Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll go ahead and call to order the Longmont Planning Zoning Commission July 22nd meeting. First item is call to order or our series roll call.

Chair Polin. Here. Commissioner Edgley-Wells. Here. Commissioner Lange. Here. Vice Chair Earle. Here. Commissioner Saunders. Here. Commissioner Wang. Here. Commissioner Forbes. Here. Council Member Popkin. Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Next is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first people had with this land. It is our commitment to face the injustices that happened when the land was taken and to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. Next is item of communications from Grant Penland Planning and Development Services.

Just briefly, thank you all for being here this evening. Happy July and just wanted to note that we do have a special guest here this evening.

We do. We'd like to take this time also to acknowledge the time and effort that Judd Haidt had put into the commission for we'll call it 12 years. He served a couple years as an alternate. He served on the commission. He served one year as the chair. So at this time, we'd like him to come forward. We do have your proclamation. I will go ahead and read it in recognition of your service to the Planning and Zoning Commission. This certificate is issued by the City of Longman and the Planning and Zoning Commission. And we also have... Two of your name tags.

I'm going to go off script. Do you want it here? Jane wants you to go on there. Okay, there you go.

This guy.

Look, I turned the microphone on. That was a big problem for me in years past. I obviously have nothing prepared to say other than I enjoyed serving the city through this commission. You guys continue on the tradition of doing important things in small chunks. They're time consuming. They're important. You have to study a lot. You've got to know the rules a lot. And you have to collaborate. And that was kind of the best part. I love my collaborators. And I love the leadership as well, too. Without them, it doesn't happen as well as it does. So thank you all. Thank you for the appreciation of the dozen plus years. And there will never be the same. And there will never be, right, variances. Well, yeah, they had to change them. It was a great argument once upon a time with now commissioner or council member Popkin over whether variance is or isn't. And God love Jeremy Trevella to keep us straight. It's a Michigan man through and through. So thank you very much for vetting me, and thank you very much for putting up with me all these years.

Yeah, I would love everybody to get married.

Congrats. Because Ben was a... staff presenter back in the day. So you need to be here.

Okay. Jane, do you want in there too? Yeah, we just need a picture for our records too. Okay. I'm ready to go. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, you. I'm an over. No, you're not an over. Ben and Matt. Ben and Matt.

all right one two three all right then i'll get jane's camera i was losing my squeeze one two three

Here we go, a couple of you.

Thank you. Thank you all. Appreciate it. It was fun. Cool. Yeah, exactly.

Can we just do a profile picture next time?

Tough act to follow. Oh.

No, you.

Public invited beer.

No, we're not doing it that way.

I thought that's what we were.

Oh, because it's going to be confusing, isn't it? No. Because it's out of order. Okay. Okay.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move on. Next is public comment, public invited to be heard. This is for items that are non-quasi-judicial that are coming before, that are not coming before the board. And so we have one person, Amy Saunders. Please state your name and your address and you get five minutes.

Are you doing the timer?

Yeah, I'm gonna do the timer.

Okay.

You can just go ahead.

I can wait to see him. I'm just putting my different hat on. OK, you ready? OK. Good evening, Chair Polin and commissioners. My name is Amy Saunders. I have lived at 1366 McClure Drive for almost 25 years and in Boulder County since 1975. So I will be recusing myself from 8b today. So my comments here are about that. I'm speaking solely today as a private citizen here. I am a mother of three, a college educator who teaches landscape architecture and sustainable site design, and an advocate for public transportation and meaningful public participation. OK. I support finding that the first in Maine, 8B, Maine urban renewal plan conforms with Envision Longmont. The packet describes coordinated redevelopment anchored by a regional transit center and the proposed Front Range Community College urban innovation campus. It would improve access to education, employment, housing, and community services while funding roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other public infrastructure. This directly supports Envision Longmont's goal of fostering an educated and skilled workforce and its vision for a balanced multimodal transportation system. Yesterday's Times Call article shows that this project is moving quickly. LURA unanimously approved three tax increment agreements. Additional negotiations may require a special meeting in August, and construction of the transit center is expected to begin this fall. That momentum is encouraging. But it also makes transparency and continued public participation especially important. The article noted that one commissioner wanted more, I guess that's council member rather, oh no, commissioner, you're right, thank you so much, wanted more project information in advance and that the identity of a prospective private developer was not disclosed because negotiations remained preliminary. I understand the need to protect early negotiations, but the public record should become progressively more detailed as decisions mature and public resources are committed. As a mother and teacher, I see a transit accessible college campus as intergenerational infrastructure. Students and working families should be able to reach education, job training, employment, and community services without every household being required to purchase and maintain another vehicle. Longmont should not function primarily as a pass-through city whose residents must travel to Boulder, Denver, or Westminster to learn and work. We should create a community where people can learn, work, participate, and remain. I also ask that green infrastructure be treated as essential infrastructure as future development applications come forward. Longmont's sustainability plan calls for resilient and efficient community infrastructure that complements the natural environment, incorporates social equity, conserves resources, and considers lifecycle costs. The Main Street corridor plan similarly calls for strategic infill, transit as catalysts, safer multimodal connections, urban open space, and incorporated green spaces. Future plans should therefore evaluate measurable tree canopy, pedestrian shade, native and water-conscious planting, stormwater capture, habitat value, heat mitigation, safe first and last mile connections, and links to downtown and the St. Varian Greenway. Today's agenda item concerns conformity with the comprehensive plan, not final site design. I support that finding while asking the commission and city to preserve a meaningful public role through financing infrastructure planning, development review, and landscape design. Let's build First in Maine not merely as a place people pass through, but as a connected, educational, civic, ecological and economic center that gives people both a reason and way to stay in Walmart

okay thank you miss saunders yes um nobody else signed up but i will open up for anybody else in the public who would like to come up and talk saying nobody come forward i'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard we'll move to the next item which is approval of the june 17 2026 minutes do we have any questions comments or motions commissioner saunders

Yay. Thank you, Chair. So I had a couple of comments for the minutes. For the record, last month on Tuesday, June 18, it was reported by Lyle London of the Times Call newspaper that I, Commissioner Saunders, was at and voted in support of the Longmont Greenway Northwest annexation Zoning and concept plan application that is incorrect. I was not at the June 17th 2026 Wednesday planning and zoning meeting and I did not vote for or against that application at that meeting So for the minutes of that June 17th meeting that we're talking about that I was not at however I did send a question via email and That morning to staff that was not clearly forwarded on to the rest of the commissioners. So I would like to Excuse me at it here for the record and for my fellow commissioners to include with the June 17th meeting agenda item 7a Longmont Greenway Northwest annexation zoning and consent plan My question was quote would the city be liable for? Approving plans that allow for stormwater to discharge into an irrigation ditch without ditch approval There was a response from senior planner Cote. I would like that to be please forwarded on to the Commission and if possible, that email that I had with her, and the confidential response from senior assistant city attorney Terrell to also be forwarded on to the commission. Because it was only an exchange between me and I would rather the rest of the commission see that. So. Jeremy, comment?

