[1:05] Good evening, everyone. I hereby call to order the August 24th, 206-level and planning commission meeting. Citizens that would like to make a public comment, may do so by calling 1-669-9060-6833-0. When prompted and are meeting ID-928-813-06479 followed by the pound sign.

[1:30] Press Pound when asked for the participant ID, you will be muted until it is time for public comment.

[1:37] Citizens are encouraged to watch via Comcast Channel 16-880,

[1:42] Post TV Channel 16 or online at www.lovgov.org slash TV.

[1:49] You may access a agenda material for this hearing this meeting.

[1:54] Along with instructions for public comment at www.cityofloven.org

[1:59] and by selecting services, development services, current planning, and finally public hearings.

[2:06] We will now rise for the political legions. Please do so if you're able.

[2:27] Thank you.

[2:29] We are now going to do a roll call by name Lisa.

[2:35] Commissioner Dewey.

[2:36] Here?

[2:37] Fisher?

[2:38] Here.

[2:39] Long.

[2:39] Here.

[2:40] Warnock?

[2:41] Here.

[2:41] Herrera,

[2:44] Powell,

[2:47] Shewitt.

[2:48] Here.

[2:50] Great.

[2:51] Thank you.

[2:53] Now is the time for citizen reports.

[2:56] This is time for citizens to address the commission on matters not on the published agenda.

[3:00] Any participant would like to speak regarding citizen reports press star nine on your phone to alert the moderator.

[3:07] Citizens will be asked to state their name and address before giving comment.

[3:11] Please be clearly a moment in your comment to approximately three minutes.

[3:15] Comanche comments should address planning or land use matters.

[3:19] Commissioners are under no obligation to respond to questions.

[3:23] Is there anyone in chambers?

[3:29] I would say so.

[3:33] Mr. Barrett.

[3:39] Well, good evening.

[3:40] Commissioners.

[3:41] My name's Darren Barrett.

[3:42] Long time.

[3:42] I want to talk to you this evening about planning item PZ26-0080 and PZ26-008-8.

[3:57] The first one is social cannabis at 2707 West Eisenhower.

[4:04] The next one is a place called Kind Care, which is listed as being at the corner of Eisenhower

[4:10] North Wilson Boulevard. If you guys recall, I was here at the planning mission, planning meeting on June 22nd,

[4:20] and talked to you about a serious disconnection between the planning commission, these development plans for retail marijuana businesses,

[4:28] and the administration in terms of granting licenses. That disconnect is still here in it is gotten worse,

[4:36] as far as I'm concerned.

[4:38] Now then, the following day from that planning meeting,

[4:42] this marijuana dispensary had an update.

[4:46] On June 23rd, they updated it.

[4:49] They're still going, they submitted more plans,

[4:52] they're still going, but they haven't gotten their license yet.

[4:55] And the other one, kind of care,

[4:58] is only about 100 yards away from the 2707 West Location.

[5:05] They haven't gone through their licensing procedure yet either, but they still continue with permitting and as it was explained

[5:12] There's no reason why the city can't continue with their permitting processes, but that doesn't seem to be very fair to the public

[5:18] And I think to the people that are seeking those applications. I assume that the applicants are paying fees to submit their drawings and whatnot in the year for and therefore

[5:28] But if I was doing this I wouldn't want to continue doing that if I wasn't known

[5:33] going to be a race to get to license. I don't think that's very fair. Once again we have these

[5:39] two competing businesses, prepares marijuana shops that don't meet the city ordinances that are

[5:45] in my neighborhood. To this day there's been no public notices posted. I have not received a letter

[5:52] in the mail. There's nothing about a neighborhood meeting. Is it the intention of the city to wait

[5:57] tell one of these places gets their license and then have a meeting about the location.

[6:04] I don't quite understand what the process is. Once again, there's a serious disconnection

[6:08] going on. Another problem is this kind of care upon their update on June 25th, two days

[6:16] before their competitor. That's 100 yards away. They've listed their address at the corner

[6:21] of Eisenhower and North Wilson. That's not really an address. That's just a general

[6:27] location. That area is actually the parking lot for Jack Sir plus. Now I've talked to the owner of Jack Sir plus and he was not aware that this business was going to apply for a mirror law one a license either. So once again, this disconnect continues and continues to be a problem. Thank you.

[6:44] Thank you Mr. Barrett. Mr. Bliss would you like to address that or wait till your update.

[6:55] Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, I'm happy to do whatever you would like me to.

[6:59] If you'd like to respond now, I can certainly do so.

[7:02] Yes, I think so, please.

[7:03] OK.

[7:04] Thank you.

[7:06] Yes.

[7:06] Well, in regards to Mr. Barrett's comments,

[7:11] first I'll say that the license process in order to obtain a license.

[7:18] There are certain criteria that have to be met before you can go before the authority in which to seek that license.

[7:24] Once one is, you must present to them basically your zoning approval and that.

[7:30] That is what we're considering an adaptable use application. So even though we do have various marijuana retail users that are within a mild distance, a part of one another, vying for a particular position, we do remind them when they do come through the door and are paying their application fees and things like that.

[7:56] there, that there are other applicants that are seeking that same approval.

[8:03] We are not regulating how they schedule or get before the authority to determine whether

[8:10] or not they get awarded a license.

[8:12] We are simply processing their adaptable use application, making them aware of the fact that

[8:18] all the fees that you're paying for this, maybe for not, because you may not end up getting

[8:24] a license.

