Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the worst of this, aren't I?

I'm not.

Also, I was listening to myself at the last meeting.

I can't hear you. No, sometimes you're a little far.

I think I have to speak into it.

Are you ready for this one we had this morning? Not really a joke.

All right. Am I waiting for? I am. He might have thought it was seven.

No, well, I hope everyone read my reminder yesterday. Yeah, there were a couple of them, Jane. It's good. Reading my reminder.

Patience, thank you. Of course, Andy Jordan's not here, huh? Seeing how he's How he's on agenda item eight. FOR THOSE WAITING AND TUNING IN WAITING, WE'RE AWAITING ONE MORE COMMISSIONER TO SHOW UP. WE'RE WAITING FOR ONE MORE COMMISSIONER TO SHOW UP.

It's different than when we interviewed.

Yeah.

Hey, Jane.

Mm-hmm?

If we get started in shows and stuff, you can still sit, right? Yeah.

Yeah, I'm gonna give until 05.

Yeah, I'll give you two minutes.

Here he comes.

Ron Forrest. Ready? Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the November 19th, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first matter to address is roll call.

Chair Hite. Is present. Commissioner Ling.

Here.

Commissioner Boone. Here. Vice Chair Polin. Here. Commissioner Saunders. Here. Commissioner Wang. Here. Commissioner Arment.

Here.

Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much.

Next, we have a... city land acknowledgement that I want to read into the record. That the city and people of Longmont acknowledge that the city of Longmont sits on the traditional territories of the nations of the Cheyenne, the Arapaho, and Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We endeavor to honor the history and the living and spiritual connection of these first peoples with this land. We commit to face the injustices that happened when these lands were taken. and to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that these injustices never happen again. Next item is communications. Are there any initial communications?

Nothing initial other than to say good to see all this November, and we probably won't see until December, but I hope everybody has a great holiday.

Thank you very much. The next item is public comment on items that are not before the commission on tonight's agenda. I have a sign-up sheet that lists two individuals, Tom Smith and Shaquille Dallal. Would you like to come speak for five minutes? Sure. Mr. Smith was first to sign up. And again, it's to address issues not on our agenda tonight. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Tom Smith. I live at 1049 Champion Circle. My original intent had been to talk about your agenda item 7A, but my interpretation and application of what I'll say really applies to all of those types of things that might happen in the planning, development, maybe annexation process. my critique of the original agenda that it listed several terms that are not defined, they're not discoverable on the city website or through the muni codes. It's not clear to what extent or scope the authority is granted for the, I think it was referred to as administrative modifications or something. And those things concern me. I've spent the last almost three years bothering this gentleman and his predecessor and a few other individuals. I got assigned by our HOA to be the bird dog on the development plan next door to us. And that's led to a learning curve that looks more like running into a wall for me, for me. And I guess I'd focus on just a couple of things that I'd ask you as you reconsider that other one in the future, as well as other things come before you, that the focus gets put to the process and the system, not the people. I could probably whine and complain somewhere to somebody about an individual in the city, but the process by which all of this takes place has enough ambiguity and enough unseen hazards that it needs some help. And I don't know if that should come by way of an oversight, such as maybe the Senate or Congress has oversight committees, but in our case, Our original live stream was not properly scheduled with time and place and advance notice. The different meetings that I have participated in seems to be a bit of a lack of citizen input and that's because you gotta get off your butt and participate in those things. That's up to those individuals. The ambiguity issues that I would point to, and I'll step away then, I've been here before, and I think it was, it's probably April 19 of 2023, possibly, could have been 2024, where myself and two other neighbors came to discuss some of the ongoing things. All I'll do tonight is share and I'll leave copies with Jean about the ambiguity that has impacted us and it grew out of the connection to having a development come to us. And one is pretty much wild and unrestricted tree growth and land use were right on the edges of city limits and the city code regarding dead, diseased and dying trees didn't get enforced. And the fire department overlooked or looked the other way, tree guy's not as bad at the fire department, looked the other way about fire hazards. One word I'd use to remind you of some of those risks or one term would be martial fire. And the ground cover on this property is enormous. It has been, it was, and those things were not sited. Now the tree situation, that's another thing. Some have been trimmed in the last year or so, but you'll see here in the pictures, photographs I've given you, what was interesting is after the Citation on the dead D dying trees was lifted mysteriously by the city about three weeks later a Cottonwood stump about 25 feet high fell through a fence and narrowly missed one of the homes in our subdivision and Those things are all covered in city code. And the other thing I have for you as part of the presentation I did a couple years ago about the interpretations on zoning. And I would add to that, never have heard a response from anybody in the city on those points. So I'll conclude with that, but as you draft and do these other things in the future, keep them simple, stupid, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Dallal? Thank you.