Do you need to comment?

Oh, yes, I can.

Sorry, as I start chewing on a mint. Good evening, chair, poll member of the commission, Jeremy Terrell, senior assistant city attorney. Maybe. I don't know. I don't have a great answer for that, just because the commission's already voted on that item.

But it just goes with the record of it, right? There's no back and forth in talking about it, but it goes with the record that I had asked that question of staff, and there was a response. So I think as part of public record, it needs to be included with the minutes.

I would say no, because items from the packets aren't necessarily part of the minutes for the meeting. And any email I may have sent would be attorney-client privilege and shouldn't be included in the record.

But to the rest of the commissioners, I'm uncomfortable being singled out and not having my question be to the rest of the commissioners.

I think that's more of a topic for future... issues when that happens, as opposed to fixing this particular issue, just because the record's already been closed for that item.

Well, except for the meeting minutes. Those are not finished. And that's why we have the draft that we get to if something got missed or there's something that's incorrect.

For the minutes of the actual meeting, but not the packet.

But the meeting would have had that question and response from staff. They had seen it. Not necessarily. So you're saying that other commissioners have had questions to staff that perhaps I have not seen?

Oh, absolutely. I'm certain there could be times where commissioners have reached out to staff for questions and it wouldn't be forwarded to the entire commission if it wasn't. like an item for the commission and be on each commissioner to bring it up during the meeting.

So where's the deciding mark then when we see commissioner questions brought up before a meeting and we see the question and response right before a meeting. I can think of several occasions when Councilmember Popkin has asked questions as a commissioner, I'm so sorry, or any of us, and I've seen the question and answer response as a commissioner who wasn't involved in the question and answer response. So what deems it worthy, I guess?

Normally it's a staff level decision and whether or not it's something that we think that the entire commission could benefit from reading in the email versus the commissioner providing it during the meeting. Normally the expectation is that the commissioner would ask a question to clarify some issue and then bring it up during the meeting itself. I can't think of any instances in which a commissioner, apart from a purely technical question about where do I find this document, I can't think of a policy-based question that wouldn't have been disclosed by a commissioner during the meeting. I guess my assumption is that the commissioners have been doing that because that's normally what happens.

Can I hear what the other commissioners feel about this?

Absolutely.

I will say I have seen some of the questions because I've been copied sometimes when people have questions. What I have encouraged is in that regards is if you have a question that you feel will take some time for research, for something for the staff to find out, that's when I ask that you go ahead before the meeting and send an email to them with that question. But then I also then say, but then it's up to you to follow up in the meeting with their question.

So in the email, It was going to be provided a response from staff for the question, but it got directed to counsel with a confidential email where there was no, it was kind of, in my opinion, sort of blown off because this is what I'm saying. I'm uncomfortable kind of having this back and forth just between me. I don't want to dredge up this issue because it's obviously passed, but I feel that this was part of that meeting. And it wasn't a simple, because here's my problem. I couldn't come last minute. I had planned to come. And this was pretty critical in my mind for, it was a legal issue for that project for people to know about on the commission. And even if not, to myself to understand the legality of that, because it came from another project that I knew about, not just in another city. This was a red flag for me. And so I'm glad that you all saw it, but the rest of the commission didn't see it. So I'm uncomfortable having that back and forth without the rest of the commissioners. Normally, that I've experienced, if there's a question, feedback from staff that gets sent along that's been my experience and I'm comfortable with that again with the public process and seeing that so Does anybody else have any feelings about their questions? Maybe being because it felt like it was corralled my question that it was too complicated and it was corralled and we couldn't get into it, which I totally understand and was told and totally I get I put in there I get that it's last minute and apologies for that but the fact that it wasn't shared with the rest of the Commission I think that's the part that gave me a little bit of a red flag and I thought that this would be great just send them they can make their own impressions and then it's all wrapped together with that proposal because it was part of that proposal

don't know how we resolve this today but i would say moving forward and this is what has happened in the past if there's a commissioner who's had some questions regarding an item that they're not going to be able to attend they have forwarded me questions and i've asked those questions at the meeting on their behest

Oh, well, I could have done that. That would have been fine, right? But that I had in my mind thought, okay, well, they'll at least see the question and the answer from staff, and then they can make their own opinions about it. So I don't see the difference from sending it to chair versus sending it just to the rest of the commission.

Okay.

I'm going to pass it over to Commissioner Earle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I think a clarification a little bit, because I agree it's probably not something we can address in the minutes. I do think, in general, the questions, we've seen several of them forward to us. It is helpful to see them in advance if they're not in the packet already. Would that kind of communication go in the council packet? Because it is, you know, kind of a public comment from a not seated commissioner to the planner. So I'm just curious if it's going to be on the record.

That sounds, yeah, part of the record.

Not the attorney-client privilege, the one to the staff.

Right. I would say no. And that's part of the reason why I personally don't enjoy these emails being sent out to the commissioners because they don't end up being in the packet. I mean, they are public records, as everyone knows. If there's any sort of communication among commissioners outside a meeting, that's an open meeting law violation. And I think part of that is engaging with providing answers to questions. We do it. I mean, certainly that happens when there is attorney-client privilege material that needs to be forwarded to the commission. There has been some limited circumstances in which answers to questions have been sent out. That's not my decision to make. I would say that's a staff level decision when they make that decision. In terms of attorney-client privilege, normally it comes down to, you know, who is the intended recipient. So I would say, no, normally an email sent to the commission would not make it in the packet, though.

Well, an email sent to the staff planner, like a public email sent to the staff planner goes into the packet. Correct. And so does that, you know, Commissioner Saunders not, as a commissioner at that meeting, does that become a public comment that goes in the packet for council? It's a public record.

I wouldn't say it's a public comment, though, because it might not make it in time for the packet. which is why it's always better to bring it up during the meeting.

Sure, if you can, but we're human and stuff happens, right? And so that's what I'm saying. It felt very corralled, my comment, my question. It started being addressed by Senior Planner Cote and was going to bring in Rachel. And then I said, yeah, I would like to hear the reasoning on this. And then I got an email from council saying, with the confidentiality thing on it with just being directed at me, which wasn't really helpful for the question because I didn't get the answer from Planner Cote or from Rachel. But again, I understand it was last minute. And again, I think that my intent was for the commission to see it in some way. So I should have emailed it to the chair and had them ask?

That has been done in the past. It has been.

But isn't that ex parte communication between us?

No, it would still be public record. So subject to CORA, the Colorado Open Records Act. But to commissioners, this is not a violation of open meeting law requirements.

