Longmont City Council – Study Session – February 6, 2024
Read along below:
Speaker 1 5:00
Hi. Hello everyone and welcome I would now like to call the February 6 2024 Excuse me. City council study session to order. May I have a roll call please? Present
Speaker 2 7:22
Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo fairing here. Council members Martin here McCoy, Rodriguez. Yarborough Crist present. Mayor you have a quorum.
Unknown Speaker 7:33
Thank you Let’s stand for the Pledge
Unknown Speaker 7:43
America and to the republic for which it stands one nation
Speaker 1 7:59
as a reminder, the livestream of this meeting can be viewed at the city’s YouTube channel. It can be viewed at the Longmont public media.org forward slash watch, or on Comcast channels eight or eight ad. Anyone wishing to speak at first call public invited to be heard will need to add his or her name to the list outside the council chambers. Only those on the list will be invited to speak at the first public invited to be heard. Each speaker is limited to three minutes and we would like your name and address. Is there are there any councillors who would like to direct the city manager to add agenda items to other agendas future agendas? Councillor Crist.
Unknown Speaker 8:51
Speaker 3 9:00
I would like to add an agenda item regarding HOAs. I would like to have a better understanding of new developments and why HOAs are mandated for new developments. I’ve been on the council for eight weeks, and I’ve had at least eight concerns about HOAs from neighborhoods. And I also noticed that was a topic at the coffee with council. So I would just like to understand better what we’re expecting in terms of having HOAs and new developments. And do I need to make a motion for that? Sure. Okay, so I’d like to make a motion to for the staff to bring forward information about HOAs.
Speaker 1 9:42
So counter Chris, second or third that’s been made that motion to have an agenda item on HOAs was made by Councillor Chris seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairy so can also Christa would like to ask you do you just want to leave it up to the city manager as to when an appropriate time for that is?
Speaker 3 10:11
Could we do it? Maybe on the 24th of February? Is that agenda look good?
Speaker 4 10:23
Based on our schedules, that’s probably a little too quick to pull it together. I think if you could let us bring it as soon as possible.
Speaker 3 10:32
Well, I think the the next date in March is, is vacated for NLC. But maybe after that, the 13th of March, that’d be a possible. That’s, that’s an LC. So it would be
Unknown Speaker 10:50
let me look at the calendar
Unknown Speaker 10:54
or the 20th, maybe
Unknown Speaker 10:57
the 28th, we’re going to have a pre session.
Speaker 3 11:04
Session for pre session, it could be on the 20th. And March
Speaker 4 11:08
5 may be doable, we have a regular session on need to look at that agenda.
Unknown Speaker 11:13
Okay. All right.
Speaker 4 11:16
Are you wanting, I guess part of what I’m trying to do? Are you wanting us to go over the code revisions in terms of the establishment of HOAs? And why that’s in there, or?
Speaker 3 11:28
I would like to know what we hope to accomplish by having HOAs and new developments. Because we seem to be having a lot of concerns coming forward regarding HOAs.
Speaker 4 11:40
I think we can shoot for the fear. I mean, look at that agenda.
Speaker 1 11:50
And Sandy, I’m going to add a little bit perhaps the state statute, as well on HOAs.
Speaker 3 12:01
And there’s, there’s been some state involvement in the last couple of years as well. So that would be helpful to have, please, Sandy,
Unknown Speaker 12:10
yummy. Look at the fifth row clerk. I think if staff can put it together, there’s room on the fifth.
Speaker 4 12:22
I think some of its gonna be historical. So we’re gonna have to dig into it, because I’m not sure that most of us were here when that was promulgated. And so, but yeah, let us shoot for the fifth. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 12:34
And if you need more time. Okay, great. Thanks. I’m information. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, let’s vote. And then carries unanimously. Councillor Martin.
Speaker 5 12:54
Yes. I have a resolution from the sustainability advisory board regarding their policy on composting. It does and we would like to bring that resolution before council I would I would move that the sustainability Advisory Board’s agenda or resolution on on composting be considered by the council at some future date.
Speaker 1 13:31
I’ll second that. So our counselor Martin wants to bring forth a resolution on cap posting that the sustainability board has put together and I seconded that is there any discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote
Unknown Speaker 13:55
that passes unanimously thank you
Speaker 1 14:08
so um, we are now at public invited to be heard I took a while saying that because I thought we went through that first part awfully fast. We can’t be at public invited to be here already. But before we do that, we are going to know let’s we’re going to do public invited to be heard. Remember that you have three minutes and we’d like your name and address. And don’t forget to turn on the microphone. The first person is Shaquille the law.
Speaker 6 14:49
Center. Yes, it is. Great. Shaquille Talal 219 Francis street mayor and members of council. I’m here today speaking in favor of council endorsing HB 24 1152 The cost of housing is a choice and today Council has the opportunity to vote to reduce the cost of housing, not just in the city of Longmont, but across the entire front range at us are a type of desirable home that could make living in Longmont attainable to young families, teachers, city employees, and the many other people who make the city work but who cannot currently afford to live within city limits. They can also be a place for a couple of growing older to move into perhaps behind the home they raised their kids in so that they can downsize into something more manageable without having to give up their neighbors. It’s exactly what Longmont needs. With respect to this bill. The city’s Legislative Affairs webpage says quote, while we share the state’s goal of expanding housing options, this bill encroaches on traditional land use and zoning authority of Home Rule municipalities. With all due respect to the city staff, I believe that this analysis is wrong. Government with a capital G has several functions, one of the most important of which is to solve problems of collective action. There is a lot that Longmont can do to lower the cost of housing within its borders. But without state level action that gets all the cities around us to take action as well. Our success will be limited. The structure of the bill does not infringe on a city’s right to Home Rule. City Council’s action plan for how let me rephrase that. The structure of this bill does not infringe on this city’s right to Home Rule. City Council’s action plan for housing affordability from last year from last year City Council retreat specifically included changes to long months adu rules that would comply with almost everything in this bill. By voting to endorse Council can put some points on the scoreboard going into this year’s retreat. And if the state is going to do something that we were going to do anyway, and make it so that other cities can’t mooch off of long months hard work to lower the cost of housing. That seems like a win all around. I believe that opposing this bill is going to make fixing long runs cost of housing even harder. Last week at the City Council open forum, several of you told me how eager you are to see what the state wanted to do to lower the cost of housing. Well, here it is. Let’s get serious.
Speaker 1 16:58
Thank you, Shaquille Mary Lynn.
Speaker 7 17:13
Good evening Council. My name is Mary Lynn. And I live on Atwood Street in the historic east side. So I wanted to thank Council for agreeing that a discussion of the options and ways to eliminate the food, the specifically the grocery tax, the tax on groceries, would be put on a future agenda. And I’m here to ask when that will be and how we will know that that’s happening. I don’t I don’t understand that part of the process. And I want to make sure that the folks who are interested are prepared and that this is going to happen in a timely manner. Hopefully earlier in first quarter. Because I understand building budgets having done that for years in my own businesses and other folks businesses. So is where would I find that information?
Speaker 1 18:09
We don’t really respond to public environment you heard but we do have people in the back there that can answer that question for you in the back of the behind you. Okay, Sam cedar and Becky Doyle are both raising their hand. Okay,
Speaker 7 18:24
I’ll go. Okay. And another question. It also was not clear. And this is on behalf of the issue that my husband brought up of food sovereignty from the angle of sustainable agriculture. It’s also not clear what the process is for putting together a task force around that. I certainly didn’t leave with an understood a clear understanding of that. And, again, I understand that you don’t respond directly to questions, but how can that question be answered as well? Behind you, thank you,
Speaker 1 18:59
thank you, Mary. Dan Searles.
Speaker 8 19:15
Good evening councillors and Mayor Peck. My name is Dan Searles and I live at 328 Grant Street. And I’m here to ask the city council to support the passage of HB 2411 52 which will allow ad use as an accessory use to single family detached houses. Last week at the open forum, I brought up the dire need for more housing in Longmont, particularly affordable and attainable housing. The ability to add at use and single family lives would go a long way toward lessening the shortage. And you might be surprised how long each of us have been around and how beneficial they are. The English carriage houses dating back to the 1700s are essentially ad use. And anyone familiar with happiness? Use knows that found his garage apartment was an adu. So you know they’re cool. But when my wife was a single mother, raising her then 11 year old son, they lived in an adu she rented from a client in Boulder County. And because it was the essence of affordability, she was able to save enough money to buy a townhouse right here along mountain. So many people people who work here in Longmont and would love to live in this community are priced out because of the lack of affordable housing. By coming out in support of this bill. Longmont shows itself to be a true leader willing to adopt creative solutions to solve the chronic lack of affordable housing. This if this bill passes, law, Matt wins, and so does every community in the state, we will be able to increase the supply of housing instead of outsourcing the housing of our labor force. So the surrounding sprawl of Frederick Erie and Firestone, the city loses very little control. The bill as written, maintains administrative reviews and precludes the city of and, and would not preclude the city of Lima from building on this foundation, while at the same time addressing other obstacles, such as overly restrictive and inflexible zoning and land use codes. It’s not like people would suddenly tape a bunch of cardboard boxes together and call it an adu. This would be serious housing and would address a serious problem. This is a win win, and I trust you on the council will see your way supporting this bill that way. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 21:41
Thank you Dan Taylor Wicklund?
Speaker 9 21:58
Evening, Mayor councilmembers My name is Taylor Wicklund. I live at 1704 Short place I am here to also request that the council give support to HB 2411 52. And a vote tonight, as I hope you have read the House bill will start to allow the infill that Longmont needs and that many other communities around the state need as well. The bill will circumvent the arbitrary control of homeowner associations by freeing up the housing market to create more supply of housing to allow you to use this bill will not and home rule for long ma as we need the state to act on the control of HOAs and the housing supply. Longmont cannot do this alone. After this bill passes, Longmont can continue to lead by example from our end visionary comprehensive plan and continue to think outside the box ideas of more ways to increase housing supply, such as creating incentives to build affordable attainable at use and reviewing design standards that truly restrict what we can and cannot build. Overall, the House bill will bring a greater value to the President’s city ordinances on housing and allow Longmont to continue to do the hard work on this issue. Let long not lead by example to the other Front Range communities and encourage the state to act. To create the housing supply we need and eliminate the restrictions HOAs create on the marketplace. I’ll end with a quote from Council’s very own vision. Llama is the world’s greatest village where children are the most fortunate to be born and raised. Older adults are supported through their entire life journey. And all people have access to food, shelter, and the opportunity to thrive and feel they belong. This bill is an important step towards that vision support HB 2411 52 Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 23:44
Thank you Taylor, Gary hajus.
