Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we are going to go ahead. We have the live stream up and running. So, we're going to go ahead and call to order the Longmont Planning Zoning Commission April 22nd, 2026 meeting. Roll call. Chair Poland here. Commissioner Edley Wells here. Commissioner Wang here. Vice Chair Earl here. Commissioner Forbes here. Commissioner Boon here. Commissioner Jordan here. Council member Popkin here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Next item is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapjo, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first people have 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 item is communications from Grant Penland. Good evening, chair, members of commission. Uh just wanted to say thanks everyone for being here and good to see you two weeks in a row.

Thank you. Next item is public comment invited to be heard. This is the first public invited to be heard. This is for items that is not on the agenda for tonight and are not a quasi judicial coming before us. Uh nobody was signed up for this on the outside. Um I will open it up if anybody does have anything they want to say. Once again not regarding an item for today. You can come up. You have five minutes. Seeing nobody come forward. I'll go ahead and close the initial public invite to be heard. Next is uh there are no approval of minutes. So we will go ahead and move forward to public hearing items. First item 7A, the Boulder County Vacuum Truck Waste Management Decent Facility, CUSP. Senior Planner Christine Cotay.

Good evening, chair and commission members. I am Kristen Cody, a senior planner with planning and development services. Tonight I am presenting a request for conditional use permit for the Boulder County Vacuum Truck Waste Management Facility located at 5201 St. Van Road. The subject property is approximately 38 acres in size and is located south of St. Van Road within the existing Boulder County Operations Campus. The property is zoned NP or primary employment and is located within the airport influence zone and is designated primary employment under Envision Longmont. This slide provides an aerial view of the site and surrounding area. The proposed facility would be located internally within the existing Boulder County campus. Nearby uses include the airport, public facilities, agricultural land, and a limited number of rural residential properties. This image shows the view looking south from St. Fraan Road toward the property. The proposed facility would be situated within an estimated or established camp campus setting and set back from the roadway, which prevents visual impacts. The request before you tonight is for a conditional use permit to allow a storm water decant facility, also referred to as a vacuum truck waste management facility. The proposal includes a 72 ft x 76 ft covered structure, treatment bays, supporting utility connections, and minor site disturbance of approximately 62 of an acre. A CUP is required because the use is classified as other community uses, services, and facilities operated by a government entity, which is conditionally allowed in the NPE district. This slide shows the rendering of the proposed structure. The facility is functional in its design and consistent with the operational character of the existing campus. The covered area

supports year-round operations while remaining modest in scale. This facility would support Boulder County's vacuum truck fleets used for storm water maintenance activities which currently um operates out of this location. Collected water and sediment would be processed through deb debris screening, sediment separation and a sand oil interceptor before discharge to the city sanitary sewer system. The treatment area is designed to be contained with runoff directed away from the operations area. Staff found impacts associated with this request to be minimal. The proposal does not create new access points, does not require significant infrastructure expansions, and includes replacement of landscaping given it the limited scale and location within an existing operations campus. Staff finds the request compatible with surrounding uses. Notice provided in accordance with applicable code requirements within a,000 ft radius. A neighborhood meeting was held and no public comment was received. Airport staff has indicated no concerns provided the property complies with applicable FAA requirements. Staff finds that the request is consistent with the Envision Longmont policy supporting efficient use of developed land and infrastructure, compatibility with surrounding uses, and continued investment in public infrastructure and services. This slide summarizes the review criteria for all application types contained in section 1502055 of land development code. These include consistency with adopted plans, compliance with city standards, compatibility with surrounding properties, and consideration of potential impacts. The commission has three options tonight. approval without conditions, approval with conditions consistent with staff's recommendation or denial of the application. Based on the material submitted and

reviewed, staff recommends conditional approval of the conditional use permit subject to one condition, which is prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall obtain all required FAA determinations associated with the submitted FAA form 7460-1, which was the request of the airport manager in relation to our referral notices. That concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is here tonight with the presentation also and staff is also available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you make sure the mic is turned on too? turns it on. Thank you.

Good evening, Planning and Zoning Commission. Thanks for having me. My name is Seth Jacobs. I'm with Boulder County Public Works, and I will be presenting the DECAMP facility at the Boulder County Open Space and Transportation Complex, also known as the OSTC. Here's a vicinity map. Down in the left corner, you'll see the OSTC site. It's just a little bit north of Vance Brand Airport. It's accessed off of Airport Road, uh, with more access from St. Brain Road. St. Brain Road runs along the north edge of the complex. This is an enlarged site aerial of the complex. Boulder County has two departments that share this site. On the west side of the site is parks and open space. They have a admin building, a biomass building, and a large shop. On the east side of the site is the transportation department. They have maintenance and storage buildings for fleet vehicles including snow plows and heavy equipment. The proposed decamp facility is the red rectangle on the east side. It is adjacent to the existing fuel island. The access for the decant facility will be the existing east employee service road. Um there's also the main access on the west side of the site.

We don't anticipate an increase in vehicle um traffic along St. Vin Road because these operations take place on the site already. The facility will be used to process um sediment laten uh storm water collected by vacuum trucks uh that service covert structures around the county. To the right of this slide is the vacuum truck. Um currently we do have one decant bay um in a vehicle storage build or vehicle maintenance building. Um but unfortunately it is undersized and it can accommodate the volume of u factor waste that is brought in with the trucks. So that is why we are proposing to build a new decamp facility on the campus. Um to better serve this function. Um the fleet operations staff will have the opportunity to have their own dedicated decant facility um containing three bays. This will be a open concrete structure with a approximately 72 by 76 with a 38x 79 ft steel canopy to cover the treatment area. I just wanted to go through um the process of how the decamp facility works. Um the vacuum trucks pull up. There's a concrete apron.

They back up to the edge of the decant basin. They release liquid and solid um sediment and um you know all the vacuum trucks, you know, contents. This would reach maximum of 4,000 gallons. Um the solids stay behind in the basin where the liquids um flow towards the back wall where there's a screen. Um it passes through into another basin and onto another screen. uh ends up in a soil uh sand oil interceptor and then onto city of Longmont's sanitary sewer for processing and repurposing. It's worth mentioning that the OSTC site has ample um mature trees along St. Brain Road that would act as a screen for the new decamp facility. Um the top uh slide shows driving east looking southeast. Um and the grouping of trees there just beyond would be the decant facility. Um and then driving west looking southwest uh from St. Brain Road. There's several large conifer trees that would also offer great screening of the new decant facility, which would be just to the right of that canopy shown in the photo. Um, all disturbed landscaping is proposed to be replaced in kind. Uh, any trees that are taken out will be

replaced with new trees. This will also offer more screening from St. Pra. Um, construction is tenatively scheduled third quarter of 2026 contingent on receiving a building permit. Um, if there's any questions, if you could hold it to the end, I would like to bring up Nicholas with PEC Engineers. They are the civil engineers of record on the project and he can go over more of the technical aspects of the project. Thank you.

Thank you, Seth. And good evening, commissioners. My name is Nicholas and I'm your civil engineer of record for the project. And as Seth mentioned, currently Boulder County's operations at the OSTC are limited by one decamp bay inside an existing facility. And the goal of this project is to provide ample opportunity for sediment latent storm water that's collected around the county. Here we can take a quick look at the landscape plan and we can see that there's a total of about seven trees coming out. What we've gone ahead and done is processed the tree mitigation survey, looked at screening the land disturbance extents and worked with the landscape architect to go ahead and provide a plan that will mimic the existing screening and landscape elements present at the site. So when we talked about screening and looked at those pictures from St. Brain Road, the goal is to keep that out at the OSTC and mimic what's already existing. Moving forward to the utility plan, we mentioned that after the three stages of treatment, the storm water will be discharged into the public sanitary sewer system. What we can also see here is that there'll be a new tap on the city of Longmont water main that'll go off to a water meter that'll be placed within an easement. And from there that tap will go to a yard hydrant adjacent to the facility so that as these trucks are uh removing their waste, dumping their waste, uh they could be washed down, the bays can be washed down, the facility be can be can be kept clean. Um I believe that is the end of our presentation and we can hold it here on the the 3D view of the decan facility and and welcome any questions.

Okay, thank you. Um, this is a public hearing item. Uh, the public does have a chance to comment on this. Uh, we did not have anybody who signed up to comment on agenda item 7A. I will give the chance if anybody in the audience would like to come forward and speak. I'm opening up the public invited to be heard for item 7A. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out. Public invited to be heard for item 7A. And we'll move on to questions, comments, motions from the commission. Do we have any comments, questions? Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. I just have one question. Um, this is a completely exposed to the elements facility. Is that okay? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of protection for the operations. And my question is, is that okay? Your current one is inside a a hanger or something, right? It's actually better to have um this facility outside because it needs um air flow, natural air flow to dry out the solids. Um, one part of the process is the solids remaining in the decant bay. Um, you know, removing all the moisture from it and then eventually hauling this away by a waste management company. So, inside this would slow the process down because of the air flow. outdoors with the heat and the sun and the you know just having open air is actually better for the process.

Okay, good to know. Thank you. You're welcome, Commissioner Wang. Okay. Um this is a question for Seth again. Okay. Thanks. Um, so from reading the drainage report, my understanding is that any water on site will end up into the detention pond at the south west eastern end, right? Which would eventually drain into the Naiwa ditch and eventually into the same rain, right? That is correct.

That's correct. Um, so my concern is if one of the vacuum trucks had an accidental discharge and dumped all 4,000 gallons onto the facilities and not into the decam facility, that will end up into the detention center. Is that correct? Um, yes. Are you are you talking outside the apron? If there was an accident or an accidental discharge or a leak somewhere and everything got dumped outside of this facility, would that all that water and sediment end up in into the detention pond? Uh yes it would. And would that eventually drain to the St. Brain?

Um it would be a slow move towards the Saint Brain if it's connected. I might defer this question for Nicholas. He's probably got a better understanding of and I just want to follow up real quick. Is that a concern that a untreated I mean it's already in the storm water system which I'm assuming originally was going to end up in the Sing River anyways, right? So I'm just wondering is that a concern of contamination from having a discharge here at this facility versus coming from the storm sewer system? Um would you like to answer that? Thank you. Thanks for the question, Commissioner Wang. Yeah.

Yeah. So the the storm water will be collected from these covert structures around the county and they'll use a pressure washer to wash it out and then the vacuum hose to pick it up. So what they are collecting around the county by the time it gets into the truck has been diluted. So, if there was an accident or a spill on site, that 4,000 gallons in the truck would make its way to the detention pond where that sediment would likely um begin to uh just accumulate on the bottom of the detention pond where a big storm could then pick it up, wash it into um the Naiwat ditch there and and then eventually down onto St. Fran. So, there's definitely an element and a possibility of of that emergency condition occurring.

Okay. So it is possible that this if there was an accidental discharge it could end up in the same brain river. Yes. Yes. And I think that the same might be able to be said for if if the truck had an accident anywhere on the property. And the other question was like I said if it came from a storm covert or the storm water drainage system that will end up into the same ring anyways originally, right? Yes. Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Vice Chair Earl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kristen, really quick one for you. Um, the conditional or I'm sorry, the PZR that were recommended has the condition that it their 7460 is submitted, approved, all the rest of it. Why is that a condition? Because aren't they required to do that no matter what? They are required to do that no matter what. It was requested by the airport manager. I always think it's a good idea to um make the applicant aware that they need to do this, but they have obviously already submitted that form to the FAA, so they are on track to do that. But I just wanted to bring it out to the open, make sure everybody remembered it and was aware of it if this project moves forward. Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome.

Do we have any other questions? I do have a couple. Um, this might be for Seth. Can you explain what the current use is and and kind of how many people are in that area? Because I know the one area was a Boulder parks and wreck site and how many people, what type of people, how often are they there? The parks and open space side of the site has several infield workers um that maintain open space properties around. Um there's a lot of admin people too. Um most of these people are in the field that aren't admin. Uh the shop building on the parks and open space side um probably has maybe five people that are there at any time. Um and then the transportation side, you know, there's probably I want to say maybe 25 30 people that are on site and then several others that are out maintaining the roads on any given day. Does public ever come to that area for events?

They sometimes come to the administration building at the parks and open space side for uh town meetings and there's an open um training room that gets used quite a bit. Okay. Then is there a smell associated with this? There could be a slight smell from just as it dries up. Um but no different from what would be in a you know a covert and you don't see any issue with that then? I don't.

Okay. Thank you. And then one final question. Um noticing that the fuel island is in near proximity to this. any concerns with any kind of maybe chemical interactions between gases and the fuel fuel center um anything like that. The decant facility is uh planned to be at a higher elevation um so that if any spills from the fuel area were to happen, they probably would not reach the decant basin cuz um it's an elevated apron to get up to the actual basins. That's correct. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to check with Nicholas. No problem. Do we have any other questions? Anybody like to put forth a comment or a motion? Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I move that we adopt PZR 20266B, a resolution of the planning and zoning commission conditionally approving the Boulder County vacuum truck waste management, sorry, vacuum truck waste management conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant shall obtain all required FAA dur terminations related to the submitted FA form 7460-1 prior to the issuance of the building permits.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Jordan, I second the motion. We have a motion. We have a second. Any other comments, questions? Seeing nobody's uh uh step up. Jane, let's take a vote. Commissioner Edley Wells, yes. Commissioner Wang, hi. Vice Chair Earl, Chair Poland, yes. Commissioner Forbes, yes. Commissioner Boon, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes.

Chair, that passes unanimously. 7 to zero. Thank you very much. Uh, this item now enters a 7-day appeal process. During this t appeal period during this time, any agreed party may appeal the commission's decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning zoning commission's decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk's office and the planning office within the 7-day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, April 23rd at 8:00 a.m. and ends Wednesday, April 29th, 5:00 p.m. Thank you very much for the applicant. Thank you, Kristen.

We are ready to move to the next item. The next item is another public hearing item. This is item 7B. 7B is updates to the Longmont Code 7.06 06 prairie dog code. It's a s citizen initiated request. Senior environmental sustainability planner Zach Blazak presenting. Jane, what's the secret code for full screen?

There we go. I just want you to print it. Oh, that's the other one. So sorry gang facility. Where's mine? You are that one.

