City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to call to order our city council meeting for Tuesday, 03/03/2026. And let's have council member Fiddler lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Right. Thanks for leading the pledge. Next, madam city clerk, please call roll.

Mayor Mills.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Padilla?

Here.

Council member Carbajal? Here. Council member Collins? Here. Council member Fiddler?

Here.

Council member Green?

Estoyaki.

Council member Snyder?

Here.

Council member Tadeo. Present. Council member Worth.

Here. We have

a form, your honor.

All nine here. Very good. Next is the consent agenda. Madam city clerk, please read that into the record.

Item two a, approval of the 02/03/2026 city council minutes. Item two b, final reading of an ordinance of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, adopting article two dash 28 of the Brighton Municipal Code relating to the creation and organization of the Brighton Downtown Development Authority in the City Of Brighton, Colorado and determining organizational aspects of the Brighton Downtown Development Authority Board and providing other details related thereto. Item two c, final reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado, amending article 15 dash 16 of the Brighton Municipal Code to prohibit gray water treatment works and directing city staff to notify the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment of such prohibition.

Thank you. What is the pleasure of counsel? Councilmember Schneider.

Make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read.

Thank you. We have a first. Do we have a second? Council member Carbajal.

I'll second.

We have a proper first and second to approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Moving ahead is the approval of our regular agenda. Who'd like to make a motion on that? Mayor Pro Tem.

I move the agenda for this evening as presented.

And council member Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. I'll second.

We have the first and second to approve the agenda as presented. Roll call vote.

Motion passes nine to zero. Next, ceremonies. Item four a, National Day of Inclusion Proclamation. I will go ahead and read that to the record. Whereas exclusion fuels the fear of difference, inclusion fuels acceptance, and whereas engaging students and community members with and without intellectual disabilities through sports, leadership, and whole school or community efforts is a quick path to friendship and understanding.

And whereas when all people are included in all aspects of a community, we see the person rather than their disability. And whereas an inclusive mindset can lead to new ideas, change in policies and structures. And whereas believing in everyone everywhere only makes Brighton and our schools a better place to live. Now, therefore, be resolved that I, Gregory Mills, mayor of the City Of Brighton, on behalf of the city council, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, March 4 as the national in day of inclusion and challenge each resident of the City Of Brighton to make a difference by joining us in this proclamation dated this March 2026. City manager Martinez, who is here to accept this today?

Thank you, mayor. Good evening, mayor and mayor pro tem, members of council. Here tonight to receive this is Michelle Rice, and I'll ask Michelle to come up to the podium to receive the proclamation.

I think Michelle got surprised.

I would actually like to bring the kiddos up here. They're the ones that lead this cause. That's why we do what we do. If I could have the unified kiddos come up here.

There we go.

All right. On behalf of our unified team, thank you for recognizing the importance of inclusion in our community. This proclamation isn't just about us. It's about every person who deserves to feel seen, valued, and welcomed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'll come down and stay up here. We'll do a picture.

Alright.

Thank you all for being here and celebrating, especially tomorrow being the National Day of Inclusion. Thank you. We'll just give them a moment, but everybody's welcome to stay if they want. So many seating choices now. Alright.

Next is item five, public invited to be heard on matters that are not on the agenda. I have so just so you know, I I have others that are signed up to speak on items that are on the agenda. We will get to those when we get to those items on the agenda. But first, we only have one person signed up to speak on items not on the agenda, and that is Tom Lampo. So come on over, Tom. State your name, and you got three minutes.

Alright. Hello to Brighton. I'm Tom Lambo. We're living through some incredible times. I've stated before, and I'll state it again. We're living through a spiritual battle that is manifesting itself in the natural. God has already won the battle, but our enemy is determined to cause as much harm as possible. In the end, we'll see that God is correcting what has gone wrong and bring us to a better life. So I'm here to lift up Brighton to the Lord in prayer, so please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father, in Jesus' name, we ask that you be the God of Brighton.

You are always welcome here. You are the Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Nothing happens without you knowing of it first. We submit all things to you. Ephesians one twenty one through 22 states, now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else, not only in this world, but also in the world to come. God has put all things under the authority of Christ and has made him head over all things for the benefit of the church. You answer to no one. Your authority is above all. We are dependent on you. Father, we lift up to you all members of our military and their families.

We're living through times we don't fully understand, and our military has been called upon. Our leaders have determined this to be the best course of action. Let our leaders be mindful of the lives they are commanding. Ecclesiastes nine eighteen states, wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one bungler destroys much good. And in James one five, it states, if any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

Let those making decisions be dependent on you. Let them seek wisdom from you in every decision they make. Keep our military personnel safe and grant them wisdom as they perform their duties. Father, we lift up to you the children of Brighton. Your word states in Psalm one twenty seven three. Children are a gift from the Lord. They are a reward a reward from him. Protect them as they go about their days. Let them be aware of their surroundings and avoid compromising situations. Guide them in their thoughts and actions and make your presence known to them.

Above all, let them know your word contains truths that will assist them in in navigating this world. You are our God, and we are your people. In Jesus' precious name, we pray. Amen. Thank you, guys. Have a nice night.

Thank you, Tom. That's all I have signed up to speak on matters not on the agenda. The rest will come to you when we discuss those items. Move it ahead. Public hearings, item six a. A resolution of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado adopting the fourth amendment to the 2025 budget to amend certain funds and appropriate money for expenditures in the amount of $525,000. This is a public hearing. I will open up the public hearing, ask if the city clerk will verify all the postings and publications were done.

Yes, your honor. The notice of public hearing was published in the Brighton Standard Blade on 02/19/2026.

Thank you. City manager Martinez, please identify our presenter.

Thank you, mayor. Our presenter this evening for this item is our director of budget and innovation, Catherine Mortensen. So Catherine will be presenting the 2025 budget amendment as well as our first budget amendment for 2026, which is the following item.

Catherine, go ahead.

Alright. So as our city manager mentioned, this is the first of two amendments. You'll notice that this is for a fiscal year that has already passed. While we haven't done this in the past few years, this is a pretty common practice when you have bills come in after the year closes. And sometimes they are not exactly what you anticipated, and that's what happened here. So I will get into why that is in the next few slides. Maybe. Turn this on first. There we go. Okay.

For those of you who've maybe never seen a budget amendment because I know that we have a few new council members, but as a reminder for the rest of you as well, the city can only spend money that is appropriated by the city council. In the cases where we have a need beyond that, we bring amendments to you. In this case, the amendment means are for water charges in our general fund, some required paid time off or PTO payouts, and then some vehicle maintenance costs in our fleet fund. Sufficient appropriation do not currently exist to cover these items, which is why we're bringing this before you tonight. The budget impact here is for two of our funds, the first being the general fund where there are two items.

The PTO payout is a process that we do every year. Once, some of our employees are above a maximum amount, we will pay out after the year closes whatever is beyond that amount. While we do this every year, we did have some unanticipated consequences of our Target 36 program, where because we had some extra hours that people were able to use if they were efficient in their time spent during the week, they were able to kind of take that time back. And we saw less PTO usage, which meant we had higher accruals in our PTO. So the PTO payout this year was higher than we anticipated.

And that is part of the reason that we are bringing this before you tonight. But I will say that we have already changed that policy. So we'll be doing this midyear now so that it doesn't surprise us after the year closes. We also have some caps on that as well now that we have the target 36 program that allows a little bit more flexibility in our schedules. The next item in the general fund is for some water charges. This was due to a mistake from the import that we do from enterprise into our new ERP, Tyler. We don't have to do that as soon as we are able to get our UV system utility billing system live in Tyler. So this will be a short lived issue. But we just found that while we were projecting our water charges late in the year last year, we found that there were some things missing from the import. We did get that fixed.

We have properly accounted for everything. It was just that our reports weren't properly showing the charges that we were actually incurring. So we would have corrected this if we could have earlier in the year, but we found out too late for that to happen. So those are the two items for the general fund. The last item is in our fleet fund. This was due to the way that we are charging vehicle repair costs when they relate to insurance reimbursements. We were previously using different accounts for this, but we found that the best practice is actually to incur them as an expense and then get the refund that we get from our insurance company as a revenue as well. So that led to some budget impact that, again, it was just we decided to do this late on in the year. And it is the best practice. We still wanted to go ahead with it even knowing it would be a budget impact, but we didn't anticipate that there would be this much of a budget impact.

We did see some late in the year charges to insurance that just was unfortunate timing here. So that's that last 60,000 for a total of 525,000. And I did want to show you this use of fund balance again. I know that we talked about this at our strategic planning session just a few weeks ago. I just wanted to show you that we are approximately right at what we were what we collected in revenue.

So our ongoing expenditures are still not higher than our ongoing revenues, which is great because we did have a transfer to the water fund that is a onetime of $2,100,000. So while we did use 2,100,000.0 of reserves, those were for onetime items even with this amendment tonight. With that, the action requested is to approve this fourth amendment to the 2025 budget, allocating that 525,000 and bringing the total city budget to 319,000,000 for 2025. And I will let you finish up with the public hearing and answer any questions.

Thank you, Catherine. So this is the time for public comment. I have so far, I have no one signed to speak on this item. But those that choose to sign to speak, the sign up sheets are in the back, and you'll have up to three minutes. But given nobody has signed up to speak on this, we'll move forward. Madam city clerk, has any digital public comment come forward on this item?

No, your honor.

Okay. It's time for questions and comments from the council. Councilmember Green.

Thank you, mayor. I just have, one question. What are the changes to the PTO policy that's gonna fix this for next year?

We're going to be doing the payouts midyear, so it's gonna happen in the summer. That way, at least, won't surprise us. But the other change is that the maximum amount you can be paid out is eighty hours. So anything over that cap was what we did before, and it could have been any amount that you had accrued over that as long as you used a certain amount in the year. But now it's a maximum of eighty hours per employee.

Perfect. Thank you. Yeah.

Next council member, Tadeo.

Thank you. Thank you for that. I have a question. I just would like some clarity on the fleet Mhmm. Amount. You said something about insurance and getting reimbursed. And Yep. We

used Yeah. To

clarify that a little bit.

We used to charge these two separate accounts that didn't show as expenditures. And I apologize. It's a little bit of some accounting Yeah. It was lingo that I don't totally understand, and I shouldn't expect you to either. But we it didn't actually reflect as an expense, which didn't make it look like it hit our budget so that those accounts could kinda zero out while we were tracking our reimbursements that we got from insurance.

Right. That was my question. Did it, like, sort of was it a wash? But go ahead. Keep a

Two points. On for some of them, we are reimbursed for the total amount, but we do have a deductible that we have to meet. So there was always a little bit additional there. So now we're showing them as expenditures and then also as revenue. So there's revenues to cover that 60,000 that we went over. It's just that now we're actually accounting for it in a way that you see it on the budget.

Got it. Thank you. Mhmm.

Yes, folks. And cities have deductibles too on their insurance. Let's see. Anybody else? If not, I will close the public hearing. And this is before council for consideration. Council member Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. I will move item six a for approval.

And then council member Taddeo.

Thank you, mayor. I'll second that.