[8:24] that's really the point of it. If we do have a marijuana business that is been licensed,

[8:33] they've gotten their approval from the authority, and we are processing an adaptable use that is

[8:39] less than a mile away, and the applicant wishes to continue to proceed. They are alerted to the fact

[8:47] that we will not be able to recommend approval of their application. And so they would have the

[8:54] opportunity to take their chances through an appeal or simply just with draw their application.

[9:01] But we are, you know, like I said, treating everyone the same and we do anticipate that there will be a number of marijuana retailers that unfortunately will not be able to secure a license because they are competing within that one mile distance from one another.

[9:19] Thank you and we're actually going to move on to current planning updates with Troy Bliss.

[9:25] Oh.

[9:27] I'm sorry.

[9:29] Oh, I'm sorry.

[9:30] Oh, please come up, Cindy.

[9:31] I'm sorry.

[9:36] Violet.

[9:37] Cindy Van Slamberg, Levelin.

[9:39] I wanted to speak to on Wednesday, city council approved on first reading a sweeping set of amendments

[9:50] to the UDC. Among the changes were ones that you had already approved and most of them had to

[9:59] do with changing some of the rules for the Prop 1-2-3 initiative or the rules so Prop 1-2-3

[10:08] work. I agree with most of them. Within there was a major change to zone uses in the UDC.

[10:20] It was only mentioned on one slide and it was presented as multiplexes and town homes require

[10:30] a neighborhood meeting. Previous to that right now because it hasn't been approved yet on

[10:37] second reading, right now in the R1 neighborhoods,

[10:42] multiplexes are not allowed at all.

[10:46] They, previous, right now, what you have to do to get a multiplex

[10:49] in R1 is you have to apply for zoning application,

[10:54] used to cost a thousand, five hundred, I haven't checked

[10:56] lightly, you have to have a neighborhood meeting,

[11:01] you have to go through planning commission,

[11:03] and then you usually have to go through

[11:05] to see the council meetings, to get that amendment.

[11:09] Now it's just a neighborhood meeting.

[11:11] It was easy to overlook, but I saw it, and I brought up

[11:18] that that major change, land use change,

[11:22] should not have been done without major outreach

[11:25] to the public.

[11:27] On slide five of that presentation,

[11:29] that PowerPoint presentation that Carrie,

[11:31] and Mr. Paulson gave, there were seven bullets on all the outreach that you guys did.

[11:38] It was amazing. I agree. I'm so glad that Aspen Holmes and Mission Holmes were in there.

[11:44] We do need more housing. My neighborhood has great examples.

[11:48] We would like to show it to you.

[11:50] But there was one of those bullets, one that said a neighborhood chat.

[11:55] nowhere in the attachments, or Mrs. Pershet, and Mr. Paulson could say,

[12:03] what were the details of that public chat? That was very vague.

[12:09] We are asking for the neighborhood to be involved before major land uses are brought forward

[12:18] and you know put upon us as single family homeowners.

[12:23] So that's my request.

[12:26] We requested that you pull that part out and go forward City Council with the rest of it.

[12:32] Let us talk.

[12:33] Let us show you what our good examples are in our neighborhood and our bad examples.

[12:39] Listen to us.

[12:39] We'd like to give input.

[12:41] We'd like our opinions.

[12:42] Listen to.

[12:43] Thank you.

[12:45] Thank you, Cindy.

[12:47] And Bob may address this here in a little bit.

[12:50] Thank you.

[12:51] Tammy has something she'd like to say.

[12:54] I just want to follow up with Mr. Barrett,

[12:58] because the last time you were here,

[13:00] I think there was some miscommunication,

[13:02] because you were going to give some information

[13:04] to Lisa Rye,

[13:06] and then I think she didn't have your contact.

[13:09] So I would just ask that you before you leave

[13:11] if you would give her that.

[13:12] I would appreciate that.

[13:20] Mr. Barrett, you did,

[13:22] and that was misplaced.

[13:25] Yes, I do, please.

[13:26] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in chambers? Anyone online?

[13:37] Nobody online. Thank you.

[13:40] We're going to move on to current planning updates with Troy Bliss.

[13:45] Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, just a few quick things to make mention of tonight.

[13:51] We have a couple items that are scheduled for our next meeting, which would be held on September 14.

[13:57] One is just an informational item that will be a presentation from our water and a power group on a

[14:07] development that has been working its way through the Larimer County channels if you will.

[14:17] There are board of county commissioners.

[14:20] I believe just recently held a public hearing on that about a month ago, so our group will

[14:28] be sharing their involvement in that particular project and kind of the status of that.

[14:34] We also will have a public hearing item that concerns the annexation agreement amendment for

[14:42] property this located down south along Highway 287. And then as far as an update to our planning

[14:51] commission openings, the two openings that we have right now, we are working to arrange interviews.

[15:00] With our candidates next Monday. So Lisa and I will be reaching out to them to make sure that that time is available.

[15:08] Madam Chair and Councillor Fram, thank you for your input on your availability. So we will be circling back with you on that. You're shortly. Wonderful.

[15:19] And that's all I have for you this evening.

[15:21] Thank you, Troy. City attorney's office in the updates.

[15:25] Nothing for me this evening.

[15:26] nothing from you.

[15:28] I'm goals and progress report is soon.