And so are these emails anyway, right? My emails anyway are still public record no matter what to the city. Yeah. Okay.

I don't have a great answer to your question. I don't think it can be, I don't think this is a proper way to amend the minutes and I wouldn't recommend proceeding this way. But to answer like the general question about going forward, I think we need to have a larger conversation possibly in an executive session for more legal advice. Because I can't give legal advice in an open meeting.

For the commission, you mean? Legal advice for the commission?

I can't give any legal advice in an open meeting, but yes.

Okay. Well, I was really surprised to get that all of a sudden email from counsel. So I don't, I'm just not, I'm not comfortable with it just being directed at me and not having any of the other commissioners on it because you're not my lawyer, right? You're the commission lawyer, right?

When you're saying counsel, you mean me, not counsel?

Yes, I'm so sorry. No, no, I'm sorry. I want to make sure. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you for clarifying. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. So because I would love to know their input on this, right? Because it's not it's not a personal issue. It's just it was a legal issue on irrigation dishes. So like that's what I'm having trouble with because it just it seems so benign. I mean, last minute, but I already said I get if it's last minute, you can't answer. But then it was corralled. So so that being said how do i walk this back i guess if i can't add these to the minutes a motion was never made to add it to the minute correct so you don't have to walk back okay so then i would like to move to approve the june 17 minutes as they are presented not with my comments that just happened

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Earle?

Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. Any other comments, questions? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and take a vote.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Vice Chair Earle? Yes. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Saunders? Yes. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Commissioner Forbes? Chair, that passes six approvals, one abstention.

Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move. There are no public hearing items for today, so we'll move to the next item, which is other business. The first item is amendments to the City of Longmont Land Development Code, Section 1505080J, bicycle parking. This is Transportation Planner Ben Ortiz presenting.

Good evening. Thank you, Chair Polin. Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So tonight we'll be reviewing PZR 2026-14B and Hopefully, we can put this one to bed. So, last May 27th, you reviewed the bike parking ordinance that we're proposing to take to City Council. And as a result, you recommended, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with conditions through 2026-14B. So the vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission was to approve with four conditions, and that vote was unanimous. However, the recommendations were a little on the high-level side, and so these are the four, and so... Planning and Zoning Commissioner Saunders, you were not here, so we have four sort of high-level conditions. One was the cargo bike parking requirement was too onerous and should be relaxed. The second was the outside dimensions of covered bike parking need to include length and width. Presently only width is provided. In addition, the covered bike parking requirement is too onerous for small developments and should be relaxed. Third, requirement that bike parking must be within 100 feet of land uses they serve and installed near building entrances requires further clarification with respect to developments with multiple entrances, including attached and detached housing developments like mobile home parks and multifamily developments. And lastly, eliminate the requirement for bike parking at short-term rentals. So at that meeting, you reviewed the PZR language, and I'm sorry, so at the July 13th meeting, the Transportation Advisory Board reviewed the PZR, the amended PZR language, I should say, and they had no comments or recommendations. So policy one, proposed change, location requirements reads as follows. Section three is amended to read as follows. Bicycle parking location for convenience and security. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located no further than 100 feet away. from primary access points or to an outdoor destination shall be visible from the interior. The land uses they serve shall not be located in obscure remote or hidden areas for multifamily developments. At least one bicycle rack shall be located at each building near primary access points. For attached single family or mobile home parks without garages, bike parking may be clustered into one or more areas provided that the areas are easily accessible and highly visible to the residents they serve. And so policy one, this is misplaced, my apologies. Policy 2, proposed change of building overhangs. Then I'll go back to that prior slide because that is applicable to this section. Section 7 is amended to read as follows, building overhangs and awnings and shelter rooftops shall be a minimum of 11 feet in width, The length of overhangs and awnings and shelters shall be the length of the row of bicycle parking racks. They are intended to protect plus a minimum of four feet of coverage for both ends of the bicycle parking row. A minimum clear distance of four feet from all outside edges of inverted U racks shall be maintained. Developments with less than 5,000 square feet of building area are exempt from this requirement. And so again, we produced this graphic, which I feel adequately represents the language of the proposed PZR. It shows four feet from both ends of the rack. And as you can see, we provided an overhead view and two side views. And then this follows the, this is another graphic we produced that we intend on including in the updated ordinance. And this is a perspective view, so hopefully this will give you a better idea as to what this particular policy would ultimately look like. So policy 3 proposed change cargo bike parking section 9 is meant to read as follows cargo bike parking for every 30 short term bicycle parking spaces 15 inverted your acts provided at least one cargo bike parking rack designed to accommodate cargo bikes shall be required but no less than one cargo bike rack per development equal to or in excess of 5000 square feet of building area developments with less than 5000 square feet of building area are exempt from this requirement. And then lastly, you propose to eliminate the short-term rentals, eliminate bike parking requirement for short-term rentals. And so this requires striking the two per unit. And basically, the red line states it would not be required. so the next steps would be to either approve or amend the pzr and then we are proposing to take this up to city council on september 22nd and then we will follow up on city council's recommendation at that time and with that i'd be happy to take any questions um thank you well thank you very much does anybody have any questions any comments

Do we have any, oh, Commissioner Earl, or Vice Chair Earl, I should say.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be very brief. Ben, just thank you. I'm really happy with the way that this has been reworded. I appreciate the efforts of you, staff, and TAB for what you guys have come up with. So, no, thank you. I think it's great, and you incorporated the feedback. So I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Saunders.

Oh, thank you, Chair. I have a question for you planner Ortiz. Would you agree that these amendments improve the usability of bicycle parking while still maintaining the city's long term goal of encouraging multimodal transportation?

Short answer? Yes.

Perfect. Follow up question. And these revisions don't reduce the city's commitment to active transportation. They simply make implementation more practical for different development types.

I would agree with that statement.

Excellent. Thank you. From my review and analysis of agenda item 8A, the amendment to the city's land development code for bicycle parking, I appreciate the staff's work incorporating the commission's comments from May. I believe these revisions strike an appropriate balance between encouraging active transportation and providing practical implement standards for development. As Envision Longmont specifically calls for providing bicycle parking as strategic locations to support bicycling as viable means of active transportation, and it emphasizes creating a transportation system that is safe, balanced, and connected for users of all ages and abilities, So from a landscape architecture perspective, I think it's also important to remember that bicycle parking is one of the small pieces that contribute to healthier, more connected communities. While these facilities are convenient and well integrated into the development, they support walking and bicycling. complementing our trail and green well greenway investments in advance the city's broader sustainability and stewardship goals i appreciate that the revisions before us maintain those goals while making the standards more practical to implement and i'll be supporting the motion thanks ben thank you very much do we have any other comments questions motions vice chair earl

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move that we adopt PZR 202614B, a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval of Chapter 1505080J, Bicycle Parking with Conditions. Thank you very much.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Edgley-Wells?

