up that conversation. We did have several people that contacted us to talk a little more, almost all of them came into the district, we did talk to a few that weren’t really connected in the line that we were going to that said, you know, they probably wait until a few more people on their side of the street, it was on the east side, we’re ready to annex. And so they wanted to stay in the conversation, but didn’t want to sign a petition at this point. So December, our board formally approved these five sign petitions. And we are bringing these forth to you. Next slide. So what are some of the benefits? Or why would we want to annex properties into our DBAs? Again, we’re always trying to increase property values. So having those and expanding our boundaries will really just raise up everything around it and help preserve those property values, upgrade properties. I know that a number of the folks may be wanting to upgrade their properties. I think as we continue to inch north and have people invest, it’s always fantastic to have those properties rehabbed and upgrade in our community. Improve the tenant mix. You know, I know that it it may seem like we have a few big vacancies that are in some great places in downtown and we do work with those. That property owner we have one specifically big one. We have a couple that look vacant but her under some rehab and doing some really great work around historic preservation, but we are lacking retail storefronts, and we do have some folks in the pipeline. So by expanding North we’re still able to kind of add that engaging storefronts and tenant mix to what’s happening in downtown to guide redevelopment some of the folks you know I always had Then what is your interest in? Why are you interested in coming into the DDA, some of them knew that they were going to do some larger redevelopment of their property and just really wanted to work with us on on guidance and, and, you know, working their pipeline and helping them through the process, a win win funding. So this will add a five mill mill levy to those that come into the district the same as anyone in the DDA. Certainly, that will help us continue our programming, but then they also have access to funding through grants and that type of thing as they go to improve their properties. So it is a win win, I think for both and then enhance the character you know, will help us get some of these buildings that are just right outside the boundaries is there going to make enhancements in it, our programs may be able to let them do a little bit more or to bring keep things consistent with those properties around them. Next slide. So in our master plan of development, as Don mentioned, under leadership and management is championed downtown in the city wide and regional asset and to really look at the CDA boundaries to consider expansion. This is our guiding document is which really is what we should be spending our time doing. Next slide. And again, I think as we look at the future of redevelopment continuing to move the needle north or south to make sure that we have a walkable, great urban center of our town that’s good for our residents. First visitors as well is really important, and continuing to have a place that we can live, work and play in the center of our community. Next slide. So I would like to open it up to questions. I would like to thank each and every one of you and let you know that you’re very appreciated, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.
Unknown Speaker 21:52
Okay, this is a public hearing item. Um, I would like to before we go to questions, I would like to open up the public invited to be heard.
Unknown Speaker 22:00
Unknown Speaker 22:02
Thank you, Chairman. At this point, before we go to the public comment, I would like to make a disclosure that I had some contracts years ago a couple years ago with LDA. But I don’t have any relation with this annexation. Any other plans they have that I believe I’m confident I can make a fair and impartial decision tonight.
Unknown Speaker 22:25
Thank you and So noted. Okay, let’s open up the public invited to be heard. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing through home, please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 84589092559. When we are ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. We will now take a five minute break to allow people to call in
Unknown Speaker 27:35
Chairman pullin, we’re about 15 seconds out from the 10 minute mark. I am seeing zero callers still. Thank you. You mean the five minute mark? Sorry, yes. The five minute mark. All right, and seeing the other Commissioners around, I will drop that and still no one.
Unknown Speaker 27:57
Okay. I will go ahead then and close the public invited to be heard for item number six, eight, will now go to questions from the Commission.
Unknown Speaker 28:14
Commissioner Gilbert. Yeah. Thanks, Chairman. Hey, Miss McKee. Good to see you. Thanks for being here today. I have a couple quick questions. We don’t talk about the VA. We haven’t had the Ltda come on too many times before. It’s might be your first time in a few years. So I wonder if you could just kind of like, take me a little high level real quick. First, why doesn’t everyone want to be a part of the LPGA? Why? What how come the rest of the folks heading north and south aren’t signing the petition to get on board?
Unknown Speaker 28:51
You know, I will say we did. We just did a super soft sell, right? We just sent the letter. We didn’t really want people to feel pressured and wanted them to come on as their own. So we didn’t get any opposition. And no one said, No. Well, but the one folks said no, but that was really because they were kind of an island out and in what they were doing. Um, we do get lots of requests. And we do get some pushback of folks that feel like we aren’t being inclusive. But you know, we do have to have geographic boundaries that are truly a downtown or a central business district. So it wouldn’t make sense that we could expand very, very far north. I know, we’ve had a lot of requests to do things at North Maine. And I said I would be happy to talk to businesses in North Maine about other tools they could use like a business improvement district or things like that, but DBAs weren’t intended to go that far. So I think we really wanted to see who was just ready today and start working with those that are ready today. And we’re hoping that we can prove ourselves and then the neighbors will say, Oh, wait, did I get something about this? I’m kind of interested. So wanted it to kind of grow on its own?
Unknown Speaker 30:03
Oh, yeah. Would you confirm are the properties to the north? Are they contiguous? Do they touch each other like boom, boom, boom, boom? Or are there like stores in between or properties that aren’t. And then the next one is the next one isn’t.
Unknown Speaker 30:17
So it’s it’s fairly contiguous. Except there is one little, there’s one building there that did not opt in. And I think it’s a brand new building owner, who is really just trying to navigate what they have to do today. And indicated to some of their neighbors that it just wasn’t the right time until they felt strong and being a business owner. So there’s one little sliver in the middle. But other than that they’re
Unknown Speaker 30:47
Unknown Speaker 30:49
Does that make it hard, like hard to provide the services that you provide laid out like six of them or more? If there’s like a chop in the section, is it? Is it does that make it harder for you to be provide the services to your members, and then for that island in the middle?
Unknown Speaker 31:07
It doesn’t, it doesn’t because of the services that we provide. And it’s such a small chunk, I mean, if it was a stop, and then you had to go half a block to get one property, that’s an island or, you know, another block, that would be much harder, but the way it is, but it’s not a problem. And I know other DBAs have done the same thing. And truly what the kind of services we would do in the public right of way, you know, we’re doing a cleanup, we’re not going to ignore a spilled cup of coffee in front of that property, you know, we would pick it up because it is on public right away that we all enjoy. But we would not be able to avail of, of giving that property owner incentives and or some other kind of of those benefits.
Unknown Speaker 31:56
Cool. Yeah, I guess my last question then is, I’m probably the only one on here that’s a little rough with this. But it says the district is funded through a TIF and five mill levy on all real and personal property. Would you just clarify what that means? What does that mean to the business owner? And what does that mean to the folks who are shopping in the district?
Unknown Speaker 32:19
Sure, we do have a five no property tax levy, which means any properties that are annexed into the DDA would pay an additional small mill levy. So five more Mills than you would pay if you were on Ninth, you know, ninth north of Maine or something. So that’s the only additional cost, what we do get is called Tax Increment Financing, which is what we call a TIF. And basically, it is the increment that is grown. So once these properties get annexed into the DDA, their property taxes should stay the same until they make improvements, any increment with where that property tax grows, half of that increment will come back to the DDA. That money that comes back to the DDA can only be made for investments within the district. And so we try to use those dollars to do things like public infrastructure, or to do things that we call our catalyst projects, or to do some of the things that really make downtown cohesive, we annexed in Roosevelt Park Apartments. So that’s right next to these properties that we’re talking about in 2008. You know, that was very, very underutilized property at the time, that property owner acquired those properties for 10 years, and obviously made Roosevelt Park Apartments to say that was a catalyst Project is an understatement, right? We had about 60% or 60% vacancy rate around there before they, before they did that project, there was no market rate housing or even housing in downtown. So we invest in things that can really prove the market that made self made station easier. Now, residential people know that the market is proven. So we use tax increment financing to do things like that.
Unknown Speaker 34:12
Maybe I’ll just close out with you know, so this is how you can use the investment. This is how you can leverage your muscle, if you will to improve the district, but you just mentioned vacancy rates and kind of the issues you had before you brought in the Roosevelt Park Apartments, just as an example. And now what are you seeing? Is it fully occupied? Is it you know, you one of the benefits that have come as a result?
Unknown Speaker 34:38
Sure. I mean, housing is absolutely, you know, there’s waitlists or people are really able to keep their housing up. At the time that we build Roosevelt Park Apartments, that vacancy rate went from about it was about 19. Overall, I think the properties around there were much higher to Roosevelt place which is the closest we have to a class A office building. downtown that became fully leased before they even opened the apartments. It held strong, I think it still holds strong, there might be one vacancy. Now we are still kind of seeing the ShakeOut of people realizing, hey, it’s so much easier to work at home and and what does that office environment but until COVID, I would say it was extraordinarily strong. We have seen some interest in properties north of main, I would say some of these properties that we’re talking about, I have gotten calls from potential tenants who wanted to be in the DDA. And we’re asking how, you know, can they be a part of it, and you have boundaries for a reason. And I feel really bad saying, I’m sorry, you’re just on the other side. But we do have to be true to our stakeholders. And so I think because prospects have been calling us and that type of thing. That’s some of the reason why these property owners didn’t want to be part of what we’re doing.
Unknown Speaker 35:55
Thanks for speaking. That’s all I got for now. Any other questions? Commissioner height?