Shaquille Dallal, 219 Francis Street. I'm here to- I'm here to object to the removal of item 7a from the agenda and also ask the commission to pass a resolution asking city council to review some things. Process costs drive housing costs. Professor Nick Bagley at the University of Michigan studies American government and has described the ways in which American government has what he calls a process fetish. This is the idea that we add complexity to processes in order to enact policy instead of changing process incentives to drive the outcomes that we find socially desirable or whatever it is that the government wants to do. This is important because compliance costs time, which then costs money. And when we add complexity to a process, it makes that process more expensive, and that can affect the cost of things that have to go through that process. Housing, as you know, is expensive, and we have a shortage of housing in the city of Longmont. In order to address that shortage, we need to add supply to the city. We need to make it easier to add more and different types of housing to the city. And in order for people to add supply, they have to go through this process. And so I think it's important for us to understand the ways in which the review process that we have for developments in the city impacts the cost. I object to the removal of item 7a from the agenda because I do not believe that this meeting should have ever been convened. You are going to approve this development, in my opinion, because staff has requested the changes that the applicant has made. And to not approve it would be to undermine the authority of staff, which is bad for the city, bad for planning and zoning, bad for developers ever listening to staff. Because if planning and zoning is just going to overrule what staff says, then the developers have no trust in our process, and they can't add supply to our community. The removal of it from the agenda for the process technicality of the posting of the, as I understand it, we posted it as a public hearing as opposed to an administrative, it was basically the title on the poster board at the development is my understanding for the reason why it was removed from the agenda. And I don't think that that is a sufficient process, substantive process reason. And instead, if this had been administratively approved as it should have been, it would have lowered the cost of housing. Two meetings cost money, right? The developer had to prepare for this meeting. His staff had to prepare for this meeting. When this meeting gets rescheduled, they will have to do that again. That is gonna directly add to the cost of this development and therefore increase the cost of housing in our community. Furthermore, staff prepared for this meeting twice. Staff is here right now. We as taxpayers are paying staff salary to be here. They will have to be here again because there's a second meeting. That is a cost that is added to this process that we pay as a society. So I'm asking you to pass a resolution to ask city council to ask staff. There's a lot of asks in there, but I promise it makes sense, I think. Yeah, it probably makes sense. To study how process costs directly add to the cost of housing in our community and how much money taxpayers spend enforcing the city code, again, driven by complexity. I also think that resolution would make sense to study how the impact of city process impacts the ability of us to achieve our goal of 12% permanently affordable housing in the city and how it impacts the loss of economic diversity and declining enrollment in the St. Varian Valley School District. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the audience who would care to speak on matters not on our agenda? Seeing none, I'll move on to approval of the minutes of the October 22nd, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Assuming everyone has read them, are there any comments, are there any corrections, are there any motions to approve?

I will recognize Vice Chair Polin.

I motion that we approve the minutes of the October 22nd, 2025 meeting.

Second? I will second. We will vote.

Commissioner Lange? Aye. Commissioner Boone? Aye. Vice Chair Polin?

Aye.

Chair Height? Aye. Commissioner Saunders?

Of C. Commissioner Wang? Aye.

Commissioner Arment? Aye. Chair, that passes six approvals, one abstention.

