Longmont Planning & Zoning Meeting – April 21, 2021
Read along below, or follow along here: https://otter.ai/u/052hcVPoG5cEKms-wfRm6uzoB3g
Unknown Speaker 2:30
Thank you Good evening everybody. Welcome to the April 21 2021 planning and zoning commission meeting. First item on our agenda
Unknown Speaker 2:40
is our Roll Call.
Unknown Speaker 2:43
Everybody Welcome to the April 2011 chernick.
Unknown Speaker 2:47
Commissioner boon first item on our agenda
Unknown Speaker 2:51
is our Roll Call.
Unknown Speaker 2:57
Thank you Commissioner flag here. Commissioner Goldberg.
Unknown Speaker 3:03
James, Mr. hight Rosa, Commissioner Polin, your
Unknown Speaker 3:10
circle Berg here. Councilmember Rodriguez.
Unknown Speaker 3:15
Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. I am getting some feedback from somebody microphone. Maybe Commissioner teta? If you could
Unknown Speaker 3:26
Unknown Speaker 3:28
Thank you very much.
Unknown Speaker 3:31
I think that’s the problem. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 3:34
All right. So anyone wishing to speak to republican voted to be heard item which are items four and seven on our agenda, or during any public hearing items, or to our agenda item six a and six B will need to watch the livestream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen when it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak.
Unknown Speaker 4:15
Next item on our agenda are communications from planning director Glen van inwagen.
Unknown Speaker 4:23
Good evening, commissioners and chair I don’t have anything for you this evening. Okay, thank you very much one
Unknown Speaker 4:32
item for on our agenda is a public comment. The publican comment period. This is for anything that is not an agenda item on on tonight’s agenda. So if you want to make comments about any of the two projects that we’re going to hear, wait until those projects come up. But if you want to make a comment about anything else, we’d love to hear it. So Susan, if we could put the information up on the
Unknown Speaker 5:00
Unknown Speaker 5:02
The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home, please dial 1888780099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 85117479665 when we’re ready to hear public comment will calling you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. We need to take a five minute break to handle all of the behind the scenes workings of this. Remember this is for anything that is not on the agenda tonight. Okay, we’ll take a five minute break
Unknown Speaker 10:23
Alright, chair, I’m going to go ahead and drop the slide, and then we’ll give our live stream a few seconds to get caught up.
Unknown Speaker 10:29
Thank you, Susan.
Unknown Speaker 10:34
And at this moment, we have
Unknown Speaker 10:39
no one that has called in. So let’s just make sure our slide drops from the live stream. And it looks like we’re back. Great. Thank you, Susan. So no one has called in for the public comment. So we will close the public comment. There will be a second one at the end of the meeting. We’ll move on to agenda item five, which is approval of the minutes. Is there any discussion by commissioners on the minutes? comments or concerns?
Unknown Speaker 11:08
Unknown Speaker 11:11
Yeah, thanks, Chairman. I’d like to move to approve the February 17 minutes. Okay, we have a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner height. I’ll second. Seconded by Commissioner hight. All those who were present at the meeting should be voting on all those in Wait, now. I got to do this person by person. I’m sorry. We just changed our bylaws. So I need to go through a roll call vote on old habits die hard. Um, Commissioner teta?
Unknown Speaker 11:43
Yes. Commissioner flag. Yes. Commissioner Poland? Yes. Commissioner height. All right. Commissioner Goldberg.
Unknown Speaker 11:54
Yes. Commissioner Boone, your options, since you were not seated during the meeting generally would be to abstain. Um, could I get your vote? Please not to tell you what to do. You could also vote yes or no.
Unknown Speaker 12:14
I wasn’t seated. So I will abstain. Okay, and I will vote yes to approve the minutes. So the minutes pass, six to zero with one abstention.
Unknown Speaker 12:25
And this takes us to item number six a on our agenda, which is the Longmont Church of Christ replat and conditional use site plan with associate planner Zach blazic.
Unknown Speaker 12:41
Good evening. Can everybody see hear me?
Unknown Speaker 12:44
All right. Thank you for joining me, commissioners. I’m Zack blazic associate planner in Longmont planning development services. Susan, I have the presentation pulled up ready to go.
Unknown Speaker 13:00
Hopefully, give me just a second. No problem. There you go. Alright, so thank you for joining me, I’m here to present the long lunch for Christ’s conditional use site plan. We can go to the next slide, Susan.
Unknown Speaker 13:15
So the llama Christ is located at 1351 Collier street that’s on the west side of Collier street halfway between Mountain View and 15th ab, its own residential mixed neighborhood, all of the surrounding properties are also zoned residential mixed neighborhood. It’s an existing church was originally permitted in 1996. And in today’s code, it is a conditional secondary use, we can go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 13:41
So what we see here is the top half of the site plan they’re proposing.
Unknown Speaker 13:49
what they’re going to do is to separate petitions, one at the entrance that’s on the southeast corner of the building, that’s a smaller addition just under 2000 square feet. And then we also have a larger addition just over 7000 square feet in the southeast corner of the building. We can go to the next slide, Susan.
Unknown Speaker 14:07
Thank you. Here we have the bottom half of the site plan where we can see they’re adding some parking, making some landscape modifications and adding some stormwater infrastructure as well. They are relocating an existing approved modular building down to the southern portion of that site. And the last thing that they are doing is combining the lots so that the lot at one three to seven, that’s the house at the south east corner of the lot so that they’re all included on the same property. We can go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 14:37
Here we have building elevation as it would be seen from the east side on call your street. The reddish brown indicates the existing building. That’s the church that’s already there. What we see in the dark brown, the tan with the Windows is what they’re proposing as new. So that’s the smaller portion in the front and then the larger portion in the back. We can go
Unknown Speaker 15:00
To the next sign. So churches in places places of worship fall under the assembly use category and municipal code. Assembly is permitted as a secondary use in the neighborhood zoning district with the specific standard that assembly use is larger than 15,000 square feet require conditional use approval. And so with the expansion, the grand total is going to be 23,360 square feet.
Unknown Speaker 15:26
The project is subject to two different sections of review criteria 15 Oh, 2055 and 15. Oh 403081. See, that’s for the secondary uses. The applicant is going to speak to those at the conclusion of my presentation, we go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 15:42
For my review, the project meets land development code requirements for conditional use site plan in the Southern District. That’s for things like maximum height setbacks, building design, exterior lighting, circulation, pedestrian language, I do you want to note that we’ve completed three reviews on this project with staff and we do have some remaining comments. Specifically relating to the biggest challenge that these guys had on their site. And their design was with their stormwater design. And that was definitely a challenge engineer wise. So they’ve gotten through the bulk of that. And we still have some remaining comments, landscaping, utilities, drainage, and a few things remaining with that stormwater design. So just to know we still have a few staff comments remaining, we can go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 16:29
As far as community outreach with all conditional use site plans, we have a neighborhood meeting before we accept the first middle. This was held on January 30 2020. At the church, there were six folks in attendance. Neighbors generally were supportive. And the biggest issue that came up was traffic on call your street limited Austria parking availability during heavy church attendance times. When we when they submitted we notified the usual list of referral agencies and Xcel Energy was the only one to respond with general comments. We sent out the notice of application on May 28 2020, and didn’t receive any comments. And we sent out the notice of public hearing on April 7, and also received no comments from the public, you can go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 17:15
So here are your options and what you can vote, you can approve the cu SP you can approve the CSP with conditions or you can deny c USB, you can go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 17:26
Tonight, what I’m going to do is recommend conditional approval of the local church of christ condition use site plan with the condition that the applicant will complete all outstanding red lines on the site plan and obtain approval from the development committee.
Unknown Speaker 17:40
And that’s all for me. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 17:45
So up next, I will present Paul and whoever else with the with the team to go ahead and jump in from here
Unknown Speaker 17:53
Unknown Speaker 17:57
This is Paul Finley Walmart Church of Christ. Hopefully you can hear me,
Unknown Speaker 18:02
commissioners and Chairman, I’m pleased to present this. We’ve been working on this for some time. And so we’re excited to present this to you. Zack went over a lot of the details. And I’ll walk through some of the items here. We can click to the next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 18:20
The launch price, the owner of the site, we’ve owned this site since around 1950, then on the site for quite a while 2.4 acres. And as I pointed out this place of worship as a secondary use
Unknown Speaker 18:35
for the plan. And so the proposal is those two additions that that pointed out the larger is a auditorium space as a single story. And then there’s also also single storey office spaces further east.
Unknown Speaker 18:52
And so there’s the expansion of Park monitor the South updated landscape and you saw water quality provisions which yes was a
Unknown Speaker 19:02
really quite a challenge on this site.
Unknown Speaker 19:06
And so I think what you’ll find the plants consistent, comprehensive plan that conforms to the previous plans that are actually some landscaping. It’s been updated to bring some old landscaping work trees and dive back up to previous plants complies with applicable statutes, codes ordinances.
Unknown Speaker 19:32
This is straight out of the comprehensive plan to showing you further how the comprehensive plan breaks up the areas.
Unknown Speaker 19:42
Right here the Orange is the mixed neighborhood of course, purple is the Main Street corridor. The yellow is the single family neighborhood area, just so you understand where this property sits relative to the other
Unknown Speaker 19:53
zoning in Sydney. There
Unknown Speaker 20:00
Hey, we can go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 20:03
Again, this is a bird’s eye view of the property here. things I’d like you to notice relative to this property, you can see that the red pin there marks the actual main building of the long walk church.
Unknown Speaker 20:20
And you can see the parking lot below and has several cars in it. north of the property. North is up in this figure. Those are some apartment buildings, multiple family housing facilities, those are two storey apartment buildings.
Unknown Speaker 20:35
To the left West, those are single family homes and duplexes two story that are on the west side of that property. If you go south, there are a couple of larger lots and as a single family home, one of them’s a duplex, that the larger lots with more trees on them there.
Unknown Speaker 20:54
And over to the right across call your street is another large apartment complex, a three storey apartment complex. Just to help you understand the neighborhood we’re going into,
Unknown Speaker 21:06
and what we’re surrounded by the facility here.
Unknown Speaker 21:11
I know we’re growing the size of the building, relative to the apartment buildings and things nearby.
Unknown Speaker 21:18
I think it fits in respond very well. And as you’ll see, our property doesn’t have a lot of trees on it, but it will get a lot more when you look at the landscape.
Unknown Speaker 21:32
During the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 21:36
This is a this is the Street View of the existing main bill. As you can see it’s brick.
Unknown Speaker 21:43
And it’s It was built at several different times over the years. But that’s the current building. And so when you look at it there, the bushes that you see behind the sign those that’s where that administrative addition will go right there certain point of view. And then the larger auditorium section is off to the left of this figure behind the pyramid shaped Pete
Unknown Speaker 22:11
is where that that additional sit.
Unknown Speaker 22:16
Otherwise, the inference on the call your street is nearly the same, maybe moving by few feet, compared directly with the site plan. But otherwise, the access onto the street is the same that the parking lot is growing to the south.
Unknown Speaker 22:36
Yeah, there we go. So here’s a close up of the existing site.
Unknown Speaker 22:42
And so you can see to the south, the south of the parking lot, there are several buildings.
Unknown Speaker 22:47
On the right, there are two residential houses that are owned by the church and use. Those are staying as is not being changed at all southmost one Zack pointed out as being
Unknown Speaker 23:01
replanted to be part of this one piece of property here.