Unknown Speaker 36:07
Thank you, I’m fishing over great, beaded Mizuki. I have some questions. damper, she’d like to thank you, oh, so much for providing 3125 801 et al. With respect to the downtown development authorities, I invited myself to be a strict constructionist with respect to our statutes, even though this one in particular states and it’s to be liberally construed isn’t the key you hit on it got on development authorities are meant to prevent or wipe out blight, blight as a technical definition. I’m kind of interested in these five properties. There is no exact standard as to how the the map gets expanded. But the development plan, which in our cases, the master development plan, needs to address like so. For a property to get into the development boundaries, it would, at least it seems to me require that it be somewhat blighted or have conditions that need to be corrected or prevented or have conditions that exist that need to be a myriad ameliorated to prevent blight. So for these five properties, can you run through each one of them this McKeague? Briefly, to summarize what’s going on 33 Prep Parkway, I think this building, tenant filled building, maybe I’m wrong.
Unknown Speaker 37:49
So there is there was a investment group that owns 33. Pratt, and certainly they are looking at the under utilization of that large tract of land. And I will say that there are not many large tracts of land that you can cobble together in the DDA district, they have been really thinking about a full redevelopment of that property, and are really looking at a number of options of what they can do. So sometimes, under utilization of land, maybe there’s extra surface lots, maybe the building is not, maybe they want to have some more density, maybe they want to have some different things that they’re able to do with their parcels. So that one in particular is looking future I have what they’re doing. And just so you all know, our tax increment financing based on state statute is set to end in 2032. So I was certainly letting folks know, our clock is ticking, right. So there may not be a lot of time once once you get these projects together. But they still felt that it was worthwhile for the guidance and that type of thing as they navigate their properties.
Unknown Speaker 38:55
2032 visa, which is kind of funny, because there’s a 10 year clock that you can extend for another 30 years. But it has to be within 10 years of expiration, that’s this year, you might want to look at if it expires in 10 years from now, I am not a TIF wizard at all. But I read the statute pretty closely. And that was something that that stepped out. It’s a 30 year time period, but you can extend it to 50 if you did that within the last 10 years of the original 30 just right,
Unknown Speaker 39:29
so we’re extended we’re in the last of our 50 We’re okay.
Unknown Speaker 39:34
Wow. Alright, nevermind. So 33 South Parkway doesn’t have blight conditions right now. I mean, I can see that the developers or the owners are looking forward as to how they might redevelop it. But are we
Unknown Speaker 39:51
so for an urban renewal authority for that TIF you have to prove blight? What we’re trying to do is prevent weight. So we’re trying to To make sure that properties don’t fall into a blighted condition. So Gotcha. Yeah. So I think, figuring out what the highest and best use of that property each in property as property owners want to invest is helpful not only to prevent blight of that property, but also to raise the properties around them.
Unknown Speaker 40:23
And this is exactly where I get slightly hung up. I’m though I might be a strict constructionist, I’m also have a totally hammer Hamiltonian in with respect to the fact that the means can justify the ends, or the ends can justify the means. But in this particular instance, this 33, Pratt doesn’t look to me that it’s going to be subject to like conditions. It has, as you just described, it’s a unique property with some interesting development potential. highest and best is a little bit different than preventing blight. And, you know, using this tool, Downtown Development Authority tools to help developers meet highest and best isn’t exactly what I think the statute is meant to attain. So with that, what about the 720 series of May? What’s going on there? The X, I did decide
Unknown Speaker 41:33
721 has a business in it called Dirt labs, they do bring in people from across the country, they do suspensions for mountain bikes, but they are really looking to upgrade their facade, their windows, that type of thing. But their visit, their building is rather old and really need some improvement. The one north of that 723 main has been vacant since April of 2016. definitely in need of some assistance, and have expressed an interest of being in the DDA. The next one up is a heating and cooling business that I believe is going to relocate, but then we’ll have a storefront that they’d like to invest in and make more active to the street. And then the next one up is a new property owner. It’s a bookkeeping business, but it’s a rather old building needs some definite upgrades, and really wants to kind of make some improvements. They do have 16 employees. So I do think they absolutely add to the employment base and that type of thing, but are really looking to invest in those public facing facades.
Unknown Speaker 43:00
Let me ask you more broadly, because that might be an outlier with respect to my views on how the DDA operates. Is that typically what you guys invest in or where you lend money or how you assist property owners doing facade work?
Unknown Speaker 43:23
Well, facade work is one of our basic incentive programs that I think does help, you know, obviously, public facing facade upgrades, we also try to, you know, work as an arm where we bring the stakeholders together, we do different programs that are are things like business directories on our website, and troubleshooting, if people are having problems, clean and safe, you know, making sure that we keep the area clean, that there is a extra level of safety that we do that advocacy. So, I mean, we really tried to do what I call comprehensive management of the downtown district, really work with our stakeholders work with our business owners and our property owners to you know, identify to identify and address whatever needs they’re having or barriers they’re having to success.
Unknown Speaker 44:18
Appreciate, that’s the extent of my questions. Thanks.
Unknown Speaker 44:23
Commissioner play. Thank you, um, in determining the flight, and that’s what I’m assuming you went with as one of your criteria for including these businesses and locations who made the determination of flight
Unknown Speaker 44:51
so again, there doesn’t have to be a technical determination of flight for a DDA. Um, so we didn’t really have to do a determination of blight when they did the DDA and founded the district at the beginning. It wasn’t that every building within those boundaries was was determined as blighted. It’s really to prevent them from backsliding to prevent them from not having the tools that they can have to invest in their buildings and to help make the core of our downtown as a destination. So it didn’t necessarily have to have a blight designation.
Unknown Speaker 45:33
So then what you’re what I think I’m hearing you say is that your determinations are more toward maintaining a certain status and stature of the downtown area through various programs that you offer, and assistance to the businesses that you can accommodate, rather than to say, oh, we need to get this one involved, because, or business says, gee, I’m having a problem. My building is blighted. So blight is not one of your major criterias
Unknown Speaker 46:16
I’m so sorry. I’m venting blame, you know, making sure that don’t backslide.
Unknown Speaker 46:22
That’s your criteria. Okay. I’m sorry. No, another. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 46:34
Are there any other questions? I do have a question. Miss McKee. Um, this is the long mob Downtown Development Authority. And you have mentioned a couple times that and it sounds like there are some boundaries that it stretch it could potentially stretch out to, which is different than what the current boundary is. I mean, do we have a rough outline of how far east help our West health our South how far north it goes? To be considered downtown?
Unknown Speaker 47:09
We really look at what would kind of be considered the central business district. And I think since the Main Street corridor plan was adopted, really looking at, you know, the character area for downtown goes from 11th to Boston to the river. And so it seems like and I’m not even sure that it would go that far. But it seems like it couldn’t, wouldn’t make sense to go any further than 11th. Although I’m not saying there’s a plan to to march right up to 11th, or any further south than Boston. When you get to the south, there is an overlapping TIF district, that urban renewal authority is overlapping with the very bottom boundaries of the DDA. So as we look into the steam area and that type of thing, I think that it probably the urban renewal authority will have more ability to access Tax Increment Financing than the DDA. But as they evolve, if those of those properties were interested in becoming part of the DDA, just through the the mill, Levy, and kind of some of those other services we could provide, we could talk about that on a case by case basis. So that’s what we’ve left that agreement open with Tony shikonin. As he continues to work with those properties to the south, we certainly would like to support them in any way that we can.
Unknown Speaker 48:39
Thank you. there any other questions? Commissioner Goldberg.
Unknown Speaker 48:45
Thanks for this, Mickey.
Unknown Speaker 48:48
There’s been a lot of emphasis on blight and whether you’re preventing blight or whether you’re resolving or rehabilitating blight, but I wanted to just touch on a couple of the other goals and strategies, route the goals and objectives for the downtown district authority. Extending vibrancy building the vibe, increasing visible signage, increasing safety and comfort downtown improving infrastructure. Were a couple of them by bringing on new members of the downtown district authority, does that kind of enhance your ability to continue to serve those other goals? Or does bringing them on become burdensome and costly and therefore limit your ability to meet those six objectives?
Unknown Speaker 49:41
I think it helps for sure. I do think that some of these properties are are right next to some of our highest performing properties, right and so having these amenities kind of increase to the north and grow to the north. Are are very important. I think that the stretch to the north, specifically offers some pretty good storefronts and some pretty great opportunities to engage with the public and have some great retail on different things that we really haven’t been able to do up on the north. I think having more invested stakeholders never hurts, right? I think it always strengthens a, a district. So I think it’s a real win win for both those properties for the DDA, and for the community as we continue to try to make a walkable, strong destination in the heart of our town.
Unknown Speaker 50:33
Okay, maybe just my last question is, you know, you identify the Roosevelt Park Apartments as a success. Before we deliberate as a commission and make a movement here, can you speak to one or two other successes that you’ve had that, you know, you kind of use as examples of LDD as an action and how that worked?