[15:32] There's not much, okay?

[15:36] We're going to move on to Commissioner Comments.

[15:38] Does any Commissioner have anything to share?

[15:44] Commissioner Fisher.

[15:45] Yes.

[15:47] I just wanted to address what Ms. Van Slambroke was speaking about,

[15:51] because I did hear that at the city council meeting.

[15:55] So we hear you and thank you for speaking up.

[16:01] Thank you.

[16:04] We are going to move on to approval of the minutes, but we don't have any minutes to approve.

[16:08] The August 10th Planning Commission minutes will be provided with a September 14th meeting agenda packet.

[16:14] And we'll be considered for approval at that meeting.

[16:18] We're going to move on to our regular agenda.

[16:21] And we are ready for an update from Councillor FOM, who is our liaison from City Council.

[16:27] Council.

[16:35] I'm coming up practice.

[16:36] Even the mic like you're ready.

[16:38] It's told, too.

[16:40] The first thing I'll say for the record is if you want me to come here and be able to speak

[16:44] intelligently about items, you can't put Cindy right in front of me because she took

[16:48] half of what I was going to say.

[16:52] So, if you update, I think right now in the city, moving forward, our kind of next, you

[17:00] you want to call it, you know, our home, our next big thing is data centers.

[17:05] And so on September 1st, we're going to have, we're transitioning from the city council

[17:09] from the, the old rule of four, mentality where we're working to work a lot of those issues

[17:17] into work sessions, study sessions.

[17:21] And so on September 1st we'll have that, it'll be right here in the chambers, won't

[17:26] Council of the Dias, so it'll be a big kind of square meeting room down here, so normally

[17:32] a work session won't have public comment. However, this first one, data centers being

[17:37] art are subject to being so heavy, we will have public comment at the beginning of that one.

[17:42] So something that too, for the city to, in the public to get used to this new process,

[17:48] but also don't get too used to it because we're not going to always have public comment

[17:52] Okay.

[17:55] As Ms. Ben Sumbert said, the UDC came up this week and I think 95% of that was well

[18:02] received and moving forward for a lot of different objectives that a lot of groups are trying

[18:08] to put forth and improve the planning and building process. But I think it was also well received

[18:14] that the R1 designation needs some definitions for sure. Multiplex being more clearly defined

[18:21] being one of them and then and then exactly what the teeth of that tattoo that

[18:26] neighborhood meeting is being another I think there does maybe some protection

[18:31] therefore the desire to have less density mixed with frankly the need to have

[18:38] some more density but we need to protect the rights of of all homeowners there so

[18:42] I think I look forward to second rating on that because on first reading it was

[18:48] to one, but unless we see some changes, I don't see that being the same second time around.

[18:57] Data centers,

[19:00] by and large, that's kind of what's going on right now with City Council,

[19:04] with our change with work sessions, with focus on data centers, and I encourage everybody

[19:07] to come on September 1st if you're available or interested in, you know, that conversation.

[19:15] Data center is going to take, it's not going to be done on the first, I think it looks like we're

[19:19] three meetings over just that subject. So it's something that I think is being taken very seriously

[19:26] because there is a lot of concern, but there's a lot of just unknown and unanswered potential

[19:31] there too. So we'll have to see what the experts say. Without any questions you have, I'm here.

[19:39] Wonderful. Thank you, Councillor. And I just want to really thank you for taking a look at the R1 issue

[19:43] before second reading, it's something that should be considered seriously. Does anyone have

[19:49] any questions or comments?

[19:52] Oh, Commissioner Dewey.

[19:54] Thank you, Councillor Promo. Thanks for coming tonight. I was just curious. You feel like they're

[20:00] time on the planning commission prepared you for these difficult issues of city council.

[20:04] Sounds like you're running in the future. I would love that.

[20:08] Absolutely, I mean, it's the same process, I mean, the packet's a little thicker, and the focus is a little more direct button counsel, but you guys are doing, you're doing most of the work that I do, so we appreciate you for sure, and definitely take your recommendation seriously when planning issues move forward to counsel, so thank you for that.

[20:31] Commissioner Fisher. Thank you, Jeff. I'm just wondering when or if a decision has been made on when the

[20:42] City charter committee am I saying that correctly is going to open up. Yeah, thanks for that. There's there's actually that was a bolt that I

[20:51] Completely spaced over there are kind of three we've got the city charter committee

[20:55] We have the ad hoc homeless committee and now we have

[20:58] Moving forward, it hasn't hit second reading up, but we have moved forward the see-fact, the

[21:04] financial committee is putting a team together that'll be four see-fact members, five community

[21:12] at large members to kind of look at our budget, our spending, our ability to bring in revenue

[21:19] and not coming from staff or council down, but from the city suggestions for how we can address

[21:28] the needs of lovelin and the wants and desires.

[21:32] So they're really kind of three going, the homelessness task force or the ad hoc homelessness,

[21:37] community that they have in the meeting, apparently that it sounds from my PCad meeting,

[21:44] it sounds like they are making some progress and being fruitful there, but then we have the

[21:51] search goes on right now for to seat the charter committee and then now the C-FAC one.

[21:56] So, yes, those are our priorities right now before to see how those materialize.

[22:03] Both are important.

[22:05] Thank you.

[22:06] Has there a date?

[22:07] For those?

[22:08] I just...

[22:09] I just...