There's a first and second to approve six a. Roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Thank you, Catherine. Next item six b, a resolution of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, amending accounts in the 2026 budget year in certain funds and appropriating money for expenditures in the amount of 11,926,633.

So this also is a public hearing. I will go ahead and open that up and ask the city clerk to verify all the postings and publications were done. Yes,

your honor. The notice of public hearing was published in the Brighton Standard Blade on 02/19/2026.

Thank you. City manager Martinez. Catherine again. Right? Catherine again.

Alright. Here I am again. Good evening. You'll notice that the amount that the mayor just read in is much higher than the last one, so this will be a little bit more exciting. But I did break it out by those things that are using new revenues versus existing revenues that we had.

So, again, quick reminder that the reason we are doing this is because we can only spend the money appropriated to us by the city council. We have needs above what we have already appropriated, hence why I am here tonight. But jumping into the budget impact, we had several items that were brought to us with new revenues, which is always fabulous. The first item is for our YouthLink IGA or intergovernmental agreement. This was, already has already been talked about with the city council, but we have an intergovernmental agreement with the YouthLink, which is a separate nonprofit organization.

And we are going to be the employer of record for the employees at the YouthLink. So this is our in kind donation to the, organization itself since all of the other cities around us are actually providing revenue for them. We are going to be having this full amount that we are paying reimbursed by the YouthLink, though. So that's why I say it comes with new revenues. That what we are providing is just our time in helping them to post for these positions, having them on our payroll, providing benefits, all of those things.

But they will be reimbursing us for that total 633,000 this year. The next item there well, the next few actually are related to grants, and they are going to hit across several of our funds. So the first one is in the general fund, and it is for two different grant funded positions for our sustainability team. One of the positions is going to work on some of our energy policies, so they'll be they'll be working pretty cross departmentally on how we can adjust those to fit current standards. The next position is going to be a part time position for our green business network who will go out and actually help actual businesses in the city to be more green and understand what different, reimbursements they could get, how they could save some money by do implementing some of our sustainability practices.

This is in partnership with the state, that Green Business Network. So they have a lot of resources that we'll be able to collaborate with with that as well. The next item is in our Water Enterprise Fund. This is a grant for the purchase of three electric vehicles. They will be fully electric and our first three electric vehicles in our fleet. The next item is in our capital improvement fund. That is a grant for installation of three dual port chargers at the municipal service center. We do have some existing budget that will be a match for this as well, so we will have more than three installed there. But that will allow us to charge these new electric vehicles we are purchasing. And then the last item is also in the general fund.

This is a grant for developing, some additional dwelling unit plans that we can have kind of sitting on the shelf. So they're almost, like, preapproved on some level, and that will help for developers to have these plans approved much faster for some more affordable housing. Next item is those utilizing some of our restricted revenues that we already have. These are revenues that only could have been used on this purpose, and we already had them sitting in fund balance. We had just found uses that were eligible in this year.

The first three here are related to lodging tax, the first one being in the Parks Capital Improvement Fund. We are planning to utilize some lodging tax revenues for the purchase of an outdoor screen that can be used for events where we screen movies in the park. This outdoor screen lets us start those earlier so that you can actually see the film earlier and lets us do this more often because we're not needing to rent that. There is also a utilization of lodging tax funds and the capital improvement fund included here, and this is to make some improvements to Main Street creatives to ensure some ADA improvements are made at that building. And then the third item you see here is the lodging tax fund.

This is actually just transferring the revenue from the lodging tax fund into those two funds. So if you total up that $1.78 and the 67,000, that will total that $2.45. So they all go together. The next item is the largest one on this slide, 2,700,000.0 in our impact fees fund. This is for a few purposes.

The majority of it is to be able to use these for some developer agreement reimbursements. We can't always anticipate exactly when these are going to come, but they are in our, for our parks and recreation impact fees. We have an agreement that once certain milestones are hit with developers, we will reimburse portions of their costs for building parks in neighborhoods. So we just realized that those developer agreements are hitting that requirement, and we are now budgeting for that portion to be sent out for those developer agreements. And then the last item on here, some of you have seen in previous years.

This is just a reconciliation of our cemetery perpetual care fund interest transfer. This fund has fees that are charged for service each time someone utilizes some of our cemetery services. We often charge a perpetual care fee that goes into this fund. That is to sit in that fund, collect interest, let us ensure that we always have revenue to take care of and keep up our cemeteries in good working order. So each year, we reconcile how much there was in interest earnings and transfer it over to the cemetery fund to be spent on that maintenance.

This is a very small amount. It's actually a 109,639. We budgeted a 100,000 thinking that would be enough. Amazing. Our interest earnings came in higher than anticipated, so we will do better at correcting that next year so I don't have to come in front of you just for this administrative thing. So you'll see that again in August for the 2728 budget, but this is just the remaining amount that we need to transfer the full amount. And then maybe the most fun part of this presentation, I hope you guys think this is fun. I find budget fun. But utilizing unassigned fund balance, these are more of those unanticipated things that we are using fund balance for because they are onetime costs. The first item is the largest item on the budget amendment at all tonight.

This is 5 and a half million for a water share purchase. This has already been approved by city council, so you've already seen this. But this just allows us to utilize the fund balance and provide for appropriations for it so that we don't have to cut other things to be able to afford this this year. The next item is in the capital improvement fund. It's about 1,600,000.0.

This is being added to an existing project for our stable Corridor improvements. Knowing that there's going to be a lot of construction around that area, we are doing our best to accelerate that Sable Corridor improvements project and get more of it done this year than we were previously planning on. So that just pulls forward some budget that we had planned for 2027 in our five year capital plan. The next two items are in the general fund. The first 200,000 you'll see there, because they are about the same amount, is for a reimbursement of enterprise fees for an affordable housing project that has some approved reduction in fees because it is for affordable housing.

This is for a Ravenfield project. We're expecting that permits will be pulled in the next month or two, so we're just putting it on this, putting on this budget amendment so that the budget is ready and available, but we won't actually make that payment until the permits are pulled. We have to do this because our enterprise funds run like a business, and they have to be made whole and fully funded themselves. So we can't just forgive their fees. We do have to backfill them with some of our general fund fees.

And then the last item here on the general fund is $200,000 for an increase to the Parks and Recreation Department's landscaping contract this year. We do this every year. Well, we have a landscaping contract every year. This year, we are doing a onetime addition to do some additional landscaping. We are going to be rebidding this at some point this year in preparation for next year.

So this is just a onetime additional 200,000, and next year, we'll be reevaluating what the total cost of that will be and getting it in the ongoing budget. And with that, the action requested is to approve this first amendment, which adds an additional almost $12,000,000 to the budget and brings our total 2026 budget to 292,000,000 at this moment. And we'll turn it back over to you, Maher.

First of all, Catherine, I'm glad you enjoy budgeting because, I mean, I wouldn't know why you'd be in the position otherwise. So, this is the time for public comment. So far, nobody signed up to speak on this particular item. But those that have interest in signing up, there are sign up sheets in the back. Otherwise, we will move forward. Madam city clerk, any digital public comment?

No, your honor.

Thank you. Questions or comments from the council? We'll go to councilmember Green.

Thank you, mayor. Just a couple of those questions. Do you know what level are those, EV chargers? Level two, level three?

Great question. I do not know. Can have our sustainability coordinator follow-up with you.

That would be interesting considering that the charges cost more than the electric vehicles themselves. That's

I would say they are more on long term than our vehicles themselves.

Well, well, let's hope this is the last one. Are those gonna be in public placement, or are they gonna be behind the

They're for city use.

They're for city use only. Correct. So they will not be for the public. Correct. Interesting. Yep. And that impact fee fund, it says Mhmm. A portion of that is going to a capital project. What is that capital project that those funds

will be able? Apologies for not mentioning that. Yes. We have an intergovernmental agreement again with the e four seventy authority, and I believe Commerce City is the other organization, to contribute to the on ramp at E 470 and I 76. Because that is a bridge, we are able to use some of our bridge impact fees on it. So that is the other capital project that it's going to be used on this year.

Very good. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Alright. Nobody else has requested to speak, so I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And this item is before council for consideration. Who'd like to make a motion? Councilmember Green.

Even though they're using my name in vain in this green project, I have a motion to approve. Is it Six b. Six b. Thank you.

They can't call it the blue project, so, you know. Alright. Council member Collins.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll second.

The first and second to approve six b. Roll call vote. He stepped out. Madam city clerk, I don't think, mayor Pro Tem voted nay since he wasn't here. Would it be a abstain?

My apologies, your honor. I, meant to mark him absent. I apologize.

K. We wanna make sure

I will

fix is correct.

Thank you, sir.

Give it a moment to make the correction. She'll get it right for you. I

will fix it on the other end.

Okay. Is that right? Motion passes eight to zero with one absent. Correct. Okay.

Thank you. My apologies.

Thank you. Just one moment. Alright. Next item, item six c, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado, adding article 10 dash three to the Brighton Municipal Code, repealing and replacing article 10 dash four of the Brighton Municipal Code, adopting the model traffic code for Colorado 2024 edition and setting forth deletions, modifications, and additions thereto. And this is a final reading.

Do I do I still gotta do the public hearing stuff? Because this is the final read. Okay. We will open up public hearing. Verify with the city clerk if all the postings and publications were done.

Yes, your honor. The notice of public hearing was published in the Brighton Standard Blade on February 2026.

Thank you. And then city manager Martinez, who is presenting tonight? I see two people up here.

We do have two people. I just wanna make a comment that tonight is not 03/03/2024 as much as I'd like it to be. So apologize for

the typo

on the train.

Is a final reading, so we do have staff available for questions if there are any.

Sorry. Point of order.

Go

ahead. This is a public hearing, so there will be a full presentation because we are adopting a code by reference.

This is a public hearing, so we actually will have a full presentation. So

Sergeant that.

Sergeant Nago and assistant city attorney Davis will be giving a presentation.

They're ready. Gentlemen.

Sergeant Nago.

Will you

turn on your mic so the public can hear you?

Sergeant Nago, Brighton Police Department traffic division.

There we go.

Good evening, mayor, distinguished council council members, city manager. We'll present to you tonight our proposal to adopt the new model traffic code, the 2024 edition, while repealing the old 2020 edition. Also, bringing in some current charges that we already charge as police officers, just bringing them into the municipal court instead of sending them to Adams County. The proposed fine charges that we're looking to bring in are fictitious plates, number violation number plate violations, drove vehicle without driver's license, as well as driver's license status offenses, which include the mentioned suspended, revoked, and canceled, denied statuses people can have on their licenses. Go ahead and model traffic.

What the city staff is also proposing is that we repeal Article 10.4 and replace it by adopting by reference the model traffic code 2024 edition. And then we've set forth the deletions, additions, clarifications, modifications. And those have all been just put in chronological order to make it easier to read.

So with that said, with counsel, your options for tonight would be to accept the ordinance as proposed, deny as proposed, or accept with, changes or modifications.

Alright. Thank you. Since this is a public hearing, this has got opportunity for public comment. Nobody signed up to speak for public comment, but if you choose to, there are sign up sheets in the back. Next, we're going on to the digital comment. City madam city clerk, do we have anybody signed up for that?