I second.

We have a motion. We have a second. Are there any other further questions, comments? Seeing nobody hop on, I'll go ahead and let's take a vote.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Vice Chair Earle? Yep. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Saunders? Yes. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Commissioner Forbes? Yes. Chair, that passes unanimously 7-0.

Very good, this item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before city council, please contact the planning division for further information at 303-651-8330. That concludes item 8A, and before we go to item 8B, Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. So for 8A, before 8B, thank you for the correction, before the consideration of 8B, I'd like to disclose a potential perceived conflict of interest. I currently have an at-will contract with the Westminster campus of Front Range Community College. While I have no involvement with this project and any future professional benefit is speculative, I believe accrual is the most appropriate course to avoid even the appearance of conflict Accordingly, I will recuse myself from the commission's decision and vote on the agenda item AB. As a Longmont resident, however, I reserve my right, which you saw before, to participate in the public process as a private citizen during the public comments for this item today and for any future land development applications related to this project. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Saunders. We'll go ahead and move to item 8B, First and Main Urban Renewal Plan Area. Executive Director of the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority and Assistant City Manager, Jennifer Uten. Is that correct? Did I say that right? Redevelopment and Revitalization Manager, Katie Faltes.

Hi guys, or hello, I am Katie Faltus. I'm the Revitalization and Redevelopment Manager, RRM for short. And to the side of me here is Jen Uten, the Assistant City Manager and Executive Director of the Urban Renewal Authority. So tonight, the question that we're bringing forth to you is the first and main urban renewal plan and if it's in compliance with the city of Longmont comprehensive plan, the Envision Longmont. To give a brief history on this site, it is areas that are bound generally by the First Avenue to the north, Boston, and Ida to the south, Kauffman to the west, and South Main to the east. This area is in the Southeast Longmont Urban Renewal Plan area. It's that area that's shaded in that kind of yellowish color. And this is an existing plan that was created in the early 2000s. Our plan is to do a minor modification, which will be brought to city council in the upcoming months, which will actually pull that outside of this plan area, creating a new plan area, the first and main urban renewal plan. And just to give some context of where this is, this is right here on your screen, this street that goes right down the center, that's Main Street. This is Boston, First Avenue. The transit center will be somewhere in here and other developments right here. So that area, that kind of purpley magenta color is this picture here to your right. And the first and main plan area, this plan has a more connected feel to the transit center, existing downtown area. It creates new energy and connectivity. It has projects nearby that will make downtown more vibrant and lively, a place with easy access to jobs and services, housing, and everyday needs of our community. And it also has an investment component to it, which includes a permanent education facility, creating that workforce and needs of our community here with things like health technology, business advancing and manufacturing, kind of a little bit of everything. So the projects that we'll talk about tonight that we will be discussing are within that current magenta colored urban renewal plan. And just a point of clarification here, we're talking about these projects, but we're not considering those projects tonight. Tonight, what you guys are considering is this plan in compliance with the comprehensive plan. So the first project that I'll just give a brief overview is that transit center that we've been talking about. It's five stories, about 700 parking spots with the bus bay to bring bus rapid transit here. And the second project is the Front Range Community College. This is a innovative campus that is economic development focused. It's a powerhouse of innovation and development. It is also a quasi-judicial issue, which you'll be seeing later on when this comes in with a conditional site plan. So to go into a little bit about what is urban renewal, urban renewal is a tool that is used to help with situations just like this, to bring development to sites which may be otherwise challenging. So the steps of creating an urban renewal plan, I'll just go over those briefly. So the first step and step one of the process is to identify an area which could benefit from a tool like urban renewal. Then you notify the taxing entities and you start working on negotiating those agreements to get IGAs in place to use the tool such as TIF. Once you negotiate those agreements and then you get to step four. That's the step that we're on currently right here in front of you is that we bring the urban renewal plan to the planning commission to have it be in compliance with the comprehensive plan for your consideration. Then after we go there, or after we come here, then the next step is to bring it to city council. City council will then approve the plan through a public process, and then the next part is implementation of the plan. We start using those tools, we start doing things on site, and then the seventh step is the continuing administration of that plan. And some of the goals of urban renewal are things that is to eliminate blight. And that happens through mitigating conditions that hinder development. It fosters the spread of blighting conditions. And blight is a statutory term. And so we'd like to be consistent with the statute and foster the need for rehabilitation and advance community priorities. So now I'll get into kind of how this plan is directly related to the comprehensive plan. So GP1 is livable centers, corridors, and neighborhoods. The plan is supported by encouraging reinvestment, land assemblage, and TOD development. GP2, a complete and balanced and connected transportation system. The plan supports this guiding principle by bus rapid transit, new connectivity hubs. GP3, housing services, amenities, and opportunities for all. The urban renewal plan supports this by TOD multifamily and improving access onto the site and access throughout our community. And GP4, a safe, healthy, and adaptable community. It's connectivity. It's multimodal. It's through transit center itself. It is also by doing the Kauffman extension that will happen to create some more connectivity throughout the site, throughout the city, and it's a mixed use project with other multifamily components. NGP5, a sustainable and resilient economy. This project is something like that you would see in an economic development textbook or something of that nature. It's kind of one of those where you've got an innovation center, you've got the college, you have transportation, you have bus driver transit, you have housing, you have retail, you kind of have a little bit of everything. And so it's the shop, it's the connection model, it's workforce opportunities, it's everything built into one. So tonight, staff recommendation is to, recommends finding that the first and main urban renewal plan area is in compliance with the Envision Longmont, the city's comprehensive plan. And I'm gonna turn it over for Jen for just a second, because I think she had a few things that she wanted to add at the end of this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Hi, I'm Jen Uten, the Assistant City Manager for External Services, otherwise known as the new Joni. And thank you for hearing us this evening. I did want to just address some of the comments that happened in the public. invited to be heard section related to the news article that was in the Times Call today. There is a section of that article that's related actually to something that wasn't part of the first in Maine urban renewal plan or those tax increment financing agreements. Or actually, there were three agreements, two of which were related to this plan area for 1st and Main, one which was related to the plan area that is by the Twin Peaks Mall and is related to that other urban renewal area. So I think just for clarification, I just wanted to give that information. There also was a subsequent conversation at the urban renewal meeting last evening to talk about a future presentation of a different development that is actually fully entitled. I think in the article it wasn't perfectly clear that that other piece about having a presentation related to a development and not necessarily disclosing the name of the developer. That was for a presentation for something that's unrelated to this item and just wanted to give that clarity. I'm happy to answer any other questions that you have about that or the plan itself.

