Mask Wearing Recommended while at Longmont Public Media. More information here.

Note: Effective October 1, 2021, proof of vaccination is required to enter Longmont Public Media.

Longmont Planning & Zoning Board – February 19, 2020

To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit: https://otter.ai/s/cDO44tSmTDCNmAusGsfnPg

For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:

0:06
First item on our agenda roll call.

0:08
Mr. High Commissioner teta

0:11
fear. Mr. fallens.

0:12
Here Commissioner cernik.

0:13
Your Commissioner Volker. Commissioner flags here, Mr. onra. Here Councilmember Rodriguez air. All right,

0:20
next is communications from

0:25
from run Schumacher.

0:29
conditioners. I have nothing additional upside from what you have.

0:34
Okay, thank you. Next is our

0:36
public invited to be heard this is for anything that is not on tonight’s agenda. If you’d like to speak to the commission, we would love to hear from him. You got five minutes.

0:50
Now that’s a construction

1:00
So we do have two people sign up for items that are not on the agenda tonight will be both Bowman and Chris Boardman. Was that a mystic or are you

1:13
gonna say and I want to say

1:17
is it is it about is it better?

1:21
I want to say in the public hearing

1:25
this is only for items that are on that are not on the agenda. So, so always call you until we into the actual public. Okay, thank you. Mr. Borden. Xavier, same thing. Okay. Anybody else from the public you’d like to speak about something that’s not on the agenda tonight. Saying no one will close the public invited to be heard. Next is approval or January January 15 2020. regular meeting minutes. Any discussion?

1:56
Move, Move to approve the January 15 2024.

2:01
Okay, so we have a motion to approve the January 2, a second from Commissioner teleca. Motion to approve us.

2:09
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

2:15
Commissioner go Colbert and Commissioner Hi.

2:20
Um, so the next is a public hearing item number six on our agenda which is reverse annexation PCR 2020 dash, school planner.

2:34
Me Commissioner.

2:39
Alright, so diving into this project, just to give you some background, this is at the northeast corner of Boston Avenue and sunset street right here. It’s approximately six acres. It’s currently in Boulder unequip unincorporated vulner County’s general industrial jacent to try and get my mouse going Adjacent to the same brain Creek here on the side. In the Envision at Longmont comprehensive plan this property has a land use designation is mixed use employment and they are requesting the same zoning mixed use employment. The properties to the south and the West

3:22
is funky here.

3:23
Over here our zone primary employment these these lots here are all in city of Longmont limits. The property east of the creek over here also in city limits that sound mixed use employment. That’s the lefthand Brewing Company. And the properties north and west up here are in unincorporated Boulder County these two lots are not in this city. This is lost in construction. And so this is the applicants concept plan. As you can see, there’s no specific site development at this time. This is pretty Common with annexation applications where they’d like to bring the property in but they aren’t they haven’t nailed down a project yet but they know that they’re going to zone it consistent with its land use category and the comprehensive plan that’s the case here. So they’re trying to add

4:22
pause just a second Sure. Ok.

4:42
So once again, they’re they’re requesting to zone this property makes use employment on some of the allowable uses that could be allowed on this property if it’s Enix, our manufacturing office storage FLEXPAYS some commercial and restaurant live working units as a secondary use meaning would have to be some other primary use associated with it couldn’t all be live work, high density residential, same thing, secondary use and potentially a hotel as a secondary use. While the concept plan doesn’t have a site specific plan on it with a project, their traffic study indicated or it’s contemplating for about 25,000 square feet of office flex space with 23 live work units. So that’s how they based the traffic study. I’m just some background on the site. A couple things as you saw that the property owner will be required to dedicate land for Channel widening for the resilience St. Brain flood control project that’s going on. Right right next to it. We have Josh Sherman from public works and he’s the project manager for that and he’s available to answer any questions about that channel widening project But we in your packet, there was a, there was a graphic from the Army Corps of Engineers that kind of shows on the east side of the property where we would need a land dedication. So it we put it in a draft annexation agreement. It’s not available for public view yet. It’s still an attorney’s offices. But that is something that staff is requires by the annexation. Well as the agreement and so this would, this land dedication would occur upon development application, so when they plant the property, they would give us the land dedication at that point, some environmental background, it was in your packets, but there was a phase one and phase two environmental site assessment on this property.

6:47
The phase one talked about some anecdotal reports about this possibly being a formal gravel, former gravel

6:54
mine and possibly formerly a landfill. The report went on to say They could find no state permits or records of this being either of those. And furthermore, the phase one did soil sampling and said that they found a no materials that would be consistent with a landfill. We do know that the property to the south of this on Boston, the Colorado materials, landscape company, that that was previously a landfill. But there were no records to indicate this. On this parcel. I know that we’ll we’ll go forward in a minute, but I know there were some comments about an army corps study related to the resiliency brain project that may have alluded to this being a landfill. But what I put on your Dyess tonight was confirmation from the army corps that that was erroneous information that’s going to be taken out of the report. And it was not there’s nothing to substantiate that it was ever a landfill. There was there’s some storage areas on the back of the property I guess up on the north side. And in the phase one report it said one of the storage areas, stored pesticides and another leasing space, if you will, they did vehicle repair. Phase two did some soil and water samples to check if there were any pesticide or petroleum contamination. There Were None in the deep so there were some shallow where maybe some things had spilled over during you know, something falling over but when they board down, the gate was 60 feet or so it’s in the report or they found no evidence of any contamination. They just recommended that if construction D watering is necessary for construction out here that they use some groundwater treatment on the fire department has reviewed both reports. They don’t recommend anything Additional mitigation measures they said this groundwater treatment is already a city requirement and process through the construction process. So that would be something that we would require nevertheless. Um, there was a traffic study prepared for the annexation again, they kind of base their study on a potential of 25,000 square feet of flex office 23 live work, it came out to approximately 497 weekday trips, and that would be at full build out of everything. The current level of service at Boston and sunset in the morning rush is currently at level of service. See, the traffic study said this project Wouldn’t it wouldn’t change it, it would make it worse and it wouldn’t impact it regardless of whether there was development or not, it would still be a seed with the development or without. But nevertheless, they said if they submitted development application, a couple of mitigations items they could do our left turn lanes on eastbound Boston entering the site, which would effectively widen Boston to have that turn lane. They go right turn deceleration Lane was warranted for if you were going westbound on Boston and coming into the site on these type of mitigation measures would be that would be something that our traffic staff would look at when we went in if we get a development application if its analytics. So at this point, that’s just sort of the general guideline. And lastly, there was a species and habitat report prepared for the project. Although no development is proposed, it was just sort of give us a baseline. So the report says that this site, as you’ve seen from the pictures is kind of not pretty and so as no habitat right now for federal or state protected species or plants. The report says that the creek adjacent to this parcel doesn’t have a right period habitat suitable for species There’s Eagles nearby but this property doesn’t have any good nesting sites. And lastly, just as a reminder, the city codes require a 150 foot riparian set back from the edge of the creek and so when and if they submitted development application will be looking out for that. And that edge of Creek would be taken from the new edge of Creek after the city’s land dedication for the creek widening

11:45
is thinking

11:58
sorry

12:18
Oh, oh, alright.