Unknown Speaker 23:07
There’s also a modular building there that’s going to move to the south part of the property. And there’s also a garage and a shed that will be destroyed to this project.
Unknown Speaker 23:20
You can also see in the south southwest corner, undeveloped area at times and a garden.
Unknown Speaker 23:29
And so that area, of course will be utilized as the parking lot goes to the south, some of the spots and currently in the parking lot.
Unknown Speaker 23:39
immediately adjacent to the existing building will have to be moved. And so growing the parking lot to the south is necessary to recoup those parking spots and add some more parking spots as well.
Unknown Speaker 23:54
Unknown Speaker 23:57
So this, this comes out of the site plan in the landscape plan. And I brought up this view just so you can see that the increased number of trees and improved landscaping that will get on the property.
Unknown Speaker 24:11
You can see with the arrows the footprint of the two building additions that are marked here building one and then two. Building one is an auditorium space the church uses the sanctuary as well as multiple uses.
Unknown Speaker 24:25
And so it’s a larger open area building to mark here that addition is administrative office type space. Both are single storey building one is much taller, because it is that that essentially auditorium.
Unknown Speaker 24:44
Like I said the landscaping is updated the parking suspended itself. The arrow by the water quality note is pointing directly to one of the rain gardens that will be added to the property. Again to put in those water quality improvements.
Unknown Speaker 25:00
Unknown Speaker 25:05
we go to the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 25:08
So what I’ve done here, and commissioners, please stomach you’d like me to do this differently. I pulled out some bullets that I think summarize our response to the review criteria, if you prefer, I can read through the the individual items in the review criteria in response to each one, it wasn’t sure exactly how you prefer that to go.
Unknown Speaker 25:29
But from my perspective, the review criteria is mainly focused on how well this addition continues to meet the comprehensive plan, and how well this addition fits in with this neighborhood.
Unknown Speaker 25:46
And so that’s what I’ve tried to point out here. But as I finish this, if you’d like me to go through in more detail, I can or if you have other questions, we can talk about those.
Unknown Speaker 25:55
So the the proposed plan, it is in keeping with envision, long, comprehensive plan, it is a secondary use. And of course, the places of worship, the list of secondary uses, it’s primarily a residential area. And this area has both the single family and the multifamily residential areas very nearby.
Unknown Speaker 26:14
It’s it’s in keeping with the current facility design.
Unknown Speaker 26:17
And in that way, it’s not impactful to the surrounding neighborhood, the function of this facility really isn’t changing, continuing to do the same things that always did. It’s continuing to be used at the same times in the same ways, as it always did.
Unknown Speaker 26:32
And one of the neighborhood meeting, there weren’t concerns that the church actually has pretty good reputation wants to savers.
Unknown Speaker 26:40
And we offer some some community outreach type activities that have become an amenity to some of the locals.
Unknown Speaker 26:49
And so the use here isn’t changing. We continue to be the religious facility, along with community activities and outreach activities.
Unknown Speaker 27:00
Let’s look at the next slide.
Unknown Speaker 27:04
And so the there were some previous concept plans that probably should have pointed them out in the landscape view that had some trees that over the years we’ve lost. And so we’re replacing those to bring the landscaping that some of the older area that’s not being modified back up to the previous edition, extensive addition to the landscaping that’s been improved on the site.
Unknown Speaker 27:32
Like I said, we are significantly increasing the size of the building, we saw that that square footage,
Unknown Speaker 27:39
but also has some very large buildings around us. It’s not an area that’s that’s small homes. It’s actually as these duplexes, two story homes and apartment buildings.
Unknown Speaker 27:50
There was no transportation plan submitted. Actually, the the staff didn’t request one. There’s no new streets or public sidewalks are already connected to the transportation system. And so the team is there. And so we’ve worked with the staff with Zack and the others on the staff through these three submissions to comply with regulations. And as that there are some comments remaining from that third submission, and of course, we will address those.
Unknown Speaker 28:20
That’s all I have as part of my presentation, but I’ll leave it to the chair or commissioners on if you’d like to discuss further any questions you’d like answered.
Unknown Speaker 28:31
Thank you very much, Mr. Finley, I’m sure if we have more questions about their review criteria we’ll be asking.
Unknown Speaker 28:38
But before we get to that, this is a public hearing item. And I’d like to go through the public hearing process at this time. So Susan, if we could put our slide up on the screen to give the details that people need to call in about this particular item.
Unknown Speaker 28:55
It’s being displayed on your screen now. If you want to call and make comments about this particular item, please call 1888780099. When prompted enter the meeting id 85117479665. When we’re ready to hear public comment will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. To do this, we need five minutes to make the technology work. We’ll be back at
Unknown Speaker 29:35
Unknown Speaker 33:29
All right, sure, I am going to drop this slide and let’s wait for the live stream to get caught up. Thank you Susan.
Unknown Speaker 33:56
Alright, looks like it’s caught up and share we have no callers. Okay, nobody called him for the
Unknown Speaker 34:03
public invited to be heard we will close the public hearing on this item and move on to questions and discussion by the Commission. I’d like to start off with a question for Mr. Finley, um, do you expect the size of your congregation to grow because of this addition? And because I saw that in the neighborhood meeting.
Unknown Speaker 34:27
There were some concerns about street parking sometimes, but then in our packet, your parking is expanding to the south. And there’s some expectation that that might improve street parking. But I’m wondering if that improvement is going to be offset by an expansion of the size of your congregation.
Unknown Speaker 34:48
So the the primary reason we went into this expansion was to grow the sanctuary area that area we use for primarily a Sunday worship center.
Unknown Speaker 35:01
And so that is the time when we get the most people in the building. And that is an area where we’re, we do expect to get more people in to support that. And so to support that we’ve we’ve tried to expand the parking lot as much as our property. And, of course, the codes associated with parking space in a little while in order to accommodate a larger group of people on Sunday mornings. Yes. Okay. Um, and question for Zack, following up on this, um, Zach, in terms of parking requirements, we have
Unknown Speaker 35:40
parking maximums for commercial, but what about for assembly? Are there different parking requirements for assembly? Sure. So the there is a parking maximum for assembly use, it’s one space to every four seats within the assembly area. So that goes off of how many seats there are in the new sanctuary. And a calculation was done and everything looks good. That’s correct. Okay. All right. Great. Any questions? Any questions from other commissioners? Commissioner polling?
Unknown Speaker 36:11
Yeah, Mr. Finley? Can you just tell me, what is your current number of parking spaces? What are you going to be expanding to? And what is roughly your average attendance on us for Sunday service?
Unknown Speaker 36:28
Our current number of spaces is under 100. I believe it’s 93 grand around their
Unknown Speaker 36:35
Unknown Speaker 36:38
The the new design.
Unknown Speaker 36:42
Let me see if Kevin may have a better number. But I think we settled on. It was around 110 or 115. We were trying to get more but the rain garden group.
Unknown Speaker 36:55
But we have added some because we’re I believe it’s more like 115 spaces.
Unknown Speaker 37:01
Our current average attendance on a Sunday morning or at least
Unknown Speaker 37:08
if I can qualify current meaning before COVID year, about 240 people.
Unknown Speaker 37:14
Okay, and does that include classes and and other meetings that take place during services? Yeah, all meetings. During services, we can we get a count.
Unknown Speaker 37:26
And we we collect them all into, at least our historically collected them all into one place in that sanctuary. So that 240 number was our average in 2019. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 37:43
Any other questions? Commissioner flag.
Unknown Speaker 37:49
Thank you, Chair. Zack, I have a question regarding the the storm drainage. Can you go into that a little bit more? What kinds of issues there are on that site?
Unknown Speaker 38:03
You know, I’d actually direct that to the engineer specifically who is with us, I believe.
Unknown Speaker 38:13
With with Paul’s team here. Yeah, that would be Joe Coco. He’s on the line.
Unknown Speaker 38:23
Yes, he around.
Unknown Speaker 38:25
So Joe, muted. There we go. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 38:30
Can you talk a little bit about what the storm drainage issues are on that site.
Unknown Speaker 38:38
As far as drainage issues, oh, here, let me move my phone into a good spot here.
Unknown Speaker 38:46
You know, there’s not really issues, it’s really just a vertical situation. The site is extremely flat because of the situation that you have with the flat site. And there’s no no depth to your storm sewer outfall in your overall system. So it prevents,
Unknown Speaker 39:08
like detention ponds, anything that requires depth for the taining stormwater.
Unknown Speaker 39:16
It, it creates a bad situation for things like that. So because of that we had to go with the second option, which is the rain garden option. And because the site is so flat, he can’t really get the would be the south end of the site up to the north end of the site. So we had to divide the site into two basins have two different rain gardens so we can provide water quality one for each site.
Unknown Speaker 39:41
And do you then have to use any kinds of underground tanks?
Unknown Speaker 39:46
No, because you wouldn’t have an outfall from the underground tank. Then that’s the problem with vertical that we were talking about. In our case, with the rain garden which is very flat it has a depth of
Unknown Speaker 40:00
foot, maybe less in most cases, we could not discharge that off site. Without doing we had to get a little crazy with some things and do some dry wells to try to get the water to drain down into the subgrade soils. There’s a gravel layer that’s about 1520 feet down, that trying to get those to drain into that subsurface layer and drain in that respect as opposed to overland flow or storm sewer. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 40:33
Further questions, Commissioner height.
Unknown Speaker 40:39
Thank you, Mr. Finley. And I guess Susan, if you could go back to the drawing of the new proposed structures or the new layout. And Mr. Finley and ANZAC building number three, this is the relocated modular, is that correct? Yes, that’s correct. And worse, this modular now. It is further north in the work or just off of the existing parking lot area.
Unknown Speaker 41:07
Yeah, close to it. Okay. It’s the white chalk building that we saw in your area that actually no, the white top building is a garage. But it has a brown shingled roof.
Unknown Speaker 41:23
Yes, if you look at this building, the white top is a garage that will be destroyed, to have a long skinny one is the modular building. And it’s just moving in what happens in that building.
Unknown Speaker 41:35
We do various,
Unknown Speaker 41:37
like Bible study classes, as well as we do midweek activities and other things. And it’s kind of a universal one has two big rooms in it, that provide us the gathering place.
Unknown Speaker 41:50
The only real issue I have with it is
Unknown Speaker 41:53
page 41 and 42 of the I’m going to call them the redline plan sets that were in our packet. It hasn’t been presented tonight, and I don’t know if Susan, you’ll be able to find it.
Unknown Speaker 42:06
But there’s a reference to note 15 on page 43 of these redline docs. Zack, I don’t know if there’s a way you can get Susan to pull that set up
Unknown Speaker 42:20
the issue and maybe Zach, you can explain why to no 15 says
Unknown Speaker 42:27
Well, if I can get to it.
Unknown Speaker 42:38
Nonetheless, here we go.
Unknown Speaker 42:45
If you’ve got it, Commissioner height, you can go ahead and add a note I plan clarified it variances requested for the building free encroachment.
Unknown Speaker 42:56
And a gentleman named Kevin authored that note.
Unknown Speaker 43:00
Hello, curious, what’s the encroachment and I haven’t seen any request for variance.
Unknown Speaker 43:09
So the proposal location of the building is within the 20 foot landscape buffer to the south border of the property.
Unknown Speaker 43:20
So Commissioner height the other portion of this comment here is
Unknown Speaker 43:27
is and this is an issue that I’m working through with Kevin specifically but the homes to the east side there,
Unknown Speaker 43:36
you know, that are part of the church property, he was expecting some kind of landscape buffer between those homes, and that I don’t believe is necessary for that buffer to be provided.