No, your honor.

K. Next questions or comments from the council. Council member Green.

Thank you, mayor. And I remain continually opposed to this. There was a reason Adams County had different charges for these various violations. Under this one, there are these changes. We make them all equal, and that's why I do not support it.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Any other comment? Not. We'll close the public hearing, and this item's for counsel for consideration. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I move item seven c.

And then council member or it's six c.

I move item six c.

Thank you for clarifying that. And then council member Taddeo.

Thank you, Merrill. Second that?

We have a first and second to approve six c. Roll call vote. We waiting on anyone? There we go. Motion passes eight to one.

Thank you. Just a moment. Moving ahead. Item seven a. A resolution of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado making certain findings of fact regarding the proposed annexation of an approximately 88.303 acres of continuous land, generally known as the Grine property, annexation number two, in a portion of the Northeast Corner of Section 5 and the Northwest Corner of Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 66 West Of The 6th Principal Meridian, City Of Brighton County Of Adams, State Of Colorado.

City manager Martinez.

Thank you, mayor. For this item and the next two items after this item that you'll be voting on, Emma Lane will be your presenter. And so I will turn it over to our senior planner and historic preservationist.

Great. Thank you, city manager. Good evening, mayor, mayor pro tem, and members of council. My name is Emma Lane, senior planner and historic preservationist with the city. And I am here to present the Grind Property annexation number two.

Project contact is Travis Fraser working on behalf of the property owner owners. Excuse me. The location of the property is outlined on the map. The 88.303 acre property is generally located to the North of Longs Peak Street alignment, South of East Baseline Road, East of the Fulton Ditch, and West of the North 27th Avenue alignment and the Brighton Lateral Ditch. For those unfamiliar, annexation is the legal process of taking unincorporated land and bringing it into the city limits.

Annexation is the first step in the land development process with the city. Zoning, plotting, site plan review, and permits will be required before site development can occur. Annexations are regulated by the Colorado state statutes, and it's a four step process with the steps as follows. First, the city council must find that that a petition for annexation is in substantial compliance with the Colorado revised statutes, CRS, section thirty one twelve one zero seven. An ordinance setting the hearing date for tonight was approved by the city council on January 20.

Second, the city council must find that the annexation request meets all criteria as set forth by the CRS. If the council deems the annexation request meets the state law, they may then vote on an annexation eligibility resolution. That resolution is before the city council tonight. Third, city council must conduct the first reading of the annexation ordinance with a public hearing. That ordinance and public hearing is also before the council tonight.

And last, as with all ordinances that come before the city council, a second reading must occur before the annexation ordinance is passed. At that time, an annexation agreement may be approved via resolution as well. To provide some background on the subject site, the property is approximately 88.303 acres in size. It is currently unplatted and is zoned A1 or Agriculture 1 under Adams County. The property is 27.49% contiguous with the city limits.

Staff use both the Land Use and Development Code as well as the Colorado revised statutes to review the annexation. Specifically, staff use the review criteria outlined in Section 2.11 of the Land Use and Development Code. In regard to the first criterion, the City Council must determine whether the annexation complies with the following statutory requirements set forth in CRS Section 30 one-twelve-one 101. Specifically under the Municipal Annexation Act, the Colorado revised statute Section 30 one-twelve-one 104 details the process. From the criteria listed on the previous slide, the annexation request meets the minimum onesix contiguity requirement and creates a community of interest as the property is 27.49% contiguous with City Of Brighton city limits.

The property is capable of being urbanized in the near future and can be integrated within with the city through zoning and utilities. Per CRS Section 30 one-twelve-one 105, the following statutory limits apply to the proposed annexation. Staff has deemed that the request meets the statutory limits before you on the screen, as the request does not separate property held in identical ownership, that all property owners have signed and given consent, that no other municipality has commenced annexation proceedings, and that this request does not extend mutual boundaries by more than three miles per year. Sorry. In addition, if city council approves the ordinance the zoning ordinance, zoning will be in place within ninety days.

All streets adjacent to the property are fully annexed. And lastly, the annexation of the property would not deny reasonable access to adjoining landowners. Now continuing with the review criteria. As outlined in the Land Use and Development Code, in regard to criterion two, the future land use portion of B. Brighton, the city's comprehensive plan, has designated the property as low density residential and is within the city's growth boundary.

The application is also consistent with the broader vision of the area and meets other policies of the comprehensive plan, including those listed on the screen. Continuing with the review criteria outlined in the land use and development code, the property can be integrated into the city and adequately served by city utilities. At the time of plotting, the developer shall be required to submit technical engineering studies to ensure there is appropriate infrastructure based on a proposed use. As the property is 27.49% contiguous with the city limits and along an arterial roadway, it is important that future development occurs in a manner that is consistent with the surrounding area. If annexed, development will be subject to city standards that ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, building design and transportation patterns.

Public notice was provided in accordance with CRS Section thirty one twelve, 108.5 by posting notice in the newspaper for four consecutive weeks. Additionally, per the land use and development code, notice was mailed and posted on the property. Planning staff has not received any formal comment for the annexation in advance of this hearing. In summary, city staff finds that the Grind property annexation No. Two complies with CRS Sections 31, twelve, one hundred four through 110.

The property is 27.49% contiguous with the City Of Brighton city limits. Additionally, the annexation request complies with all applicable criteria as outlined in the Land Use and Development Code and therefore recommends approval of the Grind Property Annexation No. Two. At this time, the options for your consideration are before you. Please note the resolution of annexation eligibility must be approved in order to move forward with the annexation ordinance. Thank you all for your time and attention this evening, and I look forward to any questions.

Thank you, Emma. And will you clarify? This first one is not the actual annexation that's coming up in b, whereas a is we're making sure all the everything is in order to propose the annexation in the next item. Is that correct?

Yeah. Correct. So a is the eligibility. So determining the eligibility, and then b is the action of

because I have some folks signed up to comment on this, but I think that's later as we're talking about the actual annexation. Or this is just all the ducks are in order.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Questions or comments from the council? I don't see any. Council member Green.

It wouldn't be a section without me asking a couple questions. There are several property owners within the boundaries of this. Have have those properties been sold, or did we or are they willing participants in this annexation?

There are two property owners. Both are considered our applicants, and they still own those properties.

They still

They do. And they're they're the ones who signed the annexation agreement, the petition, and all of that.

K. So the the are those the two residential owners, or is this a larger one? I see there's there's a couple of residential areas in that.

So they are let's go back to the beginning. Ivan e Grind Trust and CC Realty LLC own the two. There's I think there's three parcels.

Go to the map.

Yeah. There's that's one in the center by where the LAs, and there's one up by the Baseline Road.

Yes. I'm not aware that they live on the property, but they are not the developer. The developer is a separate entity from the the landowners.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you

for clarifying that. Any other questions from the council? If not, this is before you for consideration. Council member Snyder.

I'd like to make a motion to approve seven a.

We have a motion to approve seven a. Do we have a second? Council member Tadeo.

Thank you, ma'am.

I will second that.

There's a first and second to approve seven a. Roll call vote. Motion passes seven or nine to zero. Next, item seven b, an ordinance of the city council of the City of Brighton, Colorado annexing to the City of Brighton approximately 88.303 acres of continuous land in a portion of the Northeast Corner of Section 5 and the Northwest Corner of Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 66 West Of The 6th Principal Meridian, City Of Brighton, County Of Adams, state of Colorado to be known as the Grind Property number two annexation. This is a public hearing.

Let me get my list out real quick. I will go ahead and open up the public hearing and ask the city clerk to verify that the necessary postings and publications were done.

Yes, your honor. The notice of public hearing was published in the Brighton Standard Blade on January 29, February 5, February 12, and 02/19/2026.

Thanks for checking and clarifying. Now I need to ask members of city council if there's any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications they need to disclose regarding this item. Seeing none, city manager Martinez, please identify our presenter.

Thank you, mayor. Once again, I will turn it over to Emma.

Thank you. And just to clarify, this is the same presentation that I did last time. This presentation that's on the screen will be for seven c.

Okay. Cool. So with that hold on. Alright. So next, we have public comment.

I have one person signed up to speak on this item. The and if there's any other interest to sign up to speak on this item, there are sign up sheets in the back. Go get those and bring them to the city clerk. Otherwise, we will go on to hear from Les Fraley. Come to the mic, please, because we can't hear you on our online platforms.

Point of clarification. I signed up to speak on the annexation and the zoning. I didn't realize it was two separate issues. Do I speak now for three minutes and then come back and speak on the zoning for three minutes?

Speak on them both. You're are you Les?

Yes. I am.

Alright. Go ahead and speak with you.

Okay. I'm Les Fraley. 14065 County Road 2. I'm here in opposition of this zoning and of the annexation. Personally, I live right across the street from it. I'm not in favor of urban sprawl and all the negative things that go along with that. Things to consider about this are mineral rights. Who gets to have the mineral rights? How about the abandoned oil and gas well that's on the property and the hazardous materials that are around that and also around the farm area that is adjacent to that or in this property? I would ask if you could put up the map of the the aerial map.

And and I don't know how to do this. Travis, could you maybe help me out here? Because I need to point to the map to explain what's going on. And if I walk over there

Where's that green one?

Yeah. Well, I've got okay.

Here's your pointer.

Right. But I need the map. Okay. Hopefully, don't get counted against time on this. So and I'm sorry. I've got tremors. I need the map, please.

Will you please put the other Okay.

So this is the property right here that we're talking about. But this property right here is also owned by the Grimes and is already proposed as an amendment of grind number three to be added into this. I would ask and request that you send this back to the planning department and the developer to get creative, to think out of the box, to be innovative, to combine these two in one annexation and to this property right here is not gonna be included in that annexation. It's excluded. To combine these two and then as you'll hear a little bit later, there is proposal for single family residences here and then duplexes.

I don't care what you call them, paired units here. And then paired units in here and single family residences. I would submit that you get creative thinking about the traffic here for 27, Road 27 is proposed to go through. You're dumping 600 potentially units onto Baseline Road. Get creative.

Think about your extension down here, which is Mountain View coming through on Longs Peak. This is public land here, potentially do some negotiation with this public land, keep this developer whole in terms of the number of units that they can have on here, but provide a zoning of I need the map back if I could, of either public land or open space 400 feet along here. The developers indicated that they will retain and upgrade these two houses here, which is a And great then you could do some trading down here. This road should be built

And your time has expired. Can you take, like, five seconds to wrap it up real quick?

Well, again, I think that this could be a development that could be advantageous, but it needs to be looked at as a whole and that there needs to be a buffer along here for these people over here and for these people here. 81 miles an hour going up here. A lot of semi traffic.

Right.

There's gonna be a lot of noise. You're gonna get a lot of complaints about houses along that road. You for your time.

You came well prepared. We appreciate that. Thank you. That's all I've signed to speak on this particular item. There's one more person signed to speak on the next item on July. We'll go on to them at that point. Madam City Clerk, digital public public comment to be shared?

No, your honor.