Unknown Speaker 50:57
Sure, absolutely. I mean, I think that obviously, if you look at the South Main Station redevelopment, if you look at Roosevelt Park Apartments, those were two really big ones. If you look at the alley scapes and breezeways that we were able to do, I think that really helped raise the game. Were investors in the spoke on Kauffman, which is the affordable housing that’s going in on Packman street along with a 264 space parking structure. You know, we were certainly instrumental in having that done. But then smaller things, you know, we are one of the Colorado creative districts, and we worked with a lot of folks on that. And one of the things that was identified through that process, and this was back in, I don’t know, must have been 2015, our signage was all over the board. So I mean, it was just, you know, if your business wasn’t doing good, you put up one sign, then you put up for science, and you put shoe polish on your windows, and it just wasn’t a great book. And we had developers say, Yeah, you know, something, that’s the kind of need to raise your game. And so we were able to work and put some sign design standards, but we didn’t want to just say, Hey, you have to have all of these great science, we are also able to add an incentive that allowed people to upgrade their signage to kind of upgrade that look and feel and make it closer to the historic character that we were really going for those small changes happened over time. But I really do believe that they made a huge impact on the overall look, feel and helped bring more investment. There were quite a few, like I said, there was when we started in 2011, there was 19% vacancy. That’s a lot, you know, and I think last time we did a market study, it was well under five. So I think some of those improvements have been made, and we continue to work towards that.
Unknown Speaker 52:49
Thanks. I have any more questions
Unknown Speaker 52:51
for you, Mr. McKee. Anybody else have any more questions? Anybody ready to make a motion?
Unknown Speaker 53:04
Mr. Goldberg? Yeah, thanks, Chairman.
Unknown Speaker 53:10
I’ll just drop in my two cents. I don’t know if I’m ready to make a motion yet. I’d like to hear, you know, kind of feedback from the rest of the team. But what a special moment to hear. Commissioner height suggests that he’s open to what was the ends justify the means? Wow, that was like, That was a great moment. I just wanted to like, I want that to go on record.
Unknown Speaker 53:34
It was backwards. It’s the means just
Unknown Speaker 53:37
justifies. Yes. Okay, cool. Thank you. Um, let’s, uh, here’s my two cents. I doubt that it’s like a mystery to anyone here. I’m a big fan of the DDA and the hard work they’ve done to make Longmont a great place. You know, if you reflect on how long the downtown district has changed over the last 10 or 15 years, man, it’s, you know, it’s a full 180 It’s a great place to be to walk to shop and to support local businesses. So with no skin in the game, besides being along my residents, I think a resident I think that they’ve done good work and I think a lot of that is due to the goals and objectives laid out by Ms. McKees organization. You know, I look at you know, some of the guides some of the like goals identify or value identified by the city staff. How this could serve our ability to enhance envision Longmont and our comp plan. There’s this is like serving the policies and interests of the comp plan. How the, the LDA master plan was intended to grow. We’ve seen examples of it growing and expanding and they’ve been successful in the past. There’s interested stores, there’s, you know, folks who are applying and petitioning to be a part of it. So there’s demand for that. And in the end, the goal is to prevent deterioration into and make our town look and feel and be more desirable to live in and visit. So for all these reasons, I don’t, I’m not seeing any reason not to be supportive of this. And I wonder if this is one of those times Commissioner heightened Commissioner flag and the rest of the team where we see that the, like, the intention, and the goal here is, you know, a win win. Maybe the language in the code is a little bit tricky. We got to kind of Trump that down a little bit. But the intention is there and this would be something we could be favorable towards. Commissioner Hey,
Unknown Speaker 55:57
yeah, I twisted it up. Again, it is the ends justify the means. That said, the statute hangs me up. The statute is clearly the development plan has to prevent or address blight, or protect property values. That’s what the master plan needs to do. If we are going to bring more properties into the jurisdictional boundaries of the master plan. I think they have to meet those conditions. I mean, once that, once the district was established. The master plan and what it does, works with works in that area. Now we’re going to expand the area, I think to expand the area, we have to look at the particular properties that are meant to be brought in. And do they qualify. Why are they why are we bringing these particular properties in. And but for 723 Main Street, I didn’t hear a need to protect property values or prevent blight. So I’m hung up, I think it’s a you know, it’s a great program. But when we’re going to expand the program, there, even though there aren’t standard set as to how that expansion has to happen. The means of expansion, have to meet the ends and the ends, it doesn’t go backwards, that these properties don’t meet the standard. They’re not blighted or potentially blighted, or their property values other than 723, at risk. So, my problem is, but for 723, I don’t think I can support the others. That’s why.
Unknown Speaker 57:49
Any other comments? I get, oh, Commissioner flake.
Unknown Speaker 57:57
So I’m done. Perhaps you have a way of looking at this that can give us some insight as to some of these districts. At one point, I worked in a situation where an area that I was working in had to have a blight determination. And I was basically told by the the organization in the city, and that was city of Denver, that this person had certain criterias. But she knew blight when she saw it. Okay, which is not a real concrete method of saying this is like, and it sounds like what we’re struggling a little bit with. What are the other criteria for bringing someone into this kind of a situation? Having them be a part of this district? Is it just the address? Is there more to it? It looks like we’re floundering at a way to have a concrete way of saying yes, we should go forth with this. That is not an issue. I’d appreciate any guidance.
Unknown Speaker 59:12
Course. Um, and city attorney Eugene May has raised his hand so I would always defer to him if he wants to speak first. But what I would say is that, you know, there’s a couple of things that I think the commission should keep in mind. One is that if you believe there’s something that needs to happen before this property is brought in or approved by the city council, you could make a recommendation or a condition that would go up to the City Council for consideration as an example. Commissioner hype brought up the issue with trying to determine whether or not blight exists on these properties ablaze So it could be done, it would take a little bit of time for the district or the property owners to have that done. But if that is something that the Commission feels needs to be done in order to meet the requirements of for a recommendation, then that that’s your prerogative, you could make that as a as a condition. I would say that we have an I have actually done light studies for the city on a couple of properties. And in the downtown previously, we actually did the last one for the DDA a number of years ago. And when we went through the statutes, and we set up our system for evaluating, there is a lot of potential for, I would say, variation between people that would go out and look at it at blight. And so to your point, Commissioner flake about, I know what when I see it, I would say I know it when I see it, as long as I understand what I’m looking for. And so the it is truly in the eye of the beholder. And that’s where when we had teams of five that were going out and doing the last flight study for the downtown area, we had set parameters for what was a determination of whether or not there was, for example, damage to a building, or what qualified as infrastructure that was deficient. And what you know, because there’s i It’s been a while since I’ve read the statute, there’s either seven or nine criterion, you have to find, I think, like three or four out of each one or out of those to qualify as blight. And so we set those standards up before we even when out in the field. So when I went out to a property and you went out to a property, we should come back with the same determination following that those guidelines because we’re using the same stuff. So that that can be done. But it is a it is something that from one person to another. The standard can vary. And the determination could be different, depending on the day, the end the person that’s out there, because the state’s criteria do not other than tell you the topics, they do not give you specificity as to what qualifies to make it meet that criteria or not, you need to set that and establish that you’re doing your methodology. So that’s that’s what I would I would say is that I think the commission has options here. The last thing that I’m going to point out, again, is that when reviewing that statue, the only section that I see that relates to adding property is the very last section, I believe in the in the statute. And that’s what we were looking at when we’re trying to make this determination of whether or not we feel that it was justified in amending the plan, we still believe it makes sense to amend the plan. We believe that the district has done great work and will continue to do that. And we believe that these are properties that could probably use some help in making these better places where that, you know, they can either redevelop or make a reinvestment in a property so that it has another ability to be productive and useful to the community. So with that, that’s all that I have. And I’ll defer to Mr. May.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:34
Cindy, turn it up, mate.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:41
Thank you, Chairman. A couple of thoughts on Commissioner flakes sort of request. I think it is instructive to look at the statute. And page 144 section 31 Dash 25 822 is the provision that Don was referring to about inclusion of additional property. There are no criteria in there basically, you need a petition to the board, evidence of title to the property, accurate legal description. That’s all that’s in there. And so I think what Commissioner height was saying, Well, then let’s look at the intent of this of the statute. And if you go to page 125, which is the very beginning of this part of CRS, and you look at the legislative declaration, there are a number of goals for this section. One which is garnered a lot of talk or discussion is will halt or prevent the growth of blighted areas within the district. But if you Look at the other goals, halt or prevent deterioration of property values or structures within the district assist municipalities and development redevelopment of such districts, and the overall planning to restore or provide for the continuance of the health care of. And finally, the special benefit to the property within the boundaries of any authorities. I would also draw your attention to the next paragraph, which I think is telling in what the legislature was thinking. Be because of the number of eight technical factors and special conditions concerning Downtown Development unique to each locality, the rule of strict construction shall have no application to this part. But it shall be liberally construed to the effect and purposes to effect the purposes and objects for which it was intended. And so, you know, I read that as explicit direction by the legislature to look broadly at the goals of the legislative declaration in the paragraph prior. And to have broad discretion on how to interpret those. And though it’s not meant to be an exhaustive list, it’s meant to be examples of the types of things that the DBAs are therefore. And so if the commission were to look at those criteria, and with this direction from the General Assembly, to take a broad view, not to be focused on the words, which is the strict construction, but the intent broader, maybe the commission could find good reason to
Unknown Speaker 1:06:49
take action on this petition. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:57
Um, I’m gonna also before I call on you, Commissioner height, my two cents in reading this and Part Eight, even going back a little bit earlier in it, when it says 30s have the purposes and powers provided in this part eight will serve a public use. And then it goes into the very first thing it says will promote the health, safety, prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants they’re up, and of the people the state will halt and prevent and then we’ll help them prevent this will help prevent deterioration will help prevent the growth of blight will assist in other things. But, you know, going back to what you just said, when you look at their first single promote, and I go to it will promote the health safety, prosperity, security and general welfare the inhabitants when I look at that, I think that means that we can go outside I mean, we don’t have to use blight as the condition for this. So that’s kind of my thoughts on this.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:55
Unknown Speaker 1:08:01
Thank you. Thank you to city attorney may. Dallas, could you pull up? I think it’s part six of our materials that were submitted as with respect to this item, it’s article eight, or section eight.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:19
Sure thing. Are you looking for the staff presentation or
Unknown Speaker 1:08:22
yes, the staff presentation? Part A part? Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:26
Give me just a second
Unknown Speaker 1:08:28
attachment six. To this public hearing item
Unknown Speaker 1:08:34
catchment six, are you talking about slide six?