Thank you very much. Now we move to the public hearing portion of our agenda. Item 7A, which is Mr. DeLau has already indicated, has a notice issue as I understand it. I don't know if Nathan Jones is prepared to address that or if Director Polin is.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Nathan Jones, one of the principal planners with the Planning and Development Services Department. So it came to light this morning that incorrect notice was posted on site. The applicant posted a development under review sign rather than the standard notice of public hearing sign that is typical to be posted on site. The Land Development Code does require that notices for neighborhood meetings, developments under review, and the public hearing be posted on site. So we found out this morning that incorrect notice was actually posted So therefore, I think we would recommend, so first off, I guess I should take a step back and state that it's my understanding that the Planning Commission should make a finding that adequate notice was not provided and to, I think we would recommend that you postpone this item to a future date. Given the schedule for the next couple of months, We would also recommend that you consider a special meeting on December 10th that would allow the applicant to re-notice for the public hearing, provide proper notice in conformance with the land development code. It will also allow us to be able to move this forward. We do have another item that we have tentatively scheduled for the December 17th meeting, which is your next regularly scheduled meeting date. The next meeting date after that is December 24th, which is an option if you would like to use December 24th as your next public hearing, but we would recommend instead that you hold a special meeting on December 10th and postpone this item to that date. I believe I captured everything. If not, Jeremy, please jump in. Thank you.

This is Attorney Terrell. Is there more you want to add? No. I have a question, which is to confirm the notice of development review, obviously it's not a notice of a public hearing. A notice of a public hearing, to my understanding, is required to be posted 14 days in advance of the hearing. Correct. That identifies when and where the hearing takes place?

Yes.

There's no such notice of when and where hearings take place on a notice of development or... project under review?

Correct. We have three standard signs that we typically send out, as I mentioned. We have a development under review sign that indicates the project's ID number, the name of the project, and the staff planner. So that basically gives information to the community about What project is proposed in that area and then how to contact city staff to ask more questions about it? It does not it does not have any information about the public hearing We do have a separate sign template for the public hearing sign In that case it does have a lot of the same information, but it indicates the meeting time and location And so part of our process which is due process which is to make sure that people who are interested in wanting to attend a hearing or participate in the hearing

or make statements at a hearing, that notice was not properly given. Pursuant to our code.

Correct, that's what we believe.

And our code also says that in the absence of such a notice, we can't have the hearing.

Correct.

So we can't have the hearing.

Correct.

So we're not having a hearing on 7A. The second part of your, I guess, query as to whether or not the commission is amenable to rescheduling to December 12th? 10th, yes. I'm sorry, December 10th, versus the 17th, which already has an agenda item, versus the 24th. I personally cannot participate on the 24th. I don't know anybody else wants to participate on the 24th. But the 10th, can we put that in abeyance, or do we need to make a decision on that now? Now? I guess technically, Jane, can you make that happen? Have this space available? Okay. I think I recognize those who might have some input. Commissioner Wang? Is it live? Yep. You're good.

Okay. I have a question for Director Pendlin, I guess. It says that the requested modifications were eligible for administrative approval. Is there a way for, do we still need to have a meeting even if it's eligible for administrative approval?

If I can jump in to answer that. Well, not answer that question, but give you a different option to consider, Commissioner Wang. Under our code, under subsection J8 of 150204, if adequacy of the notice is questioned, you have to consider whether or not notice was properly given before you can proceed with any questioning. So I'd ask that you defer that. Well, I guess I should say the Commission should first make it a determination whether or not there was actual notice There's been a question raised before we talk about the hearing date or when it may be continued I'd recommend the Commission consider a motion on whether or not they determined substantial compliance with notice Assuming the Commission determines not Then I would consider the hearing date issue and when to when to push it So.

Thank you for that. I can't just make that determination by fiat by myself.

Not yet.

So let me then move for a vote on a determination or a vote to confirm or conclude that adequate notice was not given with respect to the posting of the hearing for tonight's meeting. That's a motion. I will recognize Commissioner Saunders.

I second chair's motion.

Any further comment? Yes. Hold on one second.