Unknown Speaker 43:47
Does that make sense?
Unknown Speaker 43:49
I think are probably because the
Unknown Speaker 43:53
two existing buildings which are residential in nature,
Unknown Speaker 43:57
typically would have a landscape buffers that what you’re saying. Right, but since the church property
Unknown Speaker 44:05
don’t need it. Exactly.
Unknown Speaker 44:10
And you’re wrangling with that or do we know that black and white?
Unknown Speaker 44:15
I’m not wrangling with that at all. That’s that’s a really clear cut to you. Okay. Certainly. Yes. Because I don’t know. And then I’m questioning.
Unknown Speaker 44:26
Kevin statement that it needs a variance. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 44:31
Yeah, I have no concern that we need a variance for that whatsoever.
Unknown Speaker 44:37
Unknown Speaker 44:44
What page was a commissioner
Unknown Speaker 44:47
41 and 42
Unknown Speaker 44:57
Unknown Speaker 45:00
That’s not right.
Unknown Speaker 45:02
This is in the packets. So
Unknown Speaker 45:06
Unknown Speaker 45:13
form l one or sheet l one.
Unknown Speaker 45:20
much further down then that
Unknown Speaker 45:28
was 842 of the red lines themselves.
Unknown Speaker 45:33
Is that right?
Unknown Speaker 45:35
attachment seven? Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 45:40
It is I don’t have
Unknown Speaker 45:42
pagination on my attachment that I can see. This is mostly I see pages here. See for one sheet number.
Unknown Speaker 45:53
What was this one see here that see it’s very near the end. Okay, so landscape plans.
Unknown Speaker 46:03
So for everyone’s edification, Kevin, is a landscape contractor that we use to review some of our landscape plans. You know, this is a set of comments that we’re still working on addressing with him. But city staff are not going to require that one particular piece just so everybody’s clear.
Unknown Speaker 46:27
So Commissioner on eight, do we need to see this particular note?
Unknown Speaker 46:34
Unknown Speaker 46:36
actually, I’d like Theresa Tate to weigh in, if she has the opportunity to look at it and think about it. Now I
Unknown Speaker 46:46
know I’m in the DS she D numbers zero. Am I getting close? The one
Unknown Speaker 46:53
accidently, it’s in the ELLs as i can tell you outside here’s l one. Last There you go. So the bottom building three, note 15. Go to the next page. No. 15 says variance require
Unknown Speaker 47:10
Unknown Speaker 47:14
Unknown Speaker 47:18
Teresa, you have an opinion. Are you there? I am here. I’m sure not Commissioner height. But if I’m understanding the question correctly, you’re asking whether it is my legal opinion or variances required?
Unknown Speaker 47:35
Or is that absolutely correct. It’s not applicable here because the residential and
Unknown Speaker 47:42
commercial nature buildings are on the same line owned by the same owner. Now you’ll seldom hear me say this.
Unknown Speaker 47:49
Back is absolutely
Unknown Speaker 47:51
not because of that. But because I don’t usually say someone’s absolute.
Unknown Speaker 47:58
Are you able to hear me? I missed what you said. Yeah. You absolutely said what?
Unknown Speaker 48:05
Can you speak louder and into the microphone, please?
Unknown Speaker 48:09
Okay, that is correct. And you know, this is certainly we
Unknown Speaker 48:14
give some weight to consultants comments, but ultimately, they are not the authority on.
Unknown Speaker 48:23
Perfect. My questions answered. Thank you very much. Thank you. Excellent.
Unknown Speaker 48:29
Any further questions or discussion amongst the commission?
Unknown Speaker 48:34
Push it over.
Unknown Speaker 48:38
Thanks, Chairman. Yeah, boy, just dropping a seed for the rest of my peers in room and reviewing the packet. You know, in general, I’m favorable for this project. For all the reasons identified in the package.
Unknown Speaker 48:55
Thanks to the city staff for identifying that it meets our review criteria.
Unknown Speaker 49:01
Several of those review criteria include being consistent with the comp plan, complying with city standards,
Unknown Speaker 49:10
not adversely impacting our neighborhood, neighbors and others. And then as well as taking into consideration the review criteria for secondary uses. Maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area consistent being consistent with the comp plan and land use designation for all of these reasons. And then of course,
Unknown Speaker 49:30
because we’ve discussed some of the concerns from the neighborhood meetings, parking drainage, and with Commissioner heights blessing to move on without requiring a variance
Unknown Speaker 49:44
I’d be inclined to support this project.
Unknown Speaker 49:48
So maybe with that, I’ll go ahead and move to approve PCR 2021 dash three V, which includes that the the condition of the applicant must complete
Unknown Speaker 50:00
The red lines in the sight plane.
Unknown Speaker 50:03
Okay, thank you, Commissioner Goldberg we have a motion to approve PCR 2021 dash three B Commissioner Poland.
Unknown Speaker 50:11
I also find that this meets the land development code sections 15 Oh, 2055 and 15. Oh, a one. See, I agree with Joshua. This sounds like a good plan, the neighbor, they seem to be good neighbors. The neighborhood seems to be supportive of this. So I’m secondary seconding this and will support this. Okay, so we have a second for the motion to approve PCR 2021 dash three be Any further discussion?
Unknown Speaker 50:45
I’ll chime in and say that I agree with Commissioner Goldberg and polen in their analysis of all the review criteria, and also conditional, Poland’s comment that
Unknown Speaker 50:55
the applicant seems to be a very good neighbor, and has handled this process. Well.
Unknown Speaker 51:02
Any further discussion? Commissioner height?
Unknown Speaker 51:07
Unknown Speaker 51:10
Because I think my issue identified
Unknown Speaker 51:15
want to call it to doubt the Tory
Unknown Speaker 51:18
rule that we’re heading back to staff, which is to make sure that these red lines get coordinated and approved.
Unknown Speaker 51:27
The red lines that we have been looking at, obviously, there’s some
Unknown Speaker 51:33
info missing them, we don’t exactly know what it is that we’re telling staff that has to be approved here because our red lines that don’t necessarily reflect what staff would be requiring. So my first question is, Teresa, is it appropriate for us to delegate back to staff? This level of discretion?
Unknown Speaker 52:01
Unknown Speaker 52:10
Unknown Speaker 52:12
give her Just a second. We were trying to discount There you are. Very good. Thank you. I seem to be having a little bit of trouble with my money. So forgive me I’m so charged her not Commissioner height. Can you? Can you tell me what level of discretion specifically you’re talking about delegating staff? So catchment seven is the quote unquote redline set of building plans for which there are
Unknown Speaker 52:40
not a lot. But many comments. One of which jumped out to me required a variance, which apparently isn’t required.
Unknown Speaker 52:52
So what I’m saying is the conditional approval that’s on the table, which is that the applicant go back and address the redline comments,
Unknown Speaker 53:05
which not all of which are
Unknown Speaker 53:08
comments that will have to be met?
Unknown Speaker 53:11
Is that appropriate for us to do that?
Unknown Speaker 53:15
This is a conditional fight.
Unknown Speaker 53:18
Bam, is that correct? It’s a condition of what’s on the table is the condition is approval subject to conditions, the conditions being approval, are going through and satisfying all the red lines.
Unknown Speaker 53:34
It would be appropriate, it would be an appropriate delegation for you all to recommend that all the conditions
Unknown Speaker 53:44
of the red line are met, that staff
Unknown Speaker 53:48
Unknown Speaker 53:56
So I understand that that would mean that they would have them the discretion to go through and determine which of those items in the red wine are applicable and which are not.
Unknown Speaker 54:10
Unknown Speaker 54:13
Unknown Speaker 54:15
Thanks, Teresa. Commissioner hate Wouldn’t it be
Unknown Speaker 54:20
more comforting to you if I removed the comments about addressing the outstanding red lines and instead just sought approval from the DRC from the development review committee?
Unknown Speaker 54:36
Unknown Speaker 54:39
pG 2021 three B, is that the one that’s correct?
Unknown Speaker 54:49
which states which references to these red lines.
Unknown Speaker 54:54
And that was going to be my suggestion possibly you want to amend
Unknown Speaker 55:00
Unknown Speaker 55:03
motion to address that issue?
Unknown Speaker 55:10
I’m completely open with that. If that’s
Unknown Speaker 55:15
if we as a team thing that
Unknown Speaker 55:18
helps crease it a little bit to move along. Yeah, I wasn’t concerned about the reliance, but I hear you on perhaps putting unnecessary burden on the motion. So
Unknown Speaker 55:31
maybe I’ll turn to the chair for a recommendation. So, Commissioner Goldberg,
Unknown Speaker 55:37
do you have amended language you would like to put forward how the condition would would?
Unknown Speaker 55:45
Sure, I guess, an amended.
Unknown Speaker 55:50
I’m just deciding the need of it here.
Unknown Speaker 55:55
amended motion could include recommending approval of PCR 2021 dash three B, with the condition that the applicant shall complete, shall obtain approval from the development review committee before final approval.
Unknown Speaker 56:14
Unknown Speaker 56:15
Commissioner Paulin, you seconded this motion. Do you also second the amendment? Yes, I do. Okay, so the motion has been amended to be for approval by the DRC, the design review committee.
Unknown Speaker 56:33
Any further discussion?
Unknown Speaker 56:42
Seeing some thinking going up? So
Unknown Speaker 56:46
that’s why I’m pausing.
Unknown Speaker 56:49
Unknown Speaker 56:51
Shall we take a look commissioners like?
Unknown Speaker 56:55
Thank you Chair, I get uncomfortable about they bring it to us for conditional review, and approval, or recommendation? And then we’re back. Is this going to come to us again?
Unknown Speaker 57:12
Or is this it? And we are in effect telling DRC? Go ahead and make the decision. I
Unknown Speaker 57:21
think, um, let’s have Glen Van inwagen weigh in on this. Um, Glen. My understanding of why we have seen more and more
Unknown Speaker 57:34
pcrs come through over time,
Unknown Speaker 57:38
is with this sort of condition, where our staff is recommending that we condition the PCR with a kind of catch all that the DRC red lines would be approved,
Unknown Speaker 57:55
is so that
Unknown Speaker 57:58
the applicant does not mean to continue to wait to get onto our agenda.
Unknown Speaker 58:06
After all, the red lines are finished basically running to two processes in parallel, running the PC meeting process in parallel with that, that last bit of hanging red lines. But am I correct about that? Why are we getting pcrs like this? Can you help Commissioner heightened Commissioner flag, understand or help them with their concerns about?
Unknown Speaker 58:35
Are we bouncing things back and forth too much? Should we be doing this differently? Yeah. Well, I think you’re exactly right. The processes are kind of separate, but they do kind of come together at the end. So we have to think, way ahead with the Planning Commission, because we have noticed requirements and various other thing.
Unknown Speaker 59:00
Yeah, it’s it’s not unusual that we
Unknown Speaker 59:04
are not quite done with DRC. But we want to have the public hearing and get it approved. But that doesn’t mean that we’re all of a sudden going to drop all the little outstanding issues that are still out there. They won’t have any effect on what you’re seeing tonight, is just buttoning up a few things and and moving it on to permitting. So I hope that I hope that clarifies it. I’m sorry, somebody one of our reviewers wanted to be careful and maybe call out where a variance might be required. But yeah, that’s not the case.