[22:09] Not that I know, but I'll reach out and I'll...

[22:11] Thanks.

[22:12] Any mail on that.

[22:13] Okay.

[22:15] Great.

[22:16] Any other questions or comments for...

[22:19] Mr. Frum?

[22:20] Thank you for being here.

[22:21] We made it.

[22:22] We made it on.

[22:23] Thank you.

[22:25] We are going to move along to review of the housing

[22:28] policies and initiatives as

[22:30] In relation to the upcoming comprehensive plan update. Mr. Bob Pelson.

[22:48] Thank you very much Madam Chair and Commissioner Sitz. It's a pleasure to be here. I missed coming to the planning commission.

[22:55] Did that for quite a while.

[22:59] That anyways, good to see all of you.

[23:03] I'm going to add on to Councillor Fram's comments about the data center situation.

[23:10] I'm one of the people involved along with our acting deputy city manager, Julia Holland, as well as our director of utilities, giving presentations on that evening.

[23:27] And I'm going to be, you know, this is in a very early stage of looking at data centers, right?

[23:32] If you're looking at social media, the mass media, you're hearing lots and lots about data centers, right?

[23:41] I would say city staff that includes me, we are not experts at this point.

[23:48] We have a lot of information, we've been studying what other communities are doing, good and bad.

[23:55] Our purpose on the first of September is to introduce where we're at currently, the information we have very briefly, indicate as Council from indicated that there's likely to be three study sessions in total relative to this topic, so the community is going to have a lot of opportunity to speak to this, particularly on the first of September.

[24:22] But also, there's going to be information developed over time.

[24:27] It looks like there could likely be a six-month moratorium,

[24:32] and we'll move forward with the idea that we want to have some type of solution,

[24:36] potentially, by that time.

[24:40] So, again, as Councilor Fram has urged you,

[24:44] I'd be great if the Planning Commission members can at least watch that

[24:48] First study session and one of the things that I really want to emphasize to all of you is that you're going to have opportunity to weigh in on this matter as well

[24:59] So after this first study session we will be going back and I will be going back with the economic development office in October latter part of October to give an update relative to the zoning related issues

[25:13] I'm hoping that we can find a slot and I'm going to look at Mr. Bliss on the schedule for the planning commission in the intervening month and a half to come back to the commission and hear from the commission as well as the public that comes to attend the commission meetings about the zoning component of state.

[25:36] You'll hear from me on the first of September, is that our code does address data centers.

[25:43] But it doesn't address them as we have come to know them today, particularly the hypersanners,

[25:50] the very large centers, our code when it was developed and adopted did not contemplate these large facilities.

[25:59] And did not contemplate the impacts that are possible by virtue of water use, electrical use, and so forth.

[26:09] So we're going to look to you to help us with that.

[26:13] And I'm hoping by the time I come back to see you.

[26:16] We'll have some preliminary zoning at least concepts to share and see if the commission would like to weigh in on that.

[26:25] So I just wanted to assure you that you'll have that chance.

[26:29] I'm looking forward to it.

[26:32] And this is going to be a bit of a journey with the city to deal with the data center.

[26:38] Issues very important.

[26:40] We understand that.

[26:41] And there's a good deal of staff work occurring as we speak.

[26:48] So that concludes my final topic of the evening data centers.

[26:54] But one of the things that I've done this evening, and you have a long, you know, and I'm not going to walk through that entire memo.

[27:04] You'll shaking your heads, yes. I understand that. But what I wanted to do is give you a context for the work that we've done, the policies that we've been directed by, and the efforts that have been going on relative to housing.

[27:21] I want to make sure that you understand that we're not talking simply about affordable housing.

[27:27] When I'm going to use that term affordable housing here, it's really deed restricted housing.

[27:35] What is subsidized by the City, Ellison Hayes Office, Community Partnership, works on that with affordable housing commission.

[27:45] The bigger issue is housing more generally.

[27:49] And the issue is, and everyone understands that in this room, I'm certain, is the cost of housing.

[27:57] And particularly since the COVID era, but certainly since the city approved the comprehensive plan back in 2016,

[28:05] the issue of housing affordability has become exceedingly worse for people on the margins,

[28:14] meaning the cost of housing has gone up in this community dramatically.

[28:19] There hasn't been a reciprocal increase in median family income, for example.

[28:25] Our department, as you can see by virtue of this memorandum,

[28:30] has been concerned with this quite for quite some time,

[28:33] as have other city offices, as have had a number of private sector,

[28:39] nonprofit groups, and so forth.

[28:42] There's been a lot of work, a lot of study.

[28:45] I know some of it's been a little bit controversial.

[28:49] We don't have to go into that unless you have questions about it.

[28:53] But I think the bulk of the information is very similar.

[28:57] Like I've said, the cost of housing has gone up quite quickly in loveland and across the front range.

[29:04] And in many communities around the country and most notably Colorado and most notably the front range of Colorado.

[29:10] So we are working as we have been over time to try and address this.

[29:17] The topic that was brought up by Ms. Fan Slambroke this evening relates to that.

[29:23] There has been a series of amendments that have come forward to the Planning Commission that

[29:29] have amended our housing code and our practices and processes relative to housing.

[29:36] I wanted you to see how that all kind of fits together.

[29:42] And if you have questions when I'm done and I don't have a slide presentation clearly,

[29:47] and I'm not going to, like I said, walk through all this,

[29:50] but I wanted you to see the work and the body of work that's been occurring.