Thanks. okay thank you uh this is not a public item so we don't have public comment and we'll go straight to comments and questions from the commission uh first we oh yep commission our uh councilman popkin

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to piggyback off of what Jen was just sharing there as I was the person who made the comment of like, we're not going to disclose the developer for that. It wasn't because it had no relation to the first and main project. I can't put a finer point on that. It was entirely unrelated to it. And this is not the fault of anyone who made a public comment today. This is just purely related to how the article kind of told the story on this. That was a comment made to another commissioner who was asking about, this was a discussion about an entirely different parcel in a different part of town, not even in the first and main area that just kind of got lumped into this discussion. So, and it's not because it was a secret. It was just because the decision on whether to have the presentation should in my opinion, as the chair of that commission, shouldn't be informed by who the developer was. So that developer is public record. They've emailed me, and they've emailed Jen, and they've emailed Harold. So there's no secret there. Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification. Next, we'll move to Commissioner Wang.

Hi, thank you. I have a couple of questions about, I guess, clarifying the first and main properties right now. They're currently in the Southeast Longmont Urban Renewal Plan. Is that correct? It's currently in the SLRP plan? Correct. So and they will be removed in September. via a minor modification to its own plan. Is that correct? With a minor modification, with a process with a minor modification, does that need to go through the planning and zoning again to review it to see if it fits with the comprehensive plan?

No.

It doesn't. Okay. The other question I have is why are you separating this piece of property out into its own distinct area?

Yeah, so the FLRP was created in the early 2000s. Urban Renewal Law has changed since then, and it states that TIF needs to be drawn with the most narrow boundaries. So because we have a project that's happening here that will happen within that magenta color, it makes sense to then start that TIF clock with the boundaries that are outside of FLRP.

All right. Okay, thank you. Yeah, because I was wondering, because, I mean, it's a huge boundary, but you could have the TIFF anywhere inside within the slurp to be used in the first domain, but because of the new laws...

Yes. And because there's a 25 year clock. So as soon as you start that 25 year clock, you have a limited amount of time to get projects going and to get things accomplished. And so if we did it over the whole slurp boundary, that we would be tied to that 25 year increment.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Um, the other question I have is, um, right now, this first and main area is currently zoned as mu downtown mix us downtown. I know that at the previous in the May, Laura meeting, we've talked about mu IR, the innovation and redevelopment zoning. Are you looking to rezone this area into mu IR in the future?

sure i'll be happy to jump in uh through the chair commission uh it is part of a consideration uh just to be clear we of course have to create the actual district first but this particular property would be a main consideration for a rezoning to muir

Okay, so MUIR is created in anticipation maybe this will be lumped into that area. That is accurate. Okay, thank you. And then the final question I have is, so previously with the projects that came into planning and zoning, we've had a concept plan that comes to us, and it's very, I wouldn't say it's super detailed, but it has boundaries, it has plans of where the exits are, the streets, alignments, what... you know, where things are with this actual plan here. It's kind of generic. It doesn't say it's not very detailed as like It doesn't have a concept plan of what we've are familiar with, like on previous projects. Is that the norm for urban renewal plan? I mean, it says we'll have a transit station, we'll have housing, we'll have a school, but it doesn't have any actual details about this. Is this normal for a urban renewal plan to just sort of be nebulous?

I'll go ahead and take that question, Commissioner Wang. The urban renewal plan is really the vehicle through which the Urban Renewal Authority works. And so there are different plan areas. The boundary of urban renewal is coterminous with the city boundary, but each individual plan area has its own focus. And it really is about eliminating blight in that area. And so what it does is it sets forth how that happens, what are the ways in which the Urban Renewal Authority can act. So it can own property, can have these tax increment financing agreements to use the revenue, in this case property tax revenue, from development that happens and take those dollars and funnel them back into that development because the development itself is hard to do. And so essentially it's a kind of a how to do the investment could be viewed as a kind of a financing document. And it sets forth kind of some of the parameters of the way in which the Urban Renewal Authority will work. in this particular area so it isn't a land use document in the same way that and it wouldn't um necessarily have the specificity of those individual projects so there we are aware that there are two projects that are in this um this overall area that are happening today that's part of the reason that this is being asked of the commission now and eventually will be asked of city council So essentially, there are multiple pieces of this work. Urban renewal uses that tax increment financing to be able to help address site conditions or to put dollars toward public amenities, public improvements. And in some of these cases, not in this case, but in the sugar mill, for example, is an easy example to point to the there's lots of contamination and other site conditions in terms of not having connected roadways and some of those kinds of things. That's the case in this area as well, but it's on kind of a smaller scale. But there are buildings that have been demolished and there's active environmental work that's happening. And those are the kinds of conditions that make the development difficult. And so urban renewal is one tool that can help to address, mitigate those blighting conditions. So hopefully I answered your question probably with more detail than you wanted.

Thank you.

So if I just want to re- Can I jump in for just one additional, just minor clarification? So normally the Planning and Zoning Commission here is development applications under Title 15 of our code. So those are your preliminary plats, final subdivision plats, site plans, conditional uses, all of that. This is a little bit unique because there is no development application required through this process. State statute actually says that when you create an urban renewal area, It has to go before the city or town's planning commission if one exists. So unlike a traditional development application where you have an applicant and the development review committee process and the presentations and all that, this is just a concept drawn from state law having a requirement. So that's part of the reason why it looks a little bit different in terms of a plan than what you're normally used to seeing as well.

okay so if i want to rephrase this this plan is more of a framework on how to deal with a blight in the area versus an actual how to deal with the development correct okay thank you commissioner edgley wells

Thank you chair. Um, my questions are related to the impact report, so I don't know who I should, um, address those questions too. And I have several and um, okay, so I'm just going to get started. Okay. So, uh, when transportation hubs are added, What impacts are there on public safety? I did read in the report that there's going to be assumed minimal impact. But in the history of having transportation hubs added into a city, what sort of patterns are you seeing with public safety? Do you see increased crime? Do you see things like that?