Unknown Speaker 59:45
It would certainly be before you if that was a variance was required. Sure. Okay. Thank you Glenn. Commissioner hype for the Congo. One thing that happened in our February hearing, we got hot
Unknown Speaker 1:00:00
Unknown Speaker 1:00:01
I’ve various requests for some number of trees or variances on the number of the landscaping for particular project. I’m noting the red lights here, in certain instances require certain shrubs, certain more shrubs,
Unknown Speaker 1:00:18
certain number of shrubs to be included, the location of the shrubs, the types of shrubs.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:26
So that’s kind of a critical issue at one level, which we found out, you know, two months ago.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:33
Let me ask, there’s no discretion for the DRC to deviate from those requirements. Is there. Glen, from specifically the landscape requirements? Yeah. I mean, there’s a note here, it says, you know, it’s 30 feet long, you need to add more shrubs, add more shrubs. That’s not a negotiation, is it? That’s a requirement. Right. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:59
And so Glenn, do, is there any chance? I mean, it’s Commissioner heights point, is there any chance that any of these red lines
Unknown Speaker 1:01:09
cannot be met? And would actually force this project back into a potential variance situation?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:18
Yeah, well, I’ll defer to Zachary. Because he’s much more familiar with the conditions. But really, I think for the most part, they are engineering standards that are actually outside the land development code.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:35
So I think that primarily engineering drainage, stormwater quality are the remainder things but Zack, maybe you can give a bit more clarification on that. Yeah, I would agree. I don’t expect there to be any landscape, specifically related issues that would require us to bring this back for a variance. Are there any other issues in the red lines that could come back? or, or, or have a chance of not being able to be met once you work through how to how to resolve it? I certainly don’t expect that.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:13
I expect that all the issues that we’re looking at remaining will be resolved before I send it off.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:19
Unknown Speaker 1:02:23
Okay, um, let’s go ahead and take Zach on. Thank you, Glenn. Let’s go ahead and take a vote from the commission
Unknown Speaker 1:02:31
to what’s on the table is to approve PCR 2021 dash three B, which is a motion to approve this with condition that all that the project would have final DRC approval.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:49
Oh, do a roll call vote. Commissioner Boone high.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:55
Commissioner flag, aye.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:58
Commissioner polen. I
Unknown Speaker 1:03:01
Commissioner height. High
Unknown Speaker 1:03:04
Commissioner teta high.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:07
Unknown Speaker 1:03:11
And I will also vote aye. So that passes unanimously seven to zero. And let me read our notice.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:24
This item now enters a seven day appeal period. During this time any aggrieved party may appeal the Commission’s decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning and zoning Commission’s decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the City Clerk’s Office and the planning office within the seven day appeal period, which begins Thursday, April 22 8am. And ends Wednesday, April 28. At 5pm.
Unknown Speaker 1:03:54
Mr. Finley and to all the members of your team thank you very much for being here tonight and presenting your project. Zack, thank you for walking us through that and helping us with all the details.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:07
We will move on. Let’s go ahead and start with our next item on our agenda which is item six B which is the peak view estates preliminary subdivision plat, which is being presented by
Unknown Speaker 1:04:25
senior planner Eva Parrish, Chef.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:29
Thank you, Michael. I’m sorry.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:32
Thank you chair. Sure.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:34
Unknown Speaker 1:04:35
now that you’re on the screen, your official title is principal planner. I was I was just taking a shot saying senior. So.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:45
Susan, if you can cue us up. Thank you so much. Good evening, Chair chernykh and commissioners Eva Jeff ski, Principal planner Planning and Development Services. This next item is the preliminary subdivision.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:00
plat for peak view estates. Next is Next slide please. So I’m going to walk you through the background of this and then the applicant will go through the review criteria. So I’ll start again with just some background of the location. This red box here is the site. It’s at 2725 West ninth Avenue. As you can see, it is west of Fordham Street, which is west of Hanover Street to familiarize you with area and it Twin Peaks golf course is north of it and the golden Pons nature area is south event. And then we have the valley subdivision in Longmont to the west of it, as you can see right there. And there’s a little park there Valley Park City Park, there’s a city storm drainage facility that kind of runs along the the eastern boundary of this property. And then to the east of it is our a series of properties that are in unincorporated Boulder County.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:04
It is designated on our comprehensive plan as single family neighborhood and its zoning is residential single family. It was annexed in back in late 2019.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:18
And I think that’s all. Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:22
So again, just some background. It’s it’s single family. So the density allowance for this property is it’s one to eight units per acre. And this property is seven acres. So their permissible density per our comprehensive plan is about 56 units. But the applicant is proposing 29
Unknown Speaker 1:06:44
single family homes that so this property is zoned single family residential, it’s not a p od, which means that we you’re not going to be looking at a site plan for all the houses like you would with other projects where you’re looking at all the architecture and so forth. In this instance, you’re reviewing only the subdivision plat the preliminary plat, if it’s approved, we go on to final plat and public improvement plans. And then the developer would take the house permits to the building department where we would check for setbacks in height, etc. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 1:07:21
And so again, this request is a preliminary plat to plat 29 individual residential lots, this layout is flipped. So North would be on your left, South is on the right. But because I didn’t want to flip it north, you would have a really scrunched up view, I turned it on the side. And so what the applicant is proposing is to put in 29 lots and as you can see that there’s one main entrance off of ninth avenue to serve this development. And they’re going to build a new public street called peak view lane. And that would serve this development of Wade road, which is to the west. And it stubs out kind of to the west of this property line for the valley subdivision. It would continue through this property to serve this development, because the fire department requires two points of access. And so Wade road will be brought in to serve this property and connect with peak fuel lane. And then it would step out to the adjacent property to the east, which is in Boulder County. So that one of the review criteria is that you’ve got to you know, make access and make things you know, connecting with other properties so that if the property next door wanted to annex, they’ve got a stubbed in street if they wanted or needed it. And then there’s a couple outlaws, as you can see on the right side, which is what would be the South. That’s
Unknown Speaker 1:08:54
three quarters or more of an acre, it’s an outline, and it’s a drainage detention pond also has utility easements on it. And it buffers as you can see right there on the right side of this, the railroad tracks right there. And then golden ponds nature area is to the south of that. So we’ve got that big outlot there. And then we also have two landscape buffers. If you look on the left side adjacent to ninth Avenue, they’ve got 220 foot wide landscape buffers to buffer the houses, from the noise and so forth off of ninth Avenue. And that’s Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 1:09:37
And so in terms of public outreach, we’ve done a few things. The first thing we did was a neighborhood meeting last year in January, we had about 12 attendees. The main concerns were about the water table in Wade road and how that would might affect the adjacent properties to the valley subdivision. And there were concerns about drainage and flooding, right
Unknown Speaker 1:10:00
And concerns also from the neighbors to the east in Boulder County, because they’re on water wells, and they were concerned about what those impacts to their wells would be. If this property were developed
Unknown Speaker 1:10:13
some more engineering level questions. And then we got the formal application last summer. So we sent out a notice of application to a 1000 foot radius. And of that whole mailing group, I only got one letter, and it was from a neighbor in the valley subdivision, um, they weren’t expressing, you know, support or opposition, they just had a lot of questions about the drainage plan. So I connected them with the civil engineer who was managing the drainage review of this and I know they were discussing, and Cameron was providing information to the neighbor. And then finally, we sent out of the notice of public hearing a couple of weeks ago, I will say, I’ve sent it out with ample time and more than the required two weeks, but I only got one letter before your packets went out. So that’s why there was only one letter in your packet and what was published on the web tonight. And then today, my inbox was exploding the entire day. And so I know that Jane sent you several letters, there was probably about 100 pages of emails that I just got today. From neighbors concerned, it appears that most of them, if you looked at it was the same letter, there was a five page letter from a nearby resident expressing environmental concerns. And it appears that that individual had many people copy and paste that letter. Those individuals then emailed me the letter, a lot of them, not only were not from long lat, but they weren’t even from the state of Colorado on some of those addresses. So I’m not sure how that got sort of, you know, messaged out, but there were a lot of letters that you got today that I got today, but a lot of them are not residents and not residents of Colorado, but it was a copy of that same letter. Anyway, um, the concerns that we did hear about, again, and others were not the chain mail, it was other people. There were some, again, some county residents to the east, they’re really concerned about impacts to the water wells. There was a letter from a valley subdivision neighbor, not happy that rate Wade road was going through, let him know that it was a requirement of the fire department in the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:35
Again, concerns about traffic, concerns about affordable housing, and environmental impacts about the fish in the st. Brain Creek and the birds nearby and those things. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 1:12:50
So again, we evaluate staff evaluated this as it went through the review process. First of all, it met the review criteria for the subdivision plat. In our land development code. Each of the lots meets the minimum lot size lot with the applicants not seeking any variances to the code, everything meets code. The density aligns with the comprehensive plan allowances, so the 29 units is appropriate. Again, there’s an existing house on the property, it’s going to be demolished and it’s not being considered historic so that that’s not an issue.
Unknown Speaker 1:13:28
The applicant submitted a species and habitat report and confirmed that there were no federal or state protected species on the site. There is some bird’s nest in the proximity and staff is added a condition which I’ll get into on the next slide. The applicant also submitted a noise study that we had asked them to do to we wanted to know if any additional mitigation would be needed for this development. And they confirmed in their noise study which is in your packet that train noise and traffic noise from ninth Avenue are currently at allowable levels. Nevertheless, as you saw from the subdivision plat, there’s a big outlot between Wade road and the railroad tracks that would be landscaped with trees and shrubs to provide, you know, some buffering there.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:19
And then there’s the landscape buffers off my Avenue.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:22
There were some there are some trees on the property. The city arborist evaluated that that looks like they’re going to do a cash in lieu at the time of final plat for mitigation. School District was one of our referrals, they said the feeder schools can accommodate this additional capacity. And again, the traffic memo that was in your packet, the traffic associated with this, though, it’s it means standards and it’ll have access to their own public street. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:56
So our recommendation is conditional approval on
Unknown Speaker 1:15:00
we’ve recommended three conditions. Of course, the commission at their discretion can add more if they see fit. But again, oh, one of the things I mentioned in the staff report. So there’s a Platte River Power Authority easement around the East southeast area of the property. And so we’ve just asked the applicant to get written verification of no objection, we want to make sure before we keep moving forward with the final plat, that Platte River isn’t going to come in and tell them that they’ve got to redesign, so we’ve asked them to provide that before they can go to a final plat.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:36
Secondly, we’ve asked him to provide a statement of no significant impact from cpW, and from US Fish and Wildlife. Again, the the species and habitat study didn’t indicate that that would be a concern, but we just wanted it in writing from those two agencies. And lastly, again, there are some migratory migratory bird nests in the vicinity. And this is a pretty boilerplate comment. But we ask that applicants before they start grading on the property, if they’re going to do it between March 1 and August 31, that they get it biologists out there to do a migratory bird nest survey to ensure that they’re not going to be disturbing any bird nests when they start grading. And those are the three recommendations for conditions that we are asking for. And next slide.
Unknown Speaker 1:16:30
And so that concludes staffs presentation, I have Collin gmunden, from Rocky Ridge civil engineering, and he’ll be doing the review criteria for the applicant next. So if Susan wants to
Unknown Speaker 1:16:45
queue it up and call in, you can go ahead and take it from here and calm before you go to your shirt. Nick, I have one point of disclosure to make beforehand, which is that language, so engineering was retained by my law firm once to review a land use project in a different town that did not result in a deliverable that was presented publicly. But I have worked with the civil engineer on this project in another capacity. I don’t believe that that prior work influences my decision making for this project at all. But I needed to make that disclosure. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I really appreciate that. Mr. gmunden. Would you like to present now please?