Okay. Good evening, chair, commissioners. Zach Blazic, senior environmental sustainability planner, planning and development services. I'm here this evening to present a citizen initiated code text amendment for chapter 7.06 the prairie dog code. So first I'm just going to start by drawing a line between title 15 which is the land development code and title 7 which is the animal code where the prairie dog code exists. 1502060 permits private parties to request a text amendment to the code. The applicants here are requesting a change to 7.06 06 which again I'll draw that line here in a second. Um they made a request we took that request to council on October 14th. Council approved on October 14th 70 to give staff direction to complete red lines for consideration. As part of that process we make stop periods planning commission 1505030 is the habitat and species protection section of title 15. And in that section we reference 7.06 06 requiring that any applicant who wants to do work on their property also obtain a management permit for prairie dogs if there are active prairie dog habitat on that property. I being the environmental sustainability planner am tasked with managing that process, reviewing applications and enforcing those policies um as part of my role and that is kind of how we connect the line between 15 and 7 where the prairie dog code exists. So even though it's not 15, we're still here to solicit your feedback. Today I'm going to give a que a quick summary of 706 prairie dog codes, minor prairie dog management permit, and major prairie dog management permit. Just the process by which we go through to manage these. So say for example, I am a property owner and I have a property that has prairie dogs on it. If I have less than one and a half acres of active paradog

habitat or I have existing urban level development, then I'm eligible for a minor permit which makes me eligible for extermination with the city approved humane method. If I have more than one and a half acres of active prairie dog habitat and don't have existing urban level development, then I must first get a major permit and make an attempt to relocate prairie dogs prior to doing any extermination on the on the property. That's the program that I manage. It's a very very high level summary. I can get into more details if you have questions, but otherwise I'm going to carry on. So again, the applicants are requesting modifications to 706 as part of this referral. These requests include general modifications to the permit review process and requirements, the urban level development clause, public notification process, and fees. And kind of as I go on, what I'm going to do is talk about the changes that staff support, the changes that staff don't support, and the changes that we don't really have a feedback on because they're fee related. And I'm just going to start with the changes that staff support. So, what you see on your screen is all of the uh green items from attachment one, which show changes that these guys have requested that we approve of. So, these are requiring a 10-day waiting period prior to commencing mitigation work. Uh, obtaining property owner permission in a more formal way to conduct reasonable inspections and uh verify delineations and monitor the sites. And the last one being uh requiring a response period of 90 days following any submitt. Um, the reason why we're supportive of that is because we've had projects come in that take longer than that period of time to resubmit. and you know, windows for management, things like that get missed. So, we're supportive of that as well. Next, I'm going to talk about some of the changes that staff are less supportive of. Um, and I'm just going to go through these one by one. These don't connect kind of to very specific parts of the red lines that you received. Some of them are kind of all over the place,

so I'm just going to go through these one at a time as clearly as I can. The first is uh requiring that upon verification that a prairie dog relocation site is available, a relocation application to that site should be required before an extermination permit is issued. Um the way that reads in the red lines is upon verification that a prairie dog relocation site is available, relocation application is required. Um we don't support this because this is something that we pretty much already do in process. Applicants are given the recommendation for all of our applications to consider relocation as standard operating procedure. That's a process that we've used and we've worked with our advocates in the past to make sure that sites with larger habitats, for example, can be relocated. Um, but it's not something that we want to require. It adds a burden to staff with workload and it further complicates the process. The next is measurement of active paradog habitat shall encompass all burrows present on the property. Um we've had a lot of discussions about the way that we measure these. The reason why we don't support a change to this section as it's currently written is that delineations are fieldverified by staff. Every single application that we see I go out with my GPS. I walk the site. I verify the accuracy of it myself. And if I have any questions about that, I can either consult with the biologists who perform the review or I consult with natural resources staff within the city. Um, and then any application that doesn't meet that standard as our operating procedure now is not approved. So if I look at one right now that I disagree with, which off the top of my head, I can count the number of times that's happened on one hand in the four years that I've been in this position. um you know if that does occur then we don't approve the permit and we ask them to try again and provide a more accurate delineation. So we don't believe that a change to this code section is necessary. I'm going to talk quickly about what urban level development is before I go on to the next one. Urban level

development is a property of any size that has received a land use approval and a certificate of occupancy for the existing use on the property. So, basically that's any property that has an approved site plan or an approved certificate of occupancy that includes developed outlots and residential and commercial subdivisions um that were approved for open space, recreation drainage, or city-owned golf courses and parks. And the clause is a person seeking to destroy prairie dogs on a property that is less than one and a half acres in size or that has active prairie dog habitat less than one and a half acres in size or that has existing urban level development shall be eligible to receive a minor prairie dog management permit. So, what that means is if I have a property and I have a development that's been approved on it, regardless of whether it's more or less than 1 and a half acres of habitat, I can come in and get a minor prairie dog management permit and the whole relocation piece for the major part is not required. Just want to make sure everybody understands that is clear. So, the next request made by the applicants reads, "Minor prairie dog management permits may only be issued on properties less than one and a half acres regardless of their urban level development." And so what this unintentionally or intentionally does and um you know or one of the consequences of that request is that it ultimately removes the urban level development clause from the code. Meaning that if I have a property that has all of those stipulations and you know regardless of the urban level development piece, I have to go through the appropriate permitting process. So we've added red lines that kind of take all of those languages out. Um again what it essentially does is eliminates the urban level development clause from code. This would cause you know a number of challenges I think for both customers um the city and staff. One of the challenges for the city that I just want to quickly highlight is that um you know a number of the applications that I review are from the city and this

would remove our ability to come in and you know do some of that management work internally. Um it would also I think um you know just again create challenges for our customers who may be required to go through a more complicated process in order to do the work on their site. So again we don't support that one. The last one is requiring noticing when an applicant applies for any prairie dog permit. This one you know we say we don't support it. Um really all it does is you know change the notice procedure which we don't support because it a places an additional burden on staff to prepare materials and verify postings and it also creates in my opinion uh waste and litter in the environment that's unnecessary um on account of we do post all of our applications on the city website and we think that that's an adequate way to notify the public of available paradox for relocation and permits that are taking place. Last, I'm just going to talk quickly about fees. Um, for these items, staff have no recommendation because fees are set at the perview of council and you know, kind of whatever they decide as far as fees goes, it's up to staff to implement. So, we have no recommendation or opinion on any of these. The first request is to increase the fee for a major prairie dog permit. Um, the second is to increase the habitat loss fee and make some changes to how the habitat restoration fees take place. For this one, I'll just talk through both of these kind of simultaneously. One, we collect fees for major permits right now at $500. And um, there are habitat restoration fees that go in if an inhumane method is used. That fee is waved if a humane method is used. Um, just for your edification, all of the or the vast majority of the permits that I evaluate use a humane method that's approved by the city. Um, we can talk about some of those methods if you have

questions, but um, typically we don't see these habitat restoration fees collected because all of the permits that we review are um, you know, through that humane method. And then the last uh, waves a habitat restoration fee regardless of the method of extermination. And so again, that same topic, it just cuts out some of that language. We offer the following feedback again for the requested amendments. We support everything in attachment one that's green. We don't support everything in attachment one that's red. And we have no recommendation on anything in attachment one that's blue. Um staff support recommending approval of the green changes in attachment one of the staff report. Your options are to vote to recommend approval or denial. And then if there are any recommendations otherwise that you have, we can add that to the PCR. Next, I'll turn it over to the applicant.

Okay. Thank you. And I will try to find N. Which one is it?

This one. This one. They didn't delete it. I may have to put it back on there. All tabs should be One sec. Yes, no problem. Oh, somebody must have deleted it. Let me grab it. Check the recycle bin. What's that? You want to check the recycle bin just in case? This one.

I don't think that works. I got it. Sorry. Thank you, Jane. Sure.

I don't know where it went. Say, okay. Um, hello planning and zoning commissioners. Uh, I'm Jamie Ferna. Um, live at 766 South Martin Street, Longmont Resident. Um, and as you know, we have our, um, citizen-led uh, code text change here. Um, before we get into that, I just want to kind of give you a little bit of an intro and background on why prairie dogs are so important to us. Um, and you'll hear from a few people during our public um, section as well. Um, that have firsthand experience with prairie dogs and the management around town. Um, so first off, when I first came to Colorado, you know, I picked uh, Longmont because of the great mix of urban development and our amazing open spaces. I actually picked an apartment with a prairie dog colony within just a three-minute walk away. And I love seeing them on my daily walks. Um I then found out a few years later about a relocation effort over at Dry Creek Park where there was 40 acres of prairie dogs that were going to be removed. Uh I got involved, led a team of about 80 volunteers along with Susan who is our relocator. Um and there was also another uh hired relocator um as well. But through those volunteer efforts, we were able to move I think it was around 7 or 800 prairie dogs um instead of having them killed, which was awesome. Uh now though, um or before that even while I was there, you know, people are walking through the parks and they're asking what's going on. They had no idea. They were surprised to hear that the wildlife

they'd love to see were going to be removed. Uh so it was great that we were able to save the animals and move them somewhere else but it's still a resource of the in the city that many people use for you know mental health getting out there being escaping from you know the uh more and more development going on. Um so they really missed them and now it's just like a dirt field um and no development in for a few more years. Um, and I also just found out so much about prairie dogs during that time and how they support over 120 species. Foxes, salamanders, raptors, burling owls, so many others rely on them for food, habitat, survival. The blackfooted ferret is now endangered because of urban development and agriculture, wiping out the prairie dogs down to 1% of their native habitat in our state. Um, sorry. Uh so after that uh was complete um we started to look more into what protections there could be for them, what our city has available. Saw that there was this habitat loss fund that Zach mentioned. When we looked into it though, there's zero dollars in that fund. No, no fees have been collected even though hundreds of acres of prairie dogs have either been removed from the city or just killed and left there to create graveyards under our parks. Um, and then I also found out while working with Zach that my little prairie dog habitat 3 minutes away was at risk as well. A resident of the local HOA was pretty grumpy with them. Got proxy votes, became HOA president, and then put in the application to have them exterminated. I went around canvasing to the neighborhood. We ran a community survey. We found that many of the residents don't like needlessly killing animals. Who would have thought? Um and they preserve they preferred actually preserving the habitat. Uh through a lot of back and forth for the next few months, we ended up relocating them and

not exterminating any of the stragglers that were left behind, which is what typically happens with a relocation effort. Relocation is never really 100% um uh going to get them all. So, usually an exterminator comes in at the end and um takes care of the rest. Uh, and again, those residents were shocked to find out that this thing was happening with their little wildlife neighbors that they loved to see. Um, I was when I found out about it. You know, there were a few who were worried about plague and other things out there, but quickly changed their sides when they found out that that's just a myth. Prairie dogs can't carry plague long term. They catch it and they die. They go into their burrows. They don't really go around spreading it. they're actually a great indicator to find out that plague is around the area from other animals um instead. So once we broke those myths down, did a lot of public education, more and more people started siding with us and then HWA president actually sold his house now and moved out of the neighborhood. Uh the other board members that did side with him have resigned or were voted out at this point. There's a strong community desire to protect our local wildlife. Um, and there's a lack of public awareness of what is going on and how these animals people care about are managed. Um, yeah. So, since then, I've joined Grasslands Colorado. It's a nonprofit to help our local wildlife. We work with different cities to improve their policies, do public education, um, and even give out grants, um, to land owners that want to present, uh, preserve their prairie dog habitats. So now I've worked with I don't even know how many and people keep reaching out to me. It's a uh issue that keeps coming up and uh you'll hear you know as we go through this the changes that we want to make to start closing up loopholes um create more protection for them all and uh hopefully you'll agree that they're important as well.

Um Susan, did you want to add anything?

I do. Um hi commissioners. Um Susan Summers and I'm longtime Longmont resident and actually the original driving force behind this ordinance that we have. Um when I first moved here the language in our code said a developer needed to make a good faith effort to relocate prairie dogs. And basically what that meant was they just made a couple phone calls. Boulder County Parks and Open Space, couple of other people, will you take prairie dogs? They said no, we're done. Um, and so prairie dogs, to my knowledge, prior to this ordinance, were never relocated. So we got, myself and Anna Rivas and Jeremy Gregory, who could not be here tonight, the three of us got together and got this ordinance through council. Took us a couple years. Um, it's been amazing. It's really worked very well. We've relocated a lot of prairie dogs, but over the six years that it's been in place, we've discovered loopholes. And we kind of were knew that was going to happen. You know, we talked a lot with David Bell, Natural Resources, and kind of were waiting for this to play out to see, you know, is this good enough? Is this going to get us what we want? Is this going to give us the protections that we're looking for? So, that's what we're here tonight for is to kind of cinch things up and address some some flaws that, you know, you hindsight's 2020. You know, we didn't know that we were going to run into these little dips. So, anyway, that's why we're here tonight. So, awesome. Thanks, Susan. Um, okay. So, uh, a lot of this we kind of went over, but, uh, the current ordinance, um, has requirements that applicants can get around using these various loopholes and such. Um, a majority of residents we found want prairie dogs to stay or at least not needlessly kill them. Um, and in our October 2025 vote, um, the council

decided to move everything forward and work out kind of the details after the election that happened. Um, and we have the staff red lines, but we feel like there could be even further adjustments that we're going to be asking council to make as motion during the next um, meeting with them on May 12th. Um, so again, recap of the issues. 0 has been collected for our habitat loss fee, even though we've lost many prairie dogs through relocation or extermination. uh there's little support to for residents who do want to preserve like the residents and the new HOA board at Harvest Junction. Um they are working and making plants and uh trying to find out ways to make natural barriers on their own and there's no city resources for them. Um the urban level development part of the uh ordinance has uh was the reason why that HOA president was able to go under a minor permit instead of a major even though there was over 2 acres of prairie dogs. We relocated was it just about a hundred of them. um a 100 animals could have been just exterminated with no fees or anyone posting notice or the neighbors even finding out this happened because it's an outlaw of an HOA. Uh so that feels like we should fix that. Um prairie dog habitats have been made to look smaller than they actually are. There's a lot of ways that you could make a polygon around burrows uh and cut out corners that shouldn't be. Um, and it's also very difficult to determine if a burrow is active or not. Um, I did a relocation where at first we thought there was a 100ish burrows. We found 180 over the course of it. Um, they're they're hidden sometimes, sometimes they're closed, but then they reopen them later. Uh, they use them as ventilation. They're not just because it doesn't look active when staff goes by to check it out, it doesn't mean that prey dogs are not

using them. It's really all the burrows should be included. And that's how CPW actually determines prairie dog habitat in our state, which is down to 1% again. Um, so yeah, these loopholes and other ways uh have been in effect and having us not collect any of this habitat loss fee. Uh, and here's just some details of that community survey that went out at Harvest Junction. Um you can see that uh most of the residents chose uh humane you know relocation or preservation of the habitat or just leave them alone even as their first choice and then if you look at second choice as well that number d uh increases dramatically. Um so it's clear that a majority of residents that live at least by this neighborhood and colony really care about them. And during our last council meeting, um council members asked a few points to clarify. Uh Zach clarified that the reason why, as he did earlier, um that we didn't collect any fees is because humane options were used. Um personally, humane poison feels like an oxymoron to me. You are still killing the animals. But um that is a city approved humane option. Um our now mayor uh mentioned that she wants to that she approves of all these things and wants to see them tightened up even more. uh which is why we've made some additional recommendations or more like expanding on our our original ones, not necessarily new. Um and Zach did confirm in the last meeting that request three with the uh requirement to uh have people apply for relocation before extermination does not create any additional work. It's something he already mentioned they already are doing. This is just creating legal language for future um in case that uh if someone else is in the role at all in the future. Um and council member Popkins uh you mentioned that the fees, you know, we talked about it prior to

that first meeting and notice my uh first draft at them were pretty low. Um so we also have updated amounts for the fees um too. Um so yeah, let's go through the actual requests. All right, I will try not to take up too much of your time because I know you can see these slides, but so I'm not going to read them verbatim, but um updated request number one would require the 10-day waiting period for transparency and to allow for advocates to attempt to find relocation sites. And this is staff supported. Um, and of course I do want to point out that the burden is typically on us advocates to watch the website to look I actively go on there all the time to look to see if there's an area that where prairie dogs are. Um, so this just gives us, you know, a better window to be able to try to relocate those prairie dogs if possible. So I I think that's pretty straightforward there. Um, update number two, um, allow staff to inspect the actual site, limit the length of time the applicant has to follow up on the application to 90 days. I think that's pretty straightforward as well. It's staff supported. Um, requested update number three. This is kind of a biggie actually for me that it kind of just came to life for me recently. Um, this is kind of the heart of the ordinance. I mean, if we don't have legal language within the ordinance requiring these people to developers or or someone to apply, um, sure, staff is doing it, but technically somebody could just say, you know, I don't really want to, and there's nothing in the language there that requires it. So, in, like I said, hindsight being 2020, I I this should have been in in the first place. And I think it's imperative that we have legally binding language. um to make sure that people are actually making the application um to relocate. Oh, yeah.

Sure. Yeah. Just to add something there. Um there was a colony at Trioint Homes across from the sugar mill uh that got onto a little park in an apartment complex over there. Um there were about 20 prairie dogs and there was an extermination sign up. A resident reached out to me and we were able to stop that extermination the day it was going to happen. I talked to the land owners and they didn't know relocation was an option. While Pueblo is accepting um so it's not told to all land owners. This one was not aware. We have examples where as soon as they found out they canled that extermination and worked with us to save those prairie dogs. So this is a real problem that we can address.