I think that we might have to ask that question to our public safety folks, but I do think that the idea of this investment is to have Active and you know newer developments that it can be adaptive reuse. It doesn't have to be all new developments and their The idea is that this will be an active location where people are there either eventually using the train, using BRT, going across the street to other businesses, going to potentially the Front Range Community College if that happens. So I think that this area is envisioned to be lively and to be a great addition to downtown. um related to um specific uh transportation related um issues with um with crime i don't know that i could speak to that but we certainly uh send that question to the police um and public safety folks um okay thank you um all right so my next question um 1109 new residents is a conservative side suggestion with 1.8 people per household with the um

infrastructure being built for housing the assumption that that's the number of residents that will come in what impacts on um transit housing uh will be seen if per unit is higher per person like what how do you forecast the impacts of that if it's more than 1.8 and do you see foresee good or bad impacts if that number is on the conservative side

And maybe I should give a little bit of background about what the impact report is for. So the impact report is a component of the project that is intended to go to the taxing districts to understand what the impact is to the taxing district itself. So it's related to delivering services for those other districts. agencies, those other entities where they are collecting property tax today, the you might, could you go to the way that the TIF kind of the slide at the end? So the way that tax increment financing works is that there's a base set for property tax. And then the development that comes online is new increment. And that property tax for each of the taxing entities would be new revenue that doesn't otherwise exist and that would not exist without the new development. And those dollars, whatever the taxing IGA agreements are with those other districts, so it could be, for example, 100% of their property tax, And in the case of the City of Longmont, that is the agreement here. So for those property taxes that would be otherwise going to the City of Longmont, they would be then going to the Urban Renewal Authority. And those dollars are originally intended to serve the city of Longmont. And so the impact report itself is for the taxing entities to understand what impact it is to those taxing entities. So in terms of service from Boulder County, from the city, um from uh st brain left hand water conservancy district northern water conservancy district the school district um and so there is a it's a um it's a model and an estimate of how many people will eventually live in the units that are created in and for example there would be um new students who would um probably live in these um new housing units that are in this area, it's an estimate for, for example, the school district of how many students they might have who are coming to the school district and where these dollars would otherwise be going to the school district and then would be flowing to the Urban Renewal Authority. In the case of the school district, the base amount of the 27 mills that are the base amount, it's backfilled by the state of Colorado. And so in that case, the state is backfilling those dollars. So it isn't an impact to the school district itself related to specifically those mills. And I'm sorry, I've forgotten your question because I launched into kind of what the document does. If you will restate your question, I'd be happy to try to answer it.

Well, okay. So beyond that question, I'm just trying to get a better understanding and a better feeling of what these impacts could potentially mean. Because I, so this gap here, so your assessed valuation and your baseline, right? So the in-between is the money generated, correct? Yes. Right.

Mm-hmm.

So that is an assumption that this plan is 100% successful. That's something that I read in the impact report is that these numbers are assumed based on success of the projections in this report. So that's why I'm asking kind of these roundabout questions is because 100% success rate is pretty certain. Anyway, so my question was if the number of residents were to be higher or lower based on whether the infrastructure being built for housing, which I did read is going to be market rate apartments, what that would potentially look like. I know it's a screenshot. It's just all of these things are in my head just like, well, what if another thing, I'll just move on to my next question if that's helpful. And looking at the Longmont Downtown Development Authority and seeing how much they're investing their assessed value, that's like what, a fourth in the impact report. It's a large amount. So it's under the assumption that this is 100% successful. So I'm also wondering if this does not go as planned, what also the Longmont Downtown Development Authority has, the highest impact if this isn't successful. So I'm wondering again, what are the negative impacts that could potentially happen? So all of my questions are kind of just out there, but they did come to mind and I'm just hoping I can get some sort of

Sure. So I guess I'll start with the Downtown Development Authority. What the model or what the impact report is showing is that it would be so there is an overlap of the urban renewal area and the Downtown Development Authority area. And this model that was created by Andy Arnold, who's our consultant who worked on this, assumed that we would expand the overlap of the Downtown Development Authority and the Urban Renewal Authority boundary. and that the DDA, which also gets tax increment financing, would get the amount from their original base to the new urban renewal base, essentially. They would get all those dollars. And that the new base for urban renewal would go to the Urban Renewal Authority and back into these projects. And it was assuming that we would both expand the DDA boundary to for this so that they would overlap entirely and that there would be the The mill rate that goes along with the DDA would also be part of that. So five mills would then those dollars would then flow to for the new project, the new areas they would go into the Urban Renewal Authority. We are still in negotiations with the DDA, and we are working through what that actual overlap will look like. But when it says it's 100%, it's assuming that we would get 100% of the tax increment from the base of the new urban renewal to whatever it ultimately is. increases to in terms of the property tax by the development that actually gets built and that those dollars would flow into urban renewal. So if you look in that document, there's a chart that for each of those different entities that talks about how much is expected to be created by the new development that will happen in the area. So the developments that are modeled are the mixed-use wrap that would go around the transit center. So there are housing units and commercial in a mixed-use setting that would go around the transit center that would pay property tax. A private component of the development that's part of the Front Range Community College development area that's across the street. And then additional housing units, mixed... Sorry, multifamily housing units that would be to the east. And so it is taking all of those estimated exact units, estimated investment, what those dollars, how much it would essentially take to build those. and it's modeling out how much property tax would happen based on those projects. Ultimately, those dollars are created by the actual development that happens, and so what will happen if it isn't successful is that there will be fewer dollars that can be invested into these projects. But it's this but-for argument. But for the investment of those dollars, those future dollars that will happen because of the development and the property tax. Without those dollars, the project doesn't happen at all. And so essentially, they're kind of they're kind of tied together. So the two projects that we've talked about that are the public piece, We have been working on them for a long time. The construction of the transit center is expected to happen this fall and the mixed use project that goes around it has been, we have one phase of the city council and the developer has one public private partnership development agreement. There will be another development agreement that will happen subsequently. We've been working closely with them and we anticipate that that will move forward. And similarly, there are other projects that are modeled that are part of it that we would anticipate would happen based on the work that we've been doing with them. But ultimately, if those projects don't come to fruition, there's no new urban renewal dollars that would be invested into those projects. I hope I answered your question.

Yeah, it's very interesting. I'm learning so much about this, and I just find it very interesting. So... basically what I need to reframe my thinking around what this impact report is actually showing me. So these developments are hopefully going to be developed, right? And so that is the assessed value, not necessarily the number of resident influx or the amount of people that occupy or the amount of students. That's not what this report is saying. This is purely the assessed value on the development that this takes place. So I'm just hoping that I'm reframing that correctly. I have one last question and then I'm just going to... Okay. This is based on a video that I watched about Urban Renewal Authority. So is the URA overseeing LURA, which is just for the city, the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority, and then there's the Urban Renewal Authority, and it's like a state entity? Is that... Am I wrong? Can someone help me?

Yep. Okay, cool.