Unknown Speaker 1:17:28
like you. Thank you, Commissioner,
Unknown Speaker 1:17:31
or chairman. All right, Susan, if you wouldn’t mind pulling it up.
Unknown Speaker 1:17:40
Hang on. Hang on one second. I didn’t realize it was a separate one. The other one was together. Yeah. Yep. Yeah, me one second.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:00
There we go. Perfect. So Eva already gave you a really good overview. And as she mentioned, I’m going to hit up the review criteria here, peak view estates. And if you wouldn’t mind going to the next slide, Susan. So we’ve already talked about the proposed development. And like I mentioned, review criteria analysis, and then we’ll conclude if you want. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:25
Unknown Speaker 1:18:27
That is the proposed development. I wanted to mention that all public utilities that are being proposed are an extension of the water lines that existed wait road and ninth Avenue, as well as the sanitary sewer that’s existing in Wade road that crosses under that existing drainage ditch that goes along the east side of the property. We’ll be tying into that to provide sewer for the 29 lots. And we will have an improved pedestrian vehicular circulation with the additional public roads, which will have detached sidewalks that will loop around and give the valley subdivision some another path to connect to ninth Avenue. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:18
So there’s a few review criteria that the project needs to meet.
Unknown Speaker 1:19:24
Those are just the main ones there that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning district and then does it comply with all city standards, specifically an engineering design standards and municipal code? And then is it compatible with the surrounding development? And then as mentioned in the review criteria for the other project, you know, is it going to adversely affect the surrounding properties that’s a key point especially on the environmental side with the concerns from neighbors and then doing the environmental study and then finally, the
Unknown Speaker 1:20:00
Transportation plans. Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:04
Alright, so the first one is, is it consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning standards and the district and we believe that the zoning and proposed use of the property is congruent with the designation of the property as outlined by the city of Longmont comprehensive plan.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:23
And as such, we do believe this criteria is met for peak view estates. Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:33
second criteria is does it comply with the applicable city standards and the construction specifications?
Unknown Speaker 1:20:44
I mentioned the water and sanitary other public utilities that will be provided include storm that will convey the storm water detention pond which is located in the outlot south of Wade road that Eva mentioned. So, as such with the water, public water utilities that are being proposed and sanitary, as well as the store and then also with the curb and gutter and other criterion city design standards and specifications such as the standard cross sections for pq lane and Wade road with the D catwalks eight foot three lawn where landscaping will be present, we believe that all city standards will be met and as such this criteria is met. Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:35
And is it compatible with the surrounding developments? Yes, as mentioned before the proposed site is congruent with the other proposed existing developments in the area. And some examples include value subdivision, and also denial West, which is located east of the site along hoever.
Unknown Speaker 1:21:55
And just stop on ninth Avenue. It’s just a couple blocks to the east of this site. But they are not what is very similar to what Pete view is proposing.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:05
I really believe that the land use being a thin strip of land with one public road serving the 29 bots is the most efficient use of the land in terms of providing a good number of lots while still being consistent and compatible with surrounding developments. And so as such this criteria is met. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:30
Um, alright, so we’ll, we want to make sure that the site will not adversely affect the surrounding properties.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:40
We don’t believe there’s any adverse impacts and strategy areas on the environmental side, as given by the environmental study that was included in the packet. Feel free to reference that for specifics on the birds and other things that Eva mentioned. We also took a look at will impact adversely impacts around developments in terms of the water and transportation. And from an engineering standpoint, and just in general, the design is actually going to improve the water situation in terms of the looping of the eight inch wire lines and Wade road and peak view lane, as well as the transportation will being improved. And as I mentioned earlier, there’s going to be just better circular relation for the pedestrian traffic, which can use those detached walks that’ll be provided on the road, pick the lane. And then also, of course, we have the two public roads that will provide better vehicular circulation for value subdivision, and will also meet the two points entrance or the fire department. So this criteria is met section, we can go to the next slide. Thank you, Susan, and includes appropriate transportation plan. I realized after putting this presentation together that we did not have to do a multimodal plan specifically. And that is because as Eva mentioned, we did not have to do a site plan, because we are
Unknown Speaker 1:24:09
in a straight zoning situation. But nonetheless, as I mentioned quite a few times already, the public roads do improve the secure circulation, both vehicular and pedestrian. And that’s evident on the site plan which is included in your packet as part of the preliminary plat and believe it was sheet four. Yeah, so pedestrian and vehicular traffic is improved. And as such that criteria is met then there’s no negative impacts. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:42
So yeah, so to summarize, our top points are improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation. We’ll be adding 29 new homes or lots to the city which will be developed in the future. And as Eva mentioned, building permits will set the setbacks and such also the
Unknown Speaker 1:25:00
architectural guidelines will be given when we go to building permits. It is consistent with the surrounding development. As mentioned, the valley subdivision and deny West is just two examples of the nearby subdivisions. And overall it meets the Longmont comprehensive plan. And then, last point there meets all UDF CD standards and requirements as well as the C watermark design standards and construction specifications. That’s specifically a point as it relates to the engineering standards. A UDF city is the urban drainage flood control district. So when it comes to stormwater requirements, such as providing tension on site and water quality, we meet all those standards as set forth by the city. And then the public streets, public utilities, and all other public design elements, grading, you name it, they all meet at the city of lamarque design standards and construction specifications manual. All right, next slide.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:01
Alright, to conclude, based on the review criteria being met, we’d like to request approval of the preliminary plat by the planning and zoning commission. And at this point, if there’s any questions, I am more than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:18
Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Griffin, did you rather than going into questions at this point, because it does take us a long time to get the public hearing process started. I’d like to open the public invited to be heard. So Susan, if we could put that information on the screen. There’s anybody out there who would like to speak about this particular application, now’s the time.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:48
please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 85117479665. When we are ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state the name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:17
As I said this takes a little bit of time to do it takes us five minutes so we will take a five minute break and reconvene approximately 830
Unknown Speaker 1:31:10
Alright Chairman, I’m going to come back and drop the slide now.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:16
Thank you, Susan.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:19
We’ll give our live stream a few seconds to catch up, we do have several callers.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:36
Alright, looks like the live stream has caught up. Okay, so for the callers, we will be calling on you one at a time calling out the last three digits of your phone number. Please do make sure that you have muted the live stream or you’re going to hear yourself and you will hear me in about 20 to 30 seconds delayed.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:55
letting you know that you’re next. So please mute the live stream and pay attention to your instructions through your telephone.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:04
Okay, so let’s go ahead and start with caller who’s number ends in 278?
Unknown Speaker 1:32:13
caller 278 I’ve just asked you to unmute. Can you hear us?
Unknown Speaker 1:32:28
caller whose number ends in 278.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:32
Try hitting star six.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:44
There you are. Can you hear us?
Unknown Speaker 1:32:47
Yes. Can you hear me? We can you may begin. Please state your name and address for the record.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:54
Yeah, my name is Jenny Gersh shader Lopez and I’m at 650 Fordham street in Longmont.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:02
And I’m actually one of the ones who sent out that letter today with a crew of our community who feels really passionate about this,
Unknown Speaker 1:33:15
about this, this proposal, so I’m gonna go ahead and read the letter and then we have another person who will continue it
Unknown Speaker 1:33:23
when she comes up, so
Unknown Speaker 1:33:27
thank you for listening. And for hearing the last month to having this come in last minute from folks from all over the country because this doesn’t only impact this community this impacts far greater communities as well as water sources that stream to lots more places. So
Unknown Speaker 1:33:47
we the community members of Fordham street in the surrounding area appeal the proposal of peak peak view estates preliminary subdivision to subdivide the seven acre property into 29 lots for the development of single family homes within the Fordham Street and surrounding neighborhoods.
Unknown Speaker 1:34:05
First, we echo the concerns of our predecessors and current community members regarding the sustainability of our neighborhood and the surrounding wildlife areas in the face of proposed housing of the proposed housing project. Since the inception of this project, the public has repeatedly expressed concern within public meetings and elsewhere regarding the environmental impact of this project adjacent to Golden Pond, wetland, wetland wetlands and these concerns have gone ignored and largely unaddressed. As a community and among the closest and most directly affected by the proposed project. We are voicing our deep concern for the impending detrimental impact on the environment and the peace and quiet of our neighborhood neighborhoods. However, this concern is not simply limited simply to those of us within close proximity. The impact of this urban housing development will affect countless communities.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:00
Members outside the vicinity through various modalities outlined below. It is with great affection that responsibility toward this very area and community.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:10
Today we refer you for refer to a report published in August of night 2019 completed by the US, the United States corpse of Army engineers and titled integrated a feasibility report and environmental assessment, Longmont, Colorado. And I’m just going to go down a bit.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:30
Unknown Speaker 1:35:36
development of the area would also result in great habitats habitat fragmentation, which would which would continue to degrade ecological conditions in the city of Longmont. Ecological degradation would continue to impact the terrestrial and aquatic communities that currently exist through declining quality, quantity and quality of habitat diversity and sustainability. In areas where these were habitat types change with flooding and ecological degradation, the assemblage of residents, Wildlife, TV species and migratory birds would also shift depending on the preferred habitats that are available.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:15
In summary, the current number of impervious services in the watershed and the amount of service runoff experienced during rain events already has impact on the potential flooding on the same brain and golden ponds, and will only increase with this housing development or risk we are all too familiar with and have already experienced with the flooding that took place in 2013. To increase the number of impervious surface, surfaces directly surrounded this area will only create greater risk another negative impact on this land and the surrounding homes in relation to increased risk of flooding as well as water quality. Conversely, a significant portion of rainfall in forested watersheds in absorbed is absorbed into soils stored as groundwater it is slowly discharged to stream to receive some springs. Flooding is less significant in these conditions because how the water is absorbed into the ground. However, as watersheds or watersheds are urbanized, much of the vegetation is replaced by impervious surfaces, reducing the area will where in infiltration to groundwater can occur, more stormwater runoff will occur and this runoff must be collected by extensive drain systems that combine curbs storm sewers and the ditches to carry stormwater runoff directly to stream. This all means further impact to the area.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:38
Unfortunately, in a developed watershed, much more water arise into a stream much more quickly, which results in increased likelihood of more frequent and more severe flooding. Frequent flooding as a huge problem for the community residents as well as for the local at large impervious surfaces can have an effect on local streams both in water quality and streamflow and flooding characteristics. In addition to concerns of increase in uncontrolled runoff numerous water contaminants are also of concern due to the nature of an increase of impervious structures to the area and the close proximity to the wetland. solids are one of the most common contaminants found in urban stormwater solids originate from many sources including
Unknown Speaker 1:38:25
Fisker shader lepas, your five minutes is expired at this time. So could you just finish the sentence you’re on please?
Unknown Speaker 1:38:39
Unknown Speaker 1:38:40
She’s there, I’ll just finish. I’ll just finish erosion of pervious surfaces and dust litter and other particles deposited on impervious surfaces from human activities and the atmosphere.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:54
And thank you very much Omer. Actually, quick question for you. Do you know, since you have somebody else queued up to read the remainder of this letter? Do you know the last three digits of their phone number?