Vice chair Poland. Jeremy. So in the packet, there's just a little blurb about neighborhood input notifications and signpostings. It says the notice type, which is neighborhood meeting application and review public hearing. There were no mailings for this needed just to confirm.

There were mailings needed for this. Sorry to jump in. But there were mailings that were required. As part of our standard process, we request affidavits to certify that mailings and posted notice, the sign, was actually posted on site. We did receive those affidavits to state that the letters were sent out and that the sign was posted. It was, again, that we realized today that it was the wrong sign that was posted.

Can I ask that in the future, because I know in our past packets we have had notifications and there's been a, one of the attachments has been about the notifications. Can we have that in the next packet, please? Definitely. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comment on the motion? Seeing none, shall we vote? Commissioner Ling. what are we voting for yeah the motion to determine that the motion that i proposed which was to find to conclude that adequate notice was not given because of the failure to post the appropriate sign notifying the public of the hearing tonight commissioner boone vice chair poland

Chair Height. Aye. Commissioner Saunders. Aye. Commissioner Wang. Aye. Commissioner Arment. Aye. Chair, that passes unanimously, seven to zero.

Thank you, and thank you for clarifying that issue. I'm going to go back to, I guess, Vice Chair Poland.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we move this agenda item to a December 10th meeting at 6 p.m.

If I can just interrupt for one second. So Vice Chair Polin, I recommend that you make a motion that we hold a special meeting on December 10th and then continue the item. So just flip the order.

Do we have to do two motions?

You can do one.

Okay. I move that we have a special meeting for December 10th and that at that meeting, we move this item to that meeting.

I second. I second it. Hold on.

Yeah. Commissioner Wayne. Yeah. So for, I guess this is, this would be when I asked my question, since we're discussing this since this could be approved by administrative modification approval, like is there a reason why we need to have a, another meeting?

Well, my understanding is it's a major development approval. It's approval of a preliminary PLAT, which requires a public hearing.

Okay. So the PLAT needs approval, but not the modifications?

The modifications are being referred to us by Director Penland. Okay. Which is his option prerogative to do so, pursuant to code. Okay. Got it. Is that correct? Assistant Attorney Terrell?

Thank you.

Okay. Any more comment on the motion that's been seconded to move to the 10th? Seeing none, let's vote. Commissioner Lange?

Aye. Commissioner Boone? Aye. Vice Chair Polin?

Aye.

Chair Height? Aye. Commissioner Saunders? Aye. Commissioner Wang?

Aye.

Commissioner Armit? Aye. Chair, that passes unanimously 7-0.

Thank you very much, thank you all. Public showed up for tonight's hearing on agenda item 7A and the applicant. We'll see you in three weeks. If the right signs post. Okay, moving on to agenda item eight, which is other business, which is to, select our successors as additional commissioners. It's my appreciation that Vice Chair Polin and Commissioner Wang met with eight or nine applicants. Six. Six. Six.

Two but three only.

Oh, two did withdraw, so eight was the right number, once upon a time. In any event, they have made recommendations, and I'll turn the floor over to one or both of them, Chair Poland first, to discuss their findings.

Thank you. We actually had a very well and I'd say balanced group of six applicants. As you can tell by my scoring that they were grouped relatively closely. To me, Andrew Jordan, who has served this past year as an alternate, has done a very fine job as an alternate. He understands the concept of being on the Planning Zone Commission, of being able to be impartial and make his judgments. And I feel that also with his temperament and personality, he fits in well with the board. That's why he was one of my first recommendations. The second one, and I just want to make note, with Devin, Edgley Wells. The last question we asked was why are you applying for the Planning and Zoning Commission? It's kind of a follow up to what they put in their application because that question is kind of asked, but I'd like to hear it personally. And then Commissioner Wayne had a follow up question. What were they hoping to get by serving on the commission? And one of the last things she actually said is, she realized that being on the commission is not about setting the policy. That it's about using the policy to an act what comes before the commission which to me shows that she got it that we're not here to necessarily make the policy but we're here to use the policy to come to our decisions um and that's what kind of put for me put her just that little step above um and then the third one and as you can tell by my scoring they were really close but i thought that ryan did a good job um There are some things like, I think he would be well to be an alternate and use the year to experience the commission and learn a bit more. Because I think as our alternates have learned that coming on the commission is a learning experience and being in that first year, you do learn a lot from being on the alternates for a few of the meetings. So that was my, the way I scored, but I will, I do want to make note. It was really close for me. It was a really close decision between everybody. And I do appreciate everybody that did apply.

