LONGMONT — Longmont plans to put a lid on the pot.

On Tuesday night, the City Council voted unanimously to start preparing a ban of recreational marijuana businesses. The measure still would have to come back for a first and second reading before the council.

The city also banned medical marijuana businesses in 2011.

Mayor Dennis Coombs said he had mixed feelings about a ban. He noted that about 58 percent of Longmont voters approved Amendment 64 — a statewide legalization of marijuana — but wasn’t sure if the intention was just to support personal possession, or to encourage the businesses as well.

“We don’t really know what our community wants,” he said.

Councilman Brian Bagley said that after visiting Amsterdam, he knew what he didn’t want for Longmont.

“I can understand that people want to use marijuana, to carry less than an ounce,” he said. “But I think the overall demeanor, the allure of Longmont would change significantly if we had local pot shops.'”

The city currently has a moratorium on all marijuana-related businesses through Oct. 1.

No loop-the-loops

A Union Reservoir trail plan won’t be getting knocked for a loop anytime soon.

On Tuesday, the Longmont City Council voted 6-1 to have city staff plan for a U-shaped trail around the lake that would avoid farmland, wetlands, and private property on the north end of Union. Project manager Kathy Kron had recommended a trail that circled the reservoir, but several neighbors objected.

“Many comparisons were made to McIntosh Lake,” neighbor Gayle Kelly said, referring to public meetings on the design. “We fail to see the similarities.”

Around $870,000 has been budgeted for the trail, which is technically an interim route around the lake, since the city still plans to expand Union at some point in the future, inundating the area. Neighbors argued among other things that the path would disturb wildlife, pass too near private property, make the area less safe, and be a waste of money once the waters came over it.

Coombs, the sole vote against the U-trail, said a loop around McIntosh actually proved safer because it kept people moving and didn’t provide endpoints where problems could gather. But some council members agreed that a U or a J-shape would better avoid problems, while others said that even if a loop was better, the whole idea of a Union trail was a lower priority with so many in-town trail links to complete.

“I would prefer to let this sit and mull it over a bit,” Councilwoman Sarah Levison said.

The vote also directs staff to evaluate the trail’s priority once the new parks, recreation and trails master plan is complete.

Parks plan

The council also got introduced to the first draft of that master plan, meant to guide how Longmont cares for its existing sites, develops new ones and sets priorities for them all.

The plan includes recommendations for how to fund parks and recreation efforts, including a still-in-progress study of how to redraw the city’s park development fees. The current structure made sense when Longmont was growing rapidly and needed to keep adding parkland, said Russ Yawger of RPI consulting, but with the city approaching build-out, “it’s time to revisit it.”

Council members Gabe Santos and Alex Sammoury said that in the plan’s priorities, they wanted to see the city pay more attention to “missing links” in the trail system before taking on new projects, such as the Union Reservoir trail. Public works director Dale Rademacher noted that the missing links were missing for a reason — they’re in harder-to-develop areas that require right-of-way negotiations, such as near backyards or irrigation ditches.

“If it’s hard to build trails because of right-of-way and it’s easy to build something that gets more bang for the buck, that would be my preference,” Coombs agreed.

“My response to that is there will always be easier projects to do,” Councilwoman Katie Witt said. “And then the important links will never get done.”

A final plan will be presented in June, after receiving public comment. Bagley said when that happens, he wanted to see more specific recommendations.

“I want answers,” he said. “Something we can sink our teeth into, rather than ‘You’ve got to consider A, B, C and D.”

Scott Rochat can be reached at 303-684-5220 or srochat@times-call.com.