Unknown Speaker 1:08:37
Attachment six of the materials that were that are part of the agenda. If you have the agenda in front of you, or can find it.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:46
It’s the CRS party downtown development authorities.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:51
Guide. It’s the statutory provisions. Yep. But But I need you to pull it back attachment because I can direct you to the page. I want to
Unknown Speaker 1:08:59
gotcha. I apologize. I do not have those. I just have the applicant and the staff presentations. So
Unknown Speaker 1:09:09
it’s part of the online, it’s online.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:22
If we can’t get it up, I don’t know if the other Commissioners can find attachment six separately on their
Unknown Speaker 1:09:30
computers. You Yeah, I have it up yet.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:33
And look at page 10 of 20. This is Section 807, which delineates the powers of a Downtown Development Authority. Subsection four, which deals with the adoption of development plans. Specifically for see deals with holding a public hearing, which is kind of what well, yes, the governing body is city council, but a government As you hold a public hearing on a plan of development or substantial modification, they’re up. No, I don’t know if this is substantial modification, it kind of seems to be, maybe it is, maybe it is. But Subpart D is what is the language that I get hung up on. So following the hearing, the governing body can adopt the plan, if it finds there’s a need to take corrective measures to halt or prevent deterioration property values, or structures within the plan or development area, or to halt or prevent the growth of blighted areas they’re in or combination they’re up. Again, the plan needs to address deterioration of property values or structures, or the to deteriorate or to stop or prevent blight. And I agree, it’s to be liberally construed. That’s the statutory provision that leads in, or that’s essentially, that’s the legislative instruction that leads into the statute. But I think these are relatively narrow prescriptions. Because it’s not just a make the downtown beautiful statute, its downtown development authority that’s meant to protect it to prevent property values slipping or to get rid of blight. It has broad powers to do that. I don’t I’m not seen in maybe I’m just myopic and short sighted, I’m not seeing with respect to these 735 properties that want to come in those conditions being addressed. That’s where I sit for.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:34
Unknown Speaker 1:11:36
Um, I guess the way that I’m looking at it is that we are the recommending body, we’re not the decision body. And if there is more of an intense look at you, that is thought to be needed by counsel on certain aspects of the district before deciding to accept the inclusion of these properties that can be written under the part where we can recommend action. And using the, the PCR 2022, three D, and there are the following conditions. So my thought would be it sounds like that Commissioner heights may want to float out a possible condition under which he would be pleased to agree to forward this recommendation to council to look at accepting this. I don’t know what that amendment might be myself. I am. I know that blight is a provision. But it’s not the be all end all of all the provisions in my opinion. And so I would be perfectly happy to go forth with the recommendation to council to certainly go ahead and that we, our findings would say that we would accept the staff recommendation. Thank you. Any other input?
Unknown Speaker 1:13:29
I did want to add that that Jane and Eva just sent me the document if if needed. So I should be able to pull that up if it’s needed again.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:37
Unknown Speaker 1:13:42
Yeah, thanks, Chairman. Well, I think boy, I really appreciate the feedback from Don rachet and city attorney ug mag. And I appreciate the line of questioning and always appreciate the perspective from Commissioner heighten surely makes us look closer at the at the regulations and the rules and we’re really allowed to do, but I have found comfort in a few qualities or a few parts of our discussion today. One the recommendation by the city of course, has great merit for me, I appreciate the four reasons that they called out that they’re supportive, approving this amendment to find comfort in the I can’t believe I’m doing this section 31 Dash 25 Dash 801 part one and then as city attorney may brought up, as well as section 31 Dash 25 Dash D 22. At the end, where he discusses the addition of the how to add additional properties into the game. So I think for a combination of those reasons, our discussion the general successes of the Ltda I’m inclined to make a recommendation that we approve PCR 2022 Dash three A.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:12
Was that a formal motion there?
Unknown Speaker 1:15:14
Yeah, mostly 20 PCR 2022 Dash three.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:19
Thank you, Commissioner flake.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:21
I would second that.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:24
The motion we have the second any further discussion? Commissioner Saunders
Unknown Speaker 1:15:34
so I just wanted to chime in quickly if I may. I always appreciate commissioners height, thoroughness, in looking through all the legal statutes watching these past meetings. So being the new guy, I had to do a lot of research myself into the LDA and DDS in general. And so, when I went to find out about DDS, I went to the Colorado just do website to find out more what the LDA does, especially for city of Longmont and my interpretation, and I’m happy to read, it pulled up here the Colorado statute 3125 801 from 2016. It reads to me more like it’s a partnership between the businesses and the LDA. I think with Don’s great summary in the beginning of the packet saying that the statute is a bit loose in as far as meeting these criterias. I went in thinking that way that maybe there is room for improvement for some of this approval process. But when I read it, I read it more as a partnership, to restore the health and especial benefit of property within the boundaries. And then also seeing that the LDA has its own board of directors that thoroughly vet the applicants. I, I am more in the camp of approving this recommendation based on the recommendations of staff and LDA. But I do feel there’s room for maybe improvement for the criteria moving forward because it is a bit broad. But I wanted to give my two cents sort of as the new guy and how I interpreted the packet in the statutes coming at me.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:40
Thank you very much, Commissioner. Hi.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:47
Thank you again, I just want to point out God love whoever drafted these PCRs. But peas are Tory 22 B three a subsection 1.3 B has exactly the language that I’m hung up on the amendment of the downtown, the Master Plan prevent deterioration property, those are structures within the planned development area are hauled to prevent blighted areas, that’s a finding that were deemed to have been made. I don’t think there’s been a finding with respect to these properties. I would be metabolics commission flex suggested that we have more information regarding these five properties as to whether or not they qualify to meet the standards of this 1.3 B. Language. Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 1:18:44
I’m just gonna put in my two cents. In going through there’s there’s, I believe what the the font of what this is trying to accomplish, there is the way that is termed it a say will prevent deterioration property values. While prevention is kind of an open Word for me, you can say that by joining the Ltda. They are agreeing to a set of they’re working to with other businesses in the area to be uniform, to do things in common. And by doing things in common, and being part of this they are preventing in the long term, a chance for bloody it isn’t to say that these are blighted currently, it isn’t to say that these things would be blighted. It’s saying that they are working to prevent blight. It’s to prevent blight in the future at some point and by joining this there that they can accomplish that. I mean it’s It’s kind of an open thing. And that’s what we’re here to discuss. But that’s where I’m at. And that’s why would be for this is the fact that I believe that by joining the LBD a businesses are doing it for the benefit of the long term benefit of the downtown area. So that’s my thoughts.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:22
Unknown Speaker 1:20:25
Thank you, Chairman Poland. I’m kind of with you, when when I heard you know, the word prevention, it is kind of open ended. And we can actually define it, but there’s no criteria like, how are we going to prevent? Or does he need prevention? So I, you know, I don’t think I’m hung up on the statute. I know it is. It is kind of open ended. But I’m, I’m going more towards the approval.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:59
Thank you. Any other comments?
