Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont staff seeks direction on redevelopment incentives and potential taller buildings in Sugar Mill/Steam area
Summary
Planners presented options to encourage redevelopment in the Sugar Factory and Steam subarea, including targeted height increases (base 2–6 stories with options up to 7–10 in specific places) and incentives such as rapid‑response project review; council asked for refined visualizations and guardrails.
Longmont planning staff on Aug. 5 asked council for initial direction on geographic focus, building height allowances and incentives aimed at accelerating redevelopment in targeted areas including the Sugar Factory/Steam subarea.
The study session presentation, led by Grant Penland and principal planner Jennifer Hewitt Apperson, outlined current code limits (generally 4 stories in mixed‑use and employment zones), existing height bonuses (which can stack to 7 stories) and a range of possible approaches: modest increases (up to 6–7 stories) in specific subareas, conditional‑use or overlay zoning guardrails, and development incentives including fee waivers and a “rapid response” development program to shorten review timelines.
Nut graf: Staff sought policy direction rather than final approvals. Councilors supported testing increased heights in limited, non‑residential districts near transit and the Sugar Mill/Steam area but asked staff to return with more detailed massing studies, view‑corridor analyses and tighter guardrails to protect mountain views and adjacent neighborhoods.
Key discussion points included feasibility (market participants said residential projects above 6 stories are generally difficult without different revenue mixes), compatibility tools (stepbacks, setbacks, conditional use triggers), and where to pilot the program. Several councilors signaled support for a base maximum near 7 stories in the targeted Sugar Factory/Steam area, with allowances up to 10 through clear, pre‑defined bonuses tied to mixed uses and affordability; others recommended keeping a lower base and relying on bonuses for higher heights.
Staff also proposed a rapid‑response development program that would expedite well‑prepared, high‑priority projects (affordable housing, childcare, transit‑oriented development) by aligning interdepartmental review and authorizing limited fee waivers or urban renewal tools where appropriate. City manager and finance staff cautioned that fee waivers reduce near‑term revenue and should be used selectively; several councilors favored procedural certainty as often more valuable to developers than fee waivers.
Ending: Council directed staff to refine the concept, produce higher‑fidelity visualizations (massing with view‑corridor scenarios), and return with specific code and policy recommendations for a defined pilot area.