Yeah. And it's certainly, you know, no offense to staff, you know, he's busy. There's a busy guy here. you know, he's got a lot of stuff on his plate and, you know, things fall through the crack. So, I I definitely think it's this is kind of a critical component here that we have that language in there. Um, so requested update number four, measurement of active prairie dog habitat shall encompass all burrows present on the property. Um, as Jamie just mentioned, I've been relocating prairie dogs for 15, 20 years. I do a lot of relocations for the city actually and I spend a lot of time in prairie dog colonies. Just because a burrow appears to be closed. That's my analogy is in your house if your door is closed on the back does that mean that you don't utilize it? That that's not part of your habitat. Um anytime there's a burrow that's dug and is within a colony of living prairie dogs, it's active prairie dog habitat. I and I don't see why there should be any question on that. And I think it's too subjective to accept, you know, expect staff to go around and go, "Oh, that one looks like it's active. Well, that one's got some leaves in it." It there shouldn't be any kind of subjectivity on something like that. Um, so and it does allow for people to exclude and you know that benchmark that that line in the sand of 1.5 acres. If you exclude a burrow or two because you think that it's not being utilized by the prairie dogs, you now dropped yourself down below that threshold and have are able to get a minor permit when you should in fact have a major permit. Um let's see and and this is kind of a similar on a similar topic here. um how this is measured and we've gone round and round with this and Anna Rivas who's here and

will speak tonight can speak very well to this. Um, we were asking for language which is a convex hole polygon and we understand, you know, after talking to Zach why that might not be the best language, but some kind of language needs to be put in there to prevent a developer from drawing that image that you see in the lower right hand corner there. Um, it actually says that they should use the smallest area possible.

Smallest area possible. Yes. which is encouraging them to make an make a measurement like that which again you're not meeting the threshold of 1.5 acres. And as you can clearly see, even if you use the one in the upper right where you've drawn a line that encompasses the burrows, that's basically saying that a prairie dog never steps outside of those red lines, that their habitat exists exclusively within that. It just doesn't make any sense. So, we've gone round and round and um have some suggestions here which I'm not going to read all through these, but we feel like this is is a good start, you know, and again, this is somewhat of a work in progress because we're going to going to council, but we feel like this new language here kind of is is getting encompassing all of the burrows and and actually doing a a better measurement of the prairie dog habitat.

Yeah. still um addressing the concerns that Zach brought up like if there's a building, you know, in between two burrows, obviously that's not uh prairie dog habitat. So, we're suggesting a convex hole with constrained exclusions. So, we're kind of only cutting away the areas that actually matter and not actively asking or encouraging applicants to reduce as small as possible.

Okay. And this next one here is also kind of a big issue for me, the urban level development. Um, there have been two examples and one I think you'll probably all be familiar with is MLAN Trucking. MLAN Trucking has a massive site. Their acreage is huge. Their building and the parking lot only take up a small corner of that. Um, they have had prairie dogs on their site for years. they have allowed them to expand and then they technically were able to come in and apply for a minor permit because a portion of that site had a building on it. And I see problems with that for a number of reasons. One of the problems is immediately across the street where the Walmart is, that developer had to do a major permit because he had equal amount of prairie dogs. Well, I don't think that's a level playing field for starters. I think if I'm, you know, if you're making a rule for one person, it should be the same rule for another person. Um, with all due respect to Zach, I don't think that it putting this kind of a a threshold of 1.5 acres removes the urban level development clause that still exists. There's just now a delineation as to sure you have urban level development, but if you have more than 1.5 acres of prairie dogs, you're still in in a major permit. And I can speak to this specifically. I don't know if any of you guys knew Dan Wolfford who worked for the he worked for years. I worked I remember the very day that he suggested that we put this language in this code. And the reason that he said that was his example was what if you have a, you know, apartment complex next to some prairie dogs and a couple prairie dogs move over and make burrows. They should not have to. And I agree. It sounded like a great idea. Little did we know at that time that there could be a site

like MLAN where they've got 25 30 acres of prairie dogs, thousands of prairie dogs, and they would fall under urban level development. So, I think that that's a loophole that we really need to close. It's just not fair. It's not fair to, you know, it's not a level playing field. And um Oh, okay. So, and I think that's it.

Yeah. Just like you mentioned, you know, it's mostly for when there's one to two prairie dogs have gotten onto a property with urban level development, which will clearly be less than 1.5 acres of habitat. So, I don't believe that the uh language of urban level development being the qualifier um actually accomplishes the intent of the ordinance um on either side really. Um it should really just be is there a lot of prairie dogs or not? And simple as that. All right. And I'll be going through more of the the fees and such. Uh Zachary went over this. We want to increase um the fees from 500 to a,000 and 250 for the minor. Um, this is to cover staff time uh working through the application process and um hopefully have some extra for the habitat restoration fund as well. Um, and this this is the originally requested amounts here for the habitat uh loss fee. Um, and so those highlighted amounts are based on our initial kind of pass. Um, and like I mentioned several times now, there's zero dollars there. Um, but when we looked into it, other cities like Fort Collins, they charge $4.5,000 per acre um instead. And they do not wave it for uh just anything. Actually, let's just skip to this side real fast. Um, their default amount is uh this year 4.6,000. Um, they actually increase it every year to match inflation as well. Um, and if a land owner uses a humane poison, uh, carbon monoxide, usually, uh, they reduce down by 20%. Not fully waving the fee like we do. Um, so that still reduces it from 4.6 to 3.6 in this case and increases each year. Uh, so I, you know, have worked with Fort Collins city

and they actually have some improvements they want to make to their ordinance as well. Um, but you know, kind of basing it off of that and working with other exterminators, uh, relocators landed on these numbers of 3.2 for, uh, if they're just exterminating, reducing it down to 2,000 if they do use the city approved humane. Um, and if a applicant relocates, uh, which is usually more expensive than using these poisons. Um so we want to make sure that that fee is reduced down but we still feel strongly that that is removing you know prairie dogs from our city. It is still habitat loss. Um they are being removed from here. Uh so we still want to have a 500 per acre for that. Um and then you know expanding on that we noticed as we were talking about it more that there are potential future loopholes that we could um try to tighten up. as Susie uh mentioned, we should try throughout this process. And so, like I mentioned, after relocation, there's usually some stragglers. And there's nothing here that says they can't use an inhumane poison at that point. They already had their fee waved from relocating. If they decide to use rozol, which takes hours and hours to slowly kill the animals, that's fine. It also secondarily poisons other wildlife. As long as they relocated some of them, it's okay. Um, so we want to stop that and mention that, you know, the fee is not reduced if any inhumane poisons are used. Uh, and to that point too, uh, some relocators put in a little more effort than others. Some are also exterminators, so they tend to not care too much about how many are relocated. They're going to be doing the same job anyway. Uh so we feel like there should be some qualifier here that uh if there's not more than 80% of these

prairie dogs relocated, it should not wave the fee. Uh it was an unsuccessful relocation in my mind. Um but the way it's written now, they could just apply for the relocation permit, move one prairie dog, or just even attempt to move prairie dogs and not actually move any of them and still have the wave fee like entirely. So again, this is expanded uh things that will be asking for motions um in the future since it's not in the red lines currently. Uh we do want to keep moving things forward though at this point just because we want to see um at least what we originally requested in before uh summertime really. Um and then two more here. We're almost through it. Uh all prairie dog extermination permits, both major and minor, should have this habitat restoration fee. It shouldn't apply just to the major permits. Um, habitat loss is habitat loss. Extermination is extermination. Uh, again, zero of those fees have been collected. Um, so this is something that, uh, I didn't see in the red lines, but just making it clear that it is any permit, not just for extermination. Um, and that's pretty much the the change we're asking here. Um, and then also when we did mention that there was zero dollars in that habitat loss fee, um, uh, Mayor Pek at the time, um, was kind of shocked to find out and, um, you know, she was kind of part of the original ordinance when it went into effect like 6 years ago. Uh, so nobody's checking to see how this is going. Um, we feel there should be an annual just, hey, do we have money in there? What should we do with it? um as well. And last but not least for sure is that we want to require posting whenever an applicant applies for prairie dog permits. Uh that case that I mentioned where there was an extermination that was going to happen that day. We only found out because a resident of that

apartment complex saw a sign about it. Uh that sign I don't believe was required because it's a minor permit. Um, but because there was a sign up, the landowner decided to do it on their own. We were able to save those prairie dogs. Um, and I I kind of feel like if we're posting signs for development, what's the difference? I mean, if you're posting signs, you're posting signs. And I know about development sometimes by driving by and seeing a sign. It's just more transparency and it should be the same procedure for everything.

Yeah. Again, the areas that there weren't signs, the residents were shocked to find out and wanted to get involved and kind of came in force in the case of the HOA. So, education, awareness is everything. Um, and you'll more likely hear from the people who are grumpy than the people who like prairie dogs in general. Um, in Fort Collins, one of the city staff members uh ended up exterminating um an area and then got more calls than she ever did um afterwards because people were upset. They didn't reach out ahead of time. They didn't know they were at risk. If there was postage, maybe they would have. Um, so yeah, thank you for your time and um let me know if you have any questions now.

Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing item. Uh, as such, we allow the public to speak. Uh, in regards to this, we do have a signup list. Um, I do have outside of Jaime's name, which you've already you already said, uh, we do have three names. If anybody else at the end of this would like to come up and speak, we will give you a chance. Uh the first person on the list is Anna Rivas. You do have 5 minutes and we ask that you please give your name and your address for the record. Hi. Uh my name is Anna Rivas, 45501 Nelson Road. Um what was that? You're good. Go.

Okay. Um so yes uh the the I'm here to speak about the ordinance and the the way it's currently written as they have already mentioned has some big loopholes pertaining to how prairie dog habitat is measured for the purpose of applying for a major versus a minor permit. And the difference between those two is that with a major permit you have to attempt to relocate. With a minor you can proceed straight to killing. Um, first of all, the first loophole is that the ordinance includes a reference to active versus inactive burrows, which are in turn used to define the active prairie dog habitat. Um, the problem with designating a burrow as inactive, as Susan mentioned as well, is that it's kind of arbitrary. And even if the burrow can be shown to be with 100% accuracy that it's inactive, that doesn't mean that the area around it is not utilized by the prairie dogs. they're likely foraging near it and all around it. So, you know, if a burrow is inactive, um the habitat around it could still be highly utilized and that's not a good measure of an inactive um to exclude that area as active prairie dog habitat. Secondly, there's a section that refers to the smallest possible area of a polygon encompassing all active burrows. Um there is a virtually unlimited number of ways to create absurdly small polygons. As you saw from that uh illustration that Jamie had, if you have um some burrows that are scattered in what technically could be contained within a pentagon, for example, you can reduce the size of the polygon by just instead of making it a using a pentagon, making it into a star shape. You've still got all the little points included, but you've now cut out

big pieces of that pentagon pie, so to speak. Um, you could go further and make it a super super skinny star, which is ridiculous, but the way the wording is right now, it's actually encouraging people to do something like that. Nobody I mean, it would be a pretty sleazy thing for somebody to do, but there's nothing in the current or ordinance ordinance language that prevents them from doing that. It actually encourages them to do that. It says right there, the smallest possible area of a polygon encompassing all active burrows. So they can easily do do something like that and say, I'm following your ordinance. Um, so these two items taken together create a huge loophole that land owners and developers can use to get below the 1.5 acre threshold that determines whether they need to apply to a major versus or a minor versus a major permit. Um, so yeah, and then they would just be able to proceed straight to killing, which as Jamie talked about, that's a big problem. I live near Dry Creek Park where all those prairie dogs were relocated, and I dearly missed them. I've they were my neighbors for 20 years, and even though the majority were relocated, there were many that were left behind, they um couldn't be trapped during the time we were given. And so they were killed. And I used to go there all the time on, you know, almost daily or weekly walks. It was kind of my place to decompress from work. And that was in they were removed in o um in the end of 2024 and I have not been able to go back there since then because it's just completely changed the nature of the place. It went from being this lifefilled beautiful place to visit and having all these my neighbors or prairie dogs that I could walk through and just see them, you know, I could look right into their little faces and and I also had a friend who uh was a burer who went with me and we counted 30 different species of birds that utilized that

place while the h prairie dogs were there. I don't know what that's down to. I'm sure it has changed because the prairie dogs modify the area in such a way that makes it appealing to certain birds that now that they're not there, it's probably not as appealing to them. So, um it's a very different habitat. Um I think people should keep in mind that they are they do provide benefits in terms of uh mental health to be out in nature among our you know fellow non-human creatures um to help with just d-stressing and turning it into a sterile empty field is it's just not the same. And when we were out there relocating we did have many of the neighbors who came by realized what was happening and were horrified. I still remember very clearly one of the women who stopped by. She had been gone for a couple of months her um taking care of her father who was passing. She was in a different state and she was trying to decide whether to stay there or come back. She came back to be in her happy place which was gone.

Thank you uh Anna. Next is Virginia Hullman. Hey, I'm Virginia Holman. I live at 600 600 Longs Peak Avenue. And I just want to say good evening to all the commissioners and also to wish you a happy Earth Day because today is Earth Day. And I appreciate city council making a proclamation at its last meeting back in March designating today as Earth Day. Um it's vital that we focus on clean energy and sustainability as um city council outlined in their Earth Day proclamation. But although it rightfully highlighted our climate goals, it was largely silent on the plants and animals that rightfully maintain our landscape. So today, as you rule on the prairie dog ordinance, you have the opportunity to complete that vision. Sustainability isn't just about carbon. It's about the biological health of our front range. And I'm going to go over two quick key points here. Sorry, I'm reading off my phone. My eyes are not so great here. Um, it's prairie dog's role as a keystone species and in our food web. So in ecology, we call the prairie dog a keystone species because much like the centerstone of an arch, if you pull them out of the habitat, the entire ecosystem begins to collapse. A single colony

supports over 170 other species. Prairie dogs aren't just rodents. They're really kind of like the supermarket of the prairie. When we lose a colony, we lose the food source for the hawks. the golden eagles that circle above us. We lose the homes of charismatic birds like burrowing owls. On Earth Day, we must recognize that we cannot have a sustainable city if we continue to dismantle the food web that supports our iconic Colorado wildlife, which is also a large part of our tourism here in Longmont. And as a hub for people headed to the Rockies and enjoying our city, that's important. Also, prairie dogs are natural firefighters. I was writing an article last year, which is actually how I came to get to got got to know Jamie a little bit. And in the course of writing that article, I came across and interviewed um people who were engaged in recent studies that included the Marshall fires and they demonstrated that prairie dog colonies can slow and redirect grassland fires naturally. Um by grazing the vegetation around the burrows, they do create low fuel zones. They clip the dried tall dry tall grasses that act as fire fuels for the fastmoving grass fires that threaten our neighborhoods. And uh and I must point out I was thinking of this when the Martin Street fired up this week with flames up to about what 20 to 30 ft which our our firefighters quickly got under control. But having prairie dog colonies close to habitats, human habitats like apartment complexes

actually does serve quite a useful um role in um fire mitigation. Their burrows also increase water infiltration into the soil, helping our land stay resilient during droughts. Prairie Dogs offer us a free natural service in fire mitigation that no mechanical mower can replicate. And they really aren't an obstacle to a safe city. They are an asset to it. In fact, one of the people who I interviewed for the article was um participating in the Grasslands Fire Workshop in 2025, giving presentations to firefighters from across the region, including Longmont, City of Longmont firefighters. and he urged City of Longmont firefighters to work with um planning and zoning and other um city organizations to incorporate prairie dog habitats into the city's fire mitigation plan. Um, routinely in large uh, grassland fire habitats, firefighters will use prairie dog habitats um, as kind of a stopping point for some a place where they can, and forgive my paraphrasing here, slow and capture fastmoving fires. Um, so I urge you today to vote for an ordinance that prioritize prioritize prioritize prior prioritizes management and relocation over extermination. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next person on the list is uh Michelle Christensen.