So it's based on state statute. So we all go by a little bit different of names. Sometimes it's URA. Sometimes it's, you know, we all have. So the Longmont Urban Renewal Authority is our URA. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Well, I'm wondering how this last comment I have specifically works and because I did see in the impact report some county numbers in there as well. So this relates to the housing that's going to be made and how its market rate apartments that is projected to be built. In 2023, the county passed an affordable and attainable Housing tax and so I'm just wondering if that is a missed opportunity in creating housing if all of the housing projected to be built is market rate apartments Thanks for that question and I think lots of folks have have had that question including folks on the urban renewal authority board the the development

Often urban renewal dollars or those tax increment financing dollars are used to fund the gap in a project. Sometimes it's created by the environmental concerns that are on a site. Sometimes that gap is created through other kind of entity, other kind of components of the project. And so in the case of a mixed use RAP, so the parking garage would be surrounded on not not fully surrounded but would go around the transit center that would have apartments or multifamily units and then commercial because of the because the way that it's wrapping the project it is not a double-loaded apartment and so there's not as much opportunity for the project to pencil because of the way that it's the way that it's configured. And that's a function of kind of the way that the site works itself. And so there are gaps that are created by wanting to have this with a transit center and having those multifamily units together. And that's a similar thing that happened on the, um, what we call the Heinz project, but is the retreat at Longmont project that's happening. Um, that is actually under construction on the former Walmart site off of Hover and Nelson. And so, um, Essentially, the project already at market rate is as difficult to make the performer work for the project itself. And so adding additional affordable housing that's beyond what's required as part of the inclusionary zoning would be difficult for this project to add that as another component that would require additional investment to have that happen. I think there are lots of other places in this kind of general area, not necessarily in this urban renewal authority area itself, where the city is either or the housing authority is either working on a project that will be their own project, or partnering with another entity for additional housing that is deed restricted or affordable or attainable. So there are projects that are kind of in this general area that are either affordable or attainable, but not planned currently in this urban renewal area.

I really appreciate your time. Thank you for explaining all that to me. Thanks.

Commissioner Forbes.

All right, thank you. I have a two-part question, more so to kind of have it on the record, and also I think it's a helpful way to understand this. one part one, is there maybe, um, is there an example, um, maybe a really big example of a previous successful Laura project in Longmont? And then the other question, the part two of that question, if there is just like, do, do the, does the success, like, because you're getting the future, like if the more successful it is down the line, the more incumbents generating down the line, um, that the more like that, the better off, the more funds there are that come through to the TIF. Does that go on to fund projects like the first in Maine?

I think the biggest example of urban renewal success that we have is the Twin Peaks redevelopment from the Twin Peaks Mall to the great center that we have today that has the movie theater and other shops that are over there just off of Hover. And essentially, what happens is that because it's a 25 year, 25 year clock, those dollars are really programmed to pay for the debt that was associated with that redevelopment and to pay for what I was describing before as a gap. So there are examples of other places where kind of before the law changed with urban renewal, where there is an entire district area, and the clock was set for 100 acres, for example, and as projects happen, those dollars are invested potentially in that particular project, but property taxes grow throughout that area, and those dollars can be reinvested into urban renewal projects in other ways. Because of the change in the law, that's less likely to happen now because it requires that the urban renewal dollars stay with the plan area. So the ones that are at the Twin Peaks Mall area have to stay within that urban renewal plan area. And so the change in the law and kind of the way in which those dollars are deployed makes it unlikely for there to be kind of excess dollars that can be reinvested. It's not impossible, but it's far less likely in the way that the urban renewal law works today.

Okay. Thank you.

Back to you, Commissioner Edgley-Wells.

Thank you, Chair. Hi. Okay. So this time clock, right, I have a question. So, the funding in place for these TIFs is going to generate funding for these taxing districts and it also includes necessary funding from public and private partnerships. Is that what I'm reading correctly?

Yes, but this does not create a new tax. Let me just make that point of clarification. It's not a new tax. It's just taking the base that's here and then what the new assessment is and using the difference between the two.

Thank you. So after the 25 years, the funding runs out with these taxing districts and public-private partnerships?

So it would go back to the original districts. So whatever is being generated after that 25-year clock then it starts going back to the districts that it was originally going to.

So the infrastructure and place in these TIF areas, how are those maintained and funded if the funding after 25 years goes back to the original districts?

It depends on how they're set up, but most of the time those become city assets. City assets. Okay, thanks.

Councilman Popkin. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Commissioners, for the really thoughtful questions and getting into the weeds on this. I think you're doing the public a service in these conversations, as grueling as it might be to work through some of that. So I appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify, we're using terms like taxes, funding, and financing very loosely here. And maybe I can add a little bit more precision here in this conversation. So a tax increment financing agreement is really a financing agreement for a development project. That's obviously not what the commission is deciding tonight or commenting on. But the funding that we are talking about loosely is actually tax revenue, that the city would get property tax revenue from a property, whether it is a 28-story mall or a one-story house. But you get different degrees of tax revenue from that, not changing tax rates. And so when a property is improved, from being a vacant lot or a very underutilized lot, that the amount of tax revenue that the city and other taxing authorities get, taxing authorities being the county, school district, water district, that they receive also increases. And so what is happening here and where the dollars are coming from is from the increase in tax revenue, which I think Commissioner Edgley-Wells really clarified, but that is tax revenue that comes to the city and to other taxing authorities regardless of what is built there it's just the amount changes based on what is going on there based on the assessed value of that and so then when to your last question there the revenue that comes in from the property taxes still goes the city will still be collecting that property tax revenue after you're 25 and And so from a maintenance standpoint of those facilities and the infrastructure improvements, especially importantly for infill development and redevelopment projects, because we are already maintaining the roads around First and Main. That is already the city's responsibility. And so I think you are understandably wondering, hey, are we going to have enough to maintain that? And I think it's a really valid question. The simple answer is we're already responsible for maintaining the roads, sidewalks, streetlights, utilities around that already. And this is additional property tax revenue that comes to the city from the improvements that happen that allow us to maintain over time beyond that and perhaps maintain other types of improvements, public improvements that were made to support this project. transit center, public parking, landscaping, benches, Coffman Street improvements down to the Greenway. All of that could be relevant for this. So that's again where the terms tax, revenue, funding, and financing kind of all come to play. And just kind of really breaking those out I think helps lend some clarity to this discussion. At least I hope it did.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Wang. thanks chair um a couple of comments um in the impact report that was included in our package mentioned a conditions and blight study which we did not get attachment on but if anybody wants to go out and look at it it is a part of the packet from the laura meeting on march 31st 2026. if you want to see how they determine what's blight um the other comment and i just want to voice um and it was brought up at the Laura meeting in May about the types of housing that will be going into this area and I know this is out of our control based on you know construction defects and market conditions but there's concern that this would be rentals is do you foresee any opportunities for for sale units or does that not pencil out in this kind of region

In this particular urban renewal area, I think that these are all modeled to be for rent, and that's the development that was modeled as part of the impact report. There are opportunities for purchase housing in other parts of the city, and potentially in other parts of the city that are covered by urban renewal. And that work is... If it is both for sale and affordable or attainable, there would need to be additional investment to make them affordable. And so that would have to happen through a mechanism. The Urban Renewal Authority itself and the tax increment financing is focused on the elimination of blight and so wouldn't necessarily be able to write down the cost of a unit, for example, to have it deed restricted and be more affordable, that gap between what it costs to build. And then if you're having the deed restricted at a particular AMI, there is also a gap and that gap is often filled by dollars that are set aside for affordable housing, either from the state or local dollars that are set aside through a cash in lieu that happens. or some other mechanism, grant mechanism, that would pay for those. But the Urban Renewal Authority itself wouldn't be paying for those. And I don't know if that answered your question.