Unknown Speaker 1:21:04
If not, Jane, we have a motion in a second. So let’s take a roll call vote.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:10
Absolutely. Chairman Polen. For Commissioner flag, or vice chairman Goldberg? Yes. Commissioner heights against Commissioner Tokaj. Yes. Commissioner teta for Commissioner Saunders. Yes, Chairman Polen. That motion passes six to one with Commissioner height dissenting.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:35
Thank you very much. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you’re unfamiliar with the council procedures and intend to appear before Council, please contact the Planning Division for further information at 303-651-8330. We can now move to the next item which is Item six B the Peschel open space and Quicksilver road annexation zoning and concept plan principal planner, Eva Parrish, Jeff ski presenting.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:12
Thank you Chair Polen. And commissioners. My name. Fantastic. Thank you. And Dallas when you’re ready, thank you so much. Me Move my thumbnails out of here. So next slide, please. So Sorry, one moment, I’m trying to get these thumbnails out of here because they’re blocking my screen. Thank you. Sorry. So this is an annexation request. And I’m going to start off with giving you some background on the location of this property. As you see from this map on the left, it’s this area in red. It’s this property there on the east side of County Line Road, as well as right of way that’s existing on Quiksilver road. And that is going just west of that Michelle property. And again, this is adjacent to County Line Road. I don’t have my pointer here. So if you see highway 119, that’s the north you go down County Line Road, it’s over on the east side, south of the Walmart Supercenter and the apartments. And these properties straddled two counties. As you know, County Line Road is our border. On the east side. The Michelle property is located in Weld County, and it’s zoned agricultural and Quiksilver is right of way. Right of Way does not have zoning and the area we’re talking about is between 119th Street on its west side, which is sort of on the left side of your map. And all the way to County Line Road or the shell properties also adjacent to st ring Creek. It’s designated in the long envision Longmont plan is protected land outside Longmont planning area, that’s the Michelle property. And the concept plan in your packet really doesn’t propose anything different, it would still leave the PowerShell property as open space. Next slide please. And so first we’ll discuss the PowerShell partial partial parcel. Again, it’s this area highlighted in turquoise. So the PowerShell property again, it’s in Weld County, it’s in our coordinated planning area. The coordinated planning area is part of our urban growth area in weld. And in the coordinated planning area. Properties are subject to our IGA intergovernmental agreement between Weld County and the city of Longmont. And so in your packet, there’s an IGA there between Weld County and City of Longmont. As you can see, annexation of the Michelle property has been contemplated for quite a while through, you know, with their agreement with Weld County. This fish shell property is owned 5050 between the city of Longmont and Boulder County and has a conservation easement. So no development could be here. It’s really dedicated for open space. There’s an intergovernmental agreement as well with Boulder County, which is in your packet, which we both agree both parties agree that the city would annex the Michelle property into the city. Because the annexation is in the best interest for the long term management of the Michelle open space. And annexation of city on properties is the city policy. Next slide. And so now we’ll talk about Quicksilver road again, it’s this area in turquoise. On the left side is 100 and 19th Street, and on the right side is County Line Road. It’s bordered by Boulder County Open Space, as well as two residential parcels along Quicksilver. This area is part of the St. Green Valley planning area. These properties are areas where land use and transportation changes may affect city properties. Again, in your packet, there’s the intergovernmental agreement with Boulder County, which allows annexation of properties outside the Longmont planning area. If those properties serve development in the long term planning area, our IGA specifically mentions Quiksilver road as a potential road to be annexed as it’s an area of mutual interest. And in 2020, the City of Boulder County entered into an IGA also in your packet regarding use maintenance and repair of Quicksilver road. And I believe it was agreement item number 10. In that IgA, where the city and Boulder County agreed the city would pursue annexation of Quiksilver road.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:09
Next slide. And just quickly briefly going over, you know, our community our input, we had a neighborhood meeting in July of 2021. Again, this is virtual, and we had three callers call in to one of them was a resident of Quicksilver road. The other one was the attorney of that residence of Quicksilver road. And the third party was a family member of a residence the other resident of Quicksilver road. And their main concerns were regarding gravel line traffic on Quicksilver. And that’s related to the Irwin Thomas gravel mine, which is on the west side of 100/19 Street, which was previously approved in 2018. As part of a PUD plan, and then we sent out a notice of application in October of last year when the formal application was submitted to us. I didn’t receive any comments. When we sent out the notices to the property owners we did a 1000 foot radius. And then finally, notice a public hearing was mailed out on January 27. When I prepared this PowerPoint, I had not received any comments from the public. However, this morning, I received a letter from the attorney representing one of the homeowners on Quicksilver Road, which was forwarded to the commission this morning. So I believe you got it in your email. And essentially, that property owner off Quicksilver doesn’t support the annexation, because well, there were a few reasons but one had to do with pending litigation. Another I believe, reason was they were concerned about traffic on Quiksilver road similar to the concerns raised at the neighborhood meeting. Next slide. And so recommendation and next steps. So, staff in our staff report found that the you know found the findings of fact for the review criteria. So staffs recommendation is resolution 2022 to a without conditions recommending approval to city council. But again, there’s three resolutions you may choose from in your packet. Once we’re done with this process, we will take it to city council on March 8, for the first resolution of statutory compliance. And that has to do with meeting Colorado Revised Statutes for annexation. Then on March 29, we’re taking the first reading of the annexation ordinance to council, followed by April 12, which is the public hearing and second reading of the ordinance as well as the second resolution of statutory compliance. Next slide, please. And I just want to briefly introduce staff. We, you know, we’re all here to answer your questions. We have Jim Angstadt. He’s our Public Works Engineering Director, Doug Gossett, who is the applicants of record for the city of long line. He works in public works as an engineer. We have Chris Huffer, also from public works. He’s our engineering administrator. We also have Dan Wolford. He’s our open space land program administrator oversees the Michelle property. Next slide. And that’s what we have and you know, typically we follow it up with the applicant presentation. In this case, the city of long line is the applicant so we don’t have another slideshow. So that concludes our presentation, and so we’re happy to answer any questions.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:07
Okay, given that this is a public hearing, I would like to go ahead and open up the public invited to be heard. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home, please dial 1887880099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 84589092559. When we are ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and they will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. We will now take a five minute break to allow people to call in
Unknown Speaker 1:36:12
Chairman Polen we’re about 15 seconds out from the five minute mark. Currently there are no callers. Thank you. Okay, once I see the rest of the commission, I will drop the slide and still no collars. Okay, thank
Unknown Speaker 1:36:40
you. We will then go ahead and close the public invited to be heard for Item six B. We will now move to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Hi.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:57
Thank you very much. I’m Claire chef ski. Can you identify it for us? Why is Quiksilver been annexed into the city? Why? Why would we Annex A road? Sure.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:12
I’m Commissioner height. I’m going to pass that to Mr. Doug Gossett, the applicant.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:22
Good morning commission. Thanks for your time today. So the reason that we’re annexing it is because of the IGA that council agreed to, which indicated that we would be the annexing Quiksilver road. So in that agreement, if you take a look at it’ll talk about road maintenance, and who’s responsible for it? Currently, you know, the city has agreed to maintain the road. So it would make logical sense that we annex it in and control that property.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:54
Great. Hold on, I want to make sure I’m looking at the right thing. This is the IGA between. In Boulder County, I think it’s attached as attachment five the cooks over IGA and are that
Unknown Speaker 1:38:10
that is correct. And if you look at item number 10 on there, that’s where it discusses the annexation.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:16
Right, but items one through 20 except 10. Identify that really what is road agreements for is to identify Quicksilver as a haul road for the Erwin, I don’t know the rest of it, the mining operations will be going on to the west. So the governor I have is unsigned, do you know whether or not the screaming has been executed?
Unknown Speaker 1:38:42
To my knowledge it has been and I do not know. I do not have a copy of it. But we believe it’s been in front of Council and council has approved it
Unknown Speaker 1:38:52
and basically identifies it is this roads gonna be used as a haul road gravel haul road. I think that’s what the is it is cooks attorney was identifying he sued the city and the county over. There’s another owner on this street as well to Gunderson. Are you familiar with the Gunderson? There are two homeowners that live on Quiksilver? Yes, yes. Correct. And there’s a provision in this IGA for the payment of $180,000 each to these homeowners. Do you know where that number came from?
Unknown Speaker 1:39:27
I didn’t know not know the full extent of where the number came from. But I believe it was negotiations with Boulder County in the city. That was the number that was decided upon by both parties.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:37
Okay. So it’s interesting document that never quite seen anything like this, like it’s to create ostensively least for short term or intermediate term, a haul road for gravel trucks, and it provides that the operator the mining operations, I think it’s called aggregate industries. They’re going to pay the $360,000 they’re going to make sure that the dust gets taken care of at least, the city’s taking on responsibility, but the actual performance of the dust mitigation is going to be performed by aggregate industries according to this document, which is Oh, no, I see. I mean, it shows to me that what’s happening on this road is going to be it’s a gravel haul. It’s a gravel truck, haul road to dirt road, that you’re going to run gravel trucks. There was some reference somewhere that’s 300 trucks a day. Do you have any idea? How many trucks a day would be operating on this? I don’t.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:34
I don’t know if we can answer that fully. They’ll obviously depend on how productive the mine is, and you know, on aggregate, but as far as I’m aware, I think that’s roughly correct that at peak times, that could be the the number.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:48
Correct? I think Mr. Angstadt can also answer that as well.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:52
Chairman, Poland Commissioner, Hi, Jim Angstadt, Director of Engineering Services, the original PD and annexation approval for that involved the gravel mine to the West has conditions that they are an average of 150 trips, without one back day, up to 200 a day would be permitted. In Conversations With aggregate, depending on how much they mind, they’re gonna they’re only allowed to mine one cell at a time. That will dictate how many trucks they would have, but it would on the average 150. Trucks are 150 trips, so 300 trucks out back.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:35
So 300 is the right number. Thank you very much. Which gets me to the applicants materials when it reviews, its ability to satisfy the conditions under 15 Oh, 2055 of the Longmont code that does annexation meets certain criterion. Item number one is now item number two is that there’s going to be utilities provided in this property sufficient for urban level services. It’s my understanding there’s going to be no utilities put into the street, is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And then the biggest problem I have is item number three, which is that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding uses. Can you tell me how 300 trucks a day is compatible with these two neighbors?