Speaker 10 23:55
Good evening, Mayor councilmembers My name is Gary Hodges. I live at 2148 Stuart Street. So as a follow up from a week ago, when I spoke on energy. During that talk, I stated that globally wind and solar makes up 3% of our global energy use and Councilmember Barton disagreed with that, or she had read somewhere else. So I got in touch with an energy expert I know and actually the gentleman that I got the data from. And he said that to be fair and accurate that 3% was almost 3.5 when he created the plot that was a few years ago. He said now it’s pushing 4% But we’re really talking about supplying primary energy, not electricity and his word. So that’s where the conversion assumptions get hinky because it depends on where your solar panel is. I mean, if it’s in Arizona, you get more than if it’s in North Dakota, etc. Where the wind turbine is really what you want to think about is if you got rid of all the wind and solar, how much hydrocarbon combustion would it take to replace that and there’s what that that’s what that number is talking about. And you don’t have to believe me, you don’t have to believe that Gentlemen, just search for yourself something like global energy consumption by source, you’ll find our world and data. Other sources. There’s a bunch of them out there, these things range from like three to 5%. But I don’t want to get bogged down in those numbers. Because the real The reality is that when a solar is not green, it’s not renewable. On because of the immense mining and refining that is required to put in these energy machines, PV wind turbines and such. And this was the January Well, you know what that is, to progress to progress toward 100% renewable energy goal by 2030. We’re not going to reach that I think everybody here knows that. And I think we need to quit using that terminology, because people are going to start expecting it. And when a solar isn’t even going to reduce, reduce it by anything, and we just need Honesty and truthfulness. And again, I said last week, I don’t celebrate this. I just want people to understand so it’d be a little funny and sarcastic. Maven said we could say like adding more wind and solar into our energy mix will not appreciably decrease co2 emissions, and will have zero impact on climate change, if we’re going to increase your electricity anyway. And I think if people really understood what was there, they might have another feeling on it. There’s more I want to say but adaption and resiliency, you’re going to see more on that because that just means people are understanding this is not possible. I’m going to spend the last 30 minutes to speak as a single family home owner, and I’m in support of the zoning as it is. I don’t like the idea of changing the ground rules. We buy our homes for most people, it’s the single largest purchase we make. If you change the zoning midstream, it’s changing the ground rules by which we all made these purchases. So I would stay in as in not in support of the House bill that these gentlemen had just discussed. Thank you.
Speaker 1 26:54
Thank you, Gary. Dwayne lease.
Speaker 11 27:09
Members of the Council. My name is Dwayne lease I live at 2686 Pearl Howlett road. I’m here to talk to you about ideas about what’s going on with performance spaces. At the Longmont Museum, they are adding a brand new kind of a small little performance area to the north of the or not the north to the south of the building, which will be next to the roadway. And across the street, our houses. I think that that would be much better placed on the north side of the building, which would then give a sound barrier of the building itself. I think that there’s been problems with the Roosevelt Park area pavilion, because of sound ordinance or some sound problems with the neighbors. That’s one thing. This is a little Johnny Come Lately, because they’re already in the process of building it. So. So this is just a comment more than anything else. But I do think that that’s something that you need to be very thoughtful about that sort of thing. The other thing that I think would be a really good way to go with the Stewart Auditorium is the pricing structure for the use of that auditorium,
Unknown Speaker 28:40
Speaker 11 28:43
is monolithic, and is always consistently the same at being $1,200. to rent it, it would be much better, if you sold tickets, and then charged by the number of people who came the purpose of that auditorium, and the purpose of any Auditorium is to use it. And if you have an audience that is like let’s say 50 people or 100 people, it makes it very, very, very difficult to be able to afford a $1,200 price tag plus your your tech support and, and whatnot. So if they sold tickets, and this is something that’s done by the union colony center in, in Greeley and then charge by the number of tickets that are sold for the auditorium itself, this would make it more accessible to a lot more people. And the whole idea is to is to serve the community with this particular facility. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 30:03
Thank you doing lens Whitaker.
Speaker 12 30:19
Mayor Council My name is Lance would occur out of it 1750 Call your street a lot on the agenda day so I’m probably didn’t take up all three minutes. Today is National chopstick day. It is also national frozen yogurt Day, National lame duck day. So that’s your national days. I have something in my pocket again this week. To give you a clue you have to understand difference between marijuana versus hemp. Marijuana is your cute little fuzzy toy poodle is cute. These fuzzy he’s nice to cuddle with his warm whatever. And help is your wolf out. He’s mean he’s aggressive. He’s keeping them outside kind of dark. While they’re both cute and fuzzy in their own little way. They’re both dogs have been marijuana are both the same pipe and do you know the name of the plant? Cannabis. So you have any clue on what’s in my pocket. piece of canvas name comes from cannabis. I’d also like to make a comment on the food tax. I’d like to see guest if you could try the real allocate of food tax and I know mayor wanted some solutions to that and maybe making a parking lot tax to the Walmart’s in the cost goes in the King Soopers we spend a lot of money on law enforcement in those park or parking lots. We put a lot of equipment in those parking lots. We pay for a lot of that equipment. Maybe we can put the food tax also on the books. And then Isaac Walton park while you guys have you retreated Isaac Walton clubhouse this weekend. I would like you guys to look north and realize that that little bond farm that’s there and is a big flood sponge for the crickets there and not to build the bond farm there. Maybe make it part of Isaac Walton bark. Thank you have a good day.
Speaker 1 33:24
Thank you, Lance. Denise Winton Denise Swinton
Speaker 1 33:38
think I pronounced that correct. I’m Jacob Armand.
Speaker 13 33:52
Hello, camps counsel. I’m Jacob and I live at 110 main. Today just came on to speak on the House Bill 2411 52. The way I see it long on can only develop a couple ways can develop out eating more and more of the farmland that we have around our community that gives us such a unique identity, it can develop up by redeveloping neighborhoods we currently have with apartment complexes and whatnot, or it can develop denser and I think that at us are the only way that we can develop a denser Longmont and Longmont with more housing stuck will not destroying the neighborhoods that make this town so lovely. So yeah, the other great thing about this legislation is it provides funding mechanisms and financing mechanisms for people looking to develop these ideas, which I think is very necessary. And with more resources and state resources, then I think Longmont city could provide with our own independent legislation. Yeah, I think that’s all I have to say on ideas. So I urge council to support 1152 and the state legislation on building ad use. Thank you.
Speaker 1 35:05
Thank you. Seeing no one else on this list, I’m going to close public first call public invited to be heard. Thank you, everyone. We now have a special report. And it’s I’m sorry, it’s a proclamation and it’s a proclamation designating February 11 through the 17th 2024 as Future Business Leaders of America week in Longmont, Colorado, whereas Future Business Leaders of America, Incorporated FBLA is a nonprofit educational organization, whose first chapter was established in Johnson City, Tennessee, in 1942. And Iowa became FBLA is first state chapter in 1947. And whereas long one high school officially chartered its FBLA local chapter on December 4 1974. And whereas FBLA includes more than 20,000 members and advisors in 4600 chapters nationwide in middle schools, high schools, colleges, universities, career and technical schools, and private business schools. And whereas FBLA is a professional business organization, dedicated to bringing business and education together in a positive working relationship through many innovative leadership and career development programs. And whereas FBLA members perform community service activities and strive to build a student’s understanding of the realities of the modern business world. And whereas FBLA reaches middle school, high school and college students, excuse me, basic business and leadership principles and assist them in the transition from school to work. Now therefore, I Joan Peck Mayor by virtue of the authority vested in me in the City Council of the City of Longmont, do hereby proclaim the week of fair February 11 through the 17th 2020 floor as Future Business Leaders of America week in Longmont, Colorado. Who are is going to come up and accept this award
Speaker 1 37:20
are you you know? Do you want to say a few words you know? Thank you.
Speaker 14 37:30
Hi, I’m you know, you they Good evening council and mayor Peck. I would like to thank you for this proclamation. On behalf of our FBLA program, here are some of our officers and I’m your president of Loma High School chapter. And I just want to say a few words. Our FBLA chapter is has more than 300 members in it and we are very proud of that. And we compete in many events and we prepare our students to be future business leaders and I’m very proud to say that our luncheon wet city is proclaiming February 11 through 1720 24 as FBLA week so thank you
Speaker 1 38:09
thank you you know do you all want to picture your beautiful faces in a photograph? Yes, come on up then.
Unknown Speaker 39:02
Rows and get closer together
Unknown Speaker 39:09
oh oh more people on the other side
Unknown Speaker 39:28
thank you guys so much for recognizing us
Unknown Speaker 39:53
was nice. Oh, of course. Councillor McCoy would like a few words. Well,
Speaker 15 39:58
I want to thank you as the Word director for District Two for future business Colorado Future Business Leaders of America, I couldn’t be more proud of the largest chapter in the state of Colorado, with 309 students at Longmont high. And we couldn’t have had that conference there this past weekend without all the judges that were helping. And then without all the teachers, advisors, and the students that were committed to making sure that that was a great conference. Thank you Loma high, you did a wonderful job.
Speaker 1 40:33
Ditto. So now we have our study session items. The first one is on the affordable housing incentives review. And we’d like Molly O’Donnell to invite her up to the podium and a few others.
Speaker 2 41:12
Mayor, Members of Council Molly O’Donnell, housing director for the city. I’m going to actually turn it over to our consultant Molly Fitzpatrick, you last saw her in July of last year to go over our inclusionary housing policy, and some recommendations there that we’ve since worked around, worked on with your support and implemented at your direction. So Molly’s gonna join us today to talk about the next phase of our studies using our innovative housing planning grant through the state.