Okay. Would staff be willing to add anything given the comment that we were just hearing?

I don't think I have anything to add. Thank you.

Nothing to add? K. Members of council, you have any questions or comments after all this comment that we've had? Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I think that looking at our overall, comprehensive plan and the engagement of new low density residential in in this area, the thing that I am most excited to see is creative use and looking at our r one b and r two zoning types with the PD because those zoning types are one of the primary ways we can start to introduce more attainable housing in the community. So I'm very excited to see what the plan is and the approach is.

That's all. Thank you. And then council member Green.

Well, I felt that it was eligible for annexation. I kind of agree with mister Frohley here that I don't know if we should annex it. I am really concerned about Baseline Road, I drive it regularly. And I would be worried about the traffic impacts that this would put on there, and even trying to turn onto there from some of the ones in Jacob Runs and the like. I, so while I believed it was eligible, I'm not necessarily in support of actually annexing.

Are there any items you'd propose we come back to, or are you just a hard no?

Dude, I'm a hard no tonight.

Okay. Council member Snyder.

Thank you, mayor. I also live a block off of this road and drive on it frequently, and it is very busy. But this really isn't a hearing about the development. This is a hearing about zoning. And we will get a development plan to our planning commission before anything happens here. And that will have to be approved. And they'll have to provide proper improvements to the road. This is but this isn't about that. This is just, are we going to zone this? And to go back and say, no, you have to do the whole thing at one time, we have no control over the financial ability of the size of a property a developer is able to do at one time. I think it would be unreasonable of us to impose that on him. So I'm a hard yes.

I'm building a windmills. I know this, but it's okay.

Thank you for clarifying your position. Council member Carbajal. Oh, you were just up there. Okay. No problem. Alright. There's no other members of council on the screen, so I will go ahead and close the public hearing. And this is before council for consideration. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. Trying to make sure I'm in the right place on here. This is b. Right?

Seven b.

Okay. I would move item seven b.

And council member Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. I'll second.

There's a first and a second to move item seven b. Again, this is just the annexation side of this part. Roll call vote. Motion passes eight to one. Moving ahead.

Item seven c, An ordinance of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado approving the grand property planned development for an approximately 88.303 acre property generally located to the North of the Longs Peak Street alignment to the South of East Baseline Road, to the East of the Fulton Ditch, and to the West of the North 27th Avenue alignment. And the Brighton Lateral Ditch, more particularly located in the Northeast corner of Section 5 and the Northwest Corner Of Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 66 West Of The 6th Principal Meridian, City Of Brighton, County Of Adams, state of Colorado. This is also a public hearing. I will go ahead and open that up and have the city clerk verify all the necessary postings and publications were done.

Yes, your honor. The notice of public hearing was published on the city of Brighton website on 01/27/2026.

Thank you for verifying that. And I'm gonna next ask council members if they have any conflicts of interest or ex parte communications related to this. Looks like none, especially based on what we just went through. City Manager Martinez.

Thank you, Mayor. I will turn it over to Emma.

Perfect. Thank you. Good evening again, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, members of council. You know my name, Emma Lane, senior planner and historic preservationist for the city. And this time, I'm here to present the Grind property plan development.

Project contact is also Travis Fraser of Redland on behalf of the owners. Location of the property is outlined on the map. 88.303 acre property is generally located to the North of the Long Peak Street alignment, South of East Baseline Road, East of the Fulton Ditch, and West of the North 27th Avenue alignment and the Brighton Lateral Ditch. The property owner requests to establish zoning as a planned development, PD, within the city of Brighton. At a high level, a PD is a type of specialized zoning that includes specific standards for development in a defined area.

A PD may include specific uses, setback regulations, lot standards, and even design standards that differ from the city's land use and development code. A PD shall include sufficient area to implement planning concepts that generate broader public benefits that can only be gained from flexible application of the standards and not simply be used to justify deviations for a single project or on a site specific basis. For those unfamiliar with the process, rezoning is the second step in the land development process with the city. Additional processes, such as subdivision plan and final plat, will also be required before site development can occur. When considering the plan development, staff use the review criteria outlined in the Land Use and Development Code Section 2.04(one).

To provide some background, currently, the property has a zoning designation of A1, Agriculture 1, within Adams County. The subject property is currently unplatted and is in the process of annexation with the city. As mentioned, PDs are necessary for projects that require a higher degree of specific planning and flexibility. To facilitate a more unique development, the PD proposes standards that differ from the land use and development code. Please note that with PDs as well as all other developments in the city, improvements to infrastructure are required to be completed before any building permit will be issued.

The PD proposes an underlying zoning of R1B within Planning Area one sorry, and an underlying zoning of R2 within Planning Area B. As the Land Use and Development Code does not specifically mention density, the PD proposes these denser zones with the caveat that the overall development will not exceed five dwelling units per acre. Individual planning areas may exceed this density but will be compensated for in another area if needed. This allows a higher density product in some areas but also allows the property as a whole to comply with the future land use portion of the comprehensive plan. The PD also specifies building types that differ from the land use and development code.

The PD proposes that some building types be added, seen in green, and some building types that are allowed currently be prohibited, see the red. In both planning areas, a few development standards are proposed to be altered. Driveway spacing for local roads shall be 30 feet from the corner. This differs from the Land Use and Development Code in that the code requires a 50 foot distance from the corner. The current standard makes it difficult for more dense lots to have individual front loaded driveways.

Additionally, driveway widths are proposed to vary from the land use and development code requirements. The proposed PD allows driveway widths of 16 feet for a single car driveway and 24 feet for a double car driveway. The current standard, per the land use and development code, requires different widths for different building types, with the wider lots allowing wider driveways. As an example, from our land use and development code, for a normal 50 foot lot, the current standard would allow between a 7.5 and a 10 foot driveway, which is barely enough for one car. This makes it difficult for narrow lots to have individual driveways, which can affect affordability.

As you can see on the screen, this is an example from Flat River Ranch. This driveway here is on a 50 foot lot, and it is 10 feet wide. You can barely get out of your car with a truck there in the driveway. So that is kind of an example of why we have gone to the 16 foot driveway with a single car garage and 24 for a double. And all other development standards from the Land Use and Development Code will be followed.

As required, per Land Use and Development Code Section 10.03(two), cultural resource surveys were completed for the existing homes on-site. Three separate sites were studied, and two of the sites, both along East Baseline Road, were deemed eligible for local designation. The site shown on the top of the screen is considered eligible for historic designation at the local level. The home is built in the Craftsman style. The residence is eligible for the local register because its character defining features are still original to the home and because of its ties to agriculture in the area.

The site shown on the bottom of the screen is eligible for designation on the local level and on the state and national levels as well. The farmstead contributed to agricultural production and expansion of Brighton in the twentieth century and is an example of the bungalow farmhouse architectural style that was common in Brighton in the early twentieth century. Rather than official designation of these structures, the PD proposes to preserve the two homes and two accessory structures in perpetuity, but this allows for more flexibility for changes to the structures and also ensures that the history and architecture remain. The homes will be integrated into the landscape buffer along East Baseline Road and will preserve the rural and agricultural character along this portion of that road. Additionally, the PD proposes to preserve as many healthy, established trees on the property as feasible.

This will add to the historic character of East Baseline Road by preserving the tree canopy within the landscape buffer and will provide shade from mature trees in open spaces that can be used by residents of the neighborhood and the overall public. A preservation and maintenance plan for both the structures and the trees will be submitted at the time of subdivision plan review once further investigation on location and condition of the trees has been completed through a tree survey. The future metropolitan district will be responsible for maintenance and repairs on both the structures and the trees. Now looking to the Land Use and Development Code. In making its decision, the city council shall use the following criteria.

In regard to criterion A, the plan better implements the comprehensive plan beyond what could be accomplished by a general zone district. The future land use section of B. Brighton, the comprehensive plan, designates this property as low density residential. The designation is intended to provide single family neighborhoods that are built on a highly connected street pattern. The average density under this designation is between 0.5 dwelling units per acre and five dwelling units per acre.

Per the comprehensive plan, R1B is a compliant zone district, but R2 is not. By allowing the denser zone district but limiting overall density, the project does meet this portion of the plan. The homes directly to the west of the property range in building type and density, as you can see over here. There's median density and high density. Allowing a more diverse range of housing types while still meeting the five dwelling units per acre will allow the proposed development to blend into that existing landscape and provide a more diverse neighborhood while also meeting the expectations of density as mentioned in the comprehensive plan.

Within the comprehensive plan chapter four on citywide principles, policies, and strategies, The PD advances a number of these goals as well. In reference to policy 6.1, by preserving existing structures and trees within the landscape buffer along East Baseline Road, this creates a safe pedestrian route within a larger buffer than would be required typically. The space between the existing structures will act as a natural open space that easily integrates into the streetscape and current landscape of this portion of East Baseline Road. The large landscape buffer creates connectivity through the neighborhood and along a major roadway but allows for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. In reference to Policy 6.5, allowing a more diverse array of building types for both planning areas within the development will diversify the existing housing supply.

Additionally, updating the standards on driveway separations and driveway widths allows for smaller lots and can make it easier to build varied building types. In reference to policy 7.5, the proposed PD's extended landscape buffer to accommodate the existing structures and trees ensures that the buildings and the streetscape design work in harmony and exceed the community's expectations, Preserving the rural and agricultural feel of this portion of East Baseline Road with the preservation of the existing structures and trees celebrates the history of the area as a whole but also leaves room for modern development. Finally, in regard to Policy 10.1, preserving the homes and trees along East Baseline Road maintains a visual representation of the past. Brighton's progress from a prairie to a farming oriented community to a city has allowed Brighton to thrive, and remnants of historic sites and structures have been increasingly important resources. The history behind the farmhouses and associated outbuildings will be preserved as well as the visual reminder of where Brighton started as a community.

With the combination of the mature trees and the existing farmhouses, the farming community in Brighton will be celebrated, even though the farming use has become obsolete on this property. In regard to criteria B through E, the proposal meets these as well. As mentioned in the applicability of this section, the project shall implement planning concepts that generate broader public benefits. Preserving the rural visual character along this area by implementing an enlarged trail corridor will provide a public benefit for the residents who can utilize the area amidst the historic homes and trees as an activated open space. The benefit will not only serve the residents of the neighborhood but the residents in the city of Brighton as well as the surrounding areas.

Implementing more flexibility in the housing types and less flexibility in the dwelling units per acre allows the project to meet and exceed the intent statements by providing more diverse housing stock while simultaneously meeting the intent of the comprehensive plan. While the PD incorporates some deviations from the traditional standards, these modifications are intended to provide more variation in building type and to allow smaller front loaded lots within the proposed development. While the PD proposes alternatives to typical development standards and adds a density maximum, which is not included in the Landuson Development Code, the overall design adheres to sound planning principles. Key elements, such as the deviations from the Landuson Development Code in terms of driveway width and spacing, allows smaller lots and more walkable areas within the neighborhood. In addition to the PD criteria, the proposal must also meet all review criteria for a zoning map amendment.