Hi, good evening. My name is Michelle Christensen and I'm at 2209 Spicker Circle in Longmont. It scares me. I feel like I'm in an elevator. I'd like to highlight um why prairie dog protection deserves stronger attention in Longmont and the importance of signage in verifying relocation options are exhausted before prairie dogs are exterminated. Research shows that prairie dogs occupy less than 1% of the historic range. Prairie dog towns support over 100 other wildlife species. So when we lose a colony, we are not just losing one species, but habitat that supports an entire ecosystem. The situation in Trioint uh homes in the Sugar Mill area shows how important this is. Perry dogs had moved into the area. As Jamie said, a resident um reached out and because of the signage, we were able to contact the land owners on the morning. The extermination was to take place and you know what happened? The landowner uh decided to cancel his extermination. Those prairie dogs were saved simply because someone saw a sign and asked the question. The small moment of awareness made the difference between extermination and relocation. Most residents in Longmont have no idea when prairie dog exterminations are scheduled and by the time they find out it's already too late. Many others think that all the prairie dogs somehow get relocated. I find that time and time again talking to people which is really interesting. Improving this process would not only protect wildlife but also give landowners clear guidance and help the city avoid situations where ex extermination is

approved before relocation options are fully considered. This situation demonstrates the value of clear visible signage. It allows the public to engage and can directly lead to better outcomes. It also shows that the issue is not always unwilling landowners. Often it is simply a lack of information in the process. Establishing strict standards for signage design, placement, and visibility would assure notices actually serve their purpose. As far as relocation, in this case, there was an active relocation site. Yet an extermination permit had already been issued without the landowner knowing relocation was an option. This highlights a gap in the current process where residents often learn about the extermination only after permits have already been issued. Improving this process would ensure relocation is consistently considered and clearly documented before lethal control is approved. A simple improvement would be to require that before an extermination permit is issued, applicants must first apply for relocation using a basic relocation uh compliance sheet like this that I I don't know if you want to look at this, but um if relocation is unavailable, they must provide written documentation showing they contacted multiple relocation sites and were declined, demonstrating that all reasonable efforts are at were exhausted. I'm asking the council to strengthen notification and relocation verification so that humane options are generally explored before extermination is approved. These changes will ensure relocation is properly verified and documented before extermination occurs, helping ensure lethal control is truly a

last resort while still allowing development to move forward responsibly. I respectfully ask the board to direct staff to review both signage standards and relocation requirements to strengthen this process. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Uh that is the list of people who did sign up. Um if anybody else in the audience would like to come forward, if you have anything you would like to add, we do invite you to come up. You have five minutes. Seeing nobody move forward, I'll go ahead and close out public invited to be heard for item 7B. Move it back to the commission for questions, comments, motions. Um, I do have a question uh to the commission. If there is a preference on how you want to go through this, there are a lot of items. Um, and I'd like to make sure that we kind of do this in a methodical method so that we don't miss anything and that it's easier to keep track of what we're doing. I see there's two different ways we can do this. Uh, attachment one, which is the red line, which is the uh, definitions and other items, the red lines, the green items, and the blue items. The second way to do this is the applicant has uh basically laid out the requested updates one through nine. Um so just looking for the commission which way they would prefer to go through this. Um vice chair Earl. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um a point of clarification if I might before we have that discussion. We have two PCRs in the attachment. One is approve what staff said, one is deny what staff said. Do we have the ability to kind of redline and go through otherwise because there is not a PZR with conditions that we would normally fill in. How would that work, Mr. Terrell?

Good evening, members of the commission. Jeremy Terrell, senior assistant city attorney. In talking with staff, given that there's so many different possibilities, there was no right way of doing it. Um, so I I think what we've done is to have the PZA, which is what the staff said, and PZB, which is kind of leave everything the same. Uh, if the commission wants to go through the red lines and change the recommendation, it should just be a motion to change PZA to reflect what the commission wants. Okay?

And that will get forwarded to city council unless the commission chooses to adopt PZRB and deny all changes. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Wang,

thank you. Um, I would also recommend going down the red line document, but my question is, are we looking at the document that's presented before us with this particular verbiage or I noticed in Jamie's presentation there was other verbiage on there, especially about the um, polygons. Will that be something that we need to look at because it's not here or do we need to take that into consideration? From what I understand from the discussion we just had that we can incorporate any updated requests from the client into the green line red line document. I I'd recommend approaching it by looking at the red line and having the commission go through that document. just the red line document

and then to the extent the applicant the commission wants to add anything the applicant recommends or disagreed with staff on just tell us and we'll update the red line document as reflect that as the PZ recommended version assuming you go with PZ does that answer the question it it does so the initial will be to keep to the red line items and even the green line items I guess we could disagree agree with that. Yeah, I meant the red line document. Yeah, the red line document change. We're going to keep through the track of the red line document and then go over the any additional comments. Correct. If we want to look at the polygons then Yes.

Okay. Thank you. And just Yeah, just tell staff and myself what you want to put into the track changes document uh if anything and we'll make sure that gets incorporated.

Thank you, Commissioner Boon. Thank you, chair. So, point of clarification, Zach. I'm confused about the presentation of the red line documents. Um, so we have items that are highlighted in red, we have items that are highlighted in green, and items that are highlighted in blue. And within each of those, some of them are left as is and some of them are struck out. So I don't understand what that means. If it's red and it has a line through it, what does that mean? If it's red and doesn't have a line through it, what's what's the difference?

Sure. Good evening again, Zach Wasik, senior environmental planner. Commissioner Boon, the lines that you see through strike out existing language that's in the code today. If there are red words that do not have a line struck through it, that's new language being added. Does that answer your question? And then for the blue code, because there's some blue where it struck out, that is currently in the code. Correct. and they are looking to replace it with the blue that is not struck out basically. Correct.

So the things that are struck out are that's current code language. Current code language that the applicant wants to strike. Correct. And then you either agree with it or you don't agree with it based on the color green, red or blue. Okay. Got it. And blue they have they did not comment on the blue part. Correct. Right. Okay. Got it. That's the way that I felt would be the easiest to convey this complicated set of code changes. And if you have any other questions, please let me know. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. Um I guess uh before I jump into questions, uh we'll be good on approach before I start asking things. Yeah, we're going to go ahead and go through the redline document and go through the sections and then at the end we'll catch anything that may have been asked for in an update or if there's additional things maybe that the commission wants to talk about. Okay. So, good.

Yeah. So, we're going to begin with uh first we're going to go ahead with section 70602 definitions. And there is the urban land development means and it looks like that the applicant is asking to strike out the development means sections one, two, and three. So my my questions were more um let's just say contextoriented if I just jump in on those and and it okay sure.

Uh so uh Zach this one's for you. Um I guess I'd like to understand maybe a little bit more about the genesis of the code that exists today because I've heard a lot from the applicant. Um and uh I I see what's in there. It does not to me look like a conservation code. It looks like it is maybe humanitarian. I mean, what's the purpose of it? What was the main driving aspect of it? Is it just to avoid needless killing or is it about habitat preservation?

Thank you, Commissioner Jordan. Um, so it does fall under the animals section of code, which is sort of I guess where it best fits in the context of prairie dogs are animals and we needed a process by which to manage these permits. In the absence of that process, um, you know, a developer who wants to do work on a site with prairie dogs could theoretically just bulldoze them over or flood the site and drown them, right? So the purpose and the intent is to have a process by which a developer can more humanely uh manage those habitats. Okay. So it it's kind of to avoid cruelty it sounds like. Um but it's not it's not to stop the development. Correct.

It's to incentivize nice treatment of these animals. Correct.

Then my next question was around why prairie dogs specifically. Do we have code like this for all sorts of animals? that gets more into title 15 for habitat and species protection which has a whole other host of um you know development requirements for species like burrowing owls and adjacent raptors and things of that nature but that's a different code section. Okay. Um because one of the the because I might get into these questions a little bit later but I know one of the points is about potentially closing loopholes that have prevented funding the habitat restoration fund. But if the objective of this is to incentivize more humane treatment of the animals, I'm I guess I'm I'm wondering do do we view the current iteration of it because you you were talking about uh you you've been going on these site visits and and looking at this and we we've since it's gone into effect, we've been able to get people to uh do more humane things at least more often. Do we view that that lack of that fund has been a um has that hampered your our ability uh to to to do these humane things?

I don't know that I'm the best person to answer that question. Um I mean I think that that the intent of that question kind of comes down to what is the council's goal. Um right it's my job to implement the policy as it currently exists. Okay. And so I think that really it's it's up to council to set those directions and make those types of decisions. And my my last question and I'm going to pause for a while. Um but that was this is my last one where we need a little bit more orientation is I I wasn't understanding the 90 days piece that the applicant is requesting. I'm not sure if you might be able to cover that, Zach, or Jamie or Susan if you could.

I'm happy to talk about it quickly from a staff perspective. Um and if these guys want to hop up and talk afterwards, that's fine. But I'll just share that right now the the language as it's written in the code for developers. The developer is required to either do a relocation or manage their habitat, however, whether it's a major or minor permit through the duration of their development process. meaning that if they're under application review, they have until their site plan or their project is approved to complete the, you know, the management of the prairie dogs before they start construction on the site. What we've seen is that if we have a project that waits 6 months or a year in between project submitts, that prairie dog application sits.

Okay. And so the my understanding is the intent of that request was to, you know, spur action sooner in the event that a relocation window was closing or could be missed. Okay. Something to that effect.

And I'm sorry, it wasn't my last question because that jogged another one. Um I didn't see any language in the current code as written or any of the uh proposed changes that seem to differentiate between uh exterminations or relocations to facilitate development versus I would call it in the pest control. We're not building anything. We just don't like them. Uh which is I think one of the cases where was brought up in the HOA president situation. Um do we treat things differently or is there a different process for option A versus B? There's a slight difference in the process. The same permits and stipulations apply based on the size of the property and etc. Um the only difference is that for a property that's not currently under development review, they have to wait a period of 90 days or this is for a major permit. They have to wait a period of 90 days or once they've identified a relocation site as available. Once that 90 days has passed or they don't identify a relocation site, then they can exterminate. That's the only difference between an existing development that doesn't, you know, isn't going through the development process.

Okay. Because All right, that that's uh those are all the questions I had right now. I'm going to yield. Thank you. Commissioner Wang, did you have a question? Okay. Go down to um first section if that's where you're at. Okay. Commissioner Boon,

thank you. Um, a follow a followup to Commissioner Jordan's last question, I guess. What percentage or what number of these permits do you see from property owners who are not doing development who just want to get rid of the prairie dogs or are they basically all except half of a percent or something tied to development? Um, I can just give you some statistics. I'll take from the year 2025. So, this is all the permits that I looked at in 2025. 21 total permits were issued. Um, I would say of those 21, half were related to an existing development. Eight of the permits were related to the city. So, it was our parks and natural resources staff, you know, so not not development related or anything like that. It was just us, the city, making those making those applications

for parks or golf courses or things like that. Okay. Um, two of the permits that you were issued were major permits. One was an extension from 2024. The rest were minor permits. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Edgely Wells.

Thank you, Chair. So my question um is relating to minor and major permits and the time span that a prairie dog um location migrates or closes. So, and to not get too much into the substance of like the A and B, but I'm trying to figure out how quickly does um a prairie dog location change and how quickly does that um sort of uh then also change whether it's a minor or a major permit.

Commissioner Wells. Um, so we're talking about an existing site that has prairie dogs on it and you know, does the does the population expand over some it's not that quick. um you know over a period of many years you may see changes but um you know for for the context of the remaining properties in the city that have active prairie dog habitat many of those probably aren't going to grow anymore just because they're bound, you know, on all sides by a road or um you know another development. Um many of those may just be a park where we manage the habitat year to year, but we're not trying to make it smaller. We're just trying to keep it healthy. Um, and you know, the rest of those are are smaller, you know, 15 prairie dogs or less and and likely not going to grow rapidly. Um, just again based on those meats and bounds. Okay, I think we have the common questions out of the way. So, if we have any comments uh regarding 706020 and I believe that for the most part there are two items here. One is the striking of uh the applicant would like to say all active prairie dog burls and the city has said not really they would like they they're not agreeing with that. The other is there is a definition for urban level development means um and I believe oh sorry it's the applicant who wants to strike out active right and they want to strike out the urban level development means section definitions and the and the city would like to keep those in so looking for comments at 706020 vice chair Earl Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Zach, I I

guess I want to understand. So, and I'm going to oversimplify here a little bit and I apologize if I'm going off track, but someone please correct me. Um, the reason we're striking the urban level development or the reason the applicant has proposed to strike urban level development is because you want the criteria to be the size of the colony regardless of the lot and what the development is on the lot and the city. Why does the city not agree with that recommendation?

So, the applicant gave an example of one site in the city where there where this where that situation that you just described applies, right? And that is the McLean Western site over on Highway 119 north of Walmart and all that that to staff's opinion is an outlier of a situation that doesn't really apply anywhere else in the city. Um, and you know, for that reason alone, we don't know that it's necessary. That's another example of a site where, you know, through our SOP and our process, we were able to have those prairie dogs relocated anyway. So, um, you know, again, it's it's a lack of necessity or an overreaction to a situation that may not occur again

is. So, okay. So, so the city's perspective is it's it's it's really not an issue for that the city believes in this case. I am curious about urban development number three there, which is city-owned golf courses, parks, which you said is eight of your 21 permits. Um, is there a convenience for the city of keeping the exemption so the city doesn't have to go through the permit process? Well, again, the city does have to go through the permit process. Well, for a major relocation,

they do have to go through the process for a major in any other, you know, for typically what we've seen, right? And I'll give you the example of Dry Creek Park, which one of our one of our speakers mentioned, you know, they did go through a a major permit for those sites. So, saying that it's a convenience is one thing. We still go through the process and do it. Does that make sense? So the city No, I'm I'm not entirely following. So it sounds like what you're saying is the city is still going to go through the process even though the code lets you not.

I mean for for these parks for developed parks I suppose but we still do go through the process.

Okay. I mean, I don't love that answer, frankly. And Zach, this is not you personally in any of this, but if we have the code and we have exemptions in the code, but then we say, "Oh, we're really not going to follow them." And that that was a reason for not liking several of these, I just don't love that as a reason not to do that. If we think there's a legitimate business reason, great. I can get behind those, um, at least consider them. I don't love just the well we already do it this way and therefore we don't need to codify it um because that's really easy to change without going through a recodification process. So I'm a little skeptical of that argument.

Okay. Just to clarify as well from just my perspective right this for me when I went through and evaluated these red lines I'm thinking about it from the actual you know other customers in the city not from the city perspective. Fair enough. Understood. Commissioner Wang.

Okay. Um, so I'm looking at this and I was trying to figure out why we have a distinction or a specific definition for urban level development. And my interpretation of this is probably for green field developments versus established um, properties that's been built on already. Um my question is like for a definition of an urban level development if it's been platted already but it's still vacant land would that fall under urban level development or would that be a major?

It would not fall fall under the definition of urban level development if it's only flatted. Urban level development requires a certificate of occupancy. Okay. So um I was thinking more like um do you know the Clover Basin Farm subdivision northeast corner 75th in Nelson? Mhm. Um there are a couple of lots on there that's have couple colonies and it's not built upon. So that would not count as urban level development. Correct. If it's not developed with a certificate of occupancy and approved site plan, it doesn't meet that criteria. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh Council Rep. Popkin would like to make a comment clarification.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Um I had a a procedural question for you and and this is cuz it's a fairly unusual conversation because this is a citizen initiated um proposal um like code amendment and technically some citizens are applicants and so I just wanted to clarify your preference in terms of um what the commission can direct question who the commission can direct questions to because I see the I see a few people kind of leaning forward in their seats and they may not be sure whether they can speak to some of the topics that are coming up. So, I just wanted to broach that with you directly. I follow your your lead on how you want to handle that, but I want that to be just clear across the board.