Speaker 16 41:43
Thank you, Molly. Good evening, mayor and council appreciate having you back. Or have you having me back. I’m glad to be back and talk a little bit more about this. So when I was here in July, we talked through some potential revisions to the inclusionary housing ordinance, focusing on kind of cleaning up some of the requirements and making those more efficient. Now we’re coming back with affordable housing incentives. So these incentives are primarily looking at what kind of zoning and process variances and perks essentially can you give to developers who are bringing the community benefit of affordable housing to your community. That means it could be folks that are just building those inclusionary units as opposed to paying the fee. Or it can also include affordable housing, this kind of large scale, like low income housing tax credits, or Habitat for Humanity and those types of projects. So I’m going to talk through kind of some of our recommendations around the affordable housing incentive program. But just to recap, for those that aren’t familiar, this is what your existing program looks like. That’s what’s on the screen. Right now, you do have affordable incentives already in place for these types of units. We call kind of the this first tier, the baseline incentives, those are available to any developer that chooses to build the the inclusionary housing units. So if they’re building affordable units in compliance with your inclusionary housing ordinance, they qualify for these baseline incentives. If they’re paying the fee in lieu, they don’t qualify for those. So those baseline incentives are a density bonus, that’s measured as dwelling units per acre, a lot size or width reduction for single family and townhome projects. There’s also a one storey height bonus for multifamily projects, there’s reduced parking just on the affordable units in particular, within that project. And there’s also reduced development standards for projects that go above and beyond the inclusionary housing requirement. So think now like Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects that are majority affordable Habitat for Humanity or elevation, community land trust those types, they also are eligible for enhanced incentives under your current program, that basically means financial incentives for the most part. So either fee waivers or fee deferral, so they can pay him later, or different subsidies that might be available for water. So as we get into some of our recommendations, I’ll just kind of acknowledge kind of our process and going through, like, how do we look at these? How do we evaluate what incentives might make sense? And where you might want to change them? And there’s kind of three components to that analysis that we do. Number one is talking to developers and saying, what would make your life easier to build affordable units? How can we get more of these on the ground? What do you want to see in terms of incentives, or different development options? The second way is we do what’s called a feasibility analysis that really looks at the nuts and bolts of the financials of different they’re called pro formas. For what does it cost to build a development? And when we change some of those inputs, how does that impact the bottom line? So that’s kind of a quantitative analysis of what is kind of the financial benefit of some of these incentives. And then the third kind of way that we do this is a little bit more qualitative, and it really is just us doing a more in depth review of what incentives you have and what is possible talking to play. and staff about what’s going well within these, what are you hearing developers asking for, and then comparing kind of your incentive package and different opportunities with best practices throughout the country, best practices in the industry and our experience working in other communities on this issue as well. So first, I’ll share with you what we heard kind of from that first component, which is from stakeholders and developers that we spoke to, as part of this process. This slide kind of recaps some of that feedback. But I want to start with what I think is probably the most important point out of this is that most developers we talked to, were pretty happy with the both the process and what they were building in Longmont, they basically said, Look, I’m long one is letting me build the type of units that I think are in line with market demand. And I’m pretty much getting to build the things that I think are needed in Longmont. And that we were talking about that we’re talking about structure types, can you build townhomes where you want to are you building a lot sizes that you want those types of things. So developers broadly were pretty favorable. And I think that’s a really important point. Because the way incentives work is you’re giving developers something they don’t have that they want. Sometimes that’s density, sometimes that’s height, sometimes that slot size. And if you’re, if your current code is really well aligned with the market, then incentives don’t work as well. But that’s not a bad thing. So I would just take that as a compliment to your zoning code that developers are saying, hey, I can either negotiate kind of on a large scale, if I’m doing a big development, I’m able to work with planning staff, and the city to kind of get that where I need it to be. And, and if I if I’m just building the timeline, I’m pretty much getting it. So I just want to complement that and also acknowledge that when folks when developers are not necessarily taking advantage of the incentives that you offer, sometimes it means the incentives are broken. But sometimes it means your land use code is working. And so it doesn’t always mean like, Oh, we’re not doing this, right, it means you’re not holding your good zoning hostage to this other outcome. Does that make sense? So despite them saying, Yeah, it’s great. They of course, did have some things that they would love for you to do as well. So when we talk to them, you know, some of the key incentives that came up kind of over and over where we’d love lower parking ratios, they’d rather build to what they think the market wants, rather than what the city is telling them to build to in terms of number of parking spaces per unit, there was some developers wanted moderate density increases, so they weren’t looking for massive, massively different density, but a little bit here and there. Most developers said height bonuses are not super valuable in the current market, we hear that a lot, especially in suburban markets, once you go past four or five storeys in terms of a height bonus, it bumps developers into a different construction type that’s a lot more expensive, and generally requires higher rents to manage to. So height bonuses were kind of like, from developers of a density bonuses were desired. We certainly heard requests for process improvements, developers always want things done faster, and, and without any questions. And so we certainly heard, hey, if you can get us through faster, that would be really helpful. And of course, financial incentives are always welcome, as as well, particularly for affordable. Some developers said, Look, we really want to understand better what the incentives are, I think there’s there’s kind of a history and culture among developers in Longmont paying the fee in lieu and not worrying about anything else related to the units. And so they said, Well, if maybe if that was more clear, we better understood like exactly what we’re getting out of incentives, then then they may be more inclined to build those units. So that’s what we heard from developers. The next step was to do that feasibility analysis. And that’s the quantification of what’s the value of these incentives. I do want to highlight, we can’t quantify the value of all different types of incentives. So we’re really focused on the ones that are really quantifiable in kind of in a pro forma context. And that is essentially looking at parking changes, looking at density bonuses, and looking at height bonuses. So we did a couple of different models, which are detailed in that report. I’m not going to go into the weeds of the pro forma tonight, I will spare you all that pain. But broadly speaking, we kind of looked at what is it cost the developer, if they pay a fee in lieu, what is it? What value do they get if they use the current incentive program? And then what value do they get if we give them maybe a bigger density bonus, a bigger another height bonus, and then some additional parking reductions? So all of those are kind of quantified? In the report itself. The results broadly show, look, your existing incentives are meaningful, those are doing pretty much what they’re supposed to. But there’s a really, there’d be a pretty significant additional benefit of more parking reductions. So your current incentive just focuses on parking reductions for the affordable units. And we see a lot of communities adding parking reductions for the entire development if you build those affordable units. So we modelled that you can see the results there. And then finally, we did kind of have a full incentive program review. This lets us look at The things that are not quantifiable in the pro formas. It also lets us bring in input from planning staff and best practices. So I’m just going to walk us through at this point, kind of our recommendations on the things that we looked at. And then Molly is going to kind of recap where the city is on looking at some of those in a little bit more detail. So the first kind of chunk that I’ll talk about all together are the administrative improvements. So we’re not talking about changing structure of what gets built, we’re just talking about how the city processes those different those projects. And again, we’re not talking about landers changes across the board, we’re talking about specific incentives for for developments that are bringing affordable units to the table. So first is fast track review. That just means put me at the top of the stack, move me through either at a guaranteed number of days, or move me through faster, because I have affordable units and you want me. So the city is actually already in process with that that’s part of prop 123 compliance, Molly will update you guys on that as well. The public process requirements is specific to a subdivision plat a four lots. So right now, the subdivision plat for lots has to go through a public hearing process, it goes through kind of a whole site plan review process, and we’re recommending that you would make that administrative if that subdivision is going to include affordable units.
Speaker 16 51:26
We’re also recommending streamlining adu approval, this is the one recommendation that isn’t tied to contractual affordable or income, restricted, affordable. But we do think look at us do offer that kind of naturally occurring affordable. And this is a way to make that process a little bit easier, without having to go through again, a site plan approval process. So next up are the more regulatory variances. So moving away from kind of that process stuff and into what specific changes can a developer make within their development plan, if they’re including affordable units? The first one, and some of these are a bit in the weeds. So I’ll kind of give you the highlights, and then you know exactly how they might be implemented has more to do with kind of the code language and the rewrite. But this will give you kind of the concept of what we’re looking at. What we’re what we found is some barriers that we think can be addressed. So one is the open space buffer. So right now, if there’s housing right next to a park, you require a buffer of space in between those two different uses. That’s required generally between two different uses. So if you’re going from, for example, residential to industrial, there’s a buffer space, we’re just suggesting, look, if the if the adjacent use is open space, or a park, eliminate the buffer, if it’s affordable housing, that just makes more efficient use of the land area in the parcel. Next is utility and access easements. So right now we heard from developers and then also from planning staff a little bit that they’re having some stringent separation of utilities and access requirements can make it really challenging to to make good use of a parcel, when it’s a either unique or constrained parcel or a small parcel. So looking at some administrative ways to to kind of think creatively about how to make everything fit properly on that lot, when it’s affordable housing being a little bit more flexible, about how those things come together. parking standards, I kind of hinted at this before, you’re already offering some parking reductions for the affordable units. And in fact, the city’s already relaxed parking requirements in general in those mixed use districts. But in other districts parking standards are pretty high. In some cases, you have higher parking standards for multifamily for multifamily unit than a single family unit, despite the fact that that car load is not always quite the same, or in proportion there. So our feasibility analysis looked at like a 33% parking reduction across the board and development, we felt like that has a really meaningful impact on projects. And we would recommend the city look at an additional parking reduction for affordable projects that would take that would apply across the entire development not just to the affordable units. Density and height bonuses, you already have some of those in place. We’re just saying, look, keep them we know height bonuses are probably not going to work super well right now just given your market conditions, but they’re a good thing to keep in place as the markets potentially shift. And then finally, kind of continuing these couple of regulatory variances. These are the last two. This high density exemption is is kind of a nuance that you don’t see that not everybody may be familiar with. But basically right now your inclusionary housing ordinance exempts high density developments in certain ways. So basically it only applies the inclusionary only applies to the first 20 dwelling units per acre. This was put in place some time ago and it was intended to kind of catalyze this higher density divide allotment, which is more efficient, it’s more sustainable. And it does create some affordability. However, the market is already there. And we don’t think the city needs to be catalyzing or incentivizing that at this stage in the market. And so we’re recommending the city look at that exemption to make sure that you’re getting the affordable units that you deserve. So right now you’re letting those high density developments kind of off the hook for, for example, of potentially half their development or even more, because you’re only assessing that inclusionary on the first 20 units per acre. So this table just kind of illustrates several of the projects that you all have had in Longmont that exceeded that 20 dwelling units per acre. And it shows kind of how many affordable units or inclusionary units they should have had to provide if there was no exemption, if the exemption was at a different threshold. So at 35, instead of 20, and then how many they actually were required to provide either through fees or through building them under the 20. And so you can see the difference there being those seven projects, generated either fees or units equivalent to about 68 affordable units. If that exemption was gone, that would have been 158 units. So you’re losing an opportunity there. And we think the market doesn’t need that additional boost at this stage. And then finally, is related just to mixed use districts. So allowing more residential and mixed use districts, regardless of kind of that ratio of mixed use right now has to be the district has to be 50% or more commercial. And we’re suggesting waive that if it’s affordable housing. So with that, I’ll kind of give you the really quick recap, we talked about process oriented incentives. We talked about maintaining the current incentive packages that you have. And then looking at opportunities for improving land use efficiencies through some of those buffer requirement changes in utility and access. Also looking at a parking incentive, and then eliminating or raising the threshold for that high density exemption and allowing residential as a primary use. So that’s the quick recap. And I’ve moved through that quickly. I’m going to hand back off to Molly so she can give you an idea of kind of where the city is city staff is and looking at these and evaluating these as well. And then happy to take questions. Mike,
Speaker 1 57:24
I’m sorry, we have a couple of people that are interested in asking questions at this point. Are we ready? Okay, Councillor Martin?