12:44
Okay, so in terms of community input, we had a neighborhood meeting in August of 2018. The informations in your packet some of the concerns that were brought up at the meeting or the lack of detail in the concept plan. Making sure that this project, if it gets developed is coordinated with the resilient same brain or how that timing is going to work out. There was a concern from the native roots marijuana shop across the road across and up north. That’s not in the city. They were concerned about being forced into an enclave annexation if this came in. As you know, we took some we took this up to last year councils on interested in taking properties that that don’t request to be in. So that’s that’s not really much of an issue right now. There was a concern about the habitat for wildlife adjacent to the creek corridor, and there was some concern about stormwater runoff from development. If a development application were to come in, we have very tight crew of stormwater engineers who really enforce our regulations. So that would have to be enforced within development. And there were questions about Potential residential density. Um, and then I, you know, we got the application and I sent out notices posted signs, I didn’t get any comments. Then when I sent out the letters for the public hearing, I posted signs. And I did receive three letters which were forwarded to you. Again, concern about the lack of detail on the concept plan. Concerns again about the impacts to the wildlife. There’s a belief that this site was a landfill because of the Army Corps of Engineers report that there was like one page that was forwarded to you from a comment letter. And on your Dyess, I got confirmation. Josh Sherman’s here is the project manager for the resilience St. Brain. He reached out to the Army Corps and asked him for more detail about the statement that was made on that report about it potentially being a landfill. And they’ve cleared that up and said, Actually, we heard it third hand from a third party. It’s never been corroborated. So we’re going to retract that statement about it being a landfill from our final report. Because the the sheet that you got from the report was a draft, it wasn’t the final. Um, the other concerns raised, someone requested that we require as a condition of the annexation, that they must provide the 150 foot setback with no possibility for a variance request. There was a request for a conservation easement to protect the banks Wallace that was in your letters. And finally, there was a request to require remediation of contaminated soil.

15:40
And so that’s what we got.

15:43
We reviewed it against the review criteria. We put in the staff report our findings and how we thought it met the review criteria. So staffs recommending PCR 2022 a, as far as next steps, as you know, you’re recommending body Not an approving body. So after you make your recommendation, this would go up to city council. I have to take it three times I have to do a first resolution of statutory compliance and that’s verifying that it needs state statutes to be annexed. Second time and that’s tentatively March 31. And all of these I put the asterik. The city manager has to give final approval on what goes on each agenda. So these could be bumped. But these are tentative. On first reading of the ordinance tentatively would go April 28. Because state law says you have to wait 30 days and 60 days from a second resolution. So the second resolution and then the public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively may 12.

16:48
And

16:50
so the applicant will come up next and do a pre their presentation on and we’re all happy to answer any questions. Also have Carolyn Michael. She Our traffic engineer. And so if you have any questions about the traffic study, we have Christopher, our Public Works administrator. And then we have Captain Goldman or fire marshal, and Amy hanyan, our hazmat reviewer from the fire department. So really, if you have any questions about the phase one and phase two, they’re here to answer your questions. So with that, unless there’s anything specific for staff, I could turn it over to David.

17:27
Let’s Let’s go straight into the Africans presentation. Okay.

17:33
Stand by

17:37
drive I think

17:41
this one

17:44
sure PowerPoint. The other one was a PDF. Okay, hold on. I’m just gonna cue you up, out of your way. All right.

17:54
Let me just hit the buttons for you.

17:58
Okay. Good afternoon, evening, everyone. My name is David Starnes, I’m with purpose LLC the applicant. So I’m pleased to be here and present our application for consideration for you guys in terms of the annexation request for our second half acres like Boston and sunset.

18:15
So I’m not going to be here today a lot, but he was had a lot of information here. But just to kind of locate you know, the Kubernetes property since 2014. This property is one of two pieces that we have. This is a six and a half acre site at

18:28
Boston and sunset and we also own 21, South sunset, just north and caddy corner along the creek as well. And we’re currently preparing our annotation application for that one as well. So that will be forthcoming. So just to kind of get reoriented, it’s nearly six acres. And this exclusive right away to Boston Avenue right away, which is part of the annexation application as well because that Boston Avenue is in the county and so it’s it’s on the consideration with public works. We incorporated this right away into our application. The site’s currently undeveloped. Lawson uses it rent space from us in terms of storing outdoor storage in for the trailers and Mason’s masonry supplies and construction equipment. So our goal is to vastly improve what it what is there now. The existing zoning, as Dave mentioned gi and border county and

19:22
the proposed zoning misuse employment, which is the same as land new Seven Nation consistent with InVision online.

19:29
So our proposed concept plan as Eva mentioned, we’re looking for makes us primarily on this site is considering flexible commercial and flex space. We’re also evaluating the potential for live work units, you know, it’s going to depend on market viability, I know with the same brain corridor focus area that you know, they are supportive of mixed uses. So this is something that we would look at. We’re seriously considering we were doing a similar product down in Lewisville right now as part of our dealer face To development, we think live work is is is attractive and provides opportunities for someone to live and work in the same place reduces traffic impacts, but the primary driver for this will be commercial. There’s a gap really in the city of Longmont in terms of high quality commercial space, you know, Longmont EDP, which is the primary business group for the city has mentioned over and over again, the lack of quality supply of commercial space for users and having to turn away businesses that can’t find, you know, quality space here in Longmont. And so our goal is to kind of meet that demand with the right type of space that’s attracted today to tenants and users to Longmont that these are discussions with alumni up or moving elsewhere. And then also in terms of the existing conditions, we know we expect as part of the development to vastly improve what’s there now, you know, obviously we respect the st frame corridor. We were you know, cooperating with the city of Longmont and your partner In terms of improving this property, but also the public infrastructure that’s associated with improving this property as well as on the creek as well. So the main thing I would kind of emphasize to again, you know, envision Longmont is a driving vision for how long, much should build out, you know, over the next 25 to 30 years. And our properties located within the same frame Creek focus area, which is one of four areas identified in the city to accommodate that had the greatest opportunity to comment is future growth and demand. And so, as far as I can tell, we’re one of the first properties here that being proposed to be developed to within the same frame focus area to really improve this industrial, in our mind, our priority being very blighted. And so you know, two major goals that they talked about, you know, in terms of within envision Longmont for the same thing to focus on. One is, you know, revitalization of uses long term, same green Greenway just encouraged as improvements to the floodway are committed and future risks are mitigated and our project will be doing that. Secondly, the integration of high density residential uses and supportive support services are encouraged as well as part of the nixies employment designation. To increase the work opportunities, expand housing options within the city and leverage plan transit investment and again, our project is will help help to address that as well. I’ll touch on a couple of the key goals they were in the back end in terms of our consistency within digital on month one is go 1.1 which was embracing a compact, inefficient pattern of growth. Again, our properties in infill development, we are completely surrounded by the city of Long buzzword enclave. And so we’re not asking for an expansion of services outside the city limits as part of the initiation coming into the cities that we you know, obviously hope to utilize existing infrastructure that’s already provided. Policy 1.1 be again, you know, our project will support the adaptive reuse redevelopment of underutilized sites and encourage higher density infill and redevelopment. You know, the property is better underutilize rate now we want to really transform something into a legacy based project that will be very much an attractive to the city. Another goal in terms of promoting the sustainable mix of land uses again we’re considering the mixed use component with the commercial effects being the primary driver but also considering the live work option as well. And another goal is a goal to 2.1 which is integrating land use and transportation planning. So Boston Avenue is along the state highway 119 yards and quarter project has been implemented or plan through border county and the city allamani other jurisdictions again, we view this as something that was called transit supported development again, its development that is infill that will emphasize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. You know, we plan to make infrastructure improvements along Boston Avenue as part of our site plan application with this to help addresses

23:53
goals.