Unknown Speaker 1:42:30
So so just to be clear on it, this annexation is not while maybe the agreement is associated with the mining operation. This annexation is not producing that traffic generation that was approved with a preliminary with PUD for the mining operation. So as part of this annexation, we’re not producing any traffic essentially.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:54
I think I have to disagree. You just explained to me that the IGA is what’s driving this annexation section 10. Specifically, this IGA is why this annexation is in front of us and that IGA creates a home road. And my question, is it to me that looks like it’s part of the development plan, the haul road? It’s part of this IGA. The IGA is why we’re doing this annexation. That’s the development plan. I’m asking how how is that compatible with these neighbors? It may or may not be I don’t know what it is. That’s one of the criteria that has to be met for us to prove.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:36
I can take that one, Doug. So Commissioner height, when we talk about development, you know, we were looking at the shell parcel that’s public open space. It’s not planned to be developed. public right of way is not developed. It’s public right of way. cars go up and down it Quiksilver road is currently public right of way. Even if we did not annex this piece of right of way, the gravel trucks would still be coming up and down this road.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:11
Her a previously UD plant plan. I’m sorry. That’s why I asked why is this being annexed? You’re now submitting an annexation plan. An annexation has to meet certain criteria. I agree it’s a public road if it the left is a public road. Okay, but now it’s being annexed and annexation has certain criteria that has to be backed. It’s you know, it has to have a development plan. The development plan looks to me to be this IGA which has, you know, all the prescriptions of a of how to manage a gravel road that will be operated. That will be the trucks that they operate on. And then my question has to be how is that
Unknown Speaker 1:45:04
And so our answer again, Commissioner height is the annexation is compatible in that the open space is staying open space, the right of way is staying right away. And the gravel traffic would have been there with or without the annexation.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:28
Not the burden. Thank you, Commissioner flag. I am upon reviewing that same IGA there are two aspects of it that I I was drawn to look at one is the 35 mile an hour speed limit and the control of the dust, which seemed to be issues. So, I’m wondering how to, how is it possible for the City of Long let’s make sure that the speed limits are no greater than 35 miles an hour? And that there is dust control?
Unknown Speaker 1:46:14
Um, so I guess we could take over that. And, Jim, I don’t know if you want to step in as well. But in general, if we annex the road, then we have control over the road. So as part of the, you know, annexation process that brings it into long months jurisdiction. Obviously, we still have the IGA, which puts some of the responsibility on us anyways. But part of it is annexing it gives us that control to have that oversight on it.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:36
And how do you perform that oversight?
Unknown Speaker 1:46:40
In general, the oversight for speed limits would be you’d post the speed limit. So you’d post, you know, a 35 mile an hour speed limit sign. And in general, you’d also you know, police would enforce it if you know, people were exceeding the speed limits, you’d have police presence. So you know, currently it would be Boulder County Sheriff’s Department responding to any kind of calls out there. But if we annex it would be the City Police Department. And same thing for dust control, we would be monitoring dust control, and the city would be enforcing that, as our own property.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:12
Unknown Speaker 1:47:14
the as part of the mine operation, the mining company has a number of requirements that they need to meet. They have to control dust as well on their site. So the city will have staff inspecting in the area during the course of that operation to observe and we’ll be able to identify should there be any dust issues?
Unknown Speaker 1:47:37
Are the trucks that are running the gravel required to have? And I’m sure I’m not using the correct technical term, but a blanket or a covering over the area because the trucks cannot be completely enclosed on the top.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:57
I believe that is a standard state or local law is that you have to cover if you’re traveling down a local road.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:04
Yeah, I believe there’s a city code in Longmont municipal code that requires trucks hauling to have covers.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:10
So the remedy if if it is noticed that a truck might possibly be going down that road at a speed? That seems to be a little fast, and it’s noted there’s no cover on the top or it’s flapping in the breeze or whatever. How does someone call in do they call into the police department? Do they call into public works? How do they get enforcement
Unknown Speaker 1:48:41
there is a police have a non emergency number, which can be called into and Public Works does have a service number, which can be is on our website. Service works, I believe is also an email that people can write into and put in a request.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:00
So there is a remedy for speeding trucks and for uncovered trucks in that area. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:09
Thank you. Any other questions? Commit for Saunders Thank you Chair polling.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:15
I just had a question about this sign it said in the IGA that the Boulder County was going to remove the 30 ton sign requirement is that just because it changes once it changes jurisdiction that mean the road obviously still the same, but do the requirements change for the weight of the trucks that can be allowed on that road?
Unknown Speaker 1:49:39
And the main the main reason or or I don’t want to scare anybody wrong, but trucks can drive down Quiksilver road now. They just have to have a 13 ton weight limit the road is posted for weight restriction. Part of the IGA requires will require the city and aggregate industries to to Not just control dust or deal with that, but also any any issues with damage to the road surface. So the weight restriction that there are a number of dirt roads in the in the county in Weld County in Boulder County that are not restricted. I’m not exactly sure why the county decided at some point in the past to to, to post it. But again, that is part of the we feel we haven’t covered in the IGA that city an aggregate will should there be any issues with running or bass failing that we will take care of it. And so there will be periodic inspections actually regular inspections of the road ensure that there the structural integrity of the road stays intact Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:55
Can I carry Woodcock?
Unknown Speaker 1:50:58
Thank you, Chairman Poland. I’m curious, how does one mitigate a dirt road from getting dust? Because I’ve seen paved roads, you know, with the with the machine with a round brush and with water. But how do you clean up a dirt road? From dust? Gen you
Unknown Speaker 1:51:25
back Oh, go ahead, Jim. Go ahead. No, go ahead. Doug. General practices for dust control usually involves a water truck, you know, watering it down and making sure that you know, you’re not stirring up dust. When it’s really dry out. That’s when you tend to see a lot of dust stirring up. You know, winter times when it’s muddy and wet. You don’t you generally see a whole lot of dust. So generally, it’s water practices. And Jim, I’m not sure if there’s specific other mediation in the agreements for dust control.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:52
The agreements aren’t that specific. The city does have agreements with Weld County on other dirt roads in there are at times that can be chemical treatments that can be put down that can hold us down for longer than just water. plain old water.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:11
Yeah, I was just curious. And then I have another question. Just south of Quicksilver road. Right next to it is the same rain Greenway. Is that part of the annexation? Or does that stay within Boulder County is is that part of the County Open Space or what? What’s happening with that?
Unknown Speaker 1:52:35
At this time, we’re not annexing the Greenway trail. Obviously, having the road annex gives us good access to the Greenway trail. But we did not annex it at this time. It’s currently part of the larger property to the South has a conservation easement. easement on it, I believe. But yeah, we decided not to annex it at this time.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:54
Okay, and so the Greenway, I haven’t seen it in the IGA. But yeah, so the greenways not part of the dust mitigation either, right?
Unknown Speaker 1:53:08
Not not specifically. Yes, that
Unknown Speaker 1:53:10
one is paid so I can see more. I can see the dust there.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:14
So we have
Unknown Speaker 1:53:16
Dan Wolford here from open space. And Dan, you want to answer that? You bet. We
Unknown Speaker 1:53:21
currently have a management agreement and IGA with Boulder County, because that Greenway is on County Open Space. And currently, we collaborate if there’s issues with road conditions with Boulder County, certainly annexation into the city would make that coordination much simpler. And we are responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the city of Longmont is anyhow, the maintenance and the enforcement and rangering capabilities of that Greenway. But we do have a management agreement with Boulder County parks and open space that was signed and agreed to in 2009. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:07
Any other questions? Eva, I have a couple of questions for you just to clear this up. So currently, there is already mining operations going to the west of this area.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:23
Chair Polen there are not operations at this moment, but they are approved through a PUD plan to mine. I know that they’ve got to do some things before they start they need to construct a berm wall on their west side facing you know the Costco property. And I believe they’re working on the berm right now. But they’re not actively mining at this point.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:48
And just to just to correct even not to to, they’re mad at me, but they are not building a berm. They’re stockpiling material currently on the site for the Costco price. One of the other items prior to the mining operation starting there is they do have to put in install monitoring wells on the south side of the mining property. There’s a strip of homes I think on quail road that and wells and part of the mining operation near the end, monitor those that groundwater to ensure that it doesn’t impact some of those irrigation wells. That’ll be the first step that’s going in. And they still haven’t indicated at what point they will be starting mining.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:33
Okay, thank you. Dan, did you have anything to add?
Unknown Speaker 1:55:37
Just a brief comment, chairman in the fact that not to confuse this particular issue, but there was gravel mining operations going on to the east of this property where aggregate industries currently has a batch plant. The current or proposed operation to the West will be a continuation of that current operation. But at this point in time, there is no gravel mining operation to the west of this annexation.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:05
Okay. So then a but currently there are no gravel trucks going down that road.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:11
Is that correct? Yes. Chair Powell. And that’s correct.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:15
And that is currently a weight restricted, but the speed limit is 45. Currently, does that? Correct? believe
Unknown Speaker 1:56:25
so? And I will defer to public works on that.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:29
That is correct. Is 40 posted at 45 miles per hour currently, and it is has a weight restricted sign of 13 tonnes.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:37
So basically, we’re taking the weight restriction off, but then lowering the speed limit.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:42
That is correct. There’s other safety items. We are looking to install a temporary traffic signal at the western end of Quicksilver anticipating that the mining operation would have a pay entrance at that location, and that’s where they would access 119th Street as well as Quicksilver.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:03
Okay, and then, do we have any data on the current traffic load on Quiksilver? Because I know it is a road that is open for people to use.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:18
Do we have sure I understand the question,
Unknown Speaker 1:57:20
do we know how to traverse you know? How many cars you
Unknown Speaker 1:57:27
know, we do not have any traffic counts on the road? Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:32
That’s all the questions I have for now. Mr. Goldberg?