Thank you. Uh for for this for the purpose of this hearing, um what I would uh say is that uh Jamie and Susan are the two speakers for the applicant and we will limit uh the the commission has freedom to ask questions of them. Um and the questions will be just to you two, the other people. Hope you understand. and we don't want to get into a lot of back and forth with a lot of different people. So, we want to have a manageable. You two seem to have the uh been appointed like the speakers for the group. So, we will keep it to the two of you. Okay. Very good, Commissioner Jordan.

All right. So, we're talking about the O section 02. Um just throw some opinion out there. I don't have any issue with striking active because it seems arbitrary to me. Um, but the the problem I I have on the urban development side is again this seems like it could be used in a couple bad ways in in two directions. The first one being it could be used as a way for an existing property owner that's not planning to do any development that just hates prairie dogs or whatever and wants to do something inhumane. Uh, but conversely, um, I feel like it is I don't know The dog I have in the fight is, you know, envision log mod, you know, we're trying to encourage infill. Um, and it seems to me if you have uh you're trying to build an ADU or you're trying to do something to that effect, uh I feel like this would uh leaving the urban devel uh level development in there would protect those owners from being able to facilitate that and not have to jump through as many hoops. Um so I don't know those sort of just some thoughts offhand on those on that piece. Um, I'm still kind of formulating the thought, but I wanted to toss it out there.

Thank you, Commissioner Forbes. Welcome. Thank you. Uh, Zach, I had a question for you. You, um, I believe you mentioned, um, while you're talking that, um, the reason part of the reason you disagreed with the urban level development, striking that from there was that there would be an additional burden on the staff or just an additional burden in general. Um would you be able to elaborate on that?

Yeah, there's just a chance that would add more major permits to you know to the workload which you know again involves going out doing larger surveys spending more time in the field and it's just more time that I spend on this particular task. Does that make sense? That makes sense. Do you would um based on the way this is written, would you have any estimates on like how much more time you'd have to spend in in the field or how much staff time it would take additionally in the field? I don't have a time estimate. I would just say that, you know, it would require, you know, potentially more time spent. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm going to add my two cents. Um I'm okay with having the with strike I guess with striking the all active par. I think there's a bigger conversation there where it says the smallest possible area of a polygon has been indicated you can get very creative in drawing a polygon. That's where I really have my biggest issue. Um, and I understand that I guess one person's definition of active could be different than another. Um, I do think that I would not want to see if there's a prairie dog burrow that is 300 ft away from everything else that you're going to increase the polygon because of this one off. So, I think there there's a fight or something to go over. I don't think it's the term all active prairie dogs. Um I will say this when it comes to the definition of urbal level de urban level development I think we I would like to keep it in there. Um because as the applicant has said and I think is uh the city would agree that this is something that's probably going to be maturing over the years and this is just the definitions we use for urban development. I would rather take where it's actually applied that definition and look at is that proper to use at that point rather than taking out of the definition portion of this. I'd like to keep the definition portion in there and then when we get to urban development maybe we look and say okay it means this one two and three and I could even see the case we don't agree with one but we agree with two and three. So I would

like to depending and it could depending on where it falls in the in in the code. So I would like to keep the definition in there so we have the definition moving forward. Um and I could see maybe at some point in the future the definition changes but I would like to have the definition change. Where it's used is where I would like to take us to take a look to see if it makes sense. That's my thoughts on what is redlined in 706020. Commissioner Boon, that was staff's recommendation to remove that because we don't have the mic. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, sorry about that. Um, turn it on. Sorry.

Okay, thank you. Hi. Um, sorry about that. But yeah, just to clarify, that's not something we recommended initially. That was because of legal requirements. If we're not using it later, there can't be a definition for it. Great. And yeah, I p in my mind I see urban level development is a real thing um where they would be exempt from these issues um from having to apply for a major. It's the it's the 1.5 acres that's the critical component. So if you for example the city um part of part of this process that the city uses is they actively control their prairie dogs. They don't let them get over 1.5 acres and there's a reason for that. And so I feel like having this language in there, the urban level development should still be in there, but it's it's quantified, qualified at the 1.5 acres that actually encourages people like MLAN to not let their prairie dogs take over 15 acres and then come back later because that's actually what happened. And so I kind of see it as a incentive to manage the prairie dogs that you have. If you don't want prairie dogs on there, don't sit back on your heels and let them expand and then come back later and go, "Well, we have existing urban level development, so we get a pass." If if that makes sense. That's kind of how I see it. it. I I kind of understand that, but also with with the understanding that it was noted that it takes time for prairie dogs to expand and I to be somewhere at like 2 acres, you know, okay, from 1.5 to 2 acres that can happen, but to go from 1.5 acres to 15 acres, that just didn't happen overnight. But you brought up a point, Jeremy, when it comes to the definitions.

Is it true we can't have a definition if it's not being used in the code? I wouldn't say can't, but I would say shouldn't. I wouldn't define a term if you're not going to use it. But wouldn't the language still be in the code? We're just quantifying it with 1.5 acres.

Yeah. Um I guess we can come back to this when we get down to I I think let's see what happens when we get down to 7060 OB. See what happens whether that gets strikeed or not. What the recommendation is. um they want to put it in because they want that has an existing urban development. So that was not in the definitions beforehand, right? No, it's crossed out. They're asking, Zach, that was not originally in 706020 then a definition of urban development.

It is it is currently defined in code right now. Okay. And So by it being crossed out they wanted to remove it. Yes. That's that's what Yes. I mean we want to remove the urban level uh requirement later the I don't care if there's a definition or not but removing it later it was suggested to also remove the definition. Oh okay. I understand that now. Um so I guess in that regards for me I think 70602 depends what happens with 70650 OB. Yes.

Okay. And then I guess the only other thing that we have to see what our feelings are for is whether we strike all active prairie dog or we leave in all active prairie dog. and do we have a consensus on that? Commissioner Wayne,

thank you. So, here's my thought. Um, I would like to keep the urban level development definition. um the extreme case that was mentioned with Mlan, I feel like if we have a better um definition of what a polygon is, that would have prevented that case, I would think. Was MLAN's um um size of the prairie dog colony less than 1.5 acres?

Uh Commissioner Wang, no, it was much much more than 1.5 acres. So, I feel like I would like to keep the urban level. Um, as Commissioner Jordan mentioned, if we've got infill projects, I would love to keep that in there, making it easier to um, infill. But with, like you said, the MLAN example was an outlier, an extreme, right? It's not very often that this kind of things happened. And I feel like if we have a actual definition of a polygon, then that would exempt it from the minor development. Is that is that correct? It is, but that's not under definitions. Right now, we're just talking the definition doesn't talk about measuring the polygon.

Right. Right. Right. But I was going to say I my thought is this I would like to keep it because if we do enact enact the polygon then that strikeout is nondatable or moot. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you chair.

Thank you chair. Okay. So, when we're talking about keeping active versus taking out active and how it relates to number four of section 7.06.050. So, if you I feel like if you take out active, then you don't have a number four. That's just because that also states active. So that's just my kind of train of thought of why would So what are we thinking on that one? Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I support leaving the definitions in until we find later in the document that they might not need to be there. I don't think it hurts having the definitions. And I don't understand why we cannot just add a word about the polygon and call it a con vex polygon to eliminate the whole star effect. And I'm fine with taking out the active word. May I interject with a suggestion? Because we we did discuss language that used the word convex. Um

I recommended that we not use that language in situations where that could also create inaccurate delineations. I have an example that I could share um of of a situation where really any kidney or banana-shaped um you know habitat area and we do have one that I could pull up that does exist here in the city um you know using language like convex could actually create inaccurate delineations with the use of that language. Is there is there another word that would do what we're trying to do

in the in the spirit of the applicant's request I came up with shall encompass all burrows present on the property um and then you know with the implementation of the SOP that we have today and and the act of going out and verifying the accuracy of delineations on site. My thought is that that accomplished the spirit of the request without using language that puts us into trouble. Okay, good. Thank you. Uh may I add something too? Sure.

Um, so Zach, this is new to you as well. Um, but after that conversation, I agree. Just a convex hole doesn't really work. If there's a building in the middle, then it needs to have a cutout in the middle, right? There might be clearly non-habitat features of the area where, you know, we do want to make it concave at that point. Uh, but it shouldn't be the smallest possible area in all cases. Um, so with the help of a little AI here, we um went through with all the kind of things that could come up. If there's a body of water, if there's steep grade, other features that prevent, you know, prairie dogs from moving or burrowing, uh, structures like roads or buildings. So on the bottom here, it's kind of in short, it is a convex hole, but with constrained exclusions, allowing localized concavity only where required to exclude non-habitat features or barriers. And where ambiguity exists, the delineation can be based on observable habitat continuality. So like that example of 300 feet away, we could break off there. Vegetation, soil, um, etc. I think the problem with that is that's not in our red line document as of today. And I don't know if I feel comfortable tackling all of that in there because there's going to be several of these also. Um looking for other people's opinions on this. Commissioner Jordan, I don't know. It's I I something real simple. I feel like why can't you just make the dots of the polygon where the burrows are and only include the ones on the perimeter?

I mean, in generally that's what these delineations look like already. But by that token, if you just went with something very simple like that where you wouldn't have a star shape, if you could say, "Hey, look, we're just going to do the outer boundary."

Yeah. I mean for the example that you see on the screen, you know, example number four in particular, like that's that's not something that would get approved through the current process of of going and evaluating the delineation, right? Typically, what we see is something that's usually between three and four. Um, and you know, again, it has to most accurately reflect the conditions on the site. So, um I I think maybe the uh I don't know. Um chair, I feel like um maybe like this the the the term smallest is also catching me up to. Um I I almost feel like you could say, "Hey, draw a circle that encompasses at least 90% of the prairie dog burrows and there's your area." I don't know. that doesn't account for all weird site geometries and stuff, but I mean like how many are really going to fall in that perfect threshold between 1.5 acres, you know? I I don't know. Um that that that's catching me up, but we might want to just maybe circle back. I I don't know. Do we have to do it sequentially or could we get into the meat and come back?

Yeah. Um I would like to see if we can do this in order because it just makes it easier to follow. we don't have to worry about trying to go back. Commissioner Popkin, you want to make uh you want to state something?

I've clearly been demoted. Um the uh that's okay. Um, I I wanted to maybe offer something for the commission to keep in mind, not in specific language here, but if there are certain points of this that are, and you know, I'll lean on Jeremy here if you think that this would be too complicated, but rather than words smithing some things, if there's certain intent that the commission believes is important to convey and there's agreement among or there's a majority of commissioners who feel that way, that that's proposed to have staff work on language to address something rather than maybe finesse exact language here so that we don't have the the lawyers wincing um as as we have kind of this this hesitation if if it's a particular sticking point on like what's the right shape for instance just to use this conversation as an example but not exclusively so um Jeremy would you have concerns from a process point with um kind of spirit of language for staff to workshop between that that is based on PNZ's recommendation.

Yes. Okay. I do. And my my concern is process and finality. Yeah. I mean, we can be in an endless loop of, you know, this started back in October of 2025. Edits were made. Edits are being suggested tonight. If we do word smithing, edits might be suggested again in the next meeting. Will PZ review the next version? Will city council review the next version? There's no possible end in sight. So I I I think from a process standpoint and certainly Grant can step in. You know, we have a application process for making changes to the code.

We presented that to the city council. City council suggested it come to PZ. I would stick as closely to the city council directed version as as possible and let's consider that and if there's additional changes after that. I mean the code is a living breathing document. We can certainly have another application come in go through the process again with additional updates but I I'd stick as close as possible to what was initially presented just from a process standpoint. Great. Thank you for clarifying that.

Thank you. Um I I'm kind of looking like I'd prefer to be more ambiguous than trying to tie this down. And I don't want to put in a lot of terms about well remove it if there's water, remove it if it's this or that. What I'm thinking of, what I would like to see is something like active dog. Active prairie dog habitat means the possible area of polygon encompassing all active prairie dog burrows on a property. It's very it's I'll admit to say I'm not going to tell you how to measure the polygon is a little ambiguous, but it also leaves a leeway for the city to work with other parties to come up on what that polygon should look like. And because different cases are going to require different things and this gives flexibility for the city to work with the applicant here and also the person in the future who is looking at doing this. It gives them a way to work and come up with how they want to measure it because I think when you look at something you're going to look and say well okay it should be this way and and okay I can see where there can be a cutout. I don't think we are going to be able to come up with a rule to meet every circumstance. And is it okay if we just kind of leave it ambiguous so that in the future people can come to an agreement on what that means in that particular case? Certainly, it's it's possible. Ambiguity always causes me heartburn. Um perhaps

if I may suggest a sentence added to the current definition or some modification the current definition of just saying the director shall determine whether or not the polygon is a sufficient representation of the prairie dog and then the director or his designate meaning Mr. Blazic can determine whether or not it actually accurately represents the burrow.

I like that. As I said, I don't think there's a way that right here we're going to come up with a way to define the perfect or the best way or even a multitude of ways to to measure a polygon. And I would like to leave that so that in the future the minds can get together and determine what that is. And I like the way that you came about that, Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question not to wordsmith anything. Is there an agreeance between the applicant and the city what the definition of active is?

You guys want to take that one? Um as in like if we leave in the language of active here you mean or the this part? Yeah. Sorry. um in no relation to um changing the wording that we're looking at right now, considering the ambiguity, is there an agreement between the city and the applicant on what active prairie dog burrows are? I don't think even amongst like prairie dog advocates and relocators there really is um it's really hard to determine as you know Susan is more of an expert on this. Um

yeah. Yeah, I would say there's not an agreement because it's impossible to tell. I have been at sites and it will be closed. I come back a week later and it's open. They use them for dive for cover sometimes, so there might be some debris in there. So again, I go back to, you know, the colony is a living, breathing, moving organism and it uses all the doors and windows at various times. So, I think it's impossible if the if the burrow exists within a living colony, it's part of the active prairie dog habitat. Thank you.

Yeah, like when we do uh passive relocation to determine if there's still prairie dogs in a burrow before we close it up safely, we put little bamboo sticks in it and we see every day, have those sticks moved or not? Um, and it typically we wait 5 days and then we actually close it up. So, we wait for 5 days of activity. You'll be surprised at how many times on day three or four that's when the bamboo sticks get moved. So you come by three days in a row, you'll see like, "Oh, that burrow is not being used." And then on the fourth day, oh wait, yeah, yeah, it is. Somebody's living in there. Thank you.

Just from a staff perspective, I would share too that, you know, keep in mind these things can change over time, but the applications that we receive from management, those do happen at one point in time, right? we get the application, I go out, I verify the delineation, and then they get their permit. So, that that is one moment in time,

right? and and getting to the point just because something went in 4 days and went in there once comes out. Um, I I I would like to think that once again, if you look and you see a burrow 300 ft away from everything else, just because something went in there every fourth day, I I just want to I I hate saying all burrows because I'd like to put some kind of so that we're not going way out for, you know, for something like that. Um that that's my concern about saying all prairie dog burrows instead of all active. I think the term active by leaving it in there I think it gives a way for the parties to discuss what they believe active means and they they they can therefore come to a an agreement on what active means. I know it might be tough, but I think that might be better than saying all prairie dog burls because I think that also gives a problem. So I don't know.