23:56
Then, lastly, I kind of mentioned before with one mind EDP is it is addressing ability space and infrastructure needs and other considerations of target industries in the workforce. So, you know, Aloma and the EDP group and mentioned as I mentioned before, you know, really lack kind of high quality space. And our goal is to reenter, reinvest and provide space to really address some of the goals along IDP, which is their advanced Long live two point O which focus on target industries, including smart manufacturing business catalyst, on food and beverage industries, and r&d and the flexible nature of our space. It’s not going to be like a Class A office space with something that we do, we want to develop as funky, as adaptable and it’s flexible. And it’s kind of current with where the workforce environment is moving today in terms of kind of that creative space that can be co working, that can be individually sweet, but also can also be kind of community oriented space. That’s I just want to touch on again, you know, projects like this in terms of annexation are really require public private partnership with the city and your partners. So as I mentioned before, You know, the city has been this parcel that identifies it enclave parcel. So we’re surrounded by the city. So you know, we are an active, willing applicant that we want to be an extent and so something that we hope can address and also with our 21 acre site at 21, South sunset, we’re looking to have a annexin as well. And so again, for the Enclave annexation, we hope to address some of the issues that were raised by the Brian in terms of city council about wanting to be in the city. You also they need some of our property to part of the resilience a property project in terms of the quarter improvement so yeah, we agreed to make available portions of the property for our city as well as potential right away and in Ed any easements along Boston Avenue and censorship as part of this project and resiliency frame. Thirdly, as I mentioned, the annexation will will be annexin in the Boston Avenue right away between sunset and the bridge as part of this application. Furthermore, will be by upgrades to Boston and sunset Avenue. They’re required as part of the nighttime African In terms of infrastructure improvements, and also we will be working with the city for the relocation of the toyish water main that crosses our property and a 36 inch survey that will be need to be relocated along Boston Avenue in the bridge. So we really work with the city to help accommodate that, which further opened up development, you know, opportunity within our site as well. In the last slide and party thoughts, I guess I just want to reiterate that, you know, we envision our redevelopment as a catalyst for reinvestment within the same frame Creek focus area, this is the blighted area or properties play we are looking to reinvest in redevelop in something that will be a high quality city of Longmont. It will repurpose a blighted property and address and address a growing demand for niche commercial and potential live work consistently in Longmont and it provides an opportunity to make critical public infrastructure

26:54
and we look forward to working cooperatively with the city of Oman and the partners to improve this area.

27:00
The extent of our formal presentation happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Starnes.

27:06
Does anybody on the commission have any questions that require clarification at this time

27:12
from either evil or Mr. Star?

27:17
Okay, seeing none we will get with the public hearing part of this meeting. I just want to explain why I was being a stickler to the Spellman about whether her comments were related to this project or not. If she had made her comments during the previous publicans audigy heard, they would not be and and they were about this project, they would not be included in the in the public record for this project as it moves forward. So I wanted to make sure that if she was going to make comments about this project per se, that they’d be in the record. So we do have signed up on our list. Ruby Bowman so if you’d like to, we’re kind of figuring this out. If you come a little closer here, next to Jane Madrid on she’s gonna, she’s going to keep the time. And

28:18
I just want to say I had a Houston for bergy colleges here she was a consultant, you’re prepared to have a campaign so

28:27
so please give us your name and your address on five minutes for your comments, but we need to have everybody really speak up so the central microphone and Captain

28:39
Ruby found in 1512 left hand drive lineman I see several problems with the reverse of annexation. It is a former plants landfill site. It has a potential for methane to migrate from the Colorado materials property to the river set the annexation consequent is incomplete. And the habitat assessment, of course should be redone to address offside impact the same brain River and the wildlife species that you support. The Commission should not recommend an approval of this annexation. Instead your recommendations should be it needs more work, it needs more work to clean up the site prior to annexation, especially considering the applicant may in the future requests inclusion in an urban renewal or district for its property. The consultant CTL Thompson identified a potential problem of methane gas migrating to the Colorado materials property from the river city site. According to guidelines for landfill gas and near former dumps. hazards associated with landfill gas our explosion and fire the Colorado materials properties a former landfill that had high maintenance levels, and that’s why then ting system was installed on the property, migrating mething from the Colorado materials property should be looked into prior to annexation. As for the annexation concept plan, it shows nothing of what the future uses will be. I want to know what will be built on the property which is next to critical wildlife habitat of the same frame prior to annexation. I hope you understood in reading my comments how important the same phrase refers to our efficient wildlife. The applicant should provide a detailed concept plan with the development layout and includes measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts on the environment as code requires. Apparently, my four pages of comments were a strong statement that sent a message that the applicant needs to do more work. staff was so unnerved by the evidence I presented with a represent prop property that the form that was weight was presented that the city the represent property was a former land bill that they have Josh Sherman, the city’s resilient St. Frank project manager, contact the US Corps of Engineers today to get the quarter remove item one in the table that I referred to in my comments, the core comply. But I stand by my comments especially the statement about the river set property being a former landfill. The US, the United States Army Corps of Engineers official told me that they reviewed aerial photos. The core came and the court came up, came up with a conclusion that the river set property was a former when it’s an act of desperation for the city. To work to discredit a legitimate concern about the landfill site. I’ve learned through this process that as a long month citizen I should hold my cards until the last minute in order to get a fair hearing. Thank you. Thank you,

32:18
Miss Bowman. Next on our list is Jamie sila

32:29
Jamie semaa 525 East 16th Avenue. According to chapter 15.0 2.1 40 have a long month land development code, the city may require remediation of any environmentally contaminated property in annexation request as a condition of annexation reproval while the city may approve an annexation without remediation, it is if it determines it is in the best interest of the city approval that annexation shall not act as a waiver of any requirement for remediation of hazardous substances previously established as established in Environmental site assessment esa provided with the annexation request. The recent property may have been landfill at one time, even if it was not used as a landfill. However, there are other factors including potential pesticides, spillage and other hazardous waste, such as oil for car maintenance that must be addressed. There are many unknowns at ESA. And it is troubling that there is little concrete documentation of what exactly occurred on the purpose of property over the years. The city should require a thorough assessment of the site and cleanup of any and all contaminants for the properties and it also concerns me that the concept plan provided with the annexation requested very general while the potential mixed use zoning of the property may conform to the vision long plan. How can the city determine whether the developers vision for the property is otherwise in alignment with the vision long without additional details? If Walmart wants to have smart growth, it needs to know what developers plan aware rather than allowing for a mishmash of development. Finally, the species and habitat conservation plan that was developed from the annexation request isn’t complete in chapter 15.05 point 30 of the land development code, species or Habitat Conservation Plan. must include, among other things, and analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development of wildlife and wildlife habitat, or on important plant species on or off site. The conservation plan does not analyze them for adverse impacts of development on offsites species or habitat. For example, the conservation plan states that the stone cat a native fish that is on the state list of species of special concern does not occur in Spring Creek, which is not true. In fact, according to Lloyd Wright, a native aquatic species biologists with Colorado person modeling the area from the back with diversion of golden ponds all the way to sandstone Ranch is precisely where the snowcat exists in the same vein. This is appropriated by Timothy Bamako and his 2018 thesis, snowcat ecology and safer increase Colorado before annexation impacts to native fishes including the stone cap should be evaluated. In addition, the conservation plan does not mention anything about the big smaller nesting site that exists adjacent to the represent property. Thanks follows or a Boulder County species of special concern and there are only a handful of known nesting sites within Boulder County. Furthermore, they are declining species nationwide. Her plans for the resiliency brain project call for the placement of a split channel flow option right where the bank swallows nest destroying this valuable habitat. Therefore, in addition to the required conservation easement for Channel wiping and construction staging for this resilience, same brain project, I very strongly urge the city to require an additional conservation easement for placement of the split flow channel the river set property in order for construction to avoid the big swamp so