As previously mentioned, the proposed rezoning to PD will help support policies of the comprehensive plan. The surrounding area, particularly the development to the west of the property, differs in density. The PD proposes a wide range of building types that would than what would be allowed per Code. The higher intensity planning area with an underlying zoning of R2 is proposed along the existing R3 and R2 properties on the west side of the ditch, which integrates with the existing character and allows this development to blend in with development. Additionally, the preservation of the existing structures and trees along East Baseline Road preserves the agricultural corridor, which matches the existing character of the area to the north of Baseline Road.

This creates a cohesive street design and allows for a larger open space buffer along the south side of the road while still allowing the land to develop as a modern residential neighborhood. The property can be adequately served, and any future site developer will pay applicable costs to connect to the city's infrastructure. With the annexation currently in process, the property must be assigned zoning. As the current agricultural zoning does not meet the city's current comprehensive plan designation of low density residential, staff believes that the PD, along with the proposed underlying zoning of R1B and R2 while staying under five dwelling units per acre will allow the property to develop at a comparable density to the rest of the surrounding area, which would not be allowed with the current agricultural zoning. City staff finds that this site is appropriate for low density residential uses given its specific location and based on the desires of community as expressed in the comprehensive plan.

All posting was completed in accordance with the land use and development code. Those dates are on the screen there for you. In addition to the public notice, city staff also posted information for this public hearing on Facebook and Nextdoor. Prior to any formal submittal to the city, a neighborhood meeting was held on 11/20/2023. Planning staff has not received any formal comment from the public in advance of this hearing.

As for staff recommendations, the Development Review Committee has reviewed this project and recommends approval. On February 12, the Planning Commission heard this item at a public hearing and voted three to one to recommend approval of this project. Staff finds that the proposal meets the review criteria as found in Section 2.04(one) of the Land Use and Development Code and, therefore, recommends approval of the Grind Property Plan Development. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance approving the proposed PD. At this time, the council has four options. Those are before you on the screen. Thank you all for your time and attention. I look forward to any questions after a short presentation from the applicant.

Invite the applicant to come and add to the presentation.

Good evening. Allison Stavish, senior planner with Redland. Good evening, mayor Mills, members of city council. Thank you for taking time this evening to hear our request for annexation and zoning of the Grind property. Again, my name is Allison Stavish.

I'm with Redland. Redland is the land planning and civil engineer for the project. My colleague Travis Fraser, the project's engineer, is also here this evening on behalf of the property owners and the project developer. Coronado West is the developer of the property, and Eric Eckberg is also here tonight representing the developer. I'd like to touch on just a couple of, process items to start, some of which has been, kind of discussed as part of the annexation.

But, we've been working closely with staff over the past couple of years on both of these applications. We worked closely with them to get the plan's development to a point that you know, we were all happy with and and agreed on. And then the annexation agreement took some time to work through, which is why you'll see that first date kinda back in 2023. I just wanted to note that as that was a question at planning commission. As was mentioned, the annexation and zoning is the first of few steps required by the city of Brighton in order to develop the property.

The annexation, kind of via the annexation agreement and the zoning sets the general parameters for future site development. It establishes the permitted uses in relation to the city's land use and development code and outlines at somewhat high level what potential improvements will be required in order to develop the property. Following a successful annexation and zoning of the property, a subdivision plan is required by the city and we'll more specifically identify and design all necessary improvements for the proposed development. That'll be based on various reports, traffic, engineering, drainage that will all be submitted and reviewed at time of subdivision plan. Subdivision plan is also the public process.

It'll require another neighborhood meeting, review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and ultimate review and approval by you all as well. Following that, a final plat sort of solidifies what was proposed in the subdivision plan, and that one is administratively approved. Think at this point, everyone's familiar with the site's locations. We'll just keep moving there. Miss Lane also touched on the comp plan's land use designation of low density residential.

The property is within Brighton's growth boundary. And the PD sets a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre, which a standard zone district would not necessarily have that specific limitation. Creating that limitation as part of the PD assures that compatibility to existing residential developments in the area will be achieved with future site development. Staff also did a great job of covering sort of the nitty gritty of the PD. The one item I just want to highlight again is really the driving factor behind the R 1 B and r two zone districts as being, you know, the base of the plan development.

And that was done so that we could sort of tailor the ability to have, you know, more medium density housing types, like paired homes, townhomes permitted as part of this development where it makes sense, where it's adjacent to those similar dense density neighborhoods to the west, southwest of the site. So we worked with staff to create these two planning areas, really to respond to Weld County being across Baseline Road and lower density in that area. And so the benefit of a PD in this instance is that we can sort of create this tailored approach that keeps that overall density number of units the same but allows some of those missing middle home types that, as you all know, are in high demand. So, again, I just wanna point out the PD request, just couple of minor adjustments from those code standards that, miss Lane went through, the driveway setbacks to corner and the maximum driveway widths. Other than those items, development standards will be per the land use and development code r one b and r two zone districts.

And, again, by requesting those minor tweaks and kind of pushing it into a planned development, it allows the city to be able to ask for some of those above and beyond sort of requirements that, offset the relief granted by those couple of small code adjustments. So to that, we worked closely with the site and staff on the eligible historic structures on the property. We had a site visit with staff, spent some time out there, looked at the structures, looked at the trees in the area, and were able to identify and establish this requirement as part of the PD to preserve these structures as a nod to the site's history. As we get into the subdivision plan process and start to look at actual landscape design within that landscape buffer along baseline, we'll know more how this will sort of be integrated with the neighborhood. But we envision these structures to be used more as passive landscape features along that baseline streetscape with the potential for interpretive signage, pedestrian connections through that connecting to the rest of the pedestrian network in the area.

And, again, just kind of work through the details of how to best incorporate these into future site design. Another item I'd just like to touch on is whenever there's a housing needs assessment for a city, we make sure to review that. And that was also a driving factor in pushing for those additional home types in that R2 planning area. We know that diversity in housing product is desired by all jurisdictions right now. And by creating that r two zone district, we at least provide for the possibility for that type of development on the site, which every little bit helps.

So in terms of the Comprehensive Plan conformance, as mentioned, the proposal aligns with the designated future land use per the comp plan. And many other comp plan goals will come to fruition at time of that detailed site design in terms of parks and open space, trail connectivity. But overall, development of the site will result in increased connectivity, both vehicular and pedestrian, multimodal, and expansion of those trail connections in this portion of the city. So I'll quickly go through just a couple items on the zoning approval. So item number one, again, kind of just talked about that.

But the future land use designation is in alignment with that low density residential. Item two, we kind of discussed the consideration of adjacent existing uses when locating planning areas and that sort of tailored approach by using the planned development. More detail will be provided at time of subdivision plan in terms of open space connectivity, things like that. But it'll be something that we're focusing on as we really start to design the site. Item three, I'll just point out that there was referral review process as part of the annexation and zoning.

So contact with the school district and other stakeholders was done as part of this process. And see, item four, again, just those minor adjustments result in that preservation of the site character and assist in creating a place making approach here. And then I just wanted to highlight some additional community benefits. Future development of the property will be responsible for roadway improvements that will help to fill in the network in this of the city. To the east and sort of the purple dash line, we wanted to place these in here to sort of demonstrate the connectivity that's coming in this area.

I'm sure you're familiar with the Mountain View Estates subdivision and the roadway improvements that will be made once that site starts to develop. So that includes north south connection at Telluride Street. It will curve into the property and become North Lookout Avenue. Additionally, East Longs Peak Street is extended west through Mountain View Estates. The Grind property will be responsible for improving South 27th Avenue, connecting baseline to that future Longs Peak, baseline roadway widening.

The preservation of the site character is another community benefit. And then ultimately, upon site design, resulting in a variety of home types, parks and open spaces, and those trail corridors and connections. In summary, the Grind Plan development results in broader public benefit by permitting medium density building types where appropriate based on surrounding land uses, and this supports many of the goals in the 2024 housing needs assessment and the comprehensive plan. And it establishes a unique approach to the treatment of the site's existing character by requiring incorporation of those elements into the future site design. Our team is here to answer any questions you have.

And thank you again for your time.

Thank you for your presentation. And this is the time now for public comment. I have one person signed up to speak, but if anybody has interest in signing or in commenting on this item, there are sign up sheets in the back, and you can move to city clerk. The person I have signed up to speak is Jennifer Moreno. Come on over, Jennifer. State your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jennifer Moreno, as I was just introduced. I want to apologize if my opposition is premature in the process, as it's a little confusing to understand the process of the annexation. I'm opposed to the annexation of changing this from agricultural to that low density land use Because I fear that we have such rapid growth in Brighton over the last few years, we're not allowing the infrastructure of our schools to kind of catch up with this rapid growth. As we know, with the history of 27J, it's been underfunded.

We have issues with transportation, issues with staffing the schools. We have low test scores. And I'm not here to talk about all of the negatives of 27J. I've had a student or a child that has graduated from 27J and is doing just well. But I fear that our rapid growth is just not giving enough time for the school district to catch up with that growth.

I'm opposed to converting this over because we still have developments like the one that they mentioned earlier I'm sorry, I can't remember the name that are still in process. So we still have growth that's happening in our community. And growth is exactly what we need to create a better infrastructure. But if we change this, we're just we just have this rapid growth. It'd be nice to maybe table this and see if we have a comprehensive infrastructure plan from the school district on what we're doing to kind of combat the growth and the influx of students that we're seeing in the school districts.

Districts. That's That's all. All. Thank Thank you you so so much much for for your your time. Time.

Thank you, Jennifer, for coming, and we appreciate your comments and concerns. That is all I have signed up to speak on public comment. Madam city clerk, any digital public comment we need to bring up?

No, your honor.

Thank you. Would staff or the applicant wanna clarify anything based on the comments and concerns that were shared?

Yes. I can just mention that, the school district is always an external reviewer, on our plan starting from the very beginning, and they had no issues with this development. And if they do, we'll talk to them and see about that. But they take the in more depth in the subdivision plan, right, when we know current units and things like that. But overall, generally, they look at this project, and they take that into account and did not have issues with this. So just wanna clarify that.

Thank you. Yeah. Just so to clarify, the schools are consulted on this and other future development plans within the city of Brighton, and that's very common with most municipalities who consult with their school district. All right. Next, we'll go to comments and questions by city council. Councilmember Snyder.

Thank you, mayor. First, I'd like to thank both of the citizens that came up in space. We hear you, and we do take you into consideration. I just thought we were a little early on this. But I would like to comment a couple of things. One, I'm really glad that the developer is willing to save the character of the two old homes and the trees and to kind of keep the face of the street original. Is kind of pretty to drive up there, and it does give you the old farm feel. But this is for you, Emma. I'm going to put you on the spot, Emma Lane. It's my understanding of current planning code that the developer is going to have to do a traffic study because I understand your concerns about 168.

I drive on it. The developer, before they do this development, as part of this development, is going to have to improve deceleration lanes, whatever is necessary, drainage on 168. So we are actually going to get some improvement on how the traffic is handled there, correct?

That is correct.

Okay. And the other thing is the creativity of another way to get out of the neighborhood. I don't believe we allow neighborhoods like this size to be built with a single exit, so they will have to come up with a creativity for a different exit from this community. Correct?