Fair enough. Thank you. Commissioner Wayne, do you want to add more?

Yeah, I was just going to say, surprisingly, Commissioner Poland and I came with the same exec ranking. So that just says how in sync we were in trying to figure out who to place on the open positions. And I also want to say to the folks who didn't make

make it this time like please try again because you were really really close so keep on trying please thanks okay um to round out specifically what we are doing in actuality there's one full regular term up that would ex that we're seeking to fill and that term would expire in december 31st of 2030. i think that's my seat there's one unexpired regular term um I believe of Matthew Popkins, who's now a city council member. His unexpired term, which we were filling, would expire December 31st, 2027. And then there's one unexpired alternate term, assuming that we advance Andy Jordan to a full seat. alternate chair becomes open, and that would expire January 31st, 2026. So the recommendation is Andrew Jordan for the full term, Ms. Egli-Wells for the remainder of the unexpired regular term, or to fill the, to complete the unexpired regular term of the, of Council Member Popkin and then Mr. Forbes to fulfill Andy's position, correct? Correct. Shall we have a motion and a vote on that? And again, this is a recommendation to City Council, correct? Which is advanced by Director Pendlin? Correct. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion? I see three, I'm sorry. It would be Commissioner Boone.

have a question before we make a motion sure um so does the city council interview all the candidates again i'm sorry it is my understanding that some but maybe not all of the candidates will be interviewed again that's up to the city council i think to decide which members they my understanding is last year some were and some were not that's my understanding

Good enough. Do either of you want to make a motion? Vice Chair Poland.

I move forward to the City Council, the recommendation that Andrew Jordan to fill the one regular member term ending December 31st, 2030. Devin Edgeley-Wells to fill the one unexpired regular member term expiring December 31st, 2027. And therefore, Ryan Forbes to fill the one unexpired alternate member term expiring December 31st, 2026, if Andrew Jordan is given one of the two openings.

I second the motion.

I second the motion.

Fantastic.

Any further comment? Shall we vote?

Commissioner Lang. Aye. Commissioner Boone.

Aye.

Vice chair Poland. Aye. Chair height. Aye. Commissioner Saunders. Aye. Commissioner Wang. Aye. Commissioner Armit.

Aye.

Chair that passes unanimously seven to zero.

Thank you. Um, for your hard work. Congratulations. New commissioners. Um, Grant, you'll take it on. Moving on to final call of public comment. Anyone want to talk? Seeing none, we'll move on to, well, there's items from the commission. Anybody have anything they need to share, want to share, have to share? Come on, share. Our council representative is not present. Are there any items from the planning director?

Just briefly, Chair and members of the Commission, as already alluded to, we do have one item which is an annexation that we tentatively have scheduled for the December 17th meeting and we would make a recommendation for an early start on that meeting just based upon the anticipated participation and interest. So recommending a 6 p.m. start for that if Commission so is inclined.

I move that we go ahead and make a motion that we move the starting time of the December 17th meeting to 6 p.m. and also if it wasn't noted I think I did note it but to make sure that the December 10th meeting is also noted for 6 p.m. That was in your original motion.

I will second this motion. Shall we vote?

Commissioner Lang. Aye. Commissioner Boone. Aye. Vice Chair Polin. Aye. Chair Height. Aye. Commissioner Saunders.

Aye.

Commissioner Wang.

Aye.

Commissioner Armit. Aye. Chair, that passes unanimously 7-0.

Busy December. All right. We good? Gavel closed. Thank you all. 35 minutes. What would have been four plus hours. Thank you all. chair so you can't hear me