35:26
making a single Sherry

35:35
Hi, my name is Sheree Malloy. 113 wiki lane. I’m a member of stand with our sacred Creek. We are a growing group of community members who continue to advocate for protecting our st Frank or from potentially damaging development by promoting policy and safeguards to foster repairing health and the wildlife depends on it. 90% of all wildlife relies on riparian areas for survival. We are not anti development Just wanted to not cause harm by being set back and being appropriate. The law might reach the same bring his tremendous ecological value with important natural resources. portions of the corridor are designated as critical wildlife habitat, and been identified as having immense conservation value to the state of Colorado. due to the presence of rare threatened native fish species. The entire corridor is a stream habitat connector, which is how wildlife moves from one area to another. Evidence demonstrating how wild like moves in this corridor include making beaver golden ponds and sandstone, coyotes and foxes throughout the quarter, and bobcats and direct sandstone. The economic benefits of protecting why peering areas are well documented. long lines hundred and 50 foot by pairing conservation setbacks are not only essential to protecting the creeks, health and the wildlife and supports, but also for protecting people property and infrastructure. Right parent says setbacks sustained or increase property values by helping to keep community class low. Reducing infrastructure costs and decreasing reliance and engineered solutions. The overall costs associated with the protection of right here in areas are considerably less expensive. The restoration restoration projects needed to repair damage from flooding. The Riverside applications concept plan is very general does not specify what development is intended to take place in terms of building in turn, intended uses, etc. This proposal scene appears to fall short of what’s required in the LDC Code Section 15.0 2.060, which indicates a concept plan shall include mitigation of potential adverse impact impact on the environment. I say this why because while the F can hire virtue ecology to complete an environmental assessment, thoroughness of the environmental impacts are not sufficient without knowing what the proposed development might entail. Before this annexation is considered it should be stipulated that the hundred and 50 foot racketeering conservation bug buffer be protected by designating this portion of the property to The city of longer. This property is stone the floodplain and was not developable. Prior to the massive public investment in flood mitigation. FEMA is not expected to change their floodplain maps for another three years. The mitigation price tag is approximately 350 million dollars in county. Because of our investment, the public should get something in return for the big price tag our tax dollars are covering. The Army Corps of Engineers have identified 12 flood events in this corridor in the last hundred and 20 years. Even with the best possible mitigate mitigation efforts, common sense dictates this quarter will flood again. The lesson from the 2013 flood is give Waterbury some space. It is morally and fiscally irresponsible to put people in property in harm’s way. Although the Pope said in the early 1900s, whatever is in the floodplain belongs to the river and it’s up to the river when she takes it back. This annexation application needs to be amended before being severed.

39:00
Thank you. Thank you Miss Why? Heather Houston.

39:07
I am Heather Houston 4401 Bella Vista drive. I’m the ecologists are mirchi ecology who prepared the report, and I didn’t have prepared remarks. I just wanted to sign in, because I’m a resident. And this is exactly the kind of project I want to see as a resident. And as an ecologist, I think it’s a good place to do something I’m not into the phase one side of environmental work. I’m an ecologist that focuses on plants in and restoration ecology, but I think that, for me, going out to a place like this, it is not a hard decision. I think that this is the type of place where given the degraded conditions, and what’s proposed, I’m really excited as a resident in terms of addressing some of the specific comments on the report. It said there’s no habitat for stone cat because there’s no water on the property.

40:05
And I think there are a lot of opportunities with this property there’s this is not the final chance to have a say on what goes on in the property. You all know that well, it’s not common to have a full develop development plan at this stage. So obviously couldn’t evaluate that how what I can say is, the property right now is non habitat. And so I don’t think it matters a lot what you do on it because that property is not habitat of the creek itself is habitat, the section that the buzzers property, doesn’t have good habitat conditions it will after the project, but I think there’s a lot of opportunities to take that buffer area and right now, it doesn’t have native trees and vegetation in it and, and so this property can be developed and it can be landscaped with native species. cottonwoods and willows that go there. There can be things done with stormwater management that could make things better than they are today. Right now we’ve got a lot of bears ground. And that’s not good next to a riparian area either. And the bank is covered by crested wheat grass and Amano culture, that’s a non native grass and it doesn’t have very high cover there either. I know that banks going to get reworked. But I think, you know, it’s true that the st. Green corridor is an important habitat and that the eastern and western edges of town, it’s more important. It’s important to maintain it here and respect it. But the quality of what exists in this industrial part in the central part of town is not the same as what we see at the edges of town. So, to me, this is a place where like we’ve said it’s infilled you know, the crimes against nature on this property having a long, long time ago. It’s not now you know, this is how can we make the A property in a great way that benefits people that are residents along much like me, you know, I think, what can we have along this creek corridor? I’d like to live there. I like to have an office there. And environmentally, I think in terms of the plants and animals. It’s it’s not a concern.

42:25
Here, Miss Houston, is there anybody else who would like to speak? Please come forward and give us your name and address.

42:34
You already heard from Chris Boardman. 1512 left hand drive. Just wanted to add a little more on the Army Corps of Engineers angle. What I get out of it is that they, they looked at it, they thought it was a landfill. And and now at the last minute, we’re hearing that they couldn’t confirm that and it’s not quite the same as confirming that it was not Atlanta. Feel and its pristine and it doesn’t need remediation. We know, it was across the street from Colorado materials. I don’t know if the street was there when there was a landfill, or a dock or whatever it call around the whole place fit up in it. I mean, it kind of reminds me of the stories about Belmont Butte and the boulder weekly a few years ago where they had turns out they had low level radiation dumped on top of the beauty in the 60s. And that’s still within living memory that nobody knows where it is now. So I think there needs to be more work on this and possible, probably environmental remediation, and to determine suitable uses for this property before it shouldn’t be Mannix. Thank you.

43:54
Thank you Miss Mr. Borden on anybody else you’d like to see

44:00
Please come forward if you want to speak about this and

44:05
this is our only time to have a hearing from the public on the sound. Okay, so nobody will close the public hearing. And we will go to discussion amongst the commission.

44:18
I guess we’re just gonna have to do this by raising hands Commissioner.

44:24
I was looking at that time in different hearings. I think the first one occurred in July of 2018. The most recent one before this February 2014. Year, was in December 2018. That’s 15 eight months ago, zero time limitation on hearings from witness project. First had its, I guess, when it was initiated or is brought to the public and now to be considered by

45:00
So you took a long time.

45:01
Sure, sure. And Sure. So we don’t have anything in the code that says you have to have your neighborhood meeting and you have to file your application by x date. Our rule of thumb is typically within six months. And then if it’s been longer, we usually ask them to redo it. In this case, if you look at the packet, the neighborhood meeting was August 9 2018. And on the following page, it says that the application was submitted in December of 2018. So that was four months.

45:36
The application for service

45:38
for Apple annexation for application in the time period, I guess you would say the whole 12 months of 2019 was a series of back and forth between the applicant and staff. And that is, as you know, in development review, they submit their annexation materials, who we send back review comments on the plans, and then it’s dependent On the applicant on their timeframe when they want to resubmit. And then we usually turn things back within 30 days, I think there was, there was some lag time on the applicants end of getting things back to us and then us commenting again on stuff, and then them getting stuff back to us. So it did take 12 months through the process. But the application was filed in a timely manner from the neighborhood meeting

46:25
to do that in 15. Oh, f says that the city is that you can be has the authority if the applicant doesn’t respond within 140 day period

46:36
correct to terminate? Yeah, that’s right.

46:39
And so we did do that. And so then David resubmitted shortly thereafter. This is very often the case in development review. We have dozens of projects in our system. And so we try and keep up with how long people are taking to resubmit. If they’re taking too long. We will send them a timeout letter, and we’ll Say, you’ve been 120 days since we gave you comments, you need to usually give them 14 days to resubmit.

47:08
David, I think need a little extra time because they were revising the riparian corridor report. So when someone’s making a good faith effort, and they say, No, I’m on and I just need my consultant needs a little more time will work with you will be flexible. And so it could take 12 months to get through the process

47:26
of extortion. I have the

47:30
counter plan your comments from the public as well as well, I have no comments. Because your plan has two definitional provisions that I see 15 oh 206 of requires it for any major development by any concept. But we also have a definitional section at the end of the land use code that defines what concept plan is. And it seems to be a bit more detailed than this thing we’re looking at here. Particularly with respect to identified land use development densities, relationship with other properties, fertility systems and transportation systems. I guess we’ve heard that there are utility system capabilities that the city can can meet for this weekend. And we’ve seen Boston Avenue, possible BRT route and some bike lane issues but

48:29
the staff have been concerned during the opening.