Unknown Speaker 1:39:06
Oh my gosh. We can call on the right person. She’s gonna she’s gonna text it to me right now. Okay, let’s see if we can do this. I just wonder if we can.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:18
Totally and then I guess I also just want to say that
Unknown Speaker 1:39:23
I can’t speak more. But um, 65665865 expired. You get it? No. 665 there is no one here with that last three digits. I’m sorry. 865. No, no. 665 Yeah, we don’t have a phone number with that. Yeah. Oh, let me let me see if she’ll send it again. I suppose. Sorry.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:55
Unknown Speaker 1:40:00
Nothing’s with like 665 at the end, just down 650 Yeah, it is 865 Okay, great. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:10
Thank you. Okay, the person with the number ending in 865.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:17
I’m going to ask you to unmute 865
Unknown Speaker 1:40:22
Are you there?
Unknown Speaker 1:40:40
865 I’m asking you to unmute
Unknown Speaker 1:40:45
I unmuted. There you are now we hear you. You may begin.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:51
Okay. All right. I’m going to continue on with a letter erosion at construction sites. I’m sorry. Um, please state your name and address for the record, please. Oh, I’m sorry. It’s Mary Rose good terrorists. 750. Fordham Street.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:08
Great, okay, now.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:12
Unknown Speaker 1:41:16
Erosion at construction sites are also major sources.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:22
from human activity, answering major sources of salads, salads contribute to many water quality, Habitat, habitat and aesthetic problems in urban waterways. elevated levels of solids increased turbidity reduce the penetration of light at depth within the water column and limit the growth of desirable aquatic plants. solids that settle out as bottom deposits contribute to sedimentation, and can alter and eventually destroy habitat for fish and bottom dwelling organisms. solids also provide a medium for the accumulation, transport and storage of other pollutants, including nutrients and metals.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:06
common sources of total suspended solids derived from the impervious services include
Unknown Speaker 1:42:12
but are not limited to pavement from where vehicle exhaustion, emissions, vehicle parts, building and construction material road salt road paved and pedestrian debris, soil material, plant and leaf litter and atmospheric
Unknown Speaker 1:42:31
deposition of particles. Atmospheric sources of particles may derive from outside of the river River Basin.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:39
It has been well documented within urban planning and environmental studies, literature the detrimental impact that housing growth can have on wildlife and natural areas, according to
Unknown Speaker 1:42:54
and housing growth poses the main threat to protected areas. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, a protected area is a geographical space that has been clearly defined, recognized, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the long term Conservation of Nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. Additionally, it has been well established that the primary cause of the global biodiversity crisis is human induced alteration and loss of natural habitats. One of the most important causes of habitat destruction is housing growth, manifested both in rural and urban sprawl. The threats to biodiversity include not only habitat loss directly to roads or houses, but the effects the human disturbances have on the larger landscape. Housing Development increases impervious surfaces at the risk of fire, spreads pollutants, and changes nutrient and biochemical, biogeochemical cycles cycles. All these impacts are exacerbated by residents, activities such as landscaping, introduction of non native, sometimes invasive species, and support for domestic predators. Changing land use and removing the natural land cover introduces new barriers to wildlife movement. In this newly fragmented landscape, the remaining natural fragments are often too small to sustain viable populations of native species, while housing growth favors human adapted since since tropic species.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:42
As a result, native wildlife typically increases decreases in abundance, and richness. residential development and associated infrastructure such as roads and fences have profound impacts on ecological systems and biodiversity and both direct and
Unknown Speaker 1:45:00
Direct ways, housing and infrastructure remove vegetation, which fragments remaining habitat. nutrient and biogeochemical cycles change after the removal of the natural vegetation and the introduction of pollutants, homeowners managed yards, pets and bird feeders, leading to altered hydraulic systems, exotic plants, predatory domestic pets and resource subsidies such as food and water, nesting sub traits, insulation from predators and unfavorable micro climate conditions that favor general generalist species.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:41
Housing growth leads to an expansion of transportation infrastructure and changes travel patterns, introducing additional pollutants and disturbances as housing densities and impervious service increase. native species tend to decrease in abundance and richness and human adapted and general species increase.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:03
Low Density residential development is a particular concern because it extends the environmental impacts of each house over a large area, maximizing the cumulative footprint of housing development and infrastructure. And it often occurs in proximity to public protected lands. musketeers rose, I do need to stop you there. Your five minutes has expired. Thank you for for your time. We’re going to be
Unknown Speaker 1:46:32
okay. Thank you. We’re going to move on to our next caller, whose number ends in 788.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:42
Caller 788. I’m going to ask you to unmute
Unknown Speaker 1:46:51
- There you are. Can you hear me? We can please begin by stating your name and address for the record. Hello, my name is Atilla nosrat. I live on 753 Wade road.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:05
Thank you for this presentation. And I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the gentleman’s name. Colin, I believe his first name was for the presentation. I have a just a relatively simple question regarding the pedestrian and vacatur circulation that you’re referring to saying that it was improving as a result of this development. I just wondering if it’s possible to see the study in relationship to that. There are a lot of young families that have moved on to into the area. And one of the things that I really appreciate is the relatively low traffic on Wade road. And I just want to know what the impact would be on traffic to traffic along Wade road on to that peak Avenue or peak road. So that’s what I’m interested in is if it’s possible to see the study that was done in relationship to traffic impacts.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:55
Thank you, Miss Massa. I’m sorry, I slaughtered your name. But thank you very much for for your comments.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:03
Let’s see the next color is number 323. That’s correct color. 323. I’m going to ask you to unmute
Unknown Speaker 1:48:17
- Are you there?
Unknown Speaker 1:48:24
Can you hear me? We can. Excellent. My name is Jamie Seema and I live at 1020 Venice street here in Longmont.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:34
First of all, I just wanted to say I was very happy to see that there is going to be a buffer between golden ponds and the development.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:42
But I’d really suggest following on from the previous commenters, that native vegetation be used in the buffer zone as an extension of the Golden ponds habitat. I do monthly surveys there for birds. And I know that the grassland area there is used by meadowlarks and sparrows and things like that. So putting in native vegetation will help them you know, continue to stay there. This is also more of a general comment and concern. That’s not necessarily just this development application. But this isn’t the first habitat and species report that I’ve seen that the actual survey has been done in in the middle of winter in January. And I just wanted to state that. I really feel like they should do these reports in these surveys during the breeding season. And that’s pretty much all I had. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:35
Thank you, Miss Simone. Appreciate that. Um, we have another caller, numbers ending in 542542. I’m going to ask you to unmute
Unknown Speaker 1:49:50
Unknown Speaker 1:49:54
There you are, and you’re hear me. Yep. Great. So my name is Adams Roy 812 pimcore
Unknown Speaker 1:50:00
And I’m going to read a letter I wrote as well.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:04
So I just reviewed the previous planning board and city council meetings held in 2019. Regarding the annexation of this property, I would like to remind the commission of how we got to this planning stage. I think it illustrates fundamental problems with long months development process. I urge the commission to hold these and other developers to a higher standard behavior and truthfulness. The quotes I reference below are directly from the YouTube recordings of the Planning Commission meeting on May 22 2019, and the city council meeting on August 13 2019.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:35
During the first NSA annexation meeting, the developers submitted an expired habitat and environmental survey as part of their packet. After this was brought to the C’s attention and after the submission deadline and passed.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:48
The city sent someone to check this site and wrote a memo approving the out of state survey. I assume this saves the developers significant time and money even though it was their error to fix. I’m pleased to see that the updated species and habitat report is included in today’s packet. The concerns raised raised by citizens back in 2019 are indeed borne out by this new report which raises concerns about bald eagles which nest around golden ponds. As this new report was written in the dead of winter, January of 2020. I would urge the commission to require more detailed study that includes the multitude of migratory birds, which returned to the pond each spring as suggested by the city planners office, but also to include the impacts to the ponds themselves, which has seen algae blooms and fish kills for the past two years. The second contentious issue raised at both the annexation meeting and the city council meeting was was access to the trails and bike paths from this property to golden ponds. During the first meeting of the Planning Commission. The developer even touted this access as part of their plan saying that continuing the trail access serves to meet the multimodal transportation needs requirement for the development and Miss Bryant from the city planning office stated quote, it needs to connect to greenways and trails and quote, this commission pointed out to say that this access is by trespassing across the intervening railroad tracks and a long discussion ensued about the Commission’s authority to add that requirement to a potential development plan. The city attorney confirmed that this the Commission does indeed have this power. Again, our concerns have been validated by the current submitted package BNSF. The railroad is now suggesting the fence to be built to specifically specifically block the safer access point. I bring this up because of the original neighborhood meeting, the developer brought up this very point that this type of access would be nearly impossible to secure. It was very surprising when they knowingly said the exact opposite during the annexation meeting. Third, the community in commission noted that the original traffic plan didn’t meet city standards. Again, the developer claimed it did in their NSX annexation documents. Whereas the annexation meeting, the city traffic planner stated the opposite. Yet the city was willing to look the other way and approved the annexation anyway, at the City Council meeting, the city traffic engineer stated that they did not quote anticipate a need for widening ninth Avenue. Once again this appears to be untrue. A large disruptive project to widen ninth Avenue was completed during summer of 2020. I’m unclear about the current proposals need for further widening, though the current factor appears to propose that forth during community meetings and the annexation process drainage issues have been brought to the fore many times. This plot of land and surrounding areas has a very high water table as opposed to a sensitive Wildlife Area. In fact, this was the conclusion of the original expired habitats and species report referenced before. Again, these concerns were put off until a more detailed study could be done. The city planners said that during planning we will certainly require quote, a new habitat and species studies a full res report geotechnical reports any more detailed traffic study and quote, these appear to be missing from the package posted today and are requested by BNSF as well. If the developer or city does not share these with the public that raises significant concerns about what is in these types of concerns development near parks and open space has been a topic of discussion for the City Council recently. So I urge the commission to consider this issue thoroughly. For example, other developments brought to this commission have required a 150 foot riparian corridor in similar situations.
Unknown Speaker 1:54:23
The fifth issue I would like to raise is the fact that this flood of land is currently listed for sale and has been for some time. The advertising even states that quote preliminary subdivision plat, geotechnical and drainage reports are available as a possible legal question I would ask the commission if approving this plat would significantly increase the sale price or attracting attractiveness to potential buyers. If so, it seems like the city should not be in the business of enriching individuals in such a way. I urge the commission to not to deny this clap request until these issues can be adequately resolved. Thank you for your time and
Unknown Speaker 1:55:00
Thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr. Suri ppreciate. Your comments.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:05
Susan, I don’t see any further phone numbers listed on Am I correct about that? You are correct chair. That was the last one. Okay. So we will close the public invited to be heard section of this hearing, and go back to a discussion amongst the commission.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:25
Any comments, questions? Anybody want to kick us off?
Unknown Speaker 1:55:34
Unknown Speaker 1:55:37
Right. Okay. I’m
Unknown Speaker 1:55:41
Eva, I have a question for you.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:45
And I’d like to start with um, I noticed in some of the letters that were coming in today
Unknown Speaker 1:55:54
that there’s a lot of concern about urban sprawl.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:02
And then as we heard from two of the callers who were reading part of that letter, they’re expressing a concern that as markets built then we have more impervious surfaces and that causes water drainage issues, habitat issues, etc, etc.
Unknown Speaker 1:56:23
From your professional perspective as a as a planner,
Unknown Speaker 1:56:29
what is urban sprawl? And would a project like this be categorized as sprawl from from like a planners definition of sprawl?