That's yeah. That's correct. All the all the roadways that are on the map,

I don't know if that's on those maps.

Will be built as part of the development.

They will. And those are the ones that are marked on our transportation master plan, and that's why they're there. So there will be additional roads. Those will be determined at time of subdivision plan. But, yeah, through the fire department or district and public works and all of that to talk about safety.

Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to point that out because I think your point, sir, was very well taken. But those things will be taken into consideration. It's in our development code, they will have to be taken into consideration from the development approved. That's all my comments. Thank you.

Hopefully, you're not the one driving 81 miles an hour on that road as well, right?

Absolutely am not. I drive 35 I see our patrol officers up there all the time.

They live there.

Thank you. Alright. Next, mayor pro tem.

Thank you. I don't believe it's our current council members who are the ones stopped frequently by the Brighton Police Department. So I believe that a few things have changed in that regard. I do find and I have to add one snippy comment that referring to the transportation master plan is sort of an amusing concept for me at the moment because I one was mentioned to us about a year ago, and we haven't seen it yet. So it's cute that we're referring to it.

So I'm generally hesitant about planned developments as a concept because they frequently have referred or resulted in our community with compromises as opposed to creativity. So I'm actually fairly pleased with this one in that it is introducing some creativity for how to take the best of a couple of our zoning plans and potentially making them better for this particular environment. Trying to figure out the reasoning for a couple of them, just want to make sure that I'm correct. The idea of changing the driveway setback from the corner is because the lots are narrower and you don't necessarily have 50 feet before? Correct.

Okay. Yes. Makes sense. There are a couple of things in here that I'm actually looking at our staff saying, okay, why aren't those in R 1 a R 1 B and R 2 zones? Because we do want to encourage those things. So maybe we're going to teach our zoning code just a little bit. I missed because it flew by really fast on your slide, Emma. What are the building types that we're excluding from this PD that are in R 1 B and R 2?

Can you go back to my presentation?

Thank Our draft deck doesn't include what was excluded. So I didn't take my note fast enough.

It's Slide six.

Click on that. So in R1A, duplex multiunit house and row home is both allowed per the LUDC. Those are taken out. And then in R 2, small apartment and medium apartment.

Okay. So we're doing duplexes and row houses, but we're doing them in the more dense area

Correct.

Is the plan. Correct. But the greater density uses that are permitted in R 2, we're not permitting in this planning area b. So really, we're shrinking and doing the less dense uses. So we don't have any apartment complexes going into this, even though it's next to some R 3 zoning. So it's easing the R 3 zoning back into the R 1 b? Yes. Correct. Because we also have had the those of us who are amateur planners on the city council sometimes question, where should we put the apartments? Where should we put the greater density?

And that's always the concern is how do we stack that versus placing something significantly dense out of character with the things that surround it.

It also makes it difficult to meet that five dwelling unit per acre maximum.

An apartment would would absolutely make it difficult to so I I appreciate the maintaining of that because even though you're doing smaller lots, you can't do a huge number of them and still stay within that character. So it's doing something to preserve the low density character even with the smaller lots. I like that creativity. I'm a little confused by the present preservation of the farmhouses, and so I get it. But I'm trying to figure out, first, what was the advantage of making that part of the PD versus using our historic preservation commission mechanism?

It offers a little bit more flexibility. So they're not designated specifically. It leaves I say flexibility a lot

of times here. It leaves flexibility in the future

if they wanted to be designated in order to get that, like, tax benefit or grants or anything like that. But so right now, that's not a benefit of these, but it is a little

bit more

flexible. So if there's more changes, anything that's designated, anything that happens on the outside of the structure has to come through me or through the Historic Preservation Commission. Our PD is very specific about what things have to do that, and it's a lot less.

But they're still in the PD. We're not making them public land designation

It will be it'll be dedicated open space that the Metro District will maintain.

Because later on in the process, we earmark how much open space, how much park space has to be dedicated. This will be included in that.

Yes. So it'll be public open

space. Owned by the Metro District, not part of our parks and rec?

Correct. So city will not maintain this at all ever.

And what then do they get used for? Do they get leased? Do they get purchased? Are they empty decorative buildings?

I think that's something that the applicant will explore more. Or if you wanna Somebody has an answer.

Now. Come to the mic. And play please identify yourself.

Good evening, mayor, council members. Eric Eckberg with JE Home representing the developer Coronado West. So the thought was, as Emma and I think Alison both pointed out earlier, is that the buildings would be visual and passive. So we would maintain the outside, paint them, you know, get everything so they look good and current. But we wouldn't use them for habitants. We wouldn't have water and sewer. We wouldn't have that. They'd mainly be used for, like, storage, for maintenance equipment, stuff like that. So from a it's it'd be a visual passive look to as you meander through the sidewalks and around them.

Okay. It it become I I one more question related to that because it becomes difficult to maintain such things. Does the PD require them to be to to stay up if if they begin to degrade because they're not in in constant use? If we if they become more of a problem to maintain, what is the process then if if it really becomes logical to tear them down, or what is the prevention if somebody desires to tear it down? How how tight is this restriction?

So one of the things that we're gonna require, and it's either in the annexation agreement or in the PD, it's listed in both, that there will be a maintenance plan, for both the trees and the structures to hopefully prevent that so that at any time staff can go out and be like, hey, these aren't being maintained, things like that. And then it does have to go through that one of the conditions that has to go through the Historic Preservation Commission or me as a certificate of appropriateness is demolition. So it still can go through that review. If it gets to that point, staff could recommend approval or denial.

Okay. Because it can be more difficult than we think to maintain an empty building. Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate the help with that one. Yes, of course. You one of the are you answering that question as part of the

As part of that. Yes. Identify yourself as Valerie Scott. Thank you, mayor. And I just have to say, live across from Marilyn Grine, the house that's closest to the road, and she has told me many stories about sitting out there when it was a dirt road and just maybe three cars would pass by. You know, she was

very excited. I may have spoken inappropriately inviting you up here. Are you one of the presenters and proposers for this? No. I'm sorry. Then I've made a mistake by bringing you

up to the

podium at this point. Okay. You can certainly fill out the form and give that because I think it's an important story, but I aired. I thought you were part of the

Okay.

Presenters. I apologize.

I yeah.

That is entirely my fault. One last question on the baseline widening and the longs peak connections. I think it's great that we got the preview of that, but that is usually part of our subplat process and not this process. Right?

That's correct. Okay. They're also laid out in the annexation agreement, which you all haven't seen yet. That'll come at the next meeting. But it does lay out not design or anything, but which roads will be improved.

Okay. I I I wanna make sure that I don't try to introduce that as part of the the criteria here, except to know that that is coming in, that it is part of the developer agreement and is part of the obligations because there will be an impact. We know that there's going to be an impact, but we'll anticipate it at the right time in the process. Correct. Okay. And it's my understanding that we're we're looking at schools that potentially we may have actually overbuilt our schools recently and are catching up to what we've built. Our biggest challenge is staffing and equipping them, more than building them. Okay. I think that answers the questions that I had at this point. Thank you.

Next, council member Green.

No surprise. I'm gonna be all over the place on this one. I I'm questioning why we wanna keep a grove of half dead trees along Baseline Road if we're expecting to widen it at some point because if you're driven by, they're sure. They're nice trees, but half of them are dead and falling down. The branches are dying on there.

Putting it in the PUD to preserve that thing scares the heck out of me. Secondly, I don't understand why we're keep putting in keeping these two buildings if they're not gonna be doing with them. At least farm lore, when they kept the barn, they decided they were gonna do something with it. They're gonna make it a commercial kitchen. This one just to keep a couple of buildings there that really don't have there's some historical value, and I don't mean to discount who the previous owners were, but to just do nothing with them just to have them keep there so that you can say that it's charming.

I'm scratching my head on that one too. I it doesn't make sense that we're preserving a bunch of half dead trees and a couple old houses just to say that we did it, when we have no plans for it. And while I do appreciate, and I was encouraged by the transportation insight that they're put in there that may give us a little bit of help, for mister Freddy's concern. But we're still talking about 435 units here, and the part of baseline that will eventually be widened as part of the the next phase is just that portion that's in front of this. It's not the whole road.

It's not anything. There's a lot of two lane road on baseline that we're talking about, and the only thing that would be affected if this gets through and we go to the next step would be just that portion that's in front of it here. So and while, you know, granted, we might increase walkability within the property or anybody walking on Baseline Road. Otherwise, they're gonna get hit. Alright?

So I'm not really worried about the walkability there either. So it may be great for the property owners inside there, but there's nobody that's gonna be walking Baseline Road to get to this trail. So that's just my thought on this. It just a lot of these provisions that we're adding here don't seem to make a lot of sense. If this was a clean one to change the PUD, I might even be more willing to to address it, but this seems silly to preserve two old houses and a bunch of dead trees.

Hear, hear. Councilmember Carbajal.

Yeah. I just have a couple of questions. I think that the plan, honestly, like, takes some of your concerns into consideration. So I like that you guys were thoughtful about that piece of property. Like my peers, I have questions about having unoccupied homes and upkeep and looking at metro district taxes. And when those metro district taxes run out, who is responsible and who is liable? And I heard staff say, we'll utilize staff to make sure that we're continuing to do that. So my question for you is, like, who is going to utilize? Like, what staff are we referring to? And we talk often about not having staff capacity. So who are we charging with that type of

work? So that would just be review of the maintenance plan. That has not been approved yet. So maintenance plan, like I said, will come with the subdivision plan. And a lot of that is gonna be complaint based. But since I'm the historic preservation administrator, I would if there are any complaints about it, then I would be the one going out there. Yeah. Which is part of my job.

Yeah. I think my fear with that is when you're not. Right? Like, when we're making decisions, like, are we making decisions for longevity? I think we are faced with two problems here maybe in Brighton. And we have a housing crisis, and we need this infrastructure, obviously. But the second portion of that is yeah, the infrastructure. So we need housing, and we need to make sure the infrastructure is ready for it. My questions on this are around that. And so my recommendation is that we get more information about how you're utilizing empty houses. And I agree. I like that they were setting that off and giving you guys more space on that end. I just don't know if it's the right answer. And then I I worry people coming into those. There's a lot of questions about metro District taxes in general.

So my question for you guys would be, how are you justifying empty houses and paint to the people living there when it comes to their tax dollars? And they're saying, hey. We're not getting all the things we need. Our tax dollars are just going to pay these houses. What would that look like?

The presenter want to add to this or answer any questions?

Yeah. I I can try and answer that. Sir, we've obviously, we work with staff on these buildings and these trees. And one, to your point, council member Green, there'll be a tree study done to really go out and look at the health of each tree and decide which ones need to be taken out and which ones need to be preserved by an arborist that's expert at that, number one. Number two, as far as the buildings, you know, we're we're trying to accommodate the historic preservation.

They they felt that it was a need to do. The buildings are can be looked pleasing if they're painted and done. I can tell you the metro districts will act as an HOA too. So they'll be in perpetuity. They're not going away after the bonds are paid off.