48:35
But is would you like to see more

48:38
cherisher Commissioner height of course, def always likes to see more. It’s not required. And I will tell you that this is very consistent with a lot of annexations that come in, where they’d like to bring the property in and they don’t have they don’t have a tenant or a buyer or a specific project, but they know they want to bring it in. Get it. So consistent with our comprehensive plan, and then start fine tuning development plans. And again, it’s annexed and it comes in for development application. We start this whole review process over, we would ask for a fresh habitat report, and geotech report and everything that’s required with development review and start the whole process again. This time, we’d have something to rebase it against and give it more detailed review.

49:28
So this is pretty typical, like I set you up as a strong man,

49:31
because that’s my last question. The environmental reports and I’ll get to everybody in the earlier part of my life for 20 years. That’s what I did was revealed by Marine Corps to advise banks and lenders in purchases the property what was happening on the environmental side of the of the issue. This is 2014 report. It’s six years old now. And

50:00
down into the concept of plan.

50:03
In 1502 of six oh, there has to be a commitment in the concept plan to address any potential adverse environmental impacts.

50:12
From my review of the phase one, phase two work that was done here.

50:17
You know, the site of the site was never investigated. It was never sample. The sample that was done was on the west side of the site, the east side of the site. You know, the one month long time was a pond. There’s clearly evidence that there was film material and to that part of the site. The work that was done, in my humble opinion, I could recommend somebody buying it. But in terms of the annexation of this property from the city’s perspective, I think the concept plan needs to address and possibly doing more investigation, but be exclusively to the extent that there’s anything out there that hasn’t been identified. And from what I can see, there hasn’t been a lot of identification of the environment, potential environmental issues out there. The applicant has to be compelled to address those issues for and I don’t see that.

51:22
So I’m sure surely

51:25
I can defer to the fire department with Captain Goldman and Amy hanging from our hazardous materials inspector. They I am not an expert on hazmat don’t claim to be. So we refer those reports out to the fire department. They reviewed both. They found them to be satisfactory. We did ask them in writing. Do you require any other mitigation measures? They said no at this time we were comfortable with those reports are the in the hall Right.

52:10
So when we review environmental reports, phase one, phase two, both were done phase two by the Army Corps and 17.

52:18
We look at

52:19
for sufficiency, they did do taps ground, there are vents there. They did identify staining thing. This whole site was an infill project. So not just the pond you’re referencing being the entire site and probably the other one is editing. That’s all infill projects.

52:38
When we look at you can jump in if I’m if I’m missing something.

52:43
But the phase one stated that based on the low levels of contaminants identified in groundwater under the adjoining landfill, the site is unlikely to be significantly impacted by migration of volatile organic compounds voc Metal to the former landfill or gravel pits on either side.

53:05
So we looked at the series of photos like that were referenced. We also noticed they did put in vents event system. And Public Works identify that. Now

53:24
Public Works did identified that they are EPA compliant. They had air monitoring

53:32
and air permits for those sites. So we didn’t think that anything else needed to be done there. They did soil sampling. There were some steam areas that they identified that would have to be mitigated. So that would fall to the applicant as well. So we thought the assessments were thorough, and we were fairly comfortable that the hazardous materials were not at levels that were over any limits at the EPA or needed to be

53:59
reported for They’re on.

54:01
Our historical documents did not indicate the menu from a Walmart fires. We didn’t have any documentation that that was a landfill.

54:09
On that side of Boston, the only thing we found with the state of Colorado,

54:16
Atlanta was selling the Boston

54:18
and east of sunset. It is not part of this annexation, according to the state records. Now, this was clear back in 1960, that this landfill was closed.

54:30
So if the parcels or the land wasn’t accurately documented,

54:34
I’m not sure.

54:38
So all of the reports with the state indicate that the landfill was south of Boston, east of sunset, not this property, which is north of Boston.

54:48
So based on what we saw the environmental systems we didn’t see a reason to require more testing other than when the staining part that would of course have to be mitigated, which is noted in the environment. So the things that will notice have to be done by the applicant. So we didn’t see that anything past that with the samples that they had taken, required any more action from us. So we deal more of course with response. And so when we look at an event, we look at an environmental site assessment, we’re looking at reportable levels. We’re looking at things that could relieve a scene of a hazmat incident, we make sure that is mitigated, and we are bound to report certain things to the EPA. So that’s kind of what we look at. When we read a site assessment, and they mitigated it to levels that do not require further reporting or mitigation. I thought they had clearly stated that.

55:38
I’ll have more to that. My understanding of the sampling there was only one tremendously hot sample on the batch and it was for petroleum, diesel petroleum, just the list. Again, on the west side of the site, the east side to say the key you see any evidence of sampling in your review

56:00
A man, I didn’t bring it with me.

56:03
It’s in one of the Army Corps.

56:06
As a

56:09
show where they took their samples from was all on the

56:11
west side of the site.

56:12
I thought they were directed

56:14
to just take samples of where the ground steaming was. And also the groundwater. And when all those came back negative they didn’t go back

56:22
go further with more testing.

56:25
And maybe the African clarify for me to buy understand was good. He started the site is a concrete

56:33
fence guy or concrete.

56:38
Know what’s going on. I have to say it was one of us. Do you understand that?

56:45
We previously Yeah. I mean, it was Yeah.

56:58
Because he signed the When you think about the concrete plant,

57:02
I’m not sure what concrete plan but he was a concrete worker.

57:05
And on the other side of the creek,

57:06
no, it’s on this side.

57:11
And he had large bulk storage tanks of some kind of caustic asked us to

57:17
something says concrete plans on the map and it’s on

57:20
the other side of the creek.

57:22
And that dark in our company plan. Okay.

57:28
I’ll shift gears and talk about the methane because as I understood the report, card material site to the south. That was a landfill and they the phase one investigation talk to the people who had looked at that site and corrected or constructed a methane recovery system than the meter and there was a method recovery system because it was high for methane on the south, side nearly to the south with grandma And migration to the north to the site.

58:05
The phase two report specifically did not look at that thing.

58:10
Like this site. Does that cause any concern for you?

58:16
I’m not sure they did not look into that further.

58:29
So as far as the venting system that’s there is pretty much south. I know there’s vents there. As far as methane goes the what they talked about.

58:40
unclear whether the landfill venting system is eliminated the presence of methane that’s came from the phase one.

58:46
Is that right? As we’re talking about here,

58:49
in the subsurface that may be migrating toward the site based on the potential for methane to migrate into the site enjoying former landfill is considered recordable or reportable disease. You’re saying that was in the face one way. And then the base two did not say they did further testing on that, right?

59:06
That specifically did not look correct.

59:09
Right. Does that cause, you

59:12
know, because I look, when I looked at EPA reports, there was nothing that was out of their levels. So they have heard they would have to report that and events would have to be reported there also. So I thought with EPA

59:24
results, I was comfortable with what they had done.

59:31
To conclude my job, and I just knew that jack, for the for the advocate, would you be willing to

59:39
go it’s not in the recommendations right now. But to the extent that

59:45
Scott would say, yes.

59:49
And he paid side I’m talking about his compliance data. they’re required to report those things. So

59:53
there, they were in compliance and the EPA report so nothing that was above or abnormal So I was comfortable at that point

1:00:01
in reviewing that thing, correct treatment on the south, side cracker. Thank you very much.

1:00:12
Amen. I had some questions on the zoning. So although I’m looking at durbur said, sent annexation and consent email, and, of course it’s in concept because when I don’t have any dimensions on this, but just for the sake of discussion on that Eastern as if one were to look at the 150 foot riparian said ban, that would be measured from the property line, correct.

1:00:43
After dedication, after gratitude, yes, if it comes in and they want to develop, they’ll have to plat the property and at that time, will require the land dedication.