Unknown Speaker 1:56:41
Unknown Speaker 1:56:43
and actually, let me add on to that. If it’s not sprawl, then what is it?
Unknown Speaker 1:56:50
Yes, Chair Sherman act to answer your question. In my professional opinion, I would not describe this as urban sprawl, when I when we think of urban sprawl, in the realm of urban planning, we think of development that is on the outer edges. Like there’s a Greenbelt, there’s an end to the community and there’s a buffer and you’re expanding into it and expanding into it, that sort of the Sprawl like going into the agricultural land and annexing it and develop that sprawl. What I think we might as a planners might categorize this and Don and Glen, feel free to chime in as we would categorize this as infill
Unknown Speaker 1:57:34
not your typical, you know, downtown get a bulldoze a building and redevelopment infill, but infill in that this land has been annexed into the city, it’s in our comprehensive plan. It’s been planned for for many years in our long range plans, over 20 years that this would be developed into some type of residential, continuing on the neighborhood. So
Unknown Speaker 1:58:03
in our opinion, it’s probably not urban sprawl, per se. I would say that the quote that was taken from that letter was a little bit out of context with this particular application. I did talk with our senior civil engineer who’s handling the resilient St. Brain project, because the quote that I was hearing, when I think of an army corps study,
Unknown Speaker 1:58:29
I thought that that might be related to that. And he did confirm, I just wanted to let you know, he did say that the quote that was provided in that letter was taken from a final feasibility report for the st. Brain Creek flood risk management study, prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers. And it was really the purpose of the study. It’s in the executive summary, but the purpose of the study is to quantify flood risks within the study area, or where they’re doing the improvements along St. Ring Creek. So it wasn’t necessarily directed at this property. This property does not touch st ring Creek, as you know, it abuts the railroad. And then we’ve got golden Pons, nature area land, and then the creek itself of that, so I just wanted to clarify that as well. So So while we’re kind of talking clarifications, on definitions on human, you just mentioned something that that this property has been included in the Longmont comprehensive plan and I believe it’s also included in what’s considered the Longmont like Metropolitan Planning area.
Unknown Speaker 1:59:44
And you said for 20 years, so for
Unknown Speaker 1:59:48
Did I hear you right that I mean, basically for the past 20 years, somebody could have gone to the city offices and would have seen that ultimately, our plan would have been to annex this
Unknown Speaker 2:00:00
And the other county lands around it, make it part of the city and development. Correct. Okay. Um, and
Unknown Speaker 2:00:10
now you also mentioned that golden ponds is a nature area.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:17
And I know that there’s like the gym ham nature area.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:23
What is that? A? I believe that’s a city term. I’m not like a national or federal or or some other term. So is it a city term? How does the city define it? And what criteria do we have that
Unknown Speaker 2:00:46
controls development near or adjacent to a city? Nature area?
Unknown Speaker 2:00:56
So the nature it was a city facility. So it’s the golden Yes, the city facility nature area.
Unknown Speaker 2:01:05
And so to answer your question,
Unknown Speaker 2:01:09
I will defer to I’m sorry, Teresa’s nature area means that designation of public land so
Unknown Speaker 2:01:20
that that just came from our city attorney Teresa Tate. Yeah, public land developed to provide access to an enjoyment of important natural historic and cultural resources and allow for limited low impact in passive outdoor recreational uses that fit the unique natural characteristics to the particular area that’s in a definition section of our municipal code. And so so that’s clearly not coming up to other standards, which we’re used to hearing such as, like, the federal standard for wilderness now, okay, um, so, so we’ve got a major area
Unknown Speaker 2:02:00
across the railroad tracks, which is a pretty significant barrier between this, this property and the golden ponds, but there’s that nature area there. So I’m
Unknown Speaker 2:02:13
Mr. Su Roy mentioned in his call
Unknown Speaker 2:02:17
about our 150 foot riparian setback, I think he was Yes. Mr. Suri said that. So does any Is there anything in our code that is similar to like 150 foot right paren, which means river setback?
Unknown Speaker 2:02:34
For a nature area, or for pond?
Unknown Speaker 2:02:39
There is not to my knowledge chair, sir Nick, unless Don wants to jump in and correct that. I don’t believe that’s the case.
Unknown Speaker 2:02:49
Don burchett, our planning manager, can you confirm that that’s not the case. Please.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:01
Give me evening chair, planning commissioners dawn Burkes up planning manager,
Unknown Speaker 2:03:06
I am looking at the section of code right now. If I could just have a second to finish reading the one section, please. And then I’ll be able to answer your question. Okay. All right. Do you want to chime back in?
Unknown Speaker 2:03:21
Yeah, that’d be great. Cuz I have another question for Eva. I’ll give you some time.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:26
Eva, Miss cmo, in her call mentioned, the possibility of using native vegetation for the for the buffer that’s on the south end of the the development.
Unknown Speaker 2:03:42
Is that a possibility? Is that a requirement? Where does the city stand in terms of that, would we if we decided as a commission that that was a good idea, would that need to be a condition or is that just naturally sweltering? That that gets done?
Unknown Speaker 2:03:59
I’m sure, Nick, that is something that you can add on as a condition of approval at your discretion. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:10
And then what about the
Unknown Speaker 2:04:14
during the habitat study during breeding season?
Unknown Speaker 2:04:19
two colors mentioned that in the CMO, Mr. Soy.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:25
What does the city ask in terms of a habitat study? Are there any requirements as to when it’s done?
Unknown Speaker 2:04:34
How does the city deal with that? I chernick there are no requirements in the municipal code for a habitat study to be done at any particular time. And as you know, you know, we’ve got development applications rolling in daily. So it’s really whenever a particular property owner is ready to pull the trigger on a project and ready really ready to get going and they want whatever time of year
Unknown Speaker 2:05:00
They hire a consultant. And when they have that availability, it just so happened that this took place in winter. But there, there’s no requirement for it to be at a certain time. Okay. Um, I’m looking at the list of our participants tonight, and I’m not sure if there’s
Unknown Speaker 2:05:20
is there other city staff that might be able to tell us? Would it be Chris huffer? might be able to tell us whether
Unknown Speaker 2:05:28
would would the city expect a habitat study to be significantly different? If it were conducted at a different time of year?
Unknown Speaker 2:05:38
Chris is here to answer the engineering design questions, the drainage questions and those matters. I don’t know if we did not have natural resources here tonight, because again, we just got these comments hours before no one had mentioned anything about any concerns about environmental and we had our report that said, there were no impacts. So unfortunately, I don’t have natural resources staff here tonight. And I don’t know, Chris, if you have an opinion on Don, perhaps Don’s raising his hand, Don, can you help me raise my hand, I’ll raise my hand anytime I can.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:13
Chairman and commission,
Unknown Speaker 2:06:16
I do think it is a valid point about the timing of when those reports are done.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:23
doing them in the winter, will pick up different species that have migrated into the area, for example, from the northern reaches of the continent, and that are migrating down along the Front Range. But it will miss some of the birds and things that come back up during the summer. So our code right now does not really specify a time of year of when these reports should be done.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:48
I think it is something that we would depend on Natural Resources Department to let us know whether or not they have concerns. They know the area they they are the ones who help us identify where the eagle nests are in the city and around as well as the other rafters be that the Hawks or the Ospreys and things like that. And so if they were to request that that be updated at a different time, we would definitely do that. And I think that we can make that a condition that the Commission has concerns, this will need to still go through final plat process. And so asking for a report that also looks at the
Unknown Speaker 2:07:32
animals that are in the area during the summertime, or even in the spring time is something that I think the applicant could do with the next middle and that that could be a condition. So So I do think it is a it is a a point that is well taken and one that our code is silent on as far as time of year of when we need to do those. Okay, thank you Jimin. And do you happen to have an answer about my previous question about the code in terms of nature errors? Yes, so the riparian section of our code, Chapter 1505, section 1505. I don’t have my glasses on so I’m gonna have to squint here a little bit 15.0 5.020 capital letter C.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:25
talks about the riparian corridors, the setbacks are in Section capital letter F. And in that section, specifically, the council added additional water bodies that they wanted the 150 foot setback to apply to.
Unknown Speaker 2:08:45
In general, they are Boulder Creek, dry creek number two Dry Creek number one lefthand Creek lichens Gulch for only portions of that, that water body spring Gulch. Again with limitations spring Gulch number two again with limitations st brain Creek and then union reservoir. This nature area is not identified as needing to meet any of the 150 foot setback requirement that is applicable to the st bring Creek which is well south of this property. But the code does say that if a property is not in this list, and has right pureeing habitat on it, there is 100 foot setback that has to be met. When I look at the information that I have on the Boulder County website, as well as the Google Earth and I look at where the the average annual high water mark of those ponds is and I measure that we are outside of that 100 foot proximately when I scale it, it’s 135 feet from the
Unknown Speaker 2:10:00
highest point of the where the water
Unknown Speaker 2:10:05
rises and lowers through the through the year to the property boundary, the South property boundary of this of this development. So in my opinion it is outside of and meets the requirements for any kind of write period setback. If the 150 had to be applied, then we would be in a different situation here, but it does not apply in this situation. Okay, thank you, Don, on while you’re here. Um, I am. I do have a question about the comment made about the railroad crossing.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:40
And I think it was in Mr. Roy’s comments. Right, he was looking at what had been discussed at prior meetings.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:49
Unknown Speaker 2:10:52
he expressed that his understanding from a prior meeting was that
Unknown Speaker 2:11:01
Unknown Speaker 2:11:03
the planning and zoning Commission had been advised that we could require a crossing across the railroad track.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:12
And then at some later point,
Unknown Speaker 2:11:16
there was a message that, that that could not be done.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:21
Well as the planning manager for the city, what’s your understanding of of
Unknown Speaker 2:11:30
a developer putting a trail crossing across the bn SF y.
Unknown Speaker 2:11:36
So the the Commission does have the authority to make a recommendation on annexation to the City Council, and a recommendation of including some kind of a crossing or a path, such as that could be a recommendation the commission could make. And in looking at the social trail that appears to be on the areas that I’ve seen, seems to be what I would see as a very prudent way to look at a crossing, that’s probably not safe at all. For the people that are using it currently.
Unknown Speaker 2:12:15
I do not know enough, I did not read the council meeting minutes for what they approved and whether or not they agreed with that condition. And whether they placed that condition on
Unknown Speaker 2:12:29
if the council did,
Unknown Speaker 2:12:32
we would need the applicant to basically approached the BNSF Burlington Northern, and try to work out some kind of an agreement with them for crossing. And you know, that’s a, that’s a that’s pretty tough task for the city to get approvals for crossings, let alone an applicant, it doesn’t mean that it’s not possible, it doesn’t mean that there’s other ways they could have approached it with some kind of an overpass pedestrian overpass with either steps or ramps that could get up over so that it was a crossing above the railroad tracks.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:08
But I just don’t know when if Ava knows whether or not the council put that condition on, we can we can try and figure out if if we’ve missed something there or if the applicant needs to try to address that. But I’m not aware that that was a condition. And again, negotiating with the railroad for our own purposes as a city trying to deal with additional crossings.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:34
It is is very tough. And you usually have to give up multiple crossings and other locations to be able to get a crossing from the railroad.