Um would you mind if then one thing I don't know if this is on or not. Um I I guess I feel like maybe we should focus more on active prairie dog habitat definition versus a burrow. um which is

so a burrow whether you perceive it or someone perceives it to be currently being used at that moment in time. It's still part of active prairie dog habitat. Like my example before your house, you live in a three-story house and the windows on the top thing are closed and you haven't opened them for days. that your home is still your active person habitat, if that makes sense. I I'm thinking maybe we should focus more on that versus an individual burrow,

except that the way that this is stated, they're using the individual burrows to create the habitat.

True. Um, Commissioner Forbes, thank you, Chair. Um my thought is that what um I think we need like what if we send uh like we leave the urban level development as it is and for now until we under the condition it's going to stay in there when we move into uh section 76.050 0.50. And then for active, we send that back to the applicant and city staff to work on a definition of what active is, especially since the fact that active is used throughout the document just to it. It's part of prairie dog habitat. like the it's active is being used as part of the definition of active prairie dog habitat which is used as part of the measurement which is used as part of like it's used in different ways. So I feel like we need to get we're I don't feel like we're going to be able to make it I think they there needs to be a they're going to have to come up with a clearer definition of active that will have to be decided at a later date. Oh, I love this one. Um, so I think right now what we have is uh we have I think for now we want to leave in the urban level development means. We want to leave those definitions in there. We want the city to put in a sentence to basically indicate the polygon issue.

And then the question is what do we do with whether we have active or not in there? um and whether or not we need some kind of clarification on what that means. And Zach, is there something we can put in to define what act? I mean, maybe we don't have the term active, but is there something we can replace it with? I mean that again that's entirely up to to you to make that recommendation and council to make the decision. Um again I I struck this out because I don't think it's a necessary change to happen and and that's the feedback that I have to provide on on this red line.

Okay. Thank you. Yes, Councilman Popkin again. Thank you, Chair Poland. Um, say councilman just Yeah. No, no, he was giving credit reacted a re

Yes. Yes. He was giving credit where credit was due. Um, the I just want to maybe remind the commission that there are moment like I know we all live in precise code language. And I also want to remind the commission that sometimes unless the lawyers really freak out, there can be merit in allowing for some staff discretion. And we have that in other parts of our code as well, right? their administrative modifications for other types of development where there's a certain level of flexibility that we award allow for for staff because of their their expertise, their work, their experience to make certain judgment calls um as well. And so, while I don't necessarily want to like give free reign for for open-ended discretion on everything, I think what I wanted to encourage the commission to think about is in what areas might a little discretion be actually productive versus very specific code language be more productive. So, just a thought process to consider.

Thank you, Commissioner or Vice Chair Earl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By my count in this redline document, active appears 10 times. I would much rather keep this as is right now given that the way I'm reading this is there's distinction between a habitat that is actually um I really don't want to use the word active here, but that's where my brain is. And I apologize. It's 920 and it's not fully functioning, but a habitat that is basically occupied and in use as opposed to a habitat that was at one point in the past in use, which I think is the intent. And I then recognize we're using burrows to define the habitat and we're using active in both of those cases even though the definition of active might be a little bit different there. I would at at this point given where we are and not adding in three paragraphs of what active means, I would suggest we leave this as is on the active prairie dog habitat definition subject to that sentence that the um planning director design has um you know sets the policy for how to measure the polygon. Um I would suggest we move on to 05 Oaks. We got nine other times to measure active that we still have to get through. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan.

Uh, I'm going to just second what Commissioner said. I think that when we have by adding the sentence, it gives the staff the the interpretability and leeway to keep things fair. And although I said earlier, I'd like to get rid of the active. I think the addition of that sentence, I'm flipped. I would like I I think leave as is.

Okay. I think I'm looking around. I'm seeing lots of nods. So, that is a consensus. So, I think we have what we have for 70602. Let's move on. 7060A because I think this hopefully will be a little bit easier. Um, we have 1, two, 3, and four. Uh, the city agrees with the one, two, and three. Um, do we agree with one, two, and three? Does anybody have any concerns about those first three items? Okay, I think we're okay. Let's discuss item four, which is measurement of the active prairie dog habitat shall encompass all burls present on the property. Um, I think given that we are going to leave the active prairie dog above, I'm good with not having is it? Yeah. Yeah, it's redundant.

Yes. Okay. So, we our our our thing would be to remove forward because it's redundant. Yes. Okay. Now we can move to and Jeremy, are we okay the way that we're handling this? Is it following? I'd recommend just for our benefit just giving us a thumbs up or a thumbs down so we know kind of if there was a majority consensus among the commission. So removing item four measurement of active per removing it removing it is good.

Perfect. Okay. B. Uh the item here is item one which has the condition or that has active paradug habitat less than 1.5 acres in size or that has existing urban level development and the applicant wanted it in there and the city wanted it out. This is current language that the applicant has requested to remove to remove. They want to remove it. Yes.

Okay. So, the question really comes down to the urban level development whether we want to keep that in there or remove it like the applicant would like to see. Vice Chair Earl. So, I I'm not actually going to answer your question, Chair, and I apologize. Um I'm reading this as two different things in here. So there is the active prairie dog habitat less than 1.5 acres in size as kind of the first part that the applicant has proposed striking and then the second part is the urban level development. I'm a little confused why the applicant is proposing that first part of active prairie dog habitat less than 1.5 acres in size. That was because I wrote this really badly and we actually clarified in our revised version here, which happened after the red lines, that we do mean prairie dog habitat, not necessarily the parcel size, which is kind of how it um reads currently.

So, so the applicant suggestion is basically we start out with a person seeking to destroy prairie dogs on property less than 1.5 acres in size or the active prairie dog habitat is less than 1.5 acres. Yes. You like that part or you're good with that part staying in there? Yes. Uh I'd like it to just say um prairie dogs on a property that has active prairie dog habitat less than 1.5 acres in size and then just remove the urban level development side and active prairie dog habitat is defined you know elsewhere. Okay. It's really just removing the urban level part here. Uh Commissioner Wing.

Okay. So my understanding of striking out the existing urban level development is to close the loophole that they've seen especially with that one outlier case right. Um however if we did well going back to the whole I mean that loophole could have been closed if you actually define how big of a uh area that prairie dog colony was. Right. So this this is I feel like this is like an overkill trying to like kill everything trying to catch that one extreme outlier.

Yeah, it's a little different because if they have any urban level development at all as the case of the HOA as well um because it was an outlot even though there were three acres of prairie dogs with 100 prairie dogs we were able to move. um they still went under a minor permit which again the intention of a minor permit is when somebody has one to two prairie dogs um not a hundred of them just because it's an outlot on the edge of a neighborhood they're still you know trying to exterminate 100 animals so I don't think the urban level development should really matter it's just how many are there um so it's not really like even with the best polygon language the current languages if they have even a bench built if they're just an outlot. Doesn't matter how big that polygon is, doesn't matter how small that polygon is.

I see. Okay. Thank you,

Commissioner Jordan. This a question for you, Zach. Um, what if I I have a small house on a 40 acre plot and I have a 5 acre prairie dog colony, but I really just need to clear out some prairie dogs like next to a shed for to clear an air an area for a shed. Uh, maybe it's 100 foot square foot shed in my backyard. Am I going to fall under this? Uh, let's say we remove this urban level development thing. I assume I would have to permit as if I was removing the entire colony and not just reducing its size in one specific area. I mean, do we differentiate? So, a couple of things. One, I don't believe this hypothetical exists in the city.

That's fair. Two, what I would recommend in this situation is passive relocation where the prairie dogs are, you know, just moved using fencing and pivot fences and things like that out to the area that, you know, the rest of them are, you know, in their habitat. and then you can do the project that you want to do. There's there's other solutions is my point.

Well, I'm I'm I I grant I I I got that. But what I'm trying to understand is what is required? Uh you know, what either could the property owner get away with in a way that we we feel is not to the spirit of things. If we remove this, I assume that it would be very black and white if we remove the urban development piece. It would hey, you know, you're going to we're going to be talking with Zach and looking at passive relocation options. But if we don't, I can say, "Well, look, I fall under this minor thing. I'm just going to go with a minor thing and do it my way." Is that the idea? In the spirit of your question, that property, if the house has a CEO, would be eligible for urban level development. Okay.

And and, you know, getting a minor permit for the work they want to do, even if that habitat area exceeds one and a half acres. And and we don't diff just like we don't differentiate between let's just call it pest control versus development. We are also not differentiating between reduction in size of the colony versus elimination in the code today. We don't differentiate between those two. Correct. Okay. Thank you Zach. Uh the way I read this is with the clause or that has existing urban level development shall be eligible for by saying that it's eligible for it doesn't mean that it's automatically approved. Correct.

It still goes through the review process and you know we we determine that their application presents the most correct information. Right. But what I'm trying to get at is let's say in in the case of MLAN they were eligible

to have the minor but it doesn't mean you have to grant the minor. Correct. You can look at it as a city. Once again, this is getting to does the city have latitude to approve or not approve. In that case, the latitude that I use when I do these evaluations is, you know, doesn't meet the standard, is the delineation correct? If all of these standards described in 7060 for a minor permit are met, they are granted their minor permit. giving me pause to think on this one. Um because I can understand that on a site that does have development that there should be a little more leeway. Um, but then I can I can understand the argument that it shouldn't automatically be granted. Vice Chair Earl,

thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just want to follow on your I guess discomfort with this um kind of binary here. Effectively what I am interpreting where some of your discomfort's coming from is you know those outlier cases where it is you know a small portion developed and yet because it has any development it falls into the binary of developed. I almost wonder if there's a you know there there is a threshold where it's a certain percentage is developed or something like that. I do not know what that percentage is. I don't pretend that we can figure that out while we're sitting here, but I I I do wonder about that kind of a distinction um as kind of a future followup to to make that a little bit clearer because I I understand the value of the urban level development exemption in theory. I also understand the risk of how it's written right now. Um and I don't know that we're going to solve that sitting here tonight.

I can agree with that. I I tend to say leave it in and knowing that there's going to be a future discussion about it. I don't know, maybe people leave it in or do people favor removing it with the ability to put it in later. Commissioner Jordan, sorry I'm taking up a lot of time on the mic tonight. I I want to go back to that original question. We talked about the kind of the open air opener here, what the intent is. And this is about trying to incentivize interventions that would be less cruel or whatever, more more um relocations, less exterminations. I think leaving it in makes it a really weak code. If if if we're saying, "Hey, look, it's a small colony. We can use intervention A versus a big colony's intervention B." then to me if the intent of the code is humanitarian then it shouldn't matter about the development there. That's kind of my opinion there. I think that when we talk about incentives that might hurt people's desire to develop the land or pass on costs for this to either the property owner or the the business, you know, people who would frequent that business. think I'm going to probably have more opinion on the fines and the structure and the incentive later on in here, but I think that as good code, it's like what's the point of having this code if we're going to give people a pass if they have 40 acres and they have a shack. That's kind of my thought. I I would I would like to I think it makes sense to remove the existing urban development clause as as uh the applicant would like in this case.

Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you, Chair. Uh, so we kept in uh let's see, we kept in the urban level development means portion of 7.06.020. Is that correct? So then the next mention of urban level development is going to be on C. Correct.

Okay. So I just want to keep in mind that if we take out the second one and we take out the third one then do we need urban level development means? We'll get to that if we do remove them.

Part of me doesn't mind keeping it in but we can discuss that if we do remove them. Okay. So I think what we are getting to is on 706050B keeping in or that has acted dog habitat less than 5 1.5 acres in size but removing or that has existing urban developments. I suggest you do those separately just because they're complicated. So you get a thumbs up thumbs down on those separately.

Okay. So the first clause or that has active prairie dog habitat less than 1.5 acres in size. Do we want to keep that in? We have consensus on that. The next one, the next clause or that has existing urbal urban level developments. Do we want to remove that like the applicant has asked or keep it in? I'm going to say thumbs up if you want to keep it in. Thumbs down if you want to remove it.

I don't have a thumb on this. I Well, that's 33 is So, so wait, but this is just a recommendation going to city council. So, can it reflect to the city council that we can't come to consensus on that item? It absolutely can. Let's we're coming to a consensus to the city council that that one particular clause is we'll leave it to you guys. Oh yeah. Yeah. Look, that's part of the reason why I'm here. It's to reflect the overall recommendation and you know other areas of discussion.

Okay. Very good. Okay. We're done with 70605 OB. The next one we get to is 705 oh 7060 C item one which is attempt to relocate and there we have our favorite term or that does not have existing urban level development. So this is for a major permit. If I could jump in for a moment, chair, I think if the commission can't come to consensus on B1, similarly, we would not come to consensus on C1 because

it's the convicts. Yes. So, not to move it along, but maybe you want to. Commissioner Earl would like to has a comment. Sorry, Jeremy. I want to make sure I'm reading this sentence right. So, this is if you're seeking to destroy prairie dogs, if the habitat is greater than 1.5 paces, we get that. We're all good with that. You have to follow this. or if the site does not have an existing urban level development, which would imply that if the site is undeveloped, Greenfield Greenfield, the habitat is any size, you have to relocate first. And so I actually think those are not the same

issue. And so I think you could have a concept here. And I'm sorry, Jeremy, because I appreciate what you were trying to do, but I I I think that they're they are not linked and they're they are divorced from each other. I don't necessarily have an opinion on what to do with it, but I do think it's worth discussing. Okay. Do we have any comments on that? I'm rereading this now.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um so council member Popkins the thought process here is um this is an attempt to relocate under the major permit. Um so it is the way I'm reading this is there's two criteria that can be met and it's an or not an and. So either the prairie dog habitat is large it's greater than 1.5 or it's a green field site with no development. And so the ore there means you could have a tiny prairie dog habitat on a green field site and you still have to meet the intent to relocate um based on how it's define based on what's in the code right now.

Hi again. Um I think because if there wasn't over 1.5 acres it would just fall under a minor permit anyway. Um, that's what I was trying to look at and see how that tied in. Um, oh, I see what you mean. Yeah. So, you can't have a major if it's under 1.5 acres. So, then we that's why that's why we can strike it because it would not happen. Yes. Agreement. Agreement. Yes.

Okay. We're in agreement for that. in agreement that we understand 1.5 acres means greater. That's what we're agreeing or are we agreeing to the urban level development? We're we're agreeing to strike the clause or that does not have existing urban level development because to get a major it has to be 1.5. Thank you. So we can Oh boy. That's the second urban level devel. Okay. But we disagreed on the first but we disagreed on the first. We didn't strike it, so we're keeping it in. I shouldn't even vote on this one cuz I didn't vote on Well, but but this one's to me. This one this one makes sense because it can't happen. Yes.

Because of the definitions. Okay. Okay. No, we're it's getting removed because you cannot have the urban level development if it's under 1.5 because if it's under 1.5, you're going to get the minor. But then that's consensus on B1. No, because the existing urban level development is what triggers regardless of size currently. So if there's existing urban level development, it's automatically a minor permit regardless if it's 10 acres. We could not come to a consensus on that.

But if if you remove it here, then you wouldn't have Then anything 1.5 acres or greater would necessarily have to be a major even if it had existing urban level development. Yes. Two sides of the same. Can you do a rev? On which one? This one. This C. Okay. We're still discussing C. I apologize. I opened this up. I apologize, Commissioner Forbes.

No, that was like that's what we were discussing was essentially the question I was having. But I to so what we're what we're saying right now is that we need um the o the urban development in 050 to say or that has existing urban level of development there to for in C in part B for part C to say greater than 1.5 or urban level development or or even to remove there. I just want to Okay. So, they it sounds like we were wrong. They are conditional on each other is what is what I'm understanding.