1:00:54
So then after you’ve planted the property, then there are setbacks. Dare apply to the zone and correct that. And if you can think of possibly the most liberal zoning use, that could happen that property after, if it should then be annexed. What would be the setback from that hundred and 50 feet after it’s applied to be five feet 10 feet. There’ll be buffering required.

1:01:23
It depends on the use in a lot of industrial zones. There is no set back building set back to set building set back except a landscape buffer. If you have a parking area, it’s like a 10 foot landscape buffer.

1:01:39
Okay, either 150 foot setback that all has to be landscapes though

1:01:43
and what kind of landscape with it have to be in 150 foot buffer bath from the edge of the

1:01:51
fan whatever is in our in our development code for landscaping standards.

1:01:56
Okay, so this is as measured from the roof

1:02:01
just refresh my memory. Where is that measurement started there along the river?

1:02:10
Hold on grabbing my code here because I want to be precise

1:02:14
or that setback.

1:02:21
It used to be top of bank, I just want to make sure that still there

1:02:31
is still

1:02:34
a direct green vegetation or thurs

1:02:37
grade education,

1:02:38
they’re just further away. I guess it’s the greater of the two distances plus 250 feet to where any development could occur from the site. Okay. And as your as somebody who’s getting really ready to develop it if in fact council approves the annexation What would be the next step?

1:03:02
After everything’s approved? If it does, if it was annexed, what would be the next step?

1:03:07
And then it’s up to the applicant to decide how they want to develop it come up with a site plan

1:03:15
that would go through

1:03:17
a site plan, and that Yeah, that would go through the DRC. And if for any reason they couldn’t meet the 150 feet. City Council has changed the regulation. So you would be a recommending body on variants and on the final decision maker, and council will make the final decision on whether to grant the setback variants if if one is requested, and it would have to go through our sts sustainability

1:03:45
valuation systems evaluation

1:03:46
system, where we have this checklist and it has to prove up the merits of the case of why

1:03:54
that would be an appropriate thing to do. Right. So they’d have to plead their case before us for a recommendation

1:03:59
and then So has

1:04:00
the final decision. Right? And that’s has to all be done before they can basically run the site plan through to approval.

1:04:10
Yes. Okay. Thank you very much, either.

1:04:17
You mentioned something about this before, but I just want to get a clear in my head. So we have these environmental statements from 2014 2015. It’s been plenty of time is past us. And my concern is that these these reports are relatively old.

1:04:38
But I think you said something previously that

1:04:43
if the applicant goes forward with a, with a site, plan application and the doctrine of DRC that another environmental statement, or no other environmental study has to be done, for sure,

1:04:56
a species a jabber chat report and in geotech report Or maybe not another phase one and phase two, on the timing of that, as David mentioned, they acquire the property in 2014. That’s when the that was done. Remember that before they even started this whole process into the neighborhood meeting in 2018, they had to go to Council for referral, if we do that in 2017 2016. So it’s been a long time I did that, but I don’t remember how many years ago it was. So just keep in mind that that report was fresher when they started through this whole process. And as a as a team of our city staff when they submitted their formal application. We took into context that nothing’s changed on the property since 2014. We’ve been observing it over the years and there’s been you know, nothing significant that would warrant us to say you need to go back and do more soil samples, because we saw x activity going on in the last couple years since that report was that nothing has happened. differently on that so and so we started this down this process, I think 2016 with the annexation referral, the council. So at that time, that report was fresh and it just kind of stayed with the application materials.

1:06:13
So, um, you just said something.

1:06:17
So the use of the site now, in my understanding is that it’s being rented to Lawson construction for a portion of those, they’re storing some equipment on, have there been observations made by staff to see whether that has actually changed the conditions mean, what if they have like a truck there? That’s just like, losing oil? Um, you know, do we not because there’s been a change in who it’s been rented to. Are we sure that there has not been a substantial change in terms of what’s happening on that land,

1:06:57
ensuring I can say no one has been going Going out and inspecting through the years, the site in the soil to see if anything has been spilled out there. We do know it’s been storage of one form or another for contractors, vehicle maintenance and soap, landscapers and so forth. So it’s consistently been that type of land use.

1:07:25
Sure, sure. Tell me about

1:07:29
the you mentioned the industrial ish

1:07:33
use or of the area. If

1:07:38
the, in the request for annexation, could the applicant have requested any other zoning

1:07:51
other than what we designated in the Envision plan and is it typical in that we designate property. That is our side of the city with

1:08:05
good questions. So chernykh Commissioner intended to answer the first question, so we ever caught? Well, I guess it’s kind of going to be both. We have our comprehensive plan. We do designate land that’s not in our city, but it’s in our municipal service area. And we do that because we just want to let other property owners know if you want to annex This is what our expectation is, if you come to our city, this is what our expectation is of how you develop this land. And that’s set by city council,

1:08:37
of course, it’s part

1:08:38
of the policy. And so typically, it’s our expectation that someone who wants to annex will choose a zoning that’s consistent with their land use designation. And to answer the second question, if someone wanted to come in, bring a property in and zone it to something that’s not consistent with his land use designation, they would also have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment first with City Council and explain up why they think that there should be a different land use designation on that property and go through that whole process. Thank you.

1:09:22
Well, I’m going to step back and now look at the big picture a little bit. I personally support this proposal and in general, I support urban growth within the corridor. If you look at the pedestrian shed that is walking distance, not walking distance out of the whole assembly and corridor, you’re going to see that there are a lot of amenities and services already provided. So in terms of the land use point

1:09:58
this is a very convenient place. for urban growth

1:10:02
now, there were a lot of environmental concerns in the correspondence we received. There are a lot of good examples in the whole nation as well. an extreme example is actually in Central Park in Manhattan, a very high density urban edge facing a very diverse and well managed Park, which is one of the best in the whole nation in the world. So there are ways to provide that edge. There are ways to provide densities to keep the momentum and riparian corridor. There are a lot of references in the correspondence to resilience and what’s going to be the future, you know, climate changes so far. With that, I asked the question if we don’t encourage and allow growth within the riparian corridor or within the Same brain corridor, what are we encouraging? We’re encouraging, encouraging growth in countries. Any unit that doesn’t come to this particular area will go somewhere else. And that’s going to have much more serious consequences in terms of the habitat conservation and our energy conservation. Now, in terms of the resilience, one of the very important principles is the adaptation and creating pockets of sets efficiencies. Building in cornfields is antithesis of that. That is why using this potential within the corridor is actually very resilient for the future. So it would be very short sighted for us to look at certain concerns and kind of Technically reject growth within the corridor. That’s my personal Eva.

1:12:12
There was a concern part up above the stone catfish. Stone cat

1:12:17
fish.

1:12:23
So anyways, it appears to me if I look at the diagram

1:12:28
that the property does not go into the creek Currently, the

1:12:36
Africans probably does isn’t probably free. So technically, I guess I can see.

1:12:41
I guess then if I have a question with that, then go to Josh

1:12:45
Sherman about their what gets done when the channel gets widen with this with the fish.

1:12:56
To answer your first question, yeah, the study would not that this property Wouldn’t involve because they don’t have that she said is no water

1:13:04
but it’s a it’s close to it so I’m just wondering when the channel gets wide and

1:13:12
what do what does the city do

1:13:15
in regards to this don’t cat fish

1:13:20
Good evening, Josh German city along with public works Natural Resources civil engineer and project manager on this one of the project managers on the city’s resilience and drink

1:13:30
with regard to

1:13:33
the channel cross section if you will for for the improvements and widening we have an exhibit but we create a tiered, multiple tiered cross section and it has a pilot or a low flow channel within that that meanders through the low flow. We size that low flow channel for historic base glows and tried to provide a depth that allows for The native aquatic habitat so that for instance, maybe the water doesn’t get too hot during the summer whenever we’re in some of those low flow periods. And so that and other areas not specifically this reach, but if we need to, we have dropped structures that will create fish passage through those areas so that they can migrate upstream and downstream. So those the the project has early on and continues to work with our own natural resources department, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, others with regard to

1:14:36
not just aquatic species, but but all habitat through the corridor and

1:14:43
then I have

1:14:45
Eva

1:14:47
who can speak towards the bait swallows

1:14:49
and the concern that was brought up about the things was in that area. We

1:14:57
have Dan Wolford from natural resources.