[29:55] And then I want to connect it, which I will try and do at the moment.

[30:00] Members to the Comprehensive Plan. And we are looking to take this information and take studies that are still forthcoming and incorporate them into the Comprehensive Plan. We have a budget request that Councillor Fram will be looking at here shortly for the Comprehensive Plan funding.

[30:22] We are at the precipice essentially of that comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2016, becoming outdated, right?

[30:32] And for most of you, you haven't been on the commission long enough to have gone through the process that we went through in 2014-15 and eventually 16.

[30:42] A lot of work was put into the comprehensive plan, but the situation in Loveland and elsewhere was very different.

[30:48] And so typically comprehensive plans and it's a pretty strong guideline across the country

[30:55] that comprehensive plans are reviewed and updated significantly updated every 10 years.

[31:02] We're at the point we're kind of behind the curve right now

[31:05] and I would say we're particularly behind the curve because things have changed so much

[31:11] not simply because of housing and the cost of housing

[31:15] But a number of things in the community, the cost of construction has gone up, the cost of utility installation has gone up, so on and so forth.

[31:25] And, you know, the city's budgetary situation has changed during that time, probably several times over.

[31:31] So it's not an easy thing to pay for a comprehensive plan and spend 18 to 24 months getting one done.

[31:39] But I'm certainly of the opinion that it needs to be done and I think we really need to look at it not only from a housing lens, but more broadly.

[31:48] So, I'm not going to go on a lot more regarding the memo, but you have it in your background.

[31:57] What I want to make sure that you understand is the work that we're doing is connected.

[32:04] It's, we're looking ahead, we're trying to take these steps moving forward, and that's particularly in the case of housing.

[32:12] We're working with other departments on housing.

[32:15] We're looking, you know, and you've heard about some of this, whether it be the small lot standards that you may have heard about.

[32:21] Public works took the lead on that, now we're getting a little more involved.

[32:25] Scalable fees from the utilities department, we think that was a really good step, they're in the process of amending that, taking another look at it.

[32:35] There's been concerns from the development community about that.

[32:39] They're taking a look with the LUC.

[32:41] I think that they most recently, just a few days ago, went to the LUC and got a Thai vote on the proposed adjustments.

[32:49] They'll be going back.

[32:52] So, many of these things fit together, and I just, again, didn't want you to think that,

[32:58] you know, hearing from Cariber Shad and some of other staff members, you have the somewhat

[33:03] random code amendments coming forward and so forth.

[33:07] They've been designed to come forward in separate packages, but with a total purpose.

[33:13] And I think, in many cases, the state legislature has mandated this, so we're responding

[33:19] rather than going proactive with some of our efforts, but they are fitting together and

[33:24] there's various groups in the community and beyond just lovelin that are taking a look

[33:29] at these issues. And I hope that many of our code amendments are in alignment. I know you've

[33:35] heard from Mrs. Lamberk this evening that she's concerned and we're going to take and I'll tell

[33:41] you now. We're going to take another look, particularly at the multiplex. And I'm hoping, as I

[33:48] mentioned to you at the beginning or before we started Madam Chair that I'd really like

[33:55] to plan a commission involved in this effort as a place to have a forum for the community

[33:59] about those standards as proposed. We're not trying to be sneaky. We never were, I think,

[34:05] we focused on the development community and several city boards and commissions. We probably

[34:10] overlooked reaching out directly to the overall public. So we'd still like to do that before

[34:16] second reading. I believe that the mayor feels the same way and is asked us to do this.

[34:26] I think several other city counselors who were basically in favor of the amendments in that

[34:31] package with maybe one or two reservations. So does anyone have any questions about the

[34:41] that I provided, anything that we're doing, anything you don't understand, anything I might have left out.

[34:50] Well, I would just like to comment, thank you so much for responding to the issue with the R1.

[34:56] It is a big deal, I feel like, for citizens that live in R1.

[35:00] And so, before second reading, if there could be some community outreach, that would be awesome.

[35:05] And we did discuss before the meeting. It sounds like you're taking, you know, it's seriously

[35:09] and thinking about what can be done.

[35:12] Certainly, thank you.

[35:13] But I do want to explain, and maybe this will help you.

[35:17] And Troy knows this process better than I do.

[35:20] And I'm going to ask Troy well we're sitting here.

[35:23] Tell confirm to me, this may have to look into the code,

[35:28] but how many units are possible through a multiplex.

[35:32] A multiplex, just tell you very quickly,

[35:34] is a multi-family, small, multi-family apartment complex

[35:40] that's designed to look like a house.

[35:42] It's bigger than a house.

[35:44] I think there's up to five units that may be possible

[35:47] within a multi-plex, maybe four more standardly.

[35:50] But it is multi-family and the way the code

[35:54] amendment was structured, and it was presented

[35:58] to City Council and the Planning Commission,

[36:00] is to allow the multi-plex with the neighborhood meeting

[36:04] As an adaptable use, Troy had talked to you about the adaptable use process that's used in the marijuana dispensary process.

[36:12] That's a meeting that is scheduled that's notified and so forth.

[36:18] And the applicant is there as well as staff.

[36:22] A decision is made administratively, and that would be my decision after speaking with staff as director of the department.

[36:30] But if there's an appeal from either an applicant or someone in the neighborhood that was noticed,

[36:38] that would come to the planning commission.