Unknown Speaker 1:57:40
I think Sara, I don’t know how much to add here. Except I just kind of want to reinforce
Unknown Speaker 1:57:45
Unknown Speaker 1:57:47
What we have is the forgive me just one second. The there’s really what we’re not, we’re not proposing any major changes to the use of the land, as is there’s no development being added. We’re basically taking land that we don’t have control over. And we’re bringing it into our control and allowing us to better maintain, be accountable and better, maybe better better manage these, this land and the strip of road for us that we then become more responsible, more accountable, but also able to manage Is that true?
Unknown Speaker 1:58:27
Yes, Vice Chair Goldberg? That’s correct. All points you’ve made? Yes, there is no new developments, the shell property will remain public open space. The Quiksilver right of way will remain public right of way. When in our opinion, through development services, the phrase development means you’re going to build something nothing’s being built, no change of land use still right of way still public open space.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:55
And is it true that there’s an IGA with like, 20 points on it that lay out kind of strict criteria that we have to follow, you know, in our relationship with Boulder County and Weld County, and we we have points that we have to be held accountable do and action to take it for not meeting those?
Unknown Speaker 1:59:16
i Yes, Vice Chair. That’s correct. You the IGA is before you. We have one with Weld County, one with Boulder County, there are certain expectations on all parties.
Unknown Speaker 1:59:28
That includes things like means managing speed and managing dust as we do for any other projects or any other development or any other part of our property of our
Unknown Speaker 1:59:42
property. Yes, Vice Chair. That’s correct. And there’s a conservation easement as well on the Michelle property.
Unknown Speaker 1:59:49
Yeah. That Gosh, I’m having trouble finding, you know, a reason not to be supportive of this. It seems like it gives us more control over lands that we want to have control over. And that were already being utilized. And this just makes it more efficiently ours and also kind of makes us more accountable to. So let’s just kind of where my head’s at right now.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:11
Thank you. Any other questions?
Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
Unknown Speaker 2:00:20
Sorry, I had one more question. And I’m not sure if this goes in with annexations. I’m, I’m sort of leaning towards where Vice Chair, Goldberg is when you can index open space in it’s sort of like the golden goose. And anytime you can do that you you grab hold of it as outlined in OpenSpace. Master Plan. The annexation of the road was a little bit confusing to me at first. But being public right away, it doesn’t really change the use of it, the trucks are going to be there, regardless of who owns it. But I like the city owning it somewhat like how we had the situation with the county during the floods, were certain parts of Sunset were closed off. And so it made it a little bit challenging to get that flood work done on the road. My question is, and it might be outside of the annexation component. With that road being it seems small to me, I go down that quite a bit in with the increase of the 300 trucks, which is a lot and I appreciate that impact that it’s going to have. But again, not part of this annexation. Is there. Are there plans to increase this the width of that road or to pave it? Or is that just not even a part of the annexation that I’m all able to ask. I’ll defer
Unknown Speaker 2:01:43
to Jim and Doug and Chris on that one.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:49
This time, we have no plans to to pave the road, we had looked at it to at one point earlier in the process to determine if that was a viable option, as a as a dust control measure did not appear to be a cost effective measure. There were other other ways to resolve dust. The road is is is basically anywhere from 20 to 25 feet wide. Wow, would be a bit of a challenge as trucks are running down there. There were no plans and no discussions to widen the road. There is a challenge a bit with that on the south side, there is a utility line running along with several aerial pole facilities. We don’t want to widen that area. And then in the north side, there’s fencing. Part of the the residential properties that are there, about a third of the property on the north side there is existing fencing. So we had not planned on it and dug in too deep on it. I think the trucks could adequately run down that road. I hope that answers your question.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:57
It does answer the question, am I right in remembering that it’s it’s a it’s a term sort of a term limited time when the trucks are going to be going down there. So I’m just wondering if there’s a threshold for when the road would be maybe looked at to if it needed to get widened? Outside of it, so it’s okay if you don’t need to.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:20
Yeah, again, widening we really haven’t looked at it. The the time that trucks are going to run on it is basically seven that’s permitted by the permits on the on the site or seven to seven, Monday through Friday. No trucks are allowed to run it down and on weekends. And there’s no hauling or mining on Sundays, I believe. So they’ll be running. If they run trucks on Saturday, they’ll have to run up to highway can Pratt highway and then down but is that what you’re looking for?
Unknown Speaker 2:03:55
Yeah, yeah, the timeframe. I meant, like years, I thought that maybe five years doing that.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:03
The agreement calls is a three year agreement calls for to one year extensions from the start. So then I get back to the threshold where you do that five years to Yeah, they’d have five years to mine the site.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:16
Okay. So then if there’s any big problems that comes about that five year five J comes up then
Unknown Speaker 2:04:23
if there’s issues we can we can be pushed in aggregate to do any additional work on road.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:30
Unknown Speaker 2:04:35
Your director Angstadt. The PUD controls a lot of what the aggregate mining activities take place. Was there any consideration or is there any direction that any road other than Quicksilver a variety of roads could be used for hauling this gravel?
Unknown Speaker 2:04:58
I you know the original the original Don’t mining plan doesn’t depict a or call for a haul route. It simply stipulated that trucks could not drive south on 100/19 Street South of Quicksilver. So, when we, we looked at kind of what other routes, we looked further south. But there’s several roads that were following would be falling into the same same trap, kind of the dirt roads that were posted load posted further to the south that went east west. We one of the advantages of using Quicksilver was it’s a shorter haul route to the just the, let’s say, the mining facility, but the the, the processing facility that aggregate has to the east,
Unknown Speaker 2:05:51
that bachpan off of Ken Pratt, for everyone.
Unknown Speaker 2:05:56
It’s off done. I try County Road
Unknown Speaker 2:05:58
seven and highway 119. And we did consider highway 119. When we did because I did the original PUD and annexation, we did consider highway 119. There were some concerns about having that many gravel trucks entering onto a state highway where there’s cars doing 65 Miles plus. And so it seemed like a safer alternative as well, I think right, Jim? To go straight across to Quicksilver
Unknown Speaker 2:06:26
we looked at it is a safety concerns for putting trucks on highway 119. And also shorter route. Looking at it as from an environmental approach that would be be it’s it’s about a I think it’s about a little over two and a half miles savings in out and back in mileage would be less greenhouse gases. And then less trucks on the highway was really where we were looking
Unknown Speaker 2:06:53
at the trucks that would then have to go north on county line up to 119. Is that No.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:01
Originally, originally the trucks would have come out of the the access point on 219th Street up to 100/19 or 100 up to Ken Pratt then go east to get to County Line Road on Kent Pratt, south to highways, county road 740 and a half. Well, sorry, 20 and a half and then to the east to the mind site. Okay, this just basically cuts out the the ken Pratt.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:35
So they’re going to cross the property. So they’re going to go to Carolina and South to 20 and a half and further east.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:41
That’s okay. Here, they’ll they’ll they’ll go down Quiksilver to county line and then go south to 20 and a half.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:50
Okay. Okay. I did. That’s not the way I envision that would work. But I see that now. Okay. Big otherwise takes some proactive steps to make sure that these gravel the gravel hauling minimizes impacts. Is that fair to say? You’re
Unknown Speaker 2:08:14
yes, you’re you’re
Unknown Speaker 2:08:15
grading the road. You’re lowering the speed limit. You are taking away the weight limit. But you have to take away the weight limit for trucks to drive. Correct?
Unknown Speaker 2:08:24
Yes, and then putting in a temporary traffic signal at 119th street and Quicksilver road on a at that intersection.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:33
And nothing’s needed me. He said when it goes into comedy.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:38
Because the trucks would be crossing 100/19 Street. We felt that that traffic temporary traffic signal there and the county agreed would be the best measure at that location.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:49
Appreciate that. One last question for city attorney may. Eugene 15 Oh 20608 to two probably has to lie within the municipal service area or the law my planning area. As planner bear Shecky pointed out. Neither the properties are in either of those areas. But there’s an exemption if City Council finds consistent with the comp plan. It’s in the best interest of the city to have the annexation and there’s indication that the city has this council has made that determination Do you agree?