Unknown Speaker 2:13:45
Either. Do you know if that was a condition approved by city council? Yes, chair? Sure, Nick, don’t believe it was a condition of approval, I believe it was discussed. kicked about it was recommended by a member of the public that that might be a good idea. I think the previous planner who worked on it, you know, she did say Well, typically, and she’s right. You know, typically we do try to create connections to trails. That’s what we ask of all developers, of course, when feasible. But and so that was way back then it was kind of a discussion point but not solidified. And then it was I think brought up again at the neighborhood meeting. I think it was you know, yeah, we’re definitely going to look into that. But as we moved into this application process, the I believe the railroad and Collin can confirm he’s here but I believe the railroad emphatically said no, because of safety reasons on liability really on their end, right, because they don’t want anyone getting hit by a train. So they were against that. So it was an idea that we had hoped to make go through but it again, we were at the mercy of the railroad.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:56
Okay. Um, I’ve been kind of hiding things is there
Unknown Speaker 2:15:00
Any other commissioners Who? Commissioner flag?
Unknown Speaker 2:15:07
Thank you chair. Um, I guess I’m addressing this to Collin.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:13
I’m looking at in terms of
Unknown Speaker 2:15:16
you’re doing subdivisions, and you’re going to, I assume, have into individual sites being sold to people who then will buy will get their own builder and construct a house.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:32
is common available?
Unknown Speaker 2:15:42
Unknown Speaker 2:15:44
Unknown Speaker 2:15:47
you’re sharing my video. Um,
Unknown Speaker 2:15:51
it can actually vary development wise, whether they will sell the lights out to individual owners at this point, the client that we are working with just intends to build them all we’re have
Unknown Speaker 2:16:04
just consistency with the architectural elevations and stuff like Eva mentioned, you know, they’ll have to go to the building department to get their approvals and Associates, we want to maintain comprehensive, maintain a comprehensive, long term plan, we’re gonna want to make sure that they are all similar, but still meet the municipal code with setbacks and variability so that we don’t have
Unknown Speaker 2:16:29
a subdivision that site way different than Valley subdivision or an iOS.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:35
And so in that regard,
Unknown Speaker 2:16:38
what kind of a landscape program? Will you place on each site?
Unknown Speaker 2:16:48
We pray about having native plants and probably that means drought resistant type, plants, habitat type plants.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:02
Well, yeah, some idea, please. Yeah, I’m not an expert when it comes to landscaping. But
Unknown Speaker 2:17:09
if we do, the Commission does request a condition on using the native landscaping, specifically to the public comment that was in regards to the detention area, which is the buffer zone between the golden ponds and the rest of the subdivision. The only landscaping that we would be proposing, at least with the final plat is that in the city, right of way. So at that point, you know, if commission wanted to extend the native species, all the way up to ninth Avenue, they could do so and request a condition of approval that way, but as far as specifics of what kind of trees and shrubs would be used, I’m probably not the person that would know that.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:57
I’m sorry, I guess I wasn’t looking for that kind of a specific kind of idea or a concept that you would be promoting a more native type, landscaping live and growing condition.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:12
For example, and as part of subdivisions, we generally don’t ask for this kind of level of detail. That’s not within our purview in a subdivision. But I just wanted to have sort of a discussion brought up on it because of all the issues raised. And the concern being that we wouldn’t,
Unknown Speaker 2:18:31
there wouldn’t be a possibility of somebody buying a lot and then ending up deciding that water is too expensive. So they’re going to rock in the yard.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:44
To a certain extent, is there right?
Unknown Speaker 2:18:48
Here? Sure, Nick, thank you. I just want to make sure I don’t want to go off the rails here. I want to make sure we’re all staying together here. There’s a couple things we’re talking about. Make sure we’re all in order. The first thing is on the south, there’s that big outlawed that’s the detention pond. And that’s the one Ms. Sima was suggesting, you know, if you wanted to you could require a condition that that has to be planted with native species. That’s that goes in one box. I think, Commissioner flags general question was,
Unknown Speaker 2:19:20
what’s going to happen with the individual lots and how will those be planted or correct me if I’m wrong, what I thought that was what you were getting at. And what I’m trying to say is we do have landscaping standards for individual lots. So two Commissioner flags point, the landscaping on the south side, and then the landscape buffers up on the north. Those they’re going to have to set up an HOA because they would be responsible for ownership and maintenance of those landscaping areas. Okay, and the master developer would have to build the site, put in the streets, the utilities and everything and put in that landscaping
Unknown Speaker 2:20:00
Then you have the individual property owners, and they build the house for that individual property owner. And yes, to answer your question, there will be landscape requirements that are in the code, where you have to have a certain number of trees and shrubbery in your front yard.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:16
We do not dictate whether it should be native or not native or what kind of tree specifically. But we, we do dictate that your front yards have to be landscaped with a certain number of trees and shrubs. So I just wanted to make sure that’s clarified that if the commission wants to make a condition about native species, that were really leaving it in that nature there that the outline a date adjacent to the nature area. And the reason I say that is there’s also going to be obviously a tree lawn that’s required for the new street that comes in. And the city has very specific standards about what can go in our public right of way. And so the applicants, when they when they come through, they’re going to have to follow those landscape standards. So I would, I would recommend the commission not then ask for native things that in the right of way that really aren’t adjacent to golden ponds that are more on the street, just just trying to clarify that point.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:15
She was like, do you have a follow up to that?
Unknown Speaker 2:21:19
That really, I just wanted that kind of a discussion. I appreciate Eva’s input, because that’s, I know that we can’t dictate me there is a code that addresses all of this. But I wanted to be sure that we did discuss landscaping, because that seemed to be part of a lot of the comments that we were hearing, and that we won’t be having bare ground that won’t support species.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:42
And so there will be some ability for VCs to survive. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:48
on commercial Commissioner, hey.
Unknown Speaker 2:21:53
Thank you. I want to follow up on from your comments Cheshire neck, which is
Unknown Speaker 2:21:59
the irony so to speak, of what Gobots actually is not to undercut it, by the way, the fact that it is
Unknown Speaker 2:22:07
a robust and rich, natural environmental area now,
Unknown Speaker 2:22:12
it nonetheless is the result of heavy industrial sand and gravel mining.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:18
They are manmade.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:21
They’re useful now, but their origin is
Unknown Speaker 2:22:27
heavy industrial activity.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:31
My next question, though, maybe it’s to Eva. papers to Chris, I don’t know. What is the city’s policy, shallow groundwater, there are homeowners, the east and unincorporated
Unknown Speaker 2:22:46
Boulder County, which, you know, apparently the impacted been impacted by the, I guess, construction, maybe the sewer line,
Unknown Speaker 2:22:55
that the city maybe did some well digging and listen to what was reported and one of the letters, what’s our position on the interruption of shallow groundwater
Unknown Speaker 2:23:06
as Commissioner hight and Chairman schoeneck.
Unknown Speaker 2:23:10
As you indicated, there is shallow groundwater in this location. And like you said, the sandy gravel operations to the south, obviously, is extending to the north. So there are gravel and sands in this area, which contribute to that. And the city is looking to maintain the groundwater as we can. The geotech Report that we have right now does address it, but it is a little light on the impact that we’ll have when we actually construct sanitary sewer and so forth.
Unknown Speaker 2:23:48
But our intent is not to disrupt anybody else’s wells in the area. There was a recommendation in the geotech report that if they want to put in basements, they may have to install a collection system to lower the groundwater completely. That would require
Unknown Speaker 2:24:10
a well permit from the state. And that application would require that you identify any of the wells within 600 feet of the property. And then if there are any impacts on those, you have to mitigate the impacts before we can approve and install the system like that. Does that answer your question? Sure. I think so. So if they were to add to
Unknown Speaker 2:24:32
D water, the site, the neighborhood, they’d have to get a state engineer permit to do so. And that permit would require
Unknown Speaker 2:24:42
a 600 foot analysis of what is around. Okay. I appreciate that. It does answer my question. Thanks
Unknown Speaker 2:24:52
Unknown Speaker 2:24:56
Thank you chair, Chris. Would that amount to it
Unknown Speaker 2:25:00
drain system for the houses
Unknown Speaker 2:25:04
Unknown Speaker 2:25:07
usually we call it an under drain system is
Unknown Speaker 2:25:11
in each individual residence. So what the geotech report is recommended is either a slab on grade construction, which does not have deep foundations, or crawlspace foundations at the most. And most crawl spaces go down a couple feet
Unknown Speaker 2:25:30
under the grade so you can get frost protection for your foundation, but you do install perimeter drain around those.
Unknown Speaker 2:25:39
And we’d have to look into that because our current code would require that to have a collection system in order to
Unknown Speaker 2:25:49
not to discharge every perimeter drain to the surface.
Unknown Speaker 2:25:54
And in that instance, yes, that system, a collection system for those would also require a well permit. Thank you,
Unknown Speaker 2:26:07
Unknown Speaker 2:26:10
Yeah, thanks, Chairman. I wonder if I can just point a question or two at Eva.
Unknown Speaker 2:26:19
Unknown Speaker 2:26:20
thanks for your help on this today.
Unknown Speaker 2:26:23
Two quick questions. And you really addressed the both of them. But they came up a few times by these concerns were brought up by in some of the notes we received today. I think one came from and again, I don’t know.
Unknown Speaker 2:26:39
chairman’s, you’re not good at any better. But is it a Torah nazara, maybe something like that. My apologies for slaughtering your name. But she echoed a concern around transportation, General traffic impact on the neighborhood sounds like the residents in this in the neighborhood surrounding this property really, I think, really take pride and really enjoy the neighborhood that they have some like a real great small town, kind of feel there for them. But as far as traffic goes, in the packet, in perhaps in your presentation, you also
Unknown Speaker 2:27:16
touched on the fact that there we don’t anticipate a very large number of daily vehicle trips in increasing or being added. And so much so that maybe it doesn’t even meet the benchmark or the requirement for an additional traffic study. Can you just maybe touch on loosely how we get there? And
Unknown Speaker 2:27:40
why are we only anticipating 300 daily trips?
Unknown Speaker 2:27:45
Sure, Commissioner Goldberg. So we did a trip generation memo, I know there was a traffic study done with the annexation. With this low amount of dwelling units, it’s only going to generate about 300 and something some change to N 32. Daily vehicle trips. According to the traffic engineering rules. No traffic study is required if a project generates less than 500 trips. And in general.
Unknown Speaker 2:28:20
There were no additional traffic mitigations required. Because I think the things that we were looking at doing to address any additional traffic ended up being handled with that had been through a previously planned for capital improvement program on ninth Avenue. And Chris can speak to that part. But
Unknown Speaker 2:28:42
that’s all I
Unknown Speaker 2:28:44
think, yeah, that’s great. Chris, I don’t want to cut you off. But, you know, it was one more thing that jumps out to me on the packet that might be
Unknown Speaker 2:28:53
read a little funny is that the applicant is the one that provides the traffic study.
Unknown Speaker 2:29:00
That might sound a little bit like, you know, aren’t the advocating for themselves, but it seems like the city does have to approve or review that traffic study. And we have to give the thumbs up on that. Is that true?
Unknown Speaker 2:29:13
Correct. Commissioner Goldberg. The way it works is you know, these can be very expensive and time consuming. And we only have a limited amount of city staff. So we can’t personally go out and study every potential development that comes in. So the applicant that’s a cost of doing business, that’s a cost they have to bear, they have to hire the consultant, a third party consultant and turn in a report to the city. We do then have city traffic engineers here who evaluate that traffic study through our development review process