[36:41] So there is a process for this, but I just wanted to let you know how that worked.

[36:47] But again, like I said, we're looking at multiplex as something that maybe should be reconsidered

[36:53] and maybe we'll hear from the community a little bit more before making a decision.

[36:58] But we understand the concern and we don't want to ignore it.

[37:04] Okay.

[37:05] Thank you very much.

[37:06] You're welcome.

[37:07] Yes.

[37:08] I'd like to be mindful of Commissioner Herrera, who was online.

[37:13] Anything?

[37:16] Try your head your life on.

[37:19] Well, I was just following direction from Mr. Paul.

[37:23] Yes.

[37:24] Yes, in the unified development code, basically the number of units is

[37:30] We're predicated on the amount of square footage you would have for a lot. So, for example, if you had a 8,000 square foot lot, you could potentially have three units in that multiplex building.

[37:43] If you had a 10,000 square foot lot, you could potentially have up to four units, and then at 12,000 square foot lot, you're capped at five units there. So, that's kind of the distinctions between how many units you could potentially have.

[37:58] multi-plex and what the lot-sized standards would dictate. The other component associated with

[38:05] the multiplex is that it's meant to be designed and looked like a large single-fast home.

[38:11] Great, thank you. Commissioner Fisher, you're in your light on.

[38:15] Yeah, I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Paulson. I just, I brought this up numerous times.

[38:20] My concerns about the housing needs assessment and the methodology behind it. And I've asked several

[38:26] times how many respondents were in that study and no one's been able to answer that.

[38:35] And thank you, Commissioner.

[38:37] I can't answer that.

[38:38] I know that there was a non-scientific survey that was part of that effort so that that was

[38:48] not, I mean, I'm not saying the whole thing that we really have looked at the data that came

[38:54] from that, especially with looking at the analysis

[38:58] and data that was collected.

[39:00] But we understand that a lot of criticism

[39:02] has come from a effort to gather individual responses

[39:08] and so forth to it.

[39:10] And what we are doing just so you understand

[39:12] is our department's going to be taking that out

[39:15] for an RFP for the housing action plan.

[39:19] So, the entity that did the housing assessment won't necessarily be the company that does the action plan.

[39:30] And we know that there was some concerns there and I can't say what the outcome of that RFP will be, but we're certainly sensitive to that issue.

[39:39] And we want to have good data. You know, if it's really narrow data, that's not something that we want to rely on.

[39:47] It's good to hear from the public, it's good to hear broad sources, you know, in one of the points of data that we really rely on in much of, and I've explained this, not only about the assessment, but also about the citizen survey that was taken a portion of that citizen survey that was taken I think in 2024 was scientifically completed and a certain number of people responded to that scientific survey and housing was a pretty significant issue.

[40:16] And when you look at the comments from people from that original survey, the term affordability

[40:23] is used.

[40:24] And I think a lot of times we think, oh, it must be affordable housing.

[40:27] No, I think it's really about having housing that is affordable for people in the community.

[40:34] And if you also look at that survey from 2024, it has individual responses, but there must

[40:41] have been probably a couple of hundred people responding just what concerns you about the community

[40:50] going beyond just the scientific aspect of that survey and housing was a major factor.

[40:56] And people were concerned about housing affordability.

[41:00] And so that's part of what I mentioned in this memo is that while that a lot of that information

[41:06] and also wasn't scientific, we had a very strong response

[41:10] about affordability in that survey.

[41:14] So, and there's been a lot of other work, EPS has done surveys

[41:18] for the city, there's been other communities

[41:21] that have done regional and other surveys.

[41:25] And a lot of those results are telling us the same thing.

[41:28] As I've mentioned, at the beginning of my discussion,

[41:32] there is a growing gap between affordability and income in the community and that's what

[41:39] we're concerned with, we're not concerned simply with what's affordable but affordable

[41:45] to people in the development community and I'm going on a bit here and I understand that

[41:51] but the development community has a fairly good ability to provide what I would say

[41:57] pretty standard homes on standard lots, meaning five, six,

[42:03] seven thousand square foot lots with homes,

[42:06] 2,500, 3,000, 3,500 square feet.

[42:10] Our standards work really well for that.

[42:13] There's usually not a lot of friction

[42:15] in terms of the supply of that.

[42:18] What is harder for the development community

[42:21] to produce, especially in loveland,

[42:24] is those smaller, lot cottages, duplexes, townhouses.

[42:30] There's more friction that occurs especially with utilities.

[42:35] Trying to fit them into tighter and tighter spaces.

[42:39] We've done what I think is a pretty good job from a planning and zoning perspective to address that situation.

[42:46] And now we need the reciprocal effort from utilities and others to help make sure that we

[42:56] can, you know, we believe we can supply it.

[42:59] Communities all around the front range have done it.

[43:02] We just have to further adjust our standards and some of that has to be done by other departments.

[43:09] And they're working on it.

[43:11] But it's a long answer to your question, and maybe if I didn't answer it to your satisfaction, let me know.

[43:19] Thank you. I also asked Carrie Bush at that question, but she didn't have the answer either.

[43:24] So I'm just very curious why we're using that before the city manager left.

[43:32] There was a lot of concern about this study and the work that Framework did.

[43:37] And I was told that they were going to have a new consultant.

[43:42] And framework didn't do this, the housing assessment.