Speaker 5 57:32
The hot Thank you, Mr. Peck. I have questions on slides four, five and seven. Can you go back there?
Speaker 5 57:50
Okay, I was completely lost about what’s being represented by this short act chart. Is it as it is now? Is it as it’s supposed to be? Because it’s hard for me to take anything away from this without having two pictures before and after?
Speaker 16 58:10
Yep, no, that’s a great point. And this is really just the, this is just showing kind of the current typical cost breakdown of a four storey multifamily. The reality is that it gets it gets just really detailed really fast when we start looking at those performance. So we didn’t include the side by side here, all of the data are in the tables in the actual report. But you’re right, this figure is mostly just showing kind of what the breakdown of cost is for typical multifamily. You can see here that parking is about 3% total of the total development cost for four storey multifamily so reducing that parking it may look like a fairly small proportion here, but it is one of the very few things that they can change with land use and incentive oriented things so the city can’t really incentivize or change the cost of land or commodities, construction costs and those sorts of things. But that parking is where you can get some well yes and
Speaker 5 59:08
that was in fact the very piece of the pie that I wanted to see because it seems to me by applying the parking requirements to the every unit or parking requirement reduction to every unit you get a big return Yes. Especially considering what a shortage of land we have. Absolutely so that’s that understanding is correct. Okay, and then on the next slide I hope I can remember what my streamline adu approval
Speaker 5 59:48
i Oh, I didn’t understand what review process of a subdivision plat of for lunch. Do you mean a subdivision plat of at least four lots or is plotted for some kind of a term of art because I just couldn’t figure out what that actually meant.
Speaker 16 1:00:10
Yeah, we may have to defer to your planning staff to make sure I don’t butcher your code. Okay, so we’ll let Glenn jump in on that one. Mayor
Speaker 17 1:00:18
Council councilmember Martin, you, right? It’s when you hit four units, you go into a preliminary plat stage, which you have a hearing before planning commission.
Speaker 5 1:00:27
Okay. So it Yeah, it just meant of at least it would be correct. If you said at least for right. Okay, that’s good. And no seven?
Speaker 5 1:00:47
Why wouldn’t we, if the if these if these, especially the lot size reductions are viable and workable? Why don’t we just apply those lot size reductions across the board? Rather than using it as an incentive?
Speaker 16 1:01:10
Well, so on the on the high density exemption? Yes, I think on lot sizes, yes, that’s something that you could choose to apply across the board. If you wanted to take a look at kind of zoning lab sizes. In general, the high density exemption that we’re talking about has to do with how the inclusionary housing ordinance applies. And we are suggesting, actually, that that high density exemption goes away, or at least the threshold raises whether or not they’re paying the fee or building the unit. So that’s a really good clarification. This one is not actually tied to production of those units. It’s just a shift in how the affordable units will be calculated for all developments.
Speaker 4 1:01:50
Maybe I can provide some history on how that came about. So when you all when the Council at the time, not you all, because many of you weren’t on the council, when you were when the council was developing the inclusionary housing ordinance, there was a lot of conversation regarding large multifamily units. And, you know, if I think the conversation was as few requires to do 12%, on the total number of units, we’re not going to be able to do the units. And so the council set the threshold at 20. To say you have to do the 12% on the 20 units per acre. And and that was really part of the policy conversation. And I think where we are with the market, it’s saying move it up, or don’t do it because you’re losing out on units. But that was part of Council’s policy discussion, when we were creating the original inclusionary housing, right,
Speaker 5 1:02:43
but units have gotten more expensive, and so they can afford to build more affordable ones. That’s that’s the reason for waiving this is that the way the math works.
Speaker 16 1:02:55
I would say yes, the math works that way. They these are scalable. And so the our assessment kind of finds that yes, you can apply them across the board. And so if it was just based on whether or not that type of development can afford to supply those units, we think the answer is yes, they can. Thank you in the same way that a smaller development could so we don’t think there’s anything different about that high density. That would make it that much harder for them to do it.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:29
Okay. Councillor McCoy,
Speaker 15 1:03:31
you may pick. Molly, can you go back to I think it’s slide six? No, let’s it’s five. I guess. You were talking about streamline adu approval. And you would, you would suggest that we leave it to see the administrators to approve rather than the site plan approval. But when I was serving on planning and zoning, when we looked at the prospect neighborhood, we right off the bat started putting an ad use as Kiki presented that as as a as a real option there. And that’s what made that that whole development, such a unique thing throughout the United States. So why would we need to get that at have that secondary that that hey, kind of, you know, hey, we’d like to throw it at you now, on one of these units. If we don’t just maybe at the very beginning say this is what we’re looking for. If this is where we see we can make some positive changes. Wouldn’t it be better to just start off the bat saying this is a possibility or is it is it strictly about the zoning and density of zoning that we we are hesitant to do that? I don’t know what the
Speaker 2 1:04:55
so I might bring Glenn back for this but generally this was more of a Process improvement that right now, the ad used to get approval requires a site plan, which adds about a month to the process. And so this was more of just a process improvement that could help a naturally occurring, affordable housing source be easier to do. It doesn’t change anything about this recommendation doesn’t change about where it’s allowed. What type of zoning, it’s just about process improvements. Okay. But
Speaker 15 1:05:26
I thought we were talking about new development sort of thing. But we’re, we’re in part of this where it’s news, and part of it is it is because we keep talking about the developers, the developers. So that’s why I think that folks out there in TV land might be a little confused, too. Yeah,
Speaker 16 1:05:42
no, that’s a great point. This is actually one of the only or maybe the only recommendation that doesn’t apply specifically to new developments, but would be a broader application to ad use in general. Okay, thank you.
Speaker 1 1:05:57
Councillor McCoy brought up a good point that that I hadn’t even thought of, if a new development comes in, and they would be incentivized to put up put it in an adu along with that development, new development, could we incentivize them and make that process go faster? Or it’s something that we should think about? Definitely.
Speaker 2 1:06:29
So, as we reported back in July, I’m gonna have Glenn take over in a minute that we have root on onboard through March, and they because we had some contract capacity and our grant, we asked them to do and have mini study on at us. And so that is in in the works. So there’s more to come on at us. Plus, the Affordable Housing Fund has provided has created stock adu plans, and that’s the recommendations that route would put together is going to feed into how do we incentivize the use of those stock plans. So we have a couple of moving pieces on that to come for you. And then I’ll turn over Glen Marin
Speaker 17 1:07:10
councils. So prospect was done with a planned Area Development. So that allowed some special rules. So if you talk about a new project, to change those rules, that’s what you’d have to do, you’d have to do some overlay, which means then you potentially are going through a public hearing process on that, versus amending the code to just change the process for an adu across the board. And the site plan approval only applies if it’s a detached adu. You amended the code, I think three years ago to say if it’s in a basement, or it’s an addition to the principal structure. It’s it’s a Administrative Approval. So this would really affect those detached at us who would help speed those along.
Speaker 1 1:08:00
Okay. And I understand that thank you very much. What I’m suggesting is that we think further as we get new development in, and this would probably be two different processes for ad use one for a brand new development as we did in prospect. And what we have now is the process for putting an adu on an existing home lot. Or, like you said, using a part of your existing house as an adu or
Speaker 4 1:08:35
I think the answer is if council wanted to change the code, and let’s say in single family zoning that says you can put an adu as part of your use by right. And we found a way to incentivize that as part of the construction. So it minimizes the process. Correct. But you have the incentives to encourage it. I think count, we can have that policy conversation with counsel. So you can look at adjusting the code looking forward for property that’s undeveloped today. And we can provide you with some options to to look at that. Because essentially, what you’re saying is, how can we incentivize a new single family project to include ad use as part of the new development? Right?
Speaker 1 1:09:22
incentivize the developer? Correct? I think we should do that. Thank you. And I think it’s Molly. Stone. Oh, yes. Counselor crest.
Speaker 3 1:09:38
So I just have a couple of observations. One, the first one is complexity, lowers efficiency, which I think came across in your report. And I noticed when we look at these charts, that often times when I’m talking about page seven, which was page 15 of our packet, that oftentimes the pay the fee in lieu cost the developer more than the other options. So I think the complexity is driving that, in that it’s just easier to pay the fee in lieu and, and not deal with the complexity. And then we talked about the administrative improvements. I like the Fast Track review, and then also the streamline Adu, I want to say that there are neighborhoods, some of them are in my ward that were built as duplexes, but were sold as single family. And so these would be attached at us. But one of the problems we’ve had in that in those units has been parking, parking restrictions or parking requirements, I guess would be a better way to say it. But um, so that might be something that we need to figure out with things that are already existing. And just to birdwalk, about parking, one of the things when we’re building multi family or high density is if we put it in places where there aren’t basic or essential services nearby, then, of course, cars are more required. So just sometimes thinking macro way. And when we’re talking about micro solutions. One of the other things you mentioned was utility waivers, and I know what’s coming up is we’re going to talk about the Eevee requirements. And I’m just wondering if that the utility requirements there might help. If we’re going to lower parking, maybe we could offer electric services for, say electric bikes, that that might be helpful if you take to get to more essential services. So just a thought, I know that transportation board is working on some of those issues also. Alright, that’s, that’s my bid. Thank you for the report.