Unknown Speaker 2:09:39
Commissioner height and planning zoning eg Bay City Attorney
Unknown Speaker 2:09:44
Unknown Speaker 2:09:47
have not made that determination because the annexation is not before that. Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks Sit for me, you, Commissioner Goldberg? Thanks, Chairman, ever I just wanted to be cognizant and sensitive to Mrs. Miss Cook is a holly cooks, letter that we receive today and concerns raised in the past and current existing lawsuit against our city. Does that need to weigh into how we move forward tonight? Do we? Do we need to be pausing this discussion until that plays out? Do we need to be paying taking that feedback besides respecting that we’ve heard her concerns and we’ll make decisions based off of, you know, all of our discussion, including her feedback, even though she couldn’t be here in person today. So that the fact that that lawsuit exists impact our decision tonight.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:01
Right. Good question. Vice Chair Goldberg. I know, the Commission’s purview is to look at the review criteria only. But I will defer to Mr. May, if he wants to add in, but I believe it’s your role here is to make a recommendation to city council based on the review criteria, notwithstanding any outside litigation.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:24
And Eugene, did
Unknown Speaker 2:11:24
you have anything to add? No, that
Unknown Speaker 2:11:31
I think that’s correct. I would say that the litigation is a parallel process, but separate. You know, the district court granted the city’s motion to dismiss on all claims. And they decided to appeal that appeals can be lengthy 1218 months is probably typical to get an appeal decision out of an appellate court. And the annexation process has its own statutory criteria as well. It’s in the long run code. Things Eva things, Eugene. Well, then I think, you know, just to kind of lay out where I’m at. You know, I’ve already laid out some of my feelings as to why I think this makes sense. We’ve, in the packet, we’ve identified that the review criteria, meet section 15 dot o 2.055. items A through S. Additionally, there are reviews for annexations 15 Oh, dot A dot two, I think is that a 02. And as items A through G. And then we’ve just had a robust discussion around how moving forward would allow us to be more in control of the land that we have the land and the use of the roads, and would allow us to just have better control, better maintenance, more accountability. And given the lack of any development or any real change to what’s already happening out there. I’m favorable to this. So with that, I go ahead and recommend or motion to approve PCR 2022 Dash,
Unknown Speaker 2:13:35
Unknown Speaker 2:13:39
which reads recommend approval of the Peschel open space annexation zoning and concept plan. Application to city council finding that the review criteria have been met.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:51
Thank you, Mr. hight
Unknown Speaker 2:13:54
friendly suggestion commission over the city attorney name and I just have identified that the MSA LPA inclusion requirements have not been met. Because this matter hasn’t been in front of council yet to make the determination. It’s in the best interest of the city for this annexation. I would suggest 2022 is going to be with the requirement that council find that it’d be in the best interest to go around the MSA LPA issue. That’s my suggestion.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:30
I’m open to the amendments. As long as it that’s not being redundant. If we recommend approval and city council takes that recommendation, is it safe to say that they will have that they will have determined it had met that burden, if you will. Is that fair or
Unknown Speaker 2:14:51
think to a says it meets all the conditions in this is one of the conditions that hasn’t been met Good. That’s my understanding and maybe attorney making clarify that for us too.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:09
Yeah, attorney, man, can we just weigh in as to the is that some is that a condition we should add? Or if counsel ends up accepting this recommendation? Is it safe to assume that they will have determined that it has been? I think it would be the latter, I think would be a finding of the city council, per the code. And, you know, I think that planning and zoning Commission’s recommendations to council assume compliance with the Longmont Municipal Code. Oh, yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Attorney me, with the utmost respect. Commissioner, I think I lean away from the conditions and adding conditions when I feel like when they are like part of the approval process, part of the review process. So we recommend approval, and then it hits city council and they approve them. I feel like they are acknowledging that it has met that burden. I don’t know if that’s eloquent enough.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:19
I just say what you’re saying, except that, you know, to a says that 15? Oh, a two has been met. It hasn’t?
Unknown Speaker 2:16:48
Yeah, yeah, I guess I don’t, I think both get us to the same finish line. Let me pause for a second. I think a couple other commissioners have some.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:57
I’m not sure if like, um, I think that we go for it. We have fi PCR 202 22 Two a because we’re recommending again, that council approves and council in effect approving it does meet the criteria. I know it sounds circular. But that is generally the way we have been doing it. And I don’t see a need to change at this point. So I will second Commissioner Goldberg’s motion.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:33
Hey, we have a motion. That has been seconded. Any further discussion? Any comments?
Unknown Speaker 2:17:44
Commissioner. Hi. I just want to clarify one more. One thing that I was harping on earlier, which is that as a development plan, it has to be consistent with neighboring uses. And I was questioning whether or not that standard was met. Think of revising my position on that. Based upon the district the discussion and explanation that this is a road, it’s not really being developed. And when I looked at how the road is being managed, as explained by director Angstadt, this is the actions that the IGA requiring the city to take, actually are to protect from the surrounding uses as the best or at least more than could be without the the standards. So with respect to that objection. rethinking my my issues there. I still have a problem with the Oh 602 a part that be met. Thanks. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:50
Any other comments? If not, Jane, let’s take a boat.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:56
Chairman polling for Commissioner flake, or Chairman Goldberg, or Mr. hight Respectfully no. Commissioner to the COTS for Commissioner teta or Commissioner Saunders or Chairman Polen. That motion passes six to one with Commissioner hight dissenting.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:20
Thank you very much, Jane. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you’re unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before Council, please contact the Planning Division for further information at 303-651-8330. And that takes us through our public hearings. The next item for business is the electronic participation review and approval.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:01
I don’t know. Do we have somebody from the city staff who will be
Unknown Speaker 2:20:11
Unknown Speaker 2:20:14
walking us through?
Unknown Speaker 2:20:18
Tour in Poland? Unfortunately, I was not a part of your last meeting. So while I would like to try to help you through this, I think the commission had, or at least, Commissioner height, had some suggested revisions, thought Mr. May had gone through at one of the previous meetings and talked a little bit about some of the suggested revisions. So I’m, I’m guessing that you have a version now that has some of the changes in it. But I’m not 100% Sure, since I was not at the last meeting, so I apologize. I’m not gonna be able to fill in.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:03
Thank you very much. A Commissioner height. And I believe you you’ve probably reviewed this does this contain the recommended
Unknown Speaker 2:21:13
my understanding from our January 19. Hearing that director van den Wigan was going to make some minor revisions to this appears to have incorporated those minor revisions. I would therefore move to approve this electronic communication record participation policy during city block board commission meetings. thinks a little broader than p and Z. But that’s its title. Good.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:45
We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second Commissioner height are sorry, Commissioner Goldberg.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:53
I’ll second that.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:55
We have a motion and a second.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:57
Unknown Speaker 2:21:59
Do we have any further discussion? Jane, let’s go ahead. Take a roll call vote.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:06
Chairman Polen. Yes, Mr. Flag.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:11
Can you come back to me please? Vice Chairman Goldberg. Commissioner height. All right. Commissioner to cut. Hi, Mr. Tetteh. Aye. Commissioner Saunders. Aye. Commissioner flake. I
Unknown Speaker 2:22:36
TermInfo net passes Seven to zero. Thank you very much.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:43
That gets just to the next item which is item number eight. This is the final call public invited to be heard. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted enter the meeting ID 84589092559. When we are ready to hear public Tremont 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 they will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please do remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak will now take a five minute break to allow people to call in
Unknown Speaker 2:27:29
Chairman Polen we are coming up on that five minute mark. Right now. There are new callers. Thank you. Okay, once I see the rest of the commission back online, I will drop our slide and there’s still no callers.
Unknown Speaker 2:27:54
Thank you very much. Well, then close public to be heard. Final call. Next item is items from the Commission. Anybody have anything that they would like to say at this time? going once going twice, okay. Council Representative Rodriguez is not here today. That leads us to item 11. Planning manager Don Pacheco.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:21
Thank you, Chairman Folan. Just two items. So now that we’ve approved the virtual meeting guidelines, we’re kind of expecting that we’re going to continue to be meeting online with the Commission. Most likely I would just wager a guess for about the next at least two more months. While we finished getting ready for returning back to the the council chambers. Obviously, I think we would want to talk to the commission and as we get closer to make sure that everyone is still comfortable with returning. But from the staff standpoint, I think that’s about the earliest that we would probably be looking at would probably be the May meeting at the earliest. So just wanted to give you that. And again, we’ll continue to watch the COVID numbers, see whether or not the next wave what that looks like. I think we we kind of expect to see something. But what that’s gonna look like we’re not certain. So we’ll wait and see that but I wanted to at least give you a heads up about that. And then the next item which I’m not 100% sure if there was an email sent out, but the Rocky Mountain land use Institute conference is having registration right now and I know that some of the commission members have attended that in the past to you know, learn about some additional land use law and understanding Through the you know, Denver, University of Denver. And so, that is registration is taking place now. And if you are interested in attending, it’s virtual this year, the two days are all virtual. And so it does provide some flexibility instead of having to drive down there to the to the university to attend, you can do that from the comfort of your home or your office or wherever else you like to listen to a conference at. So if you’re interested, if you could let Jane know, we would really appreciate that. I think one of the reduced timeframes for being able to get a discount is happening right now. And I think it’s going to come to an end here shortly. So if you do know, or need additional information, let us know we can send that to you. And unless there’s any questions, that’s all that I’m aware of for tonight for the Commission.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:58
Thank you. Anybody have questions for Dan?
Unknown Speaker 2:31:02
Unknown Speaker 2:31:04
we are at item 12, which is German. Thank you, everybody. And thank you, Commissioner Saunders for
Unknown Speaker 2:31:09
participating. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:31:15
It was a pleasure.