Thank you, chair. Um I kind of view these as two sides of the same. Uh now Jeremy uh maybe you could shed some light on this because I don't know like when I'm visualizing it as a decision tree. Do you have to basically is it is it a decision tree that we look at some criteria and then you here's the major here's the minor and you're in one of those two buckets or is it more like if you're looking at minor code it has to give you all the definition of what would throw you in minor and then if you're looking at major it has to give you the reverse of that uh to make sure that you fall s clearly into either bucket no matter which part of the code you're looking at. So in in my mind based on the code and and Zach can certainly correct me if I'm misinterpreting but when an application comes in and you're determining if it's minor or major staff has asked make two qu answer two questions. So first what is the size of the active burrow habitat? Actually I would probably do it flipped. I would say is there existing urban development? If the answer is yes then it goes to minor. If the answer is no, then it goes down to the the size question. Is it less than one and a half acres or is it more than one and a half acres? If it's less than one and a half acres, it goes minor. If it's greater, it goes major. But you need you need the or if the commission is not willing to get rid of the existing urban level development question, then you need it in both sections for it to apply. Because if you removed it from C1, C1 would say anything greater than one and a half acres is a major development permit period without any exception for urban existing urban um level development. So if you get rid of it here, it nullifies your lack of consensus on B1.

All right. That that's that's what I was curious about. So my thought is is it it it just shares the same fate and we could probably move on. We don't have

Okay. So, I guess what we're going to do is let city council know on that one that that one's up for you guys to hash out. Um, next C2. Upon verification that a prairie dog relocation site is available, a relocation application to that site is required. before an extermination permit is issued. So upon verification that a prairie dog relocation site is available, what they're asking for is to say that a relocation application to that site is required. So they find out, so I guess if I remember right, the cause is they say, "Oh, there's a relocation site." But before they get the application, they do the extermination. And so the applicant is saying if they get the relocation, they have to get the application done before the extermination permit is issued to catch that loophole is what they're looking for. And Zach, why did the city believe that that wasn't necessary?

I'll just share that we already do this as part of our standard procedure. Okay. So, what you're saying is that before extermination, you make sure that whether or not the if they applied to have them moved that there is an application for it before you go ahead and say, "Oh, okay." But we're going to issue a thing that says it's okay to exterminate now. Correct. and that's outlined in the major permit process. Commissioner Forbes, thank you, Chair. Uh, how Zach or um how much does it cost the developer to do relocation?

Nope.

Turn on It's expensive. Um, and it depends. If you're going to PBLO where you're not having to dig burrows and they're putting the prairie dogs in empty burrows down there, it's far less expensive. If you're going to Rocky Flats, we have to actually dig trenches and put in nest boxes. So, in a situation like Rocky Flats, it could cost you, depending on the size obviously, $60 to $100,000, possibly. Um, I would say on the low end, $30,000 maybe. And of course, this is all depends upon the size, so I'm just kind of throwing these numbers out without knowing the acreage of it. But does that answer your question? that that helps the so essentially what this clause would do I mean it's one it's already part of the city process but it codifies that it's saying they have to relocate they can't exterminate that's that's it that's um that's what the the developer has to do

correct if there's a a site available they have to apply if it's accepted there's a possibility it won't be accepted because part of this process too isn't just like an we use the word application to PBLO or to Rocky Flats because those are government entities but if it's a a private land owner say I have land and I want to offer it up for these prairie dogs the application is in fact to Colorado Parks and Wildlife um to see if they would approve that relocation. I don't know if I'm muddying the waters here again or if that clarifies things.

I'll clarify as well again that that documentation is required as part of the application. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um Zach, so you said that the section that is in red right now is you're already doing. Is there any reason why um the city's resistant to have it codified? I wouldn't say I'm particularly strong on this one. I think that if the council directs us to make the change, then I understand where it's coming from. But again, we already do this in process. Okay. So, it should be kind of blue then instead of red. Blue is for fees.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Again, I this is one I don't feel particularly strongly on either way since we already do it. Um, you know, I didn't feel it was necessary to make the change and that's the full extent of why it's read. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the explanation. So, do we have any feeling to go ahead and put that in because Yes. Okay. We're saying to put in the clause upon ver not the clause, the sentence upon verification. Yes.

Very good. Now it looks like we go down to item D which is highlight or the D is in red but there's nothing redlined. That's just a consequence of adding new sections above format formatting. Oh the formatting. So we don't have to worry about DE unless you really want to. No.

Okay. Next. Section 706070 noticed by land over owner of prairie dog management. This looks like it's a new section being proposed. Oh no, there was a section no landowner shall allow and then they want to add the all approved. So let's take the first part which is what's currently in there is no land owner shall allow the extermination of prairie dogs without posting notice on the property uh in a form approved by the director for at least 14 days prior. If the property owner uses only humane methods to exterminate prior dogs as approved by the director of natural resources, no notice is required. So I guess the I the issue is that clause as approved by the director and natural resources manager no notice is required. Um so let's take that at first because I think the two can be handled separately. So, do is there an out if they use a humane method for extermination is the question before us or do we want to even if they're going to use a humane method to require a notice? Commissioner Edgely Wells,

does the beginning of section 7.06.07 070 supersede both minor and major permitting. This is asking there's no notice required um if you read it in bulk for extermination. No notice is requ as approved by the director and natural resources manager. No notice required. So in a minor case right there is no am I correct on that? There there are cases in minor where you don't have to notify and you can exterminate in minor

the for minor or major all of the cases if they use a city approved and humane method notification is not necessary under this current section. So both so this applies to both. I just wanted to make sure as far as posting signs on the property. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understand that correct correctly because to me I didn't understand that. Thank you. Do we have any other comments? Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Zach, I just want to clarify because um this is wrapped up in this. Right now, there's no requirement to post signs on the property no matter what. Is that correct? That is incorrect.

Okay. When is there a current requirement? Signs are posted on the property in the event that an applicant wants to use a method other than a city approved humane method which is carbon monoxide fumigation or passive relocation. So that's in the case of some type of toxicant, you know, something that the the intent is, right? If you are a neighbor and you see a sign posted that someone is using a toxicant to eradicate habitat on their property, that's a good notification if you're like planning on walking your dog by, right? And the purpose is to make you aware in a period of time leading up that you might not want to go by. And so that's minor or major if you're using something toxic you have to post.

Correct. And the proposal here is even if it's humane it has to post. Correct. And it's post a sign not necessarily post on the website. Correct. Is what goes on the website today the same things that get signs or is everything go on the website today? Everything goes on the website. It's the application, the habitat delineation, all of the contact information for the applicant. So, so what we're basically being asked to do, and I'm I'm trying to simplify this down, and please correct me if I'm screwing it up. We're basically saying if it's a humane extermination, the only notice right now is the website. Correct?

And that there should be signs. That's what the applicant is proposing, that there should be signs for humane. Otherwise, it's effectively unchanged for process. Then my only clarifying question is in the existing there's a 14-day in the new there's a 10day is that intentional to actually go down from 14 to 10. Um no that was not intentional. And then um also on the website it says business days and here it says non-b businessiness days. So uh that was an extra thing I wanted to make sure we we're consistent on that too. I'm it's helpful just to understand the difference because trying to read through the code and what's done in practice is a little confusing.

And just a little more context too, the city website is something that people like uh Susan and I do check pretty regularly. Uh we felt that the 10 business days was enough time for us to kind of check and see what's up there. Uh sometimes the website is down though. It was down for close to a year. Correct. Um but yeah, so and in several cases a sign on the property is how residents found out and reached out to us and we didn't know this thing was even happening because the website was down or some other issue. Got it. Thank you,

Zach. What does the current sign say if they have to put it up for inhumane reasons? So, do we have My My question really is, can we use the same sign verbiage whether it's inhumane or humane? Does it basically say there's going to be an extermination going here? For more information, go to the city. Is that basically what the signs are? The signs right now state that, you know, it it doesn't say inhumane, but it does say something to the effect of a toxicant is being used on this site. Okay. So, we would have to come up with new signage in that event.

And who pays for the signage? That is a great question. Right now, I have a bunch of those signs in a cupboard outside my office. Okay. And I've used two of them in the three years that I've managed this program. So, and so my question would be, you've had to use them only twice. My question is, how many times a follow-up question, how many times would you have to use them if we move it to whether it's what inhumane or not? So, how many times would we be putting up signs extra because of this?

Yeah. Again, in 2025, I approved 21 permits. So, 21 times per year. Okay. As a as an estimate. Okay. Thank you. So really the strike through we probably don't need for the first part. No lander shall um if the property owner use it. I mean so we can keep the no landowner part in there. Correct. It's just we're determining if we need to do the if the property owner uses only humane methods.

What are people's feelings? Commissioner Jordan, uh I I guess the the signs that you put up, Zach, are they are they the weatherproof ones? I mean, if if if you're the one putting the sign out, uh are we already following the same sort of signage stuff we do for all the other planning and zoning notifications? It is made of the same material.

Okay. So on that token, I I wouldn't feel the need to like put in a lot of other things if the city is providing the sign and we're using it to sort of standards for all the other things. on the subject of the inhumane needing a humane thing still needing the postage. Um I imagine it would uh I think that the the most teeth this code has is social pressure probably. And so posting a notification that something is about to happen I think is a reasonable thing to do. and I don't think it presents a huge amount of cost to the city. Thank you. Do we have other thoughts people? How are we feeling?

Can I add one quick one? Some of the proposed fees later on could help cover that cost if it is substantial at all. Okay. How are we feeling on this? Uh, Commissioner Boon.

Thank you, Chair. I don't want to come across as a prairie dog hater because I'm not, but I've seen the way commu the community acts towards any kind of development and any kind of change. And I would just caution that if we put up yet more signs that the city is going to get more complaints from people who don't understand what the signs really mean. And putting up signs that um caution against toxic behavior I think is important. But just putting up a sign saying that we're going to try to do something humane with the prairie dogs, I think is going to create a lot of complaints that are probably not warranted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Boon, I think that I think there's a valid point there just given the comments we see for a lot of development applications. Um, I'm wondering about something a little bit in the middle here, which is if it's an inhumane use, you always have to signpost it, which you always have to do today. And if it's a major permit, you always have to sign post it regardless of the method. And so, cuz what I'm understanding from the applicant before is the minor ones are really it's one or two prairie dogs. It's a it's it is it's not really for a massive, you know, it's not a big colony. it is a pest control and I don't like that word in this context but I'm using it because I don't have a better one and I don't necessarily think you need to be signposting everything that is you know a really truly minor pest control but it does make sense to post signs for major even humane in my opinion at least that that would be my suggestion um so that you use that same size criteria to distinguish what should be posted and not

so basically what you would be recommending is after if the property owner uses only humane methods to exterminate prairie dogs and it is a major prairie dog management permit. A major permit and it is minor humane and minor posting. Well, okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. So if the property owner uses only humane methods to exterminate prairie dogs and it is a minor permit then the director of natural resources then no notice is required. Correct. Okay. So just putting a clause in there. That that's my suggestion. Okay.

Yes.

How do people feel Jeremy? We got thumbs up on that. putting in a clause and minor permit. Then the next portion where they're adding post notices, do we need to have that if we're follow because I believe what Zach said is we're following the current posting as we do for development as in this language is taken directly from that. That's correct. So, but so I guess the thing is is this redundant because it we already follow it because it's basically or do we need to have this in there because it's a different section of the code?

I think that we need to have language clarifying exactly how the posting takes place still. Okay. So, keep it we'll keep that other that red part in there. Everybody agree? Yeah.

Yeah. So it mirrors the development on both sides for posting. Are we okay to go on? Okay. Fees. I'm going to say this. For me personally, I'm kind of in the same boat as the development services. I don't know if I how much I really want to get into my personal feelings about recommending these. me personally um the way that they're written and I know that there's updates for this but in the outlined version here so we'll go through this first uh section 706080 fees um at the time of application applicant for a minor shall pay $250 and applicant for major major permit shall apply $1,000 without going into the updates. Are we good with recommending that as a starting point to city council? So really the question is are we okay with with a starting point to the city council? Commissioner Wang.

Thank you. Um I agree with fees. I have a question about the structure of how this is um put into the code. Is it we're hard coding a particular number into the into the code. Is there a way to put it in there saying refer to a fee table and not have it like an actual hard set in there? I mean, I think some of the impact fees are are like hardcoded, but is there a way to put it in there so that it's more flexible as at by discretion of, you know, planning so that you don't have to come back every year to like revisit this and try to update to match curtain conditions? Is there a way to make this more flexible where you could say we do have fees, please refer to this particular table?

Good evening, Commissioner Wang. there. I'd say no. There's no good there's no good way of doing it. Um, at certain times we have fees set by resolution of city council. Certain times are in the development handbook. Sometimes is a development handbook adjusted for inflation tied to the consumer price index. We do it all sorts of different ways and any one of them has pros and cons. Uh, if we set by resolution, there's a good chance we forget to update it. if no one brings it to our attention just because there are so many different resolutions each year. You know, we don't have a set resolution fee schedule citywide each year that's adopted. So, it'd be a matter of do we want it set in the code and then subject to um you know change later on for application fee. And it looks like the applicant does have an inflationary increase for the habitat restoration fee. So, it could be that the application fee is set at a certain number and then we just revisit when that seems like it's too low. Um, that's consistent with how we handle parking enforcement. So, parking enforcement fees are set in code as a certain amount and we'd have to change the code to increase that. Um, so that's not inconsistent with how we do it, but I I don't have a great solution.

Okay. I was just thinking it's kind of clunky to have it hardcoded in and there's no flexibility and because if you want to change it then you have to go through this whole process again right of coming through PNZ then going through council having referral and having all this to say hey you know things have gone up way expensive and we need to like reflect this and you know the I mean we do have a built-in inflation but you know if something does change drastically can we change that I I'd say yes and no. If it's if it's applicant if it's citizen driven,

you know, then if it's a citizen initiated code amendment to increase the application fee, then yes, it would go through the same process. But if staff found that the application fee was insufficient to cover the costs of implementing, staff could always bring it to the attention of either PZ or city council directly to update it. So if if we found that the minor application permit process now costs more than $250 in a year um or 1,000 for major then staff could bring it to the attention of planning and zoning commission recommendation to city council through title 15 processes.

Okay. But if yes, if the citizens wanted to amend it because 250 and 1,000 is too low, then yes, it would go through the same process as now. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to attempt to make one comment only on this entire section on fees um and try to make this as all-encompassing as I can. Um, I am broadly in favor of the structure that the applicant has laid out here. I know we're just focusing on A right now, but I'm just going to make the comment I am broadly in favor of B. Um, as well and the way it's structured there. Council member Popkin, this is mainly a comment for you because I will vote here to include this as is since we have narrowed what a minor permit looks like in the discussion we've had tonight and narrowed the cases in which it actually applies. I I am qu I I'm a little uncomfortable with $250 for a true legitimate minor permit as you know something that's going from free to 250. um if it's something that is, you know, doesn't require a signposting and all those other things we we laid out. That seems like a pretty high burden for someone to put in. Um I don't know what that number should be, but I just want to kind of have that in your radar that that's a comment I would um encourage the council to to think about when you guys when you face this. So that's all from me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And I will add cuz as I read this, there's an intent to offset administrative costs. And I'll agree $250 may be too high as an offset. There's a cost. I don't know if 250 is. Um yeah, Commissioner Boon.

Thank you, Chair. I would agree with Vice Chair Earl's broad recommendation relative to the minor application. Um, development fees are are high and this is just yet another fee and it's another reason why our housing costs keep going up and up and up. So adding yet another fee onto some of these smaller projects is is just another fee that I can't support. But I think the bottom line is that I think this section of the proposal really is a council choice and not a commission choice. I don't think that's really in our purview. So, thank you.