Speaker 2 1:12:01
Any further questions? Should I pick up with presentation, please do. Okay, so we kind of wanted to organize these recommendations. And there are a couple that that staff is working on in one form or another are trying to make progress on. First of all, on the fast track review review process. We have been for several years, using affordable housing funds about $20,000 per year to pay for a planning facilitator role from a consulting firm that takes small affordable housing developers and helps them through our entitlement process. And I cannot stress how successful that has been. We’ve had some very small developers such as the in between, just go through with with flying colors, frankly, it’s been so successful. So you are going to see in our action plan proposal for the for 2024 funds will come in the May or June timeframe, you’ll see a proposal to maybe expand the scope of that for more of the larger affordable housing developers, because we think that they can all benefit. And then how that plays into prop 123. Yes, a fast track is required. We have several years still to sort out what that looks like. For us, this planning facilitator has been a really successful model. So that may be something that we propose as a solution. But there are things in the work for that. Other ones already in progress, the utility and access easements, staff is working on urban base design standards, that does focus on this as one of the issues. So there is work in progress on that. And then on the parking standards, I just want to, we’re going to possibly circle back because parking is going to come up in the next presentation as well. It’s kind of all tied together. So I just want to say that this is routes, independent third party recommendation on this and then planning staff is going to come with some more specifics.
Speaker 4 1:14:04
What I wanted to add to what Molly said in terms of the utility setbacks and things like that. That’s actually what we’re working through on the project that you all just approved in terms of the single family homes and that’s really where we’re testing, how compact we can get what we can do. But to Glen’s point, and Councilmember McCoy’s point, we’re utilizing the same process that we that was utilized in prospect, which is a PUD because that’s pushing us beyond what is in our existing code. That’s also then informing some standards that we’re going to bring to you in the very near future. That allows us to replicate that in an easier way for other developments because when they say when you’re looking at what’s the setbacks for an Electric Utility Line versus water line, what that starts doing is reducing The density that you can get, because you can’t put as many homes on a property, if you start having all these setbacks on top of each other, and you know, to kind of go a little bit deeper, the project you all just approved in we it’s all electric. Why is it all electric? Because when you put a gas easement in the middle of the entire project, then that limits what you can do in terms of your electric and your water lines and your sewer lines. And so for us, it was about being able to compress, and also save money, because we estimated that that was probably a one and a half million dollar savings, by not putting gas into the project, which then starts bringing your bottom line. So I wanted you to know, kind of what’s going on in the fact that this project is really we’re dipping our toe to show to prove that we can do it, so then others can hopefully replicate it. Okay.
Speaker 2 1:15:57
All right. So focusing on those where we would like some council direction, should staff return with proposals for either programs or code amendments regarding the following recommended incentives. So the first one being the public process requirements, allowing administrative review for those subdivision of four or more. Lots if affordable units are included in the project? Would you like staff to come back with a proposal for work around this?
Unknown Speaker 1:16:30
Speaker 5 1:16:33
I just want to make sure once more than I that I understand that you’re saying allowing administrative review to be sufficient as opposed to requiring additional review steps? And yes, I I say I would like to say I think this would be a wonderful step. And it would leave us with more bandwidth for fast tracking things.
Speaker 1 1:16:57
So I think it might be easier if we just go through this and then make a motion for the slate of them. So you did the public process requirements.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:12
Don’t agree on
Speaker 1 1:17:13
that. That’s what I was just going to say if we could just get a yay or nay on. If you don’t think this is a good idea. Let me know if we should just get a yea or nay on on them one by one and then do make a motion for the whole thing? Or do you want to make motions for each one?
Speaker 18 1:17:35
I think we need to lower the complexity in terms of gaining speed.
Speaker 3 1:17:46
In my opinion, we need to lower the complexity in order to get greater efficiency. So I think we should have a more focused approach. I think Jared go through them one by one. Yeah, I think there are too many items here. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:59
Thank you. Do you want to make a motion? Well, I was talking to I’m sorry, I’m sorry. She brought that up.
Speaker 5 1:18:08
Yes, I thought we’d have more discussion than that. But if we’re trying to minimize discussion, I move approval of bullet number one. Okay. Second,
Speaker 1 1:18:17
right. Counselor Martin made the motion to approve public projects process requirements, seconded by Councillor Hidalgo. fairing. Is there any discussion on this? Councillor crest?
Speaker 3 1:18:33
Unfortunately, this is the one that I don’t like. Okay. Councillor Martin? And and I’ll tell you why. Because we’ve had a lot of commentary from neighborhoods in regards to compatibility with her neighborhood. And, you know, these are large plants. And although that might make it more efficient, I think that we need to continue to have the public involved in their neighborhoods, especially when there’s something very new happening there. And in a large scale, so I’m not supportive of that particular item.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:06
Any other comments? Seeing none, let’s vote.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:16
Speaker 1 1:19:25
I am going to be a no because I know it’s going to be more efficient, but I think it’s going to cause a lot of public outcry.
Speaker 2 1:19:37
May or may I make a clarification? This is the recommendation is to streamline this process if affordable units are included in the project, not necessarily across the board for every development.
Speaker 1 1:19:55
Oh, if there’s only four lots in the whole development Oh, I see this is what I don’t understand, Molly
Speaker 2 1:20:07
Glen, do you mind clarifying the subdivision piece and then I’ll clarify the affordable units right
Speaker 17 1:20:11
so you go into a public subdivision process if you have four units or greater four lots or greater Okay, so what this is saying if that if you’re doing your 12% affordable units it would be a administrative or a step process
Speaker 2 1:20:31
when the recommendations specifically if there are affordable units included
Speaker 1 1:20:41
okay, I’m trying to get back to the screen here. Oh, here we go. Can you help so yeah, I still I’m going to vote against this so that passes five to two with five with myself and Councillor Crist imposing we’re now it’s the streamlining the ad or approval.
Speaker 2 1:21:14
So this just to recap, currently they require site plan approval which adds about a month of review in order to encourage production of of ad use as a naturally occurring affordable product the recommendation is to allow for Administrative Approval and as Glenn clarified earlier that really is about detached at US attached at us already have an Administrative Approval
Speaker 2 1:21:43
the yeah definitely right here streamline at you are the one with the checkmarks
Unknown Speaker 1:21:59
Speaker 3 1:22:04
I thought this meant just attached ad use so I think there needs to be a little bit more review for detached ad use so was originally for it, but now I’m not any other discussion or just make the motion
Speaker 15 1:22:37
all right. I’m a little concerned about residency feedback, feeling like they they didn’t know something was going on with detached with In Home where they’re like, you know, your second story or your basement is being used. I don’t think it’s nearly that it’s not going to impact the average person as much as the seven something that feels like it’s a separate house and I’m concerned that people would or if somebody decides to Reaper, redesign their garage, their separate garage, and Adam mother in law’s roosters, they kind of referred to them as that there might be some sort of feeling that that we that we left this to you know, some city staff to decide on So, I’m kind of debating where I’m at with this
Speaker 19 1:23:53
thank you very back. I move that we approve the streamlining of the adu as presented
Speaker 1 1:24:06
so streamline the motion to streamline adu is approval as presented was made by Councillor Rodriguez, seconded by Councillor Martin. Any more discussion? Seeing none Let’s vote
Speaker 1 1:24:34
and that passes with Councillor Crist and Councillor McCoy in opposition opposing five to two. Okay,
Speaker 2 1:24:44
so that is a code change Correct. Glen so that would be coming back as an ordinance. Okay, next on our list is open space variance. So this is one that gets a little planning technical. But this is where currently a buffer if if a change in use is. So if we’re doing residential next to a park, for instance, a buffer is required. And so the recommendation is to read reduce or remove, let’s see. Should we look at the impacts of reducing or removing the buffer requirement for affordable housing developments? I should say, developments that include affordable housing units.
Unknown Speaker 1:25:37
Speaker 5 1:25:39
Yeah, I really do have some questions before I can make any motion here. Because I would like to understand what the buffer would consist of in this case, no, we had a buffer between a commercial area like downtown and a residential area, like the historic east side that had to do with building heights and stuff. And the distance between the last the last commercial street and the and the beginning of the first commercial residential yard, I think it was, I may be misstating that because it’s been several years. But anyway, a buffer between a park and a residential area is consists of what more park right? I mean, what would it mean? That’s
Speaker 17 1:26:28
what it looks like. But it’d be under the developer’s responsibility to maintain and basically not use.
Speaker 5 1:26:36
Ah, so it increases costs for development, and then therefore increases the price of the housing. Correct. Okay, then I move that we eliminate the open space variance.
Speaker 1 1:26:54
Well, before we discuss it, we need a second. Second. Okay. It’s been moved by Councillor Martin that we removed the open space variance and seconded by Councillor Rodriguez. It’s open for discussion. Councillor Crist?
Speaker 3 1:27:11
I have a question. If we reduce the buffer, does that mean that there would be land less landscaping and therefore less water use on those properties?
Speaker 17 1:27:23
If there’s less plant material, there certainly would be a lot of times. If you reduce the buffer, you try and keep the plant material there. It’s just squeezing in a little tighter space. So in that case, it probably be the same amount of water that’s being used. But I think we’re just trying to save that area. So I think, of course, you’re gonna see all the gory details when you bring it back in ordinates. But I think that’s something we have to work out. Does it make sense we reduce the area, can we reduce the plant material? Or do you keep the plant material and you really still have the physical buffer, you just don’t have the large area. And the additional setback,
Speaker 3 1:28:05
there has been some concern about HOAs. And also cost of maintaining landscaping. So if there could be a savings there, I think it would add to affordability, just throwing that out.
Unknown Speaker 1:28:24
Councillor Hidalgo thing.