[43:47] It's root policy did that.

[43:52] And that study was submitted to the State, the Department of Local Affairs, and accepted.

[43:57] And they met all their requirements that the State had on that.

[44:02] But like I said, we'll be putting out an RFP and I can't tell you what the outcome will be regarding that.

[44:12] I don't want to do that, we haven't done it yet, but we'll be sensitive in terms of making sure

[44:19] the housing action plan is very lovelin centric. So in that, there's state guidelines on that as well.

[44:27] And if you look at the memo, you will see that that action plan will

[44:33] dovetail into the comprehensive plan.

[44:37] So we're going to be putting a number of pieces, kind of working on those pieces,

[44:43] and having them fit into what I'm hoping we get funding for is the comprehensive plan.

[44:49] The comprehensive plan is going to look well beyond housing, like I said, we're going

[44:53] be looking at utility streets, so on and so forth, to make sure that the community is ready

[44:59] for the...

[45:00] We're expecting. That's the idea, right? And it's done only once every 10 years or thereabouts in our case, making sure that we have a very broad understanding of the community of our geography, our assets and resources to make sure that we can go forward with the growth model that we're proposing.

[45:21] Okay. Thank you. That's important. And that was really important to me when this was brought up as a study of Lairmer County.

[45:29] Because the numbers that they were giving back in April are very different from what I have as a realtor.

[45:35] What I have access to and what have sold in loveland and when they were using these big numbers that it was not accurate for loveland.

[45:43] So thank you. I appreciate it. Sure.

[45:45] I certainly understand it was a regional study that was cooperation with the county, with the city of Fort Collins, and yes, you're correct.

[45:53] Some of that is a regional information.

[45:58] We are certainly sensitive to that more sensitive now than we might have been before.

[46:03] There was concern, and we will make sure that the housing action plan is very lovely, Sandra.

[46:10] Great, I'm sure, do we?

[46:11] Thank you. I'm Mr. Paulson, I think you did a great job of kind of giving us the context that there's a lot going on.

[46:21] Also, suppressing the expectation for the comprehensive master plan update, which is going to be quite a heavy lift.

[46:26] It looks like you mentioned that there were some other things that had happened to be sides of affordability.

[46:32] In my mind, one of the things that seems to have changed a lot more is there's more direction from the state through different legislation.

[46:41] legislation that's been passed and it looks like, especially the legislation from Senate Bill 24 174, I think you referred to the housing action plan.

[46:51] There's also the water element, the future land use element. So those three things are going on as well.

[46:57] And then I wondered if you've talked about that a little bit, I wonder if you could elaborate a little more on that and then also the third thing I've seen is this accessory dwelling unit and there's the tool book that's going to be developed.

[47:11] I'll start with your last reference in the Toolbook and that went to the City Council and it was fulfilling a grant application and they did vote in favor of it and they had voted previously and I think it was the spring of this year.

[47:28] I can't remember if it was in May or June but they agreed to the city's match.

[47:33] And the state has gotten very involved in local land use matters.

[47:42] You probably all have opinions about that.

[47:44] I would share mine, but they're irrelevant.

[47:46] We're responding to them.

[47:49] But the toolbook, what we're finding in our office,

[47:54] and Troy knows more about this than I do,

[47:56] but our office conducts consult discussions with anyone

[48:01] that is interested in wants to come and talk to us about building an ADU and we have seen

[48:08] so much confusion about that and so much lack of anticipation about the complexity of that

[48:15] process during those consultations. Now they can go directly after a consultation to the building

[48:22] permit side of things. They don't have to come back to planning. We look at it, make sure that

[48:28] their setbacks are okay and things like that, but our main process is really trying to

[48:35] get them ready so that they can actually tackle a project of that magnitude. It seems simple,

[48:41] and it seems like it shouldn't be that expensive. Well, it's complex and it can be expensive.

[48:46] And if you look at what constitutes a smaller unit, whether a tiny home or an 80-year or something

[48:51] like that, you take many of the most expensive aspects of a house and fit them into a smaller

[48:58] space.

[48:59] You've got your kitchens, age, back, plumbing, cell-on, and so forth, right, bathrooms,

[49:04] in a smaller space.

[49:05] And it's more expensive per square foot.

[49:08] We're hoping to find some modular options, but back to your question, Commissioner Dewey,

[49:16] We want to have information available and this is something that the Department of Local Affairs from the State is very excited about.

[49:25] Have a toolbook that helps people pursue an ADU with some confidence and understanding that if they're going to go forward that they can do it.

[49:39] and to make sure they have that information, they understand it well before they start engaging in it.

[49:46] And maybe we're going to have a lot of people that say, well, I can't really do it.

[49:50] One of the big factors, I had to this, is certainly the financial aspect, and I don't think

[49:56] that the financial community landers are really quite ready for that yet. Maybe some are, and we

[50:03] to find out, which ones might be so we can give people good advice in that regard.

[50:09] But they will be able to, it will be a book that is available on the internet and

[50:14] and available, you know, my understanding and hard copy, and we should be able to do updates

[50:19] to it from time to time, from a staff perspective.

[50:23] But we will be looking to hire a qualified consultant to do the work.

[50:28] So your other, your more extensive questions were the three components that are part of 174.

[50:40] And I've identified those in the memo.

[50:43] They're required by the state and they're required by the state to be included in a comprehensive plan.