Thank you, chair. I'm going to echo some of the other things, but I just have some notes here. I I I don't I don't really think the way the fees are structured here, I I I kind of disagree. I I I don't I think it's a mess. And the reason why I think it's a mess is because what we've seen today, this code does not differentiate between development and non-development reasons why we might clear prairie dogs. and it doesn't differentiate between clearing them out entirely versus reducing them. And so as a result, it's a really flat fee schedule and it doesn't align to the incentives of Envision Longmont. We want to encourage uh infill development, uh more density. Um and I think that's an area where I would want to see fees reduced or eliminated entirely. And instead we rely on social pressures in the city working with people to find humane outcomes here. uh whereas if someone just doesn't like them but they're not planning to do anything, I see fees as a perfectly reasonable uh situation there. And so I would echo the the comments that I don't really want to weigh in or go line by line. I'm going to abstain from this. I would just ask Matthew and and all that to say, hey, look, I think you should probably look at aligning this towards the incentives and the intent behind the code in the first place because I don't think it's a good alignment right now. Thanks, chair. Um, I would like to acu echo some of what Commissioner Jordan just said. And I also, so looking at the fee structure, just the structure, not even the numbers. I don't see how a developer would come in here and do develop the right way according to this code because whatever happens with their development, they're going to have to

pay fees. And not only are they going to have to pay fees, they may have to pay a fee on top of whatever fee they're going to have to pay to do whatever they're going to do to have to develop the land. So if they want to build, it's essentially they're being punished for wanting to build land where prairie dogs exist and they can't there's no coexisting in that spot. There's no like it'd be one thing if there was like reimbursement for them for relocating the prairie dogs. there being one thing if there was something that helped them to with this entire process that would actually benefit them. But what this is doing is if you are someone if whether it's for housing, whether it's a business, whether it's anything, you're as there's you're putting a lot of barriers in them coming to Longmont and potentially saying, you know what, maybe you should take whatever you're going to do someplace else. um which again goes against like the in the goal of our comprehensive plan and um I think there is a way to do this do this so it's incentivizing and not punishing the other thing I constantly am thinking about through all of this too I don't think there's anywhere in our code where there's staff that would go through look investigate the entire property or there's groups outside groups that go anywhere in into a property and look at all of the unhoused and say hey there's a development coming let's put you into a safe place and make sure you're in a

safe place and I am more concerned about that habitat and the fact that that is a as well a missing habitat and as I know this decision probably is going to end up going to council um for them to decide. I just wanted to say all of that so that gets thrown into the notes as well. Thank you.

Thank you chair. I just want to um point of clarification. So, um, on the application fee, A, at the time of application, an applicant for a minor prairie dog management permit shall pay an application process fee of $250. The last line that has the striketh through is there is no application fee for a minor prairie dog management permit. So, it's built in here that the minor uh, permitting can right if we were to That's right. It is today. It is right. That's what it is today. Okay. Okay. Thank you,

Zach. What does it take to offset the administrative costs? Because I think the question I have is do we do it on a case-byase basis or do we and this is a question for I guess that if we want to recommend this to city council. Do we want to recommend that the city has a a fee so that a person requesting this knows what that fee is going into it and that we have a stated amount to cover the costs. And there's an amount for minor and there's a amount for a major. And I can say it doesn't really probably matter how big the major is or how big the minor is. A minor is a certain amount. A major is a certain amount. I don't mind the designation between the two. It seems to me that they are trying to ask for something written down so that it is known what that fee is going in. Chair Pollen, just to answer your question, the I don't have the answer to that question off the top of my head. Um, that would take additional staff research to determine what that administrative cost breakdown looks like, and that's not information that I have.

Okay. I'm okay with having a fee for minor. I'm okay for having a fee for major. And I will leave it to city council and maybe somebody preparing something for city council for what those amounts should be. Um I'm okay with that. The habitat restoration fee, I'm kind of in the same thing. That's already in there for a major that there is supposedly a charge. Is that correct, Zach? So I'm talking for B. It's just it's not stated how you come about determining what that cost is.

I don't know if 1750 per acre is the amount I would want to charge because once again oh just chair real quick. I just wanted to interject. It might help clarify. Um there are existing application fees. It's just not clearly shown here. Um, I think the uh the the proposed language somewhat overwrote uh the existing. So the application fee for essentially a major is $500 currently. Okay.

So as you noted, this would split it out into two different categories rather than only having it for major. Um and then there is a $1,200 per acre fee for the next section in terms of habitat restoration. So it's a it's a little hard to see in the the red line, but just for for Okay. But we do have 1,200 already per acre for only for major. Yes. So the question is um so for the application fee. Oh yes. Um yes um it's only for majors. Um but it's usually waved because of section C in that um well we'll get to section C. We'll get to that one but yes.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So, let's go a thumbs up or thumbs down. Thumbs up. Thumbs down for the application fee. Do we want to add and and I'm I'm going to leave this as do we want to add the fact that there's going to be a fee for minors as well as majors. And then it's up at some point down for somebody else to determine what that value is. or it is 500 currently for major and no minor. Correct.

That is correct for the application fee. So is our recommendation to city council to add in a minor fee and us we're recommending a a bump up in the major fee. That's what we're being kind of asked to do here. Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you, Chair. If our goal is to um still keep in mind land development as the goal, I just want to highlight that like are we further putting fees and disincentivizing land development is how the context we're viewing this in. I hope right

I hope

it is but we're also I I I guess my I want to make sure and I guess I don't know if it matters so much for minor but for major just that we're covering the administrative costs and if and I actually I'm pretty fine that if city staff feels that 500 is covering the costs then I'm okay with this especially with the application fee. I don't want this to be punitive, but I do want it to cover the costs is where I'm going with a Councilman Popkin. Thank you, Chair. Just in response uh not in response to but just uh slightly uh clarifying um kind of what maybe the commission's purview is. Um building off of Commissioner Edgely Wells, I'll just read directly from our municipal code here. The purpose of the planning zoning commission shall be to review and advise the city council on all public and private activities involving the physical, social and economic development of the city. So um whether you define that as purely land use um I I would say that the planning and zoning commission has somewhat of a broad purview to consider land use considerations as well as other factors that are that influence the physical, social and economic development of the city on matters concerning long range planning. um and on matters that affect the orderly development of the city. So, just wanted to clarify that for the commission's edification.

Thank you. And and it's okay if we come to the point that we're like, you know what, we're okay with not doing a up or down on any of this. If we're kind of like, okay, we'll leave them leave it up to city council to determine. I'm okay with that as a option. So, for the application fee, so we have three things. Yes, we want to go to 250. We're going to recommend going to 250 for minor, 1,000 for major, indicating that we feel that they should be kind of bumped up. No, we feel that the current 500 for major, zero for minor is okay, or a e, we'll leave that for them and we really don't have a horse in this race.

Please make that sound. Eh, so what's your Is this your hand signal? Yeah. For so thoughts. Let's Let's What everybody's kind of It looks like Okay, we got that. I got that.

Are we habitat restoration fee? Are we in the same mode here? We have one person who doesn't want it and that they're okay with just 1,200 per acre for major and nothing for minor people. Is does anybody have any feelings up or down or are we neutral? We got one down, one neutral. I'm going to be neutral. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, Vice Chair Earl,

sorry, I'm not up or down or neutral. I have nuance. Um, I I I'm going to be neutral on what the fee should be, but I'm not neutral on closing some of the loopholes that allow it not to be charged. Um, I would like I I would like those loopholes tightened. I don't know if $1,200 is the right amount. I don't know if 1750 is the right amount, but um I would I'd be thumbs up on removing loopholes broadly eh on what the fee should be. So you're you would like to see you don't care about the fees but your A b and c is what you're saying the loopholes broadly. Yes.

Okay. So first let's go with the application fee. I think we're all well the majority is all for saying yeah we don't really want to make a decision on what the amount should be. Let's go to the second portion of B, which is the A, B, and C. If a city approved humane method of extermination is used, the fee is reduced. If the applicant relocates the prairie dogs under a major permit and falls to relocation with fumigation, the fee is reduced. And C, they're asking, so they are asking that if there's a humane method of extermination that the fee is reduced but not waved. Is that kind of correct? Okay. They're asking if the application relocates under a major permit that once again it can be reduced but not waved and that they would like a 2 2.7% each year to match inflation.

Yes, that's correct. And uh again, these numbers uh are my first draft. Even the increase numbers though are less than what Fort Collins charges. Well, yeah. I'm just we're trying to stick with what's in the red line document here.

And so for the second part, would we like to recommend to city council as a question A, B, and C? So first, uh, Commissioner Jordan, on the subject of nuance, um, I am also in favor of closing loopholes. I think that if we if an applicant does the right thing, we especially relocation, we should wave it. Like why are we punishing them on top of the relocation? It just seems crazy to me. So that's why the side thumb. Um I I think again I go back to the nuance of well what the what is it for in the first place? You know, are we encouraging development or we punishing it? And if it is it even for development at all. So that's why I feel like it's just too much nuance here for me to give a

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you, chair. Um Jeremy, didn't So, I'm referring back to a previous comment that was made on um creating a chart for fees, an increase of fees. uh didn't we sort of essentially uh take out C the these fees will increase 2.7% each because we're not stating an exact number of increase and more so making it like are you we didn't we didn't vote on taking it out but it was discussed that if we're not going to put a concrete number on the increase that there should not be a chart. So therefore, shouldn't the 2.7 not be in there? And should it say something more like subject to change upon review?

We we we do kind of a combination of either throughout the code. So some are tied to consumer price index charts. I don't know if we have a flat percentage each year anywhere in the code, I will say. So, normally we we'd say either until revised by city council by resolution like the fee the fee sets at this number until revised or the fee is set by city council and then adjusted each year consistent with something uh normally a consumer price index. I'm assuming there's no consumer price index for prairie dog extermination restoration. So, that one's a little tough. So I I probably would just recommend having it set at a certain amount per acre and not have adjust for inflation until such time we feel it needs to be adjusted for inflation. Um

so you would recommend not having C in this regards. I would I wouldn't like Cy

but that's my my personal recommendation is not a legal right issue. So in front of us we were we're not going to make comments about what it should be charged. They have recommended that to encourage humane ways that if they do a humane way of extermination to give a discount. That's what A and B are about. So are we okay with saying A and B? Yes. No. We don't care. You don't care because you don't want it in the first place. I don't care. I'm mad because there's not enough nuance.

Right. Okay. I'm going to say this. If if if with having this fee encouraging encouraging humane ways by reducing fees, I can get behind that. Once again, I'm not going to say what those fees should be, but okay. Hey, I can I can get behind because we're encouraging them to do it a humane way. What other people's feelings and Commissioner Boone?

Well, we have to keep in mind that the developers are paying huge amounts of money. um which they are we haven't gotten to how they don't pay money yet. What we're talking about is because they are paying a fee right now. They are paying a fee right now and they're paying huge amounts of money to relocate or to but what this is saying is you're being charged the fee

and what A and B are saying is if you do it humanely it won't be as much. Now, I can get behind the fact that if you don't think there should be a fee, you can vote down on that or you can be ambivalent about A and B if you don't believe that there should be a fee in the first place. Okay, then you are saying ambivalent. I'm okay. So Jeremy, we had four people who were like less encouraging and then the other part is ambivalent and there's different reasons varying reasons for that. Is that okay? It's going to be

it's going to be. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Let's move then. And then we don't feel that we should have a C because that's for and that's really for somebody. I'm really ambivalent about that. But yeah. Okay. I think we're good with C. We don't like it because somebody else didn't like it, but it's not a big heartburn for us. C is I think the next thing because C is a capital C, big C, big C. The big C. Um because that can be viewed as a loophole. Yes.

So people's thoughts on that. So basically, if I do a quick read on this, they can wave the restoration fee, which is B, if the director and natural resources manager agree that the landowner could have done it humanely, but chose to do it humanely. Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, because we just 42 meh said little A and little B we like, doesn't that by definition mean we've established that big C is effectively not valid anymore because we've suggested a replacement? So I don't know that we need to take a unique vote on it.

Uh actually I think and correct me if I'm wrong C capital C gives them the right to remove the capital B. Zach, I would agree. That's typically what happens on the majority of applications now. Okay. Is that that restoration fee is waved in lie of using a humane method

and and what we're I think what was recommended and what we're kind of loosely in agreement with is we don't want to see the ability to strike it all, but we're all for giving a discount. So, it's kind of like a median in that regards. Um, Vice Chair Earl,

I'll be super brief. Yes, that that was my interpretation as well that we we we wanted the discount. We did not want the ability to wave entirely, but we want to provide incentives for somebody to do the right thing. That's the way I read it. So for C, discount or sorry, wave or no wave. Which one? What is what

up means you want to approve removing C. So no wave. We have a consensus on the on removing C. And then finally, oh my gosh, D, which I think goes out of the way because it says unless the fee is waved as described in section C above that applicant shall pay. Oh, no, sorry. It's not it's it's still there. I it it it's there's we remove the unless the wave is described in C and actually D becomes C.

Yes. And it should just start off with the applicant, capital T. Correct. So the applicant shall pay the fee to the city upon taking action authorized by the permit. Yep. And the next sentence, too. Yeah. Yeah. Are we good with that? That Yeah. Okay. Removing the first part. Yeah. We're removing the first part and keeping this the second sentence on. Yeah.

Okay. We're good with that. And that takes us through the red line document. Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, everybody. Um, Jeremy, I have no clue how to wrap this up into a PCR. I'd like to make a motion that we just make the recommendations that we talked about through the highly official thumbs up, thumbs down meh discussion process and that you no doubt have documented. How would you suggest we make that motion? So, assuming this is all the commission was planning on taking up and there's no outliers, anything else to address, uh, which it looks like there isn't, then I would just say, um, a motion to adopt PZRA as modified as discussed during the meeting.

Cool. So, I would move that we adopt PCR 20265A, a resolution of the planning and zoning commission recommending approval of the citizen initiated request to amend LMC 7.06. Um, and we're giving the chair authority to sign a version that has been modified per the discussion in this meeting. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I second.

Okay, we have a second by Commissioner Forbes. Any other discussion? I'm gonna Oh, I need to put you on so I can take you off. Let me There we go. Okay. Any other discussion? Seeing no discussion, let's call for a vote. Commissioner Edgely Wells, yes. Commissioner Wang. Hi. Vice Chair Earl. Hi. Chair Poland. Yes. Commissioner Forbes. Hi. Commissioner Boon. Yes. Commissioner Jordan. Yes.

Chair, that passes unanimously. 7 to zero.

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. Thank you, Zach. Thank you. I'm trying to find my names here. Um, Susan and Jamie and the rest of you. Okay, that takes us through the public hearing items. Uh, we do have final p public invited to be heard. Uh, I believe there's nobody who was signed up for it. Uh, uh, people in the audience are invited up. You get five minutes to speak about something we did not speak about today. Seeing nobody come up, I'll go ahead and close. In public invited to be final call, public invited to be heard. Items from the commission. Items from Contel. Representative Popkin. Um I have very little here. I just wanted to say um first it's very rare that we have applicants who are citizens and like have led this. And so just thank you for not only uh coming tonight but actually like driving this process and and stepping up and and putting in the time and effort um and possibly money. I don't know exactly what went into it. I think money as well um that went into this. So so thanks for thanks for doing that. Thank you. Um I can genuinely like everyone in this room I believe are residents of the city and so I just wanted to basically acknowledge that. Um unless you're happen to be a guest supporting this effort. So, so thank you to to everyone involved in that. Thank you to the commission. This is your second and actually longer meeting of the month. Um, I appreciate that um very much. Thank you to staff likewise. Um, especially for those who were uh double booked in the last two the last two Wednesdays um for these items. Um, I hope everyone has a good

night. Thank you. Items from planning director Grant Penland. I will be super brief. Uh just a quick reminder, I think we are intending to have two meetings in May as well. Um again, annation concept plan amendment on the 20th likely and then uh looking at a variance and potentially uh bike parking discussion May 27th, but that is still TBD. I won't go out into June just because again we're not there yet. That's all I have. Thank you very much. We are in adjournment.