Speaker 20 1:28:26
So my question and can you go back to the slide, I think that told a little more about the open space variants. I can’t remember what slide it was. So the notion of open seas, I think about I guess my concern lies near the River Corridor. So looking at that buffer space, you know, that was one that we went to debate when looking at the river town property. And, you know, there was some negotiation around, you know, it, I don’t think you I tried to remember it wasn’t increasing the buffer, but it was, you know, just really securing around near, you know, just more sensitive land. So that was kind of my concern. I’m less concerned about the parks piece, but I just wanted a little more feedback on you know, the impacts to the open space, especially along the River Corridor.
Speaker 17 1:29:24
Good point, Councilmember. We did not intend to reduce the riparian setback, okay, this that would not be part of this buffer reduction is just the buffer we require between different uses, and between uses and parks. Okay. Okay. And I’m gonna exclude that we’re totally fine. Okay.
Speaker 20 1:29:46
And I do see that open space is not capitalized, so it’s really just undeveloped land, and that’s a different zoning. Yeah. Am I understand this correctly?
Unknown Speaker 1:29:55
I think so. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1 1:29:57
So my question is, does above Have to be plant material? Does it have to be bushes or trees? Can it be a fence? Couldn’t it be? Because it’s nothing more than a separation? Is it not?
Speaker 17 1:30:10
That’s right. We define them with plant material to get kind of that landscape, and we don’t typically require a fence. So, yes, a fence does kind of the same thing. It provides that visual separation, because
Speaker 1 1:30:26
I have been in developments where they’ve been on golf courses or on trails, and the buffer was actually on the property of the owner, not on the property of the city. So the city wouldn’t be responsible for maintaining it. But I do believe we need a buffer. But it doesn’t. I guess I don’t want to just remove it when there are probably other things to delineate that separation.
Speaker 17 1:30:55
Yeah. Well, again, we can bring back some alternatives for you, too. That would be great. It’s just kind of given us direction to look at this. Yeah. Okay. Yeah,
Speaker 4 1:31:03
this is just saying bring stuff bring information back. We didn’t want to work on something that you didn’t want to see. So you will get options as we bring this back to
Speaker 1 1:31:12
perfect. Seeing no one else in the queue, let’s vote.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:32
And that passes unanimously. Yay, we have one.
Speaker 2 1:31:36
All right, going back to our list. Next is density and height bonuses. So the recommendation was to keep our density and height bonuses, and if it is possible to increase the density bonus as well. So the question would here would be would you be interested in seeing proposals for increasing the density bonus?
Speaker 1 1:31:55
I move that we look at proposals for increasing the density bonus. I was there any discussion? Seeing none, let’s vote that was made by myself and seconded by Councillor Hidalgo fairing.
Speaker 1 1:32:18
And that carries six to one with Councillor Christie opposing.
Speaker 2 1:32:25
So I’m gonna go back for high density exemption, I’m gonna go back to the the explanation since this is one of our more complicated ones. So the recommendation is to definitely include Well, I should say to either raise or eliminate the exemption here. So as you can see in the example, that would mean that we are requiring more affordable units as part of IH, for higher density projects, lower density projects.
Speaker 1 1:33:01
So I do have a concern about this. And my concern is where are these high density projects going to be located? If it is infill in a neighborhood, that might be a problem.
Speaker 2 1:33:14
So just the example projects here projects one through seven, those were actual projects that went through a process. But
Unknown Speaker 1:33:23
I don’t know where those are. And
Speaker 16 1:33:25
just to clarify, we’re not suggesting changing the density or the zoning where these would go. We’re just saying, if a high density project is entitled to go in, and there’s one being built, where we’re recommending that you apply the same inclusionary housing requirements to that project, as you would a lower density project. Right now, high density projects, even where they’re zoned currently, are not fulfilling the same inclusionary housing ordinance as other developments in the city, because you’re exempting all of the density that they bring above and beyond that, so we’re not changing zoning, we’re not saying you can build higher density projects anywhere else than they’re already entitled. We’re just saying apply the the full weight of the inclusionary housing ordinance to those projects, just as you would in any other project.
Speaker 1 1:34:15
Great. And as a reminder to council and especially to our new council person. When you bring that back. Could you bring back where they were zoned? Sure, originally. Right.
Speaker 17 1:34:27
And really anything over 25 units per acre are in our major corridors downtown. So where you have a mixed use district, okay, and there’s no cap.
Speaker 4 1:34:38
Okay. I think the question on this one for the council to get clear direction on is do you want us to look at eliminating the 12% for the first 20 units per acre or do you want us to look at bringing back you know, the 12% to the first 35 units per acre There’s two choices for you on what you want us to bring back.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:09
Speaker 19 1:35:14
Thank you Mayor pack, I would move that you bring back. Definitely eliminating the 20 and give us options. While I would prefer no exemption. There might be council members who would prefer just a higher threshold on the exemption. So that would be my motion.
Speaker 1 1:35:36
You want to exempt the 20? No, eliminate, eliminate the 20
Unknown Speaker 1:35:42
higher threshold or no exemption at all.
Speaker 1 1:35:44
Okay, thank you. So that was made by Councillor Rodriguez seconded by Councillor Martin. Seeing no one else in the queue to discuss Let’s vote.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:04
And that passes unanimously.
Speaker 2 1:36:10
All right. And our final question of the night on this one is primary use and mixed use districts. So the recommendation is to allow multifamily residential and mixed use districts either by right or as a condition of including on site affordable units.
Speaker 1 1:36:31
Seeing no one in the queue, are you going to be in the queue? No. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 20 1:36:40
So, I moved to bring the change the primary use in mixed use districts to bring it back for discussion and adoption if we decide.
Speaker 1 1:36:55
Second. So counselor, Hidalgo fairing move to bring back mixed use, review, primary use primary use. And to do that, I seconded that. Oh, my gosh. Any discussion? Councillor Martin? Yes.
Speaker 5 1:37:19
I just want to clarify that motion. It it sounds like your motion does not decide whether you want to move the threshold or not. You just want it to come back for further discussion and a motion at that time.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:38
I guess to bring it back for
Speaker 5 1:37:40
for approval based on the recommendation. Okay. Well, so the recommendation, there were two possible recommendations. One is to one is one is to always allow multifamily and mixed use and the ad. And the other is to allow multifamily only if they have on site affordable. So which did which did you want? Right?
Speaker 1 1:38:12
Or the condition? Okay. Can I interrupt for a second? Molly, would you explain that, please? So that we all understand what what it is we’re voting on? Sure.
Speaker 2 1:38:25
So right now in mixed use districts, residential is a secondary use. And so it’s limited, you can only do so much. So this would allow either if you do it by right, that would allow residential and mixed use districts. And then if it’s for affordable projects that include affordable housing, only then those would be allowed or mixed use districts. I might have Glen helped me with the technicalities on this one as well.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:00
Yeah, go ahead. Glen, are what we were talking about planning.
Speaker 17 1:39:06
So all we talked about and mixed use is primary uses, and that could be industrial commercial, but then you allow residential is secondary. So staff has said, Oh, well, secondary uses is no greater than 49% of that land use area. So I think what we’re recommending here is let’s look at that. And as incentive for more affordable housing. Perhaps you can go higher percentage as a secondary use in those mixed use districts. 150%.
Speaker 1 1:39:35
And just as a clarification, for me, a secondary use means we aren’t that’s not mandated mandated by the city. It is if the developer would like to put in residential they may correct okay. Can Counselor, Crist.
Speaker 3 1:40:04
Thanks for clarifying. Because I was concerned that we would lose commercial in those areas, I think it’s important to have more essential services, it would be helpful to have commercial with housing mixed. So
Unknown Speaker 1:40:19
counts counselor donco faring.
Speaker 20 1:40:21
So personally, I would like to see it only as a condition of including onsite affordable units, since our goal is to elevate the number of affordable units we’re we’re providing for our residents. But, you know, I guess I would like to hear from from others as well. And you know, as for visual, I’m going back to the area by sunset and Boston, I think we were looking at a few years ago, we were looking at the secondary use, but at that time, we were discussing not just the one property, but looking at the zone, you know, the whole area as one. So how would this impact? Right?
Speaker 17 1:41:07
Yes, debate, think you’re thinking of the river set or river town project. And we look at the district as not just the property, but the larger area divided by major arterials, or other zone districts, basically. So that’s what our population is, I guess, for that area. So it is a larger area. And and, uh, we’ll take some thinking, and we can bring back kind of how we would apply it.
Speaker 20 1:41:37
Okay. Okay. So I mean, I would move to to accept it as a condition of onsite affordable units. But debate me, debate me debate me.
Speaker 5 1:41:53
Counselor. Process wise, I’m a little confused. Was that a motion? Or was it not? Because all right, then we have can’t debate until somebody seconds. We already have a motion. Oh, okay. All right. So that you were clarifying the intent of the motion already on the table.
Speaker 1 1:42:12
So the motion on the table is to approve affordable housing incentives review primary use in mixed use. So we need to vote on that.
Speaker 5 1:42:26
Okay, I would have preferred allowing it in all cases, because fee and Lu is good, too. And so we you know, we would like residential uses of it, I think in every case of of commercial and some and residential mixed use that, that, you know, as long as the commercial use is not toxic and difficult, and we really don’t allow very many of those in Longmont at all anymore. So I would have preferred that we that we did it for for all residential as long as they comply with the ordinance and don’t have to have us on site. So as a as a point of clarify commercial clarification or procedural clarification, sorry. If this is voted down, we have an opportunity to make a second motion for the other way, or is this our last chance to move it? And if this is voted down, then then it doesn’t get brought back at all? Are you make your looks like you don’t understand? Oh, no, I think they can.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:44
Also, Eugene may as long as it’s a different motion,
Unknown Speaker 1:43:47
you can keep going. All right. Fair enough. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:53
Councillor Hidalgo fairing.
Speaker 20 1:43:55
So I was trying to answer the question and make less work for you all. But according to what’s written up here, it’s really just to approve affordable housing incentives review for primary use in mixed use so we can actually discuss both both items. Is that correct? Is that what you’re asking us?
Speaker 2 1:44:17
Incentives review. So what we’re asking here is,
Speaker 20 1:44:20
I’m just looking at what my, my screen oh, what you popped up.
Speaker 2 1:44:26
What we’re asking here is do you want us to bring back either options or, or a specific proposal for allowing more residential in mixed use zones.
Speaker 20 1:44:38
So let’s just let’s just bring it back to allow for more residential and mixed use. Let’s just make it easier
Unknown Speaker 1:44:48
to show options.