So

there to maintain open space, and these buildings will be part of the open space for the community.

Okay.

And they'll be maintained by it.

Perfect. Thank you. I think my last comment is just, around education. And, obviously, twenty seven j and the city of Brayton are completely separate entities. And while they have communication about these type of things, if you have more questions directed towards the education side of this, I think there's some of us up here that serve on both sides outside of this. We'd be happy to meet with you and have conversations around that as well.

Alright. Moving ahead. Councilmember Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. I wanna echo councilmember Snyder's comment to the folks that spoke tonight. Thanks for coming in and keep coming back because it's an iterative process. Right? This is this is step one. To the applicant, god bless you. If you just said you were tearing down those those trees in the house the houses, someone would have raised cane about them being taken out. So you can't win. You know that. Right? So I I understand it. The metro districts and the HOA, congratulations, mayor pro if you actually closed one out. But there'll be plenty of funding for to maintain those buildings if you choose to do that. And then miss Marino, thank you for coming and speaking to us about school needs. I would say with respect, mayor Pro Tem, the district has not overbuilt schools.

They're just early. So I take that a little personally. The city That's fair. The city of Thornton had water issues for quite some time, and Tallinn Ridge will open a year later than that was anticipated. But that school, there much will be needed when the time comes. And then if and because I'm not in this loop as much as I used to be, there's one more school building in that 2021 bond available. So there's and I think it's slated to be an elementary. Okay. You don't know yet? I do. Okay. At any rate. But I would just add just to add to that, I don't know folks know or not. You know, I didn't retire very well. I'm working in Boulder Valley.

If you're watching the news, every district around 27 J is in declining enrollment because people can't afford to live in Colorado and the Denver Metro Area very well. So the need for affordable housing for young families is imminent and necessary for for the city of Brighton, Commerce City, and the folks that are near and dear to our heart here in the area. So I commend you all being creative about having some price points that young families might actually be able to afford. And I used to joke in a previous role that 27 J really does have affordable housing when it's compared to all of our neighbors. So we appreciate the the efforts that you're you're taking on there, and I have every confidence that the school board in 27 J and superintendent Pierce will address the growth needs that are coming our way.

Because 20 seven J did grow in enrollment this year, and I believe they are the only Denver Metro District 15 for for whom that's true.

And still growing. Next. Next council member, Tadeo.

Thank you. Ditto to a lot that's already been said, but, I remember a time when we didn't have metro districts or HOAs, and I wish we had those times back. As in and I'm I would like to comment that I am very happy that, excuse me, you did decide to keep these houses in this development. Yes. I would have been the probably the one screaming the loudest, had that been, come to fruition.

But I do have do do does the developer or the property owner have any plans to designate the houses as actual historic properties? It was one of my questions. It's just a curiosity more than anything. But and, of course, I would love to see them lived in. Houses do better when there's people living them in in them, not just people watching them and and making sure that they're being taken care of. And I would I guess my other comment would be when you're talking about somebody it could yeah. We could have had higher density in there. Right? We could have been a few more units instead of those houses being there. And I do appreciate the fact that we are doing it lower density and still trying to get this our housing maintained and balanced and what have you.

And and my comment to the property owners in there that are going to be paying, so to speak, through the Metro District and the HOA to maintain those properties, they will have that choice to purchase in that development or not. And if it's something that they're okay with, then the then they will know that part of their property taxes and whatnot go to maintain that history, and I would commend that. So that would be my last comment. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thanks for your comments. I got some comments as well. First of all, I do appreciate having the wider driveways that you're gonna bring forth. Having lived in houses, I'm on my fourth house now.

I've just hated it when I've had to add two to three feet on each side of a driveway because it just doesn't fit right. So I appreciate that. While I like the mature trees that are here on the screen, I do have concerns about, you know, preserving this enough that you can't even maintain it right. And I wanna make sure we're able to have the proper tree trimming that's required. Or if those trees have expired because everything has a lifespan, we need to make sure that we're able to remove those if needed without the red tape that could be proposed here.

Let me ask you this. So there was a earlier comment on some potential mineral rights that could be on the property. Have those been addressed, Emma?

A mineral rights notice is sent thirty days before the first hearing, which was the planning commission hearing for zoning. So, yeah, that has been sent out.

So that will be addressed in the future. Is that what you mean?

The the notice of of property developing on this site, goes to the mineral owner mineral owners.

Mineral rights owners?

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

Yes. Yes. Yes. That's all that we do.

Okay. As Do you know if there's any oil and gas abandoned activity that's on that property that needs addressed?

I think the applicant or the landowner I know is here. I don't know if the

I can't answer that question.

Good evening. Travis Fraser with Redland. During our site investigation and title work, there's no oil and gas facilities on the site that we identified.

Thank you for confirming that. Appreciate it. And if you can go to slide 10 on this slide, it's the next one over. I thought it was ten. My screen, it was 10. Hold on. It's the one with the map that showed residential versus there's a little enclave on on the east side that said estate residential. And I was just wondering the definition of that estate

Of that one?

It was another map, but that enclave on the right on another map had a definition called estate residential versus whatever other definition was on there. There it is.

Oh, this one.

What is that?

It's lower density than low density.

Lower than lower density? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So these are density than our low density residential category.

So instead of having a 0.2 lot, you might have a 0.5 or greater?

Yes. It's yeah, lower density than half an acre

per

hectoliter. Thank you for

clarifying that. It's good.

Also not in

the city limits.

That's been annexed in the city limits according to this? Oh, it's not.

It's not, but it's in our future land use plan. Yeah. So this is the future land use plan. So if it gets annexed, we would follow the same process as we're doing here, making sure it meets the comprehensive plan, which is a state residential.

And then on the on the west side of the map, there are existing infrastructure and streets with the with a trail that kind of divides you out from the newly annexed property. Are we gonna be connecting any streets from the existing infrastructure to the upcoming new infrastructure?

Yes. Longs Peak on the South Side will connect into Longs

Peak. I don't have a map.

Somewhere. It's in the

That one. Yeah. So there's, like, the jail facility or whatever on the North Side of Long's Peak across the ditch.

So just Long's Peak, which is outside of this annexation zone?

It's in the annexation agreement that they will complete that

as well. Not like Overland or Midland or any of these other streets that exist on this?

No. None of them dead dead end into the ditch. So there's the ditch

process upstairs.

That go

to the ditch, so I can tell you that from for someone that's walked it a lot. Okay. 27th. But 27th North and South will

Yes.

So 27th will go down to Longs Peak. Longs Peak will go over to 19th.

Thank you for clarifying that. Got it. Alright. There's no other members of council that wanna comment. I will close the public hearing. These items before council for consideration. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. I neglected to mention that I referred to the lower, the smaller size, the the greater density or cutter sized houses, in the wrong presentation, so I wanted to make sure that I had done that in in this one as well. We've been talking about affordability. We've been talking about attainability and hoping for developers who wanted to do work that would increase this type of housing. I'm very excited that we have that in front of us, and a property very creatively taking that that approach to creating middle housing that we don't have today. So I'm very excited to move item seven c.

Alright. We have a motion to move item seven c. And then council member Taddeo.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd second that.

There's a first and second to approve seven c. Roll call vote. Alright. Motion passes seven to two. We will, right now, take a brief break.

We are back. Let's bring this back to order. Item eight. Alright. Eight. Eight a. An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado to amend article two dash 64 of the Brighton Municipal Code related to the Employees' Retirement Plan. City Manager Martinez.

Thank you, Mayor. Presenting this next item is our Director of Finance, Katrina Asher.

Thank you, Michael. Good evening, Council. So this item was presented to you a few weeks ago in study session, so I'm going go through it briefly. As the ordinance says, this is requesting your approval for an ordinance that would modify a portion of municipal code that discusses the city's pension board and how they're made up. The pension board, as a reminder, oversees the city's retirement plans for employees.

That includes a four zero one and a four fifty seven, the four zero one being a social security replacement plan for employees. This does not cover the plans for sworn officers that are managed by FPPA separate organization managed by state statute and a separate board. The plans are summarized here. Again, went through this at length last time, so I'm not going to go through that in detail, but happy to answer questions if you do have them. The proposed code updates have not changed from what we discussed a few weeks ago.

I did update the slide just to clarify that the update to the employer contribution is a change from a fixed amount of 9% to a minimum of 9%. That's what's in the proposed ordinance. Also, we confirmed last time there was a question about what is the minimum for a Social Security replacement plan, and that is 7.5%. So we are in excess of that for our plan. So, again, no additional changes, or anything else to present. I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Who's got questions? If not, we can entertain a motion. Council member Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. I will move item eight a for approval.

And then council member Worth.

Thank you, mayor. I'll second that.

The first and second to approve eight a. Roll call vote.

Thank you, council.

Motion passes nine to zero. I think that's the fastest one tonight thus far.

Way to go.

Celebrate our wins, everybody. Next item, 8b, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Brighton, Colorado, amending Section one-twenty four-ten of article or or and article nine of the Brighton Municipal Code relating to criminal offenses and penalties. City manager Martinez.

Thank you, mayor. As you may recall, this item was also presented at a past meeting by the law firm of Gallagher and Davis. And so I'll actually turn it over I'll turn it over to the city attorney to to reintroduce them.

Don't give him an idea.

James Gallagher is here to present this evening. He will try to move quickly through the slides. I

will do as best I can.

I don't think I'll be

able to beat Katrina right there, but I'll I'll do what I can. Good evening, mayor, members of city council. I'm here tonight to present proposed amendments to the criminal code. As mentioned, what you'll be seeing was included in the February 3 city council presentation when this was presented as a study session item. Okay.

Under the current code, what is listed before you is the general penalty for all crimes. These are the maximum penalties available. In practice, however, defendants never get sent to three sixty four days imprisonments. What would be considered a lengthy sentence nowadays is approximately ten days imprisonment. However, the general penalty represents our maximum ability as a home rule municipality, although that is not what necessarily happens in practice.

In amending your code, staff is proposing to add the classifications listed before you, which includes a class one misdemeanor, class two misdemeanor, a petty offense, and a civil infraction while keeping the general penalty. Under the proposed amendments, when there is not a similar state crime to a municipal crime, a penalty classification will not be listed, and the city will retain the ability to assess up to the maximum of the general penalty. Regarding article nine, the proposed code amendments include references to the penalty for each crime if there is a similar state offense. And as I've mentioned, if there's not a similar state crime, the city retains the authority to assess up to the maximum of the general penalty. Listed before you are offenses that we are proposing to remove.

For example, refusing to aid a police officer is duplicative of several different sections of the code, such as obeying police officer, interfering with law enforcement, and interference with public official, defacing or damaging posted advertisement or bill is duplicative of damaging private property, theft by rental property and theft of food or accommodations are both now encompassed within a general theft section. Intentional bodily injury and bodily injurycriminal negligence are now encompassed within one assault section. So while these sections are being removed, they are either duplicative of existing sections or they are now being encompassed within other sections. Some offenses that have changed. Trespass as I is now under one section where it includes first, second, and third degrees.