[50:48] So we are looking to pursue grants this fall to do those three components.

[50:57] We're going to rely heavily on the utilities department, particularly the water division, to do they have research that's fairly current on our water resources.

[51:09] We feel pretty confident about that as they do that the city has been really proactive in securing raw water for the community

[51:17] for the foreseeable future. It's still a big deal. But we probably won't need to spend much money,

[51:25] we should be able to get help from utilities to do that. But that gives you an understanding of

[51:32] one of the primary resources that are needed to grow the community. Okay. Secondly, the future

[51:38] growth component. That is looking more extensively at the state has provisions for this and we can't

[51:46] ignore them, but they're really wanting us to look very carefully as with other communities

[51:53] at vacant land, at infill opportunities within the city, trying to reduce what they would

[52:01] consider sprawl and reduce unnecessary or costly utility extensions.

[52:08] And so the idea there, and it goes beyond that, but it is looking at the community's ability

[52:14] resources to fund growth and they're asking the communities that are participating in this

[52:22] to do it wisely, to do it understanding what the resources are and really

[52:30] Trying to take a look at reducing the outward use of development unnecessarily, I suppose you could call it. Does that help? And then the third one is, you're going to have to remind me now.

[52:49] How's the action plan? Oh yeah, the housing action plan I already talked about that. And I hope, you know, that is going to be another another element that the state has very clear

[53:01] requirements that we have to meet. It doesn't mean that we can't do more. But we have to

[53:07] meet their standards and their requirements to do it to fulfill it and get it completed.

[53:13] And like I said, these three elements will be part of the comprehensive plan if we get the funding

[53:16] and they may proceed the comprehensive planning effort by a little bit, but then get woven into it.

[53:23] But that particular thing is housing is really important to understand that.

[53:28] how we fund it, where we locate it, at what density we locate it,

[53:34] do we have the infrastructure to go with it, right?

[53:38] A big part of what we do in London, I'll just say this,

[53:41] and you probably all understand it,

[53:42] but growth plays for it, pays for itself,

[53:46] meaning when development occurs, applicants have to spend the money

[53:51] to extend the roadways, to extend the utilities,

[53:55] to expand, extend the storm water provisions, so on and so forth to pay for that growth.

[54:03] Also, they have to pay system impact fees that goes into the sustainability of the water

[54:11] and electrical services.

[54:14] So, and then there's also capital expansion fees that may, they do pay, that can be expensive,

[54:22] And those fees are paid on them kind of a more, they can be used more generally for growth across the community.

[54:30] So they may not be tied to a specific project, but they are tied to growth related expenditures in the community over time.

[54:38] Could be for roadways, parks, police services, on and on and on.

[54:45] So, in any case, a basic principle is that development has to pay for its own way.

[54:52] There's been questions that have come to City Council even recently, recently, is over the weekend.

[54:57] about, you know, does, does new housing pay for all the growth that it happens, does commercial

[55:05] development. Commercial development is an easier answer, because the property taxes and, and also

[55:15] retail taxes go up with that, right? Now housing is a little bit different. Housing may not

[55:23] generate a lot more revenue, but when people move into new homes, they tend to go buy things

[55:29] and that does support it as well,

[55:34] so generally most communities have a hard-time breaking

[55:37] some of this down, especially for new growth. But I think like a lot of other communities in

[55:44] the vicinity, our standards are designed, the revenues are designed to take care of growth

[55:49] as it keeps proceeding and I can talk more about this or give Troy information and we can

[55:55] share this.

[55:56] We need to talk to utilities and others to really nail this down further.

[56:02] Thank you.

[56:03] That's helpful.

[56:05] Yeah.

[56:05] I'm sorry that I don't have all the information that might be needed at the moment, but you

[56:12] could all of this together, and the hope is, and it's more than just simply hope, but development

[56:21] projects pay for the needs that they need to, where they develop, they pay for all of that

[56:28] process.

[56:28] Now you can say, well, what about incentive programs, for example, Costco's coming in,

[56:35] Bass Pro came in, Centera South, they have some incentives where we, you know, we're sharing money.

[56:42] Revenues that may have been related to property tax or sales tax, but if it weren't for that project,

[56:52] we might not be getting anything like the projects that have resulted, right?

[56:57] So it's a kind of a but for argument, and I'm not going to get into that because I'm not the expert, but

[57:03] we can bring Marcy Willard to come and talk to you if you're interested in.

[57:08] Great, thank you. Anyone else have any questions or comments?

[57:14] Oh, I'm sure, I'm sorry, Councillor Faum.

[57:20] Thanks, Commissioner Fisher, answer to your question.

[57:23] November's the goal for the charter committee, and it sounds like we have 22 finalists that

[57:28] will have to be vetted and interviewed for that.

[57:30] So, no members are going.

[57:35] Thank you.

[57:37] Seeing no other lives, commissioner Herrera, anything?

[57:43] No, no, no, thank you very much.

[57:45] Thank you.

[57:46] Well, I think that we are finished.

[57:48] And I'm going to adjourn the meeting

[57:48] and I want to thank everyone who is here.

[57:50] Mr. Polson, Councillor FOM,

[57:53] the Spins, Glen Flamburg, and Mr. Barrett.

[57:55] Thank you.

[57:55] Thanks, everybody.

[57:58] Thank you very much, my pleasure.

Planning Commission August 24, 2026

Transcript