1:15:00
Who might be able to answer about bank swallows?

1:15:04
There’s there’s concern brought up by the public that there’s been swallows in that area that they’re, I guess a protected species? Well, they’re, they’re a migratory species. So

1:15:16
from that perspective, they would they are protected during their migration period. And that would be coordination with our engineering staff and in the contract is for a given project, make certain that none of that disturbance, if they want to move in during that time that then their nest won’t be disturbed. So if we have the ability to move in there prior to them moving in or migrating, then we don’t have a problem once they’re here. And it’s hands off until they migrate likely in October. And

1:15:53
did this there was a

1:15:55
study done, and did this

1:15:57
study show that there was

1:15:59
a Currently,

1:16:01
these

1:16:06
are the things was, was that was that shown in the study that there in that area?

1:16:13
The report that I wrote, you know, because that’s not on the project site. I mean, there’s no, my study is within the red boundary of the project site. So I didn’t look it off site impacts. We discussed the ball legal because it’s in the

1:16:31
corridor and it’s a bird that

1:16:34
flies around is not so tied, but we didn’t look at

1:16:39
impacts to bank swallows that aren’t on the project site. There’s no habitat for them

1:16:45
on the actual river set property. Okay. I don’t

1:16:54
tell me about the area where the, the bank Swan was most Where its habitat mostly is.

1:17:03
Typically what we see is a lot of the bridges that we have throughout the city and underpasses rock our trails, we do get quite a few swallows that come in and nested in those sites. A lot of cut banks, if you would go out to the same brain, it will category one and look west to see where there’s a cut back and you see quite a few banks wallets in through there, we see quite a few swallows that are, you know, in those cut banks, along the same brain, again, to the east, the world camera one, but again, on a regular basis. I mean, even our parks that has to be very cautious in the early spring, to make certain that old nests are removed even in our shelters where they get tucked up in corners and do those kind of things. So we see that pretty regularly throughout city

1:17:50
but in terms of habitat, in the whole scheme of the larger area, say of the United States is Colorado primary or I would say yes,

1:18:01
most definitely.

1:18:02
So there are probably more banks, Wells and other counties as well. You

1:18:07
know, again, I’m not that expert on individual species, but as they migrate up and down, you know, suspected on our front range and some of those movement corridors,

1:18:17
you factor number swarms.

1:18:19
Thank you.

1:18:21
I have a question. I think you might be the right person for it. Number I think it was this boy had in her statements, the question, How can an environmental assessment be made without knowing what will be built on? Could you speak to that?

1:18:40
perspective? I mean, is we’re looking at this being an annexation.

1:18:45
We’re not seeing any kind of real development going on with just political boundaries being shifted, really, from our perspective, as we looked at the habitat assessment, you know, there were issues and just it identification species wasn’t a big concern. Now as a development plant comes in, and we’re looking at what, you know what’s going on, and especially in that riparian corridor, what the intentions are, then we might have more significant concerns. But at this point in time, this is really more of an awareness. You know, for our perspective,

1:19:21
we know generally, what is that

1:19:23
property being zoned as? So based on those, I think, you know, we’ve got at least enough information to believe that we have a sense of what’s going to happen.

1:19:35
Commissioner Grover? Thanks, Jim.

1:19:38
Yeah, I’d like to thank the rest of the commission for slowly striking off all of my questions that I had listed.

1:19:46
So with that, then I guess I’d like to just revisit a couple of the key concerns that we heard in the feedback from the public today. Maybe we can get a step closer towards making a decision today. Ever. I just want to be abundantly clear. And I know you said it already, that there was multiple concerns about how can we improve something before we see a more developed plan. But just to be abundantly clear where we’re at today, with this annexation proposal and concept plan review before us, this is typical. We are we’re in a normal place during annexation review. And yes, sometimes projects are more further along sometimes they’re less but there’s no red flags ways raised by the city here for the project that we’re reviewing today.

1:20:36
is Chris Jericho was gold. I’d say all those are accurate. Okay, thanks.

1:20:40
Yeah. You know, Missy mom is my least those to echo those guys. Additionally, Mr. Boardman was cmo was bowmen. Miss Malloy, just you know, here today equid concerns about this being a former landfill site, maybe maybe not with the report. That we were given today from the Army Corps of Engineer, you know, our kind of governing body, if you will said, we don’t have any evidence of this being a former landfill site, is that correct?

1:21:13
Again, kamisha go right. That’s correct. And more importantly, they didn’t do a detailed study. They that was an anecdotal remark that they had

1:21:19
heard that they had put in the report.

1:21:20
We did get a phase one. They did soil samples, there was no material there consistent with a landfill.

1:21:26
With their boring,

1:21:28
great, the rumor being that it was once a landfill, not that we did the reporting and that we got that affected,

1:21:33
right. Cool.

1:21:35
It is also like the burden falls on the developer. If there’s any of these tainted soil treatment, tainted soils or stings, they do need to be addressed by the developer. So concerns with methane might be revisited concerns with soil will all need to be addressed as an effort.

1:21:55
Correct. Thanks. Okay.

1:22:00
There have been, I think multiple species and habitat assessments done. And you identified, I think, an alternative chairmanship question as well, that there may be an opportunity for an additional habitat assessment as this project moves along. The feedback we’ve received so far, suggests or confirms that there’s no existing issues relating to habitat for wildlife. Let me stop there.

1:22:30
That’s a question. Is that is that

1:22:33
how the reports I’ve read so far?

1:22:35
Yes, for sure. Go work. So typically with annexations species and habitat reports serve as kind of a baseline of what’s there. And if we don’t have a site specific plan in the concept plan, then we’re just saying the baseline, here’s what’s existing. When and if a development application were to come in, that’s where they have to start. really digging deeper into the impacts of adjacent species. And making sure that those aren’t being impacted. Great.

1:23:05
Yeah, there’s I mean, obviously, this is a very critical issue for those of us, you know, who love this city so much in this town so much and protecting those habitats is really important, of course, also identified in our packet was

1:23:18
there’s no concern about impact eagles, you know, some of these, you know, more provocative animals that, you know, animals that live in our in our town. This isn’t an issue, but certainly as the project moves along, we’ll continue to track that.

1:23:34
Right, I would actually just say just Sorry, just to add to that is this this could actually be better environmentally, because they don’t have any trees or anything out there that would provide nesting whereas if, you know, the development plan were to come in, they’d have to have landscaping plans with trees,

1:23:51
especially adjacent to the creek so that could provide habitat where there are none. None exists at the moment.

1:23:57
Now also during this discussion, I heard

1:24:00
Yeah, applicant confirm, although it’s part of the process anyways, but confirm that if any additional concern environmental issues arise between now and development that he would own the addressing of those issues.

1:24:17
Is it also true that we just highlighted some of

1:24:23
some of the values that this project could bring to the table as far as serving our goals and our vision Longmont and general comprehensive plan

1:24:34
using infill developing where, you know, developing, using infill, you know, growing

1:24:41
and then also providing creative, unique living spaces workspaces and really just addressing some of the goals that came out of the ambition.

1:24:54
So, I think maybe I’ll stop there and just kind of flip back to the rest of the commission at this time,

1:25:01
Given there’s

1:25:03
we’ve addressed some of the concerns raised by the public. We’ve addressed anything, any issues raised by the by the city, in reviewing the packet and given the fact that the city’s recommendation is to approve it.

1:25:16
I’m leaning favorably towards overbeat. So I guess looking to see any feedback from the rest of the division.