Theft now reflect reflects state law, including, as I mentioned before, theft by rental property and theft of food accommodations would now be encompassed within one section. Theft by shoplifting removes a knowing element. Harassment and disorderly conduct are now broken into several different subsections to reflect the various ways that they can be proven by the prosecution. Impeding or disrupting certain meetings in public buildings now includes a section for intruding into an area designated for an executive body when the intrusion is for the purpose of disrupting the public meeting. And firearms prohibited in or upon public facilities clarifies that firearms are prohibited in city council chambers.

Listed before you are the options for council consideration. And do I have any questions?

Thank you, James. We got we do have questions, so you are not the fastest presenter tonight.

I I try my best.

We'll go on to mayor pro tem.

I okay. I I get the gist of the the questions, but the reason that we're having to consider this tonight is that the state the general assembly changed state law, and now we're based on that plus the a supreme court case, we have to change to comply with the state law.

Yes. So the supreme court had a ruling that came out in the sometime in December, December, I believe, where it ruled that if there is a similar state offense to what is listed in a municipal code, if the state offense, for example, lists the maximum penalty as ten days imprisonment, whereas a municipality could have had the general penalty ability of up to three sixty four days, the Supreme Court reasoned that the municipal law would authorize what state law prohibits, which would be if state law prohibits more than ten days, but municipal law authorized up to three hundred sixty four days imprisonment, that would not be allowed. So that was the basis for these code amendments.

So I can shake my fist at the state capital, but in effect, I have to comply with what the state law and the courts have determined.

Yes. So as mentioned in as mentioned in the staff reports, the we had been told that these would not affect municipal offenses, but as we see this this

this unintended consequences of the way the laws are. Okay. Thank you very much.

Great clarification. And now councilmember Green.

Thank you, Bahrain. This is really for, councilmember Carverhall. If we remove the defacing or damaging posted advertisement or bill, where is that covered now? So if somebody was to rip down, let's say, a political advertisement or something, where where that would be covered?

We believe that we covered under probably damage to private property.

Probably?

I I think I think there's a few there's a few section code that that would be the most analogous to it.

City attorney called her own.

There. That's not want some definitive answer scenes.

I mean, I was waiting for council member Carbajal to ask or answer. I wasn't quite sure what role she had, but it would depend, yes, where where the poster was. Right? If it's on public property, then we have one charge that's about public property. If it's private property, we have another. But, yes, it is covered.

I knew it was covered. It have to be covered. Otherwise, you get a big no from me. Thank you. Alright.

And and just to clarify to the public, it's not like we were we're removing, you know, theft by rental property. These are things just duplicated that are already built into law.

Yep. So as mentioned, that will now be covered in a general theft statute. So as it is kind of now, it's a little bit tougher to read and tougher to follow along with for either the city or for the general public. Now it's all under one general section.

And, also, under current penalty, the up to 364 days in jail and up to a $26.50 fine, that's for anything that's an offense in Brighton, and now we're proposing four classifications.

So the general penalty will still remain for anything where there's not a similar state offense. Oh, that's that's remaining. Okay.

I thought we're dividing this into four, but we're adding the four.

We we if I may, mayor. Yes. Yes. You are correct. There are four classifications now. It is either a class one, class two misdemeanor, petty offense, or it falls under our general penalty. So for those crimes that do not match state law, we still can use our general penalty.

Okay. So that's really Yeah.

So although it has its own section, graffiti has different standards. Graffiti is one that, remember, doesn't have an equivalent state law, so we have a different penalty for that.

Thank you for clarifying. And then council member Green, do you your your name is still up. You have more?

See my

name. Oh

my gosh.

What happened? You're getting punchy.

Alright. Alright. This is before council for consideration. Council member Fiddler.

Thank you, mayor. And I tried really hard. I have my motion up before the questions ever started, just so

you know.

Happy to move eight b for approval.

And then council member Carbajal.

Thank you, mayor mayor. I'll second.

We have a first and second to approve eight b. Roll call vote. Motion passes nine to zero. Good job. Thank you. Thank you all. Next, pull us up. Item 10 a, a resolution of the city council of the city of Brighton, Colorado amending the city council policy for appointment of members to city boards, commissions, and authorities. City manager Martinez or city attorney Calderon. Right? Yes.

I mean, I'd love it if the city manager wanted to give the explanation.

I'm happy too.

But I did draft this. So I attempted to take what the city council discussed at the last meeting and have it reflect in the policy. As you recall, we when did we discuss this? I thought I had that in here. February 17, we talked

about ago.

So we have updated which boards and commissions are listed. Right? We had some that were included that no longer exist. We have some we've created since then that needed to be added. So we've updated the list of of who's included.

We have added, that the applications that are sent to boards and commissions who will be interviewed by city council will also be sent to that board and commission, and the board and commission may interview the applicant and make a recommendation to the city council panel. We have added the Brighton Housing Authority and the Downtown Development Authority to the boards that city council panel interviews, And we have removed the requirement to attend a board meeting for an applicant if there is no meeting that is being held within sixty days of the application. So if we have a situation where a board is unable to meet, we don't want to hold up getting them appointed because they can't attend a meeting. And instead of having just two councils identified as the interview panel, we are looking, if you approve this tonight. We will later in the meeting then be looking for four individuals who will be the panel that Natalie will contact to set up the interviews.

Those are the changes before you this evening.

Before we go on to comments from the council, there's one person signed up to speak on this item. That's Teresa Bowen. Come on over, Teresa, and state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Theresa Bowen, and, thank you for letting me speak. I want to let you know that we did meet with, mayor Pro Tem Padilla and our city manager, Michael Martinez, today. And on that call was also Councilmember Green and Alicia Calderon, the city attorney.

And we had a lot of questions asked and answered, and it was really a very good meeting. And we were assured that BHA would still be able to initially interview proposed candidates and forward our recommendations to counsel for approval. After the meeting, though, I had several other questions that I still would like for you to consider. First of all, will this be retroactive? Because we already have one member who we are going to discuss at our board on Thursday and give you a recommendation.

Do we need to tell her that the process has now changed? And now she will also have to go through another interview. And I believe we may have another applicant that has already filled out her application, and we'll need to let her know that that's changed, if that's changed at all, or if that will just be the if this will be the process for anybody in the future. I would also like a timeline for when the city clerk will forward the applicant to the appropriate BCRA, like, for instance, seven days after the date of eligibility or receipt, which, you know, I'm just that's just a suggestion. We do have a process on our board where we interview candidates.

And during that during those interviews that we've had, we already have mayor pro tem and our city manager on our board. And just to streamline things, it might be better just to invite another council member One minute. It might be better just to invite another council member to our board member to do those interviews there and not make somebody jump a a citizen jump through an additional hoop. So thank you for your considerations.

Thank you, Teresa. Do we have any clarification from the comments from our city attorney we'd like to comment on?

I'm happy to comment on the easy question. The resolution will be effective tonight. So the individual that you already interviewed would have been under the previous policy, so that applicant should move forward through the process. Anyone else, though, that you just have the application for will be following the new process.

Alright. Those are the play. They go through the new process if approved tonight. K. Thank you. Council member Worth.

Thank you, mayor. I you know, I've I've read through this thing and reread it. It's confusing. It's to me, it looks like for the top four groups of planning commission, BHA, Bureau and the DDA that it reads as though the city council are the only people that will interview. And if that's the case, then I'm strongly against it and I feel like we didn't make progress from our last meeting.

But if it's that today, if that this is an additional step in the process, I'm good at that as long as it should go to the board first and the council the council panel second or simultaneously at least if that's case. Otherwise, I just think we're you know, I'm glad to know that the board members are involved if that's the case. But like I say, the way it reads, it looks like the city council are the only ones. It just said the city council will interview candidates for the following boards and has those four listed. That's it.

Doesn't say as an additional step, city council will get a chance at them too. So I'd I'd like clarification. Personally, I'd like clarification on that part of the of this document.

Great question. And city attorney can clarify this, but if I read this right in section two c number one, it does state any board commission authority may review application. Applications. So that tells me that they can have the option to also interview as well. Do you agree?

Thank you, mayor. In case. Yes. The mayor's been through this policy quite a few times now as well. Yes. So where there are no red lines, we made no changes. So the section you're referring to, right, one b Yes. We didn't change that language. We didn't change the language either in A, B, or C of that section. Where we change the language is in the procedure that talks about the interviews. So that is subsection two procedure and then c one where we made the changes.

Does that satisfy your curiosity?

Not completely. Not completely. Again, I I would put I I would change the language in in section, one b, to read the you know, as an additional step. And I understand they're they're they're laid out below, but usually what comes below the first paragraph is the is the is the that usually supersedes what's happening down below. Right?

And so I I just I just think that that should be clear, you know, clearly laid out that, you know, for those four boards, you're going to go through two levels of interviews. Because right now, it looks like on those four boards, the board has the the existing board has no say, No no prevails of the members that would then be serving on their board.

City attorney?

Thank you, mayor. So, again, this is a I mean, this is I wanna say your council policy, but I recognize it's a previous council's policy. And so this is really your direction to yourselves. Right? Section one b is saying that it's city council who will interview members for those boards or commissions.

Not all of those boards or commissions will be doing a two step process. Some of them may, and so we've added that procedure into the procedure section, which is the next section. But if you want additional language in the general provision, certainly, we could take this back to the drawing board and also add language in there.

Does that help?

I I think I'm going the wrong direction here. So let me be clear. If I if we're talking about an applicant for the DDA,

the

DDA gets to interview these people first. Now we may all get the the the total list of candidates. They get to to to interview them and give you know, put forward their 2¢ on it. And then the panel of city council gets to interview and convey their ideas to the city council at that time. Is that correct?

That is correct if that is what the DDA chooses to do. The DDA hasn't met yet. I don't know what they will choose.

I would use

them

as an example on this list.

Right. But they they they may, that which is what we've added into the procedure below.

Or they may wish not to, but it's but that's their choice, not ours.

Correct.

That's why May's in there instead of Shell.

As long as as long as it stands up that the board has the option to interview the candidates Yeah.

That that provides situations.

Then I'm I'm fine with it.

That's how it's clarified to me. Hopefully, everybody else.

K. Thank you.

Council member Carbajal.

Thank you, mayor. I have just a couple of questions. First for Alicia, can you talk to me about the legal alignment with the organization's bylaws? So is this agreement 100% legal in alignment with the bylaws of the housing authority?

So we don't write the housing authority's bylaws. The housing authority writes their bylaws and makes it consistent with the Brighton Municipal Code and the housing authority law. Those are both other laws that come above the bylaws, so you create bylaws to implement laws. So the laws that apply in the state statutes, the Colorado revised statutes, is the Brighton housing I mean, the the housing authority law. And then our Brighton municipal code, we also have a section that sets out, right, who the members are.

And so those are the two sets of laws that apply to the bylaws. This is a policy for the city council. The city council in the state statutes is who appoints. Well, technically, it's the mayor. But the city council, in in our code, it's with the approval of the full council that the mayor appoints. So the state statutes just say who does the appointment. The bylaws their bylaws may have more details about their process that they would like to see, but the only law that exists is does not conflict with this policy.