The question I have is pretty much like with market rate and like that. I wasn't even referring specifically to affordable housing for sale, but more like market rate for sale. It sounds like you've been talking about right now you're planning this as a penciling out for rentals only. But do you foresee anything with developers saying, hey, we might want to build some for sale market rate units?

Not in this area. Like I said, there are potential places, other parts of the city where for purchase attached product could happen. And the construction defects makes those projects difficult expensive to build and therefore they are often expensive also potentially more expensive to purchase and part of that is driven by the construction defects and the construction monitoring that has to happen during construction for those for those projects that are attached product that are for sale okay thank you yeah

Commissioner Ling. Thank you, Chair. To follow up on that question, did the state law change recently on the construction defects? It's a C word, right? We're talking condos. So... I mean, I know that's from a developer's perspective. They kind of shy away from those just because it opens up to liability. So I can see in this part of town, you're not going to find a lot of single attached dwellings. It's going to be a multi-tenant unit. So it's either going to be a rental or a condo kind of situation. Did the state not make that a little less of a liability for builders going forward? I'm not sure.

There was a change in the state law. It remains to be seen whether or not it will impact the construction of attached condo products in the future.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, I would just like to say at this time, my one comment on this is a very simple comment. I am for this project, and it's really just basically because it is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and I will be voting to approve of the plan. That is where I'm at right now. We'll go to Vice Chair Earle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Great transition too. I'm going to make a motion in a second. I would love to see concept plans. I would love to see a lot of renderings and exactly what this is. I recognize that is not the time and place for it. I'm very excited to get those to come back to us when it is appropriate and have a whole bunch of questions about it at that point. But excited for the work you guys are doing on it and really look forward to seeing it. With that, I'm going to make a motion that we adopt PZR 202615A, a resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval of the first and main urban renewal plan concerning compliance with the comprehensive plan of the City of Longmont. I'm making that motion because pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 3125107.2, our requirement is simply to review and provide a recommendation as to whether it conforms with the general plan that is our comprehensive plan it's been presented to us in both the packet and this evening the alignment with several guiding principles in the comprehensive plan thank you we have a motion commissioner wang i second the motion we have a motion we have a second are there any other comments questions

Seeing none, Jane, let's go ahead and take a vote.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Vice Chair Earle? Aye. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Sanders. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Commissioner Forbes? Yes. Chair, that passes six to zero.

Thank you very much. And there's nothing for me to read at the end of this one? nope okay uh so we are now moving to the next item and welcome back commissioner saunders which is final call public invited to be heard saying nobody come forward i'll go ahead and close out public invited to be heard final call next is items from the commission commissioner saunders

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, commissioners and staff, for letting me try a new system of writing my comments first before. It's a little bit tricky. It seems a little bit more nerve-wracking to do it that way, actually. I just wanted to appreciate the conversation that we had earlier about emails, and I'm hoping that we can have that conversation before the end of the year. I would really love to hear Chair Polin's and with his experience. on the board for the many years?

Yes.

How many? 14. 14.

We'll let that sit in the air for a minute.

Yeah, so if we could do that before December, that would be great. I would really appreciate it. Thank you.

Vice Chair Earle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. Grant, you're tired of me saying this. I'm very much still looking forward to our single family attached discussion. I hope that is coming up soon. I also second Commissioner Saunders' comment that I hope we can have an executive session regarding legal advice on communication.

That's all. Thank you. Do we have any other? If not, items from Council Representative Popkin. Oh, sorry.

I don't think I have too much to add here. Just wanted to thank everyone for engaging on the urban rental topics are complicated and we're going to be seeing more of them. So continue to get used to this and please don't hesitate to send staff or myself questions as you have them and we can get them whether it's in between meetings on the broader themes or topics or on specific packet items, of course, as you as you always do with staff. So just thank you. Thank you there. The next urban renewal meeting, in case you're curious, I believe it will be settled on the 18th. Yeah, it will be Tuesday, August 18th. That'll be a special meeting added in for additional items. Those are public meetings as well, which include all seven city council members plus four other urban renewal members, which include a county commissioner, school district representative.

Oh, who else am I missing?

Who are the four others? It's county, school district, and at-large representative, and? Yeah. Yes. So it's a group of 11 there. You're always welcome to attend and just to listen in, especially since a lot of what gets discussed there will come to and through PNC at different times. So you're always welcome. We also have had discussions about adaptive reuse, about different types of housing, about TIF financing. I think we'll have a meeting probably in November where we're going to have a little bit of a feature on tax increment financing use cases in the past. So if that is of interest to anyone, please just let me know or drop me an email and I can let you know what's coming up when. I think the only other update I had here was to share that officially the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has been abolished. This came through PNC. This was not because anyone did anything unseemly. There was no one there. And so those responsibilities have been absorbed officially into planning and zoning. And Jeremy, did we end up changing? Like it's now, it just stays at the seven person commission level. It doesn't shrink down to five now, right?

Correct, so the variances, which were fences, setbacks, and signs that were heard by the Board of Adjustment subject to their rules are now under PZ and subject to PZ rules. So it's full commission, no super majority, appealable directly to city council, all of that. So much easier, much more streamlined from a administrative standpoint. Okay.

Thank you. And then I just want to say thanks to staff, Katie and Jen in the back, Grant and Jeremy up front here. There are a lot of moving parts with the Urban Renewal Authority pieces and the agreements, especially on the timeline. So thanks for the extra work on that.

Okay. Thank you. Items from Planning Director Grant Pendlin.

i will be brief as is typical just give you a preview of what's coming up not prompted by vice chair i actually already had it on my list but we do have an item scheduled for i believe it's august 19th which is a conditional use site plan there's one potential uh we'll know within short order whether or not you have two items but right now it just looks like there's one um likely not a special meeting in august uh we don't have anything solid for september but as is typical we have a few at least kind of waiting uh to get scheduled so i wouldn't be surprised if there there isn't at least one in september and then i'm going to be somewhat vague, but also committal late summer fall, we do have the intent to bring the additional dialogue about single family in a single family attached and single family residential zoning. We also are going to have to bring a strategic growth element pursuant to Senate Bill 24174. It'll basically be an update to the comprehensive plan. A lot of those elements we already have. This is primarily focused on vacant and underutilized property. So again, it will be a modification to the comp plan that will be reviewed by the commission with a recommendation to council. And then also, Again, I'll say late summer, fall timeframe, we are putting together a study session for, I'll call it early stage entitlement that was brought up by the commission just to kind of get a deeper dive into what that looks like, requirements, et cetera. So we'll get that on the docket as well.

And I think that is it for me. Thank you very much. And we are now in adjournment.