1:25:27
I have a question to Commissioner gold will burst point for a vote but maybe for Josh, with regard to the dedication for widening of the creek,

1:25:43
which sounds

1:25:44
very attractive to me, if we were to deny or the council were to deny the annexation, would, how would that proceed with that the would that still be possible or is This our opportunity to get

1:26:02
the creek widened in that spot.

1:26:07
So, again, Josh Sherman. So the the language is currently in the annexation agreement is kind of very typical of what we put in annexation agreements, when we know we might have an impact on a on a property based on some master plan or other piece of information that we might have. And so they request that they dedicate that land to the city at Tom final plat or upon our request. But to answer your question, if they weren’t coming in for innovation, we’ve already talked to them in terms just like we talked to all the other impacted property owners about the project to say, when we get a little further along with final design, and we know what we’re going to need to do with regard to actual boundaries. We’re going to talk about acquisition of either land or permanent easements or temporary construction easements, whether they’re annex are not annexed. And so really, it’s a timing issue. If If this animation goes through or doesn’t go through. But if it goes through, it could still take some time. And if we get to a point where we need to acquire land before that n ization is complete, and we’ve requested, we’ll talk about acquisition, if it’s the other way around, and we’ll just ask for the request. And so we had to do acquisition or easements on previous phases, and to be honest, most of the properties adjacent to the channel experienced the 2013 flood. And today we’ve been in a you know, very fortunate situation of it’s been a willing seller willing buyer situation because, you know, the goals are the resilience, same brain project to protect this community from future flood risks. Those that are at most risk are oftentimes those that are immediately adjacent to the creek.

1:27:46
Thank you drop, dead. Yeah, I’m sure there’s an easement option as well. So if you know that annexation is going to happen, but you need to act further fast, you can create a temporary Some threat. And, you know, that is going to be delivered after the approval rating.

1:28:06
There’s probably a way to work that out. But typically, and in this case, actually, we have some utilities that we need to relocate ahead of any channel improvements proceeding in this quarter. If we move forward with those head of this annexation, we would need some easements, typically permanent easements for our utilities. Because there’s never a guarantee that they take the next step.

1:28:33
So but the situation depends, if the situation were one at a temporaries. And that was the finest

1:28:39
potentially evaluated.

1:28:43
So compared with the guys, I’m going to be in favor of this with this proposal to sanitation with some caveats. My first concern was the length of time did it pass to the initial concept at this hearing? isn’t actually We’ve had a robust public participation. So that concern that doesn’t really seem to be borne out reality, people are paying attention to this thing. The concept plans a little thin. I understand it, you know, except with one caveat, and that caveat gets to the fact that the environmental assessment was old. Our code requires for annexation 1502 140 that the applicant shall perform all necessary on site assessments. I don’t personally do that, or no assessment meets those requirements. 15 Oh 206 or requires that a concept plan explicitly state that the EPA will mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment from the project. So what I’m going to want to thinking of proposing is with respect to our our resolutions the party resolution that we approved subject to condition and condition being met a new environmental assessment died and that the African take care of any environment conditions that are that

1:30:12
is that emotion

1:30:14
I’m going to open that up to discussion about it or I just

1:30:23
laughing

1:30:24
that I will move for approval

1:30:26
of PCR oh two oh I’m sorry PCR 2020 to be

1:30:33
the resolution planning and zoning commission recommended condition approval for the river set rivers sec annexation, find that the application was submitted CRC procedures etc. But that with respect to meeting the conditions of approval 15 oh 255 and oh 206 or eight. It needs to develop a co with family traditions. Why? That fan updated environmental assessment investigation be performed. And to that the applicant agreed that it will follow through and recommendations for testing and or remediation identified in that PSP report.

1:31:18
Okay, so we had a motion on the floor to approve 20 PCR 2023 with conditions that an updated esa be done and that the African agrees to do testing and remediation if if necessary.

1:31:35
Permission to fly. I’m going to second that motion because any land that’s an infill position within the city of Longmont, I would just assume that the city of Longmont has the review authority over that parcel because it’s more interest to us as the city one month than it ever would be. Boulder County. So a second. Commercial Grover?

1:32:07
Yeah, I’m favorable to the motion just on the condition that neither one of these conditions that have been added by Chairman height or not already implied or presumed in,

1:32:22
you know, as it reads or based on,

1:32:26
you know, existing DRC and, you know, and just existing processes. So maybe Eva, can you confirm that?

1:32:36
Is it?

1:32:38
Is it duplicative? Is it redundant to add the requirement for a fresh environmental assessment or to add that the applicant must be willing to address the environment, any environmental issues that arise? You see, with my work there for a second, Is that necessary or is it

1:32:55
well, it’s it’s up to the thing is the Commission’s prerogative They, I mean, we have said here and publicly testify, we’ve seen a phase one and phase two or fire departments comfortable with it. They don’t recommend any further mitigation. We’ve said we don’t see any significant changes on the site that would make us want to get a more updated environmental report. But that is the commissioners prerogative to make recommendations to Council.

1:33:27
So yeah.

1:33:30
All right after that, too, because respectfully, what I’d heard, everybody respect the fire department has looked at the reports that were provided in the agency, anything that required additional investigation. I disagreed with the security investigation. Things have changed on the site, there’s a new set of tenants at least or at least one. And, most specifically, you know, the concept plan doesn’t contain that required language to take care of any verbal impacts. Sounds good.

1:34:04
Speaking to that, I think

1:34:09
with in fairness to the applicant would at the time

1:34:13
of a concept plan,

1:34:14
would these

1:34:18
environmental

1:34:19
assessments need to be done anyway? And would they’re doing it now satisfy those requirements if they were necessary? In other words with that,

1:34:36
could that take the place of some additional environmental assessment that might have to be done at the time of the presentation or the leader of the concept lab? Or the oversight?

1:34:50
committee? Sure said see me? Yeah. So if they were to come in and commit for development review, we would not require a new phase one and phase two is a video accepted by the fire department at time annexation, we would require a geotech report and dependent on the findings of the geotech report. We may require some medication but that would be dependent

1:35:10
on what’s submitted to us.

1:35:13
Thank you.

1:35:16
Very good. Oh, it’s one shot to get the appropriate environmental assessment annexation now.

1:35:26
be in favor them

1:35:28
Any further discussion?

1:35:32
Okay, let’s, let’s take a vote on the motion that’s in front of us. Jame will just buy his by hand on Should we do a roll call a

1:35:46
standard

1:35:48
we could do if I roll call. I mean, it doesn’t really matter. I mean, in effect his role, is it easier for you? Okay, so how about it doesn’t matter. Do knows first Are you ladies first? Okay. All those in favor? Raise your hand.

1:36:08
All those opposed? Any abstentions? So that passes unanimously.

1:36:17
And this item will now be forwarded to the lawn on City Council for action. If you’re unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before Council, please contact the planning division for further information at 036518330. All right. Mr. Starnes, thank you very much for presenting your application. Eva, thank you for taking all of our questions. And thank you very much to the public. We appreciate all of your feedback, it helps us make better decisions. So thank you for being here on this snowy night. We do have some more items on our agenda, which will try to get through so that our gentleman next door can start jackhammering Next is final call public invited to be heard for anything that’s not on tonight’s agenda. Does anybody want to speak about anything that’s not on the agenda? Seeing none will close the public inviting encouraging items from the commission.

1:37:18
Nobody took commission any council representative.

1:37:23
I just want to say that a lot of the correspondence that the Commission received the Council also received and has spoken about amongst ourselves to a certain extent, and that the council was definitely very interested to hear what the deliberations and recommendation was from the commission. And I’ll be glad to obviously, add some commentary to what will obviously be provided to us in our packets. And as always, thank you for your service.

1:37:50
Thank you, council member Rodriguez. Any items from Brian Schumacher final note, saying one our next item on our agenda is a German Thank you very much