Speaker 1 1:44:49
And that is what this motion allows you to do. Yeah, great. Let’s vote.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:03
Now passes unanimously. Thank you for the discussion.
Speaker 4 1:45:06
Yeah, Mayor Council, I will say, in related to the work that we’ve got going on, and when we talk about Council’s priorities, and when we look at core services, those issues, this is definitely associated with housing. So I will use this as an opportunity that this is a fair amount of work that we’re assuming as part of one of your main pillars, which is housing. So as we’re thinking about other things, I think it’s important to realize this is a this is going to be a pretty heavy lift of which we think is important, but just put it in perspective with other things that may or may not come up.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:45
Thank you for your work, Molly and Molly, thank you.
Speaker 1 1:46:00
We are now on study session item b amendments to Section 15.0 5.0 wayto off street parking, stacking and loading and section 15.10 different definitions of the Longmont municipal code to incorporate state mandated electric vehicle charging infrastructure in all new developments approved after March 1 2024.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:37
So we have been Ortiz going to kick this off. Thank you.
Speaker 21 1:46:51
My apologies. My name is Ben Ortiz. I’m transportation planner and Planning and Development Services. I’m going accompanied by Zach Blazic. And he’s the city’s environmental sustainability planner. So city staff is proposing amendments to chapter 15.0 5.0080, which is the parking stacking and loading section of the land development code as well as chapter 15.10, which is the definitions of the Longmont municipal code. And the reason why we’re doing this is due to House Bill 23 Dash 1233 which mandates Evie infrastructure and only developments. And so as I mentioned, the House bill requires municipalities to incorporate electric vehicle charging infrastructure into new developments, and redevelopments for projects that don’t have an approved site plan or development plan prior to March 1 of this year. And so the intent of the legislation is to meet Colorado’s greenhouse reduction targets so the electrical vehicle the electric vehicle infrastructure requirements are broken down by both residential uses and then commercial uses. So the amount of Evie infrastructure for the residential uses it depends on the type of residential and the amount of overall parking, motor vehicle parking that’s provided on the site. So this slide here shows that one and two family dwellings and townhomes would be required to provide one Evie ready space per dwelling unit whereas multifamily developments require four different levels of Eevee parking infrastructure based on the total number of parking spaces installed and the development. And so each level of Eevee parking infrastructure is categorized and defined in the state law and are identified as Evie installed. Evie ready, Evie capable and an Eevee capable light. Now just just as a side note, the city of Longmont we’ve already partially implemented the state requirement, with amendments to the building codes. Back in 2021, the building department amended the international residential code to require Eevee ready electrical outlets at one and two family dwellings, townhomes and tiny homes. So this slide shows the Eevee infrastructure categories along with their definitions. Staff is proposing to incorporate these definitions into chapter 15.10. And so just specifically, the four categories I had mentioned previously, but the category requiring the least amount of Evie infrastructure is the electric vehicle capable light category, which is a space that would include conduit or raceway installed to support future implementation of evey charging installation. Next category up is electric vehicle capable space, which includes the infrastructure of an Eevee capable lightspace along with an electric panel, electric panel capacity. And the third category is electric vehicle ready space, which includes everything provided in evey capable space, along with circuit over protection devices. And then finally, an electric vehicle installed space which includes all the necessary electrical infrastructure to facilitate charging in charging of an electric vehicle. And so that is my presentation. Short and sweet. We’re proposing to bring this back in an ordinance on February 13, for first reading. And with that, Zack and I would be happy to answer any of your questions. We also have have representatives from LPC and the building department to assist with technical questions. And so with that, I’d like to I’d be happy to answer your questions.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:07
Speaker 5 1:51:09
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I’m getting outside the minus just a little bit but when we begin using Evie charging as an even maybe in some future world vehicle to grid but even control Evie charging as a way of shifting demand or, or shifting supply of electricity based on the supply of of renewable energy at a given time, then it seems to be more important that the Evie K charging capability would exist at commercial sites where people would be parked during the day. Because it’s much more important to charge when it’s sunny than it is to charge in the middle of the night when when the renewables generation is not as effective. The sun’s not shining, in other words, so why is I mean, I understand the state law, which is silent on the subject I’ve just raised. But the just because we’re following state law doesn’t mean we can’t go beyond it. Would it not be appropriate to also create requirements for commercial buildings?
Speaker 21 1:52:36
Mayor Peck councilmember Martin, my apologies. Yes, this this particular law, it does encompass commercial developments as well. And so that so if we go back, let’s see if I can go back to this slide here. So if you look at this particular table, what you’ll see is the top category our commercial uses, and and the amount of parking that would be provided. And so there’s basically two categories so that so a new commercial development that’s either 10 or less parking spaces, or commercial development that includes more than 10 parking spaces. And so for example, in the top category of 10 or less parking spaces, you’ll find that that what is required would be to Evie ready spaces. And so that’s that category that’s just beneath the Eevee installed. So all they got to do is they take the charging unit and they plug it in, and then it’s ready to go. But it does encompass commercials new commercial development as well. And I’m sorry, I didn’t make that clear.
Speaker 1 1:53:51
Seeing no other discussion, the options are direct staff to bring back an ordinance incorporating the required changes to Longmont municipal code, or do not direct staff to bring back an ordinance. Can I have a motion? Counselor McCoy,
Speaker 15 1:54:12
I move option one direct staff to bring back an ordinance incorporating required changes to Longmont municipal code.
Speaker 1 1:54:22
So Councillor McCoy made the recommend the motion to have staff bring back the an ordinance incorporating the changes and that was seconded by Councillor Martin and Uncle fairing. I heard both of you. So, no discussion in the queue. So let’s vote
Speaker 1 1:55:00
And that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Thank you. And you, Zack. Thank you. We are now at study session items C which is the 2024 legislative bills recommended for city council position.
Speaker 22 1:55:25
Hello, Mayor Peck and members of council Sandy cedar assistant city manager, we have three bills for your consideration today. Happy to go through them, discuss them go through in any order, or however the council would like to move forward.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:39
I think let’s just do them in the order that you have presented them to us
Speaker 22 1:55:42
as good. Mayor, the first bill is House Bill 2014 16. Concerning emergency communication services. Basically what this is doing is allowing for our dispatch folks to provide training using the 911 fees that are collected to be able to use that for training as well as for other things that are used for dispatch officers. So it also defines what an emergency communications person is. It’s always helpful to know that but really what we’re looking for is to be able to use those dollars that are collected for training of that staff. So the staff suggest the City Council support House Bill 1016.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:16
This looks like a good bill. Can I have a motion? Councillor Hidalgo Perry?
Speaker 20 1:56:22
So I move we support HB 24 1016
Speaker 1 1:56:29
was Moved by Councillor Hidalgo fairing seconded by Councillor McCoy.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:45
That carries unanimously, thank you.
Speaker 22 1:56:47
Thank you, ma’am. The next bill is House Bill 1090. Concerning the release of identifying information in criminal justice records, so subject to limited exceptions, current law requires that victims names and identifying information is redacted from information that is released. What this bill would do is actually allow that to be unredacted, particularly for district attorneys, and a very small sliver of people. Our public safety, our police chief really felt like that could do a disservice to those victims and really put some undue pressure. Because those folks that are doing that investigations can get that information at the right time. This would kind of get it to them ahead of time. And so in his mind that really felt like that was a disservice to the victims of these crimes. And so the staff suggests that the city council oppose House Bill 1090.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:37
Speaker 3 1:57:39
I move that we oppose House Bill 24 Dash 10 mindI.
Speaker 1 1:57:46
That was Moved by Councillor Chris seconded by Councillor Martin. Seeing no one in the queue to discuss Let’s vote.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:58
Speaker 22 1:58:01
Thank you very much. The last one is House Bill 2411 52. Concerning the increasing the number of accessory dwelling units, this is the one that several folks from public invited me heard also spoke on. I believe that the council’s position on at use is that we want to encourage them we want for our local codes to support those I believe you have some changes that will be coming back to you in the in the next few weeks. However, the state telling us how to do that does seem like an overreach and a preemption of local control. I certainly understand and appreciate the perspective that the public was able to discuss with you during that public invited to be heard. From our perspective. However, this is a matter of local concern, and things like parking regulations and other types of things that you may want to see specifically in our code that would be preempted by the state. So the staff suggests that the city council oppose House Bill 1152.
Unknown Speaker 1:58:52
Okay, thank you, Councillor Martin?
Speaker 5 1:58:54
Yes. City Manager Sam cedar would be correct, if not for one aspect of this bill. And that is that the bill removes the ability it voids any restrictions by homeowners associations, PUDs, and other associations that manage an area of property from having it voids any covenants that they may have that prohibit ad use in the area that they manage. And that one prohibition is so important to the city of Longmont that I think that we should approve, we should support this state laws change because otherwise it i i tried to do the math. There’s just not enough maps online in terms of the total number of households today that are in HOAs versus not, but but it’s at least 10 Half of our of our single family neighborhoods are in HOAs, or homes are in HOAs. I’m happy to admit that I’m wrong if I if my estimate is high, but I don’t think it is. And I really scrutinize the rest of the bill. And it seems to me that they have bent over backwards to avoid stepping on local control as long as local control is doesn’t mean some draconian thing like having, you know, triple the setbacks for an adu that for for any other outbuilding and stuff like that. So, I actually believe that the bill was written to avoid the local control argument. And this This bill would be so good for Longmont, especially since we’re using fee waivers a lot. And And this bill, you know, Reem has, has a way for us to get reimbursed for the fee waivers, and it’s us the city getting reimbursed, you know, so that’s a very valuable feature of the bill as well. So I move that the Council supports hB hB 2411 fit 1152
Unknown Speaker 2:01:16
Speaker 1 2:01:19
Councillor Martin moved to support HB 1072. And it was seconded by council I said that wrong. 1150 1152 And that was seconded by Councillor Hidaka fairing is there any discussion?
Unknown Speaker 2:01:40
Speaker 15 2:01:45
Thank you, Mayor back to council member Martin’s point. Maybe Glenn or or somebody else can bring up can discuss this or, you know, clear clear this up. If we are concerned about our home rural status and everything, what can’t we decide whether we want to pursue this? And and and impose this on on those was homeowners associations if without the state’s approval? And if we
Unknown Speaker 2:02:35
can I don’t believe you can I
Speaker 4 2:02:38
know it will require the state to make those adjustments to HOAs.
Speaker 22 2:02:42
You know, I think the thing that’s compelling about this is that certainly compared to last year’s bills, this is you know, leaps and bounds ahead of where these bills were last year with respect to housing and partnering with local governments. CMS position is a oppose unless amended to remove the pre emptive language but keep everything else in because I think I think councilmember is correct, I think that this is furthering things. And it’s the words the use by right, that starts to create issues amongst our code. So I don’t
Speaker 15 2:03:12
want to add to that. That’s, that’s that’s what kind of drives me I feel like CML is really looked at all the aspects, and I think I’d prefer to have them come back with a better bill that includes that language than to just prove anything because this is not the idea of, you know, throwing something at the wall and and see if it sticks. It’s really about the what’s best for our community.
Speaker 22 2:03:35
I do believe the incentives are things that this Council has agreed with, and certainly the HOAs discussion, something that this Council has agreed with. It’s it’s always the devils in the details.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:47
Speaker 3 2:03:51
So I’m in favor of inclusionary housing and ad use. However, I have to remark that extra regulation usually affects cost usually increases cost. And government moves slowly. So I would rather keep it local. I would rather keep it with his council. I’ve also asked that we review the purpose of HOAs in our developments. So I think that’s a better approach for us than to accept legislation at the state level. So I’m opposing this.
Speaker 1 2:04:29
So my question is we already allowed AD AD use in our city. And we only want the adu to be a rental and the primary owner to live in the main house. My fear of this use by right is that we would have investors buying the properties and both of them become rentals. We don’t know how many in a neighborhood would would do that but It, you know, there is a trend that investors are going to come in and buy up even new developments. And that changes the whole flavor of our city, the whole flavor of it. And I think there would be a huge push back when we talk about keeping our community as a community, and not as a rental business in our neighborhoods. So I like our Adu, we can expand it. But I do not want both units to be rentals. So I’m going to oppose it as well. Councillor Hidalgo fairing
Speaker 5 2:05:48
you mentioned Colin Suzie, to me, might is still green however, so I’m net? Oh,
Speaker 20 2:05:54
there we go. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. So you know, you do bring up a good point in that however, you know, I think about their words, some things in here that we cannot do unless the state Yeah, you know, creates law that, that allows that. So for example, the ad use in HOAs. And, you know, as you all newer home housing is under HOA we have several HOAs that we can’t really do a whole lot with and we have residents who are concerned, this is their property, there are things that they want to be able to do within their property. And they’re constricted with HOAs. And there’s minimal options for folks who, who to move away from a, you know, who don’t want to live in HOAs. So, you know, they’re kind of stuck with those regulatory so I believe that addresses that piece. You know, and I’ve been in ongoing conversations with Representative moblie. Throughout, you know, looking at affordable housing, what are the steps, I know that they were very cognizant, she is one of the sponsors of the bill, very cognizant to address, you know, some of the needs and concerns that that we have had, you know, I think for us as Longmont this policy aligns with what our priorities are. So I think, you know, for us and what we’re looking for this, this is something I do approve, because it is in line with our standards. You know, CML was very, you know, I just, I didn’t see a lot. I mean, I understand, you know, removing the preemption, and that’s, you know, that’s a component I mean, of course, you know, that that’s something we can with the discuss with the sponsors, and, and really advocate for that piece. But I’d really hate to hold throughout the whole thing over a piece that we can as council members, speak with our legislators and really lobby to to have them revise as it makes its way through committee.
Speaker 1 2:08:00
So that was a good point. And I’ll call you on you in just a second. Councillor Martin. Can we oppose with our amendments?
Speaker 22 2:08:09
Absolutely. Mayor pack any and you can you can certainly say, support if amended, you could say oppose if you know, unless amended any of those any of that kind of position that the city council is welcome to take. And I’m happy to make sure that our legislators understand the discussion and whether you agree with the bill and which areas you don’t. Okay, CML specifically does cite your concern about owner occupancy and parking restrictions is something that would be kind of out the window if this if this did pass. And so that is one of the examples that CML is using. We could certainly use those examples as well as part of the amendment process if you choose.
Speaker 1 2:08:44
And I’m curious as to what the other municipalities are going to be saying. So Councillor Martin?
Speaker 5 2:08:51
Yes, I did want to point out that to Councilmember Crist’s point that the bill is written to remove administrative complexity, not create it. So I don’t think that that’s a good reason for opposing it. The only reason that I could say you know that we’re at premium, something that’s a specific policy of Longmont is our restrictions about owners and renting. And I seem to recall that at our last retreat, we had a resident make the point about the financial hardship that those restrictions placed on him. And it was the consensus of the council that yeah, we should probably relax that. And he’s been asking about every couple months, where’s my ordinance? And, and now we’re coming up to our whole retreat, and we still haven’t done anything about it. So my way of thinking is that we should support the state ordinances It takes a thorny problem off our back. And that’s why I would prefer an on qualified support. Counselor
Speaker 1 2:10:09
Martin, if my memory sir, we may be talking about two different people. But the person that I remember at that retreat wanted ad use to be used as STRS short term rentals. Not Yeah, I think
Speaker 5 2:10:25
eight Yeah, he wanted to build a to use and he wanted to be able to rent them anyway, he wanted to Yeah, that’s a different discussion. Okay. And the law does does allow you to restrict short term rentals, by the way. Even thank you the proposal, but yes,
Unknown Speaker 2:10:40
Speaker 15 2:10:42
Thank you, Mayor, Baek I, I feel that I’d love to support this. But I feel that it really needs to be opposed to with amendments that we’re talking about here. And then that way, they kind of get an understanding that, you know, this is this is where our community is coming from, it’s not that we’re against at us, no one I don’t really think is truly against having people have a little bit of something else going on for them, especially after after COVID. And the hard times to that face, but we read the really real issue is is just making sure it’s not turned into, you know, rental upon rental and and that’s why I’m going to be against it because I really was this motion now. If if we would come back with that pose with amendments, and we can do that. I will. Okay, let’s
Speaker 22 2:11:46
try what was the motion? I think I missed it. Just support. Okay. That was councilmember Martin’s motion. Thank you. Yes, to support the support. Right crystal to support.
Speaker 1 2:12:07
So that passes four to three with myself, Councillor McCoy, and Councillor Crist. In opposition. I would have brought it back with support with amendments. But thanks, Mayor. Thank you.
Speaker 1 2:12:36
So that is it for the agenda. The important part is coming up though. Marin Council comments. Councillor McCoy.
Speaker 15 2:12:45
Thank you, Mayor Peck. I had a community member, contact me and asked me they seem to feel that there’s something else going on at Bond farm, that it might be going up for sale? And they were concerned that then something would change there. Is that? Do we have any feedback on that?
Speaker 4 2:13:09
So last Friday, I was made aware of that there is a for sale sign on that. What I can tell you is that we are looking into what prompted that. And I’ve had several emails with staff. That I think when you look at what was approved, and I’ve had a couple of conversations with council members council has approved, this is what’s going to occur on that side. So if they were to sell it, then whomever purchased it would still have to build what council approved. If they didn’t want to build what council approved, they would have to go back through the process all over again. But in talking to staff about maybe what prompted it or looking at some of the some of the comments that were related to that, and I will have more information on that hopefully later this week. So we can give counsel that information. But in general Eugene and I kind of talked about this earlier, what’s approved is approved and they have to build according to that. They can’t come back and sell it and then do something different without re engaging in the entire process all over again.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:26
Unknown Speaker 2:14:31
Counsel, Councillor Martin. Thank you, Mayor
Speaker 5 2:14:35
pack. I have something to add about that. And also just something to add in general. It appears that what prompted the for sale sign was the planning staff adding additional requirements after the council approval And so I would like to understand whether that is loud for the planning staff to do. Because this is not a matter of where the sprinkler systems go, you know, this would be a big deal that would add cost to, and I don’t want to get into the details, but it’s a big enough deal that it would add cost to, to the developer. And I might have put that For Sale sign out myself. So is that allowed? That
Speaker 4 2:15:24
is the very issue that I’m looking into. And I will have more information for you on that. And I’ve had information coming to me and I have a meeting, have asked Erica to schedule a meeting with me tomorrow to go over those various use.
Speaker 5 2:15:37
Yes. Okay. Thank you. The other thing that I would just like to say, you know, for for future consideration, and I want to beat to observe the staffs warning plea, you know, explanation that keeping the core services running needs to be our essential focus. So, that said, it seems to me that there are ways in that and I have discussed with several of the directors and above this idea that there are mechanisms that the city could impose, to prevent non oak owner occupancy to disincentivize non owner occupancy. And that would not involve? Well, that would be legal, I guess, is what I wanted to say, you know, as opposed to having an ordinance that says corporations can’t buy these houses, which is not legal. And I hope that we will be able to, at some point, maybe later in the year, like in the second half of the year, discuss some of those ideas, because I think that they would be benefits for existing homeowners for our electrification policy. As well as keeping corporate investors out of Longmont, or at least making Longmont much less attractive to corporate investors. So I just want to get on the record as having said that, because I think there were things that we could do that would be a win win, lose for corporate investors.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:31
Speaker 3 2:17:34
Well, I also hear staff saying that it’s a heavy lift, the things that we asked them to bring back and I just want to make another plea for staying focused, to promote efficiency, you know, maybe focus on to two items of incentives that could be useful. Also, when it comes to D incentivizing things, I think extra regulation is another heavy lift, and that we should really more look at incentivizing ad use in ways that we would like to see them used. So those are my comments.
Speaker 1 2:18:13
I want to say that it was for the people in our city who are interested in a food tax. I was happy to read in the New York Times this weekend that the federal government is looking into the price gouging on food that is happening around our nation, especially after the pandemic. So they said that the price that we a lot of price gouging in supermarkets has been going on, which raises the price of our food. So thank you. Do we have any comments from our city manager?
Unknown Speaker 2:18:50
No comments. Mayor, council, city attorney.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:52
Oh, comments, Mayor.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:54
Can we have a motion to adjourn? All those in favor say aye. I’m not going to ask opposed Aaron. We are We are adjourned. Thank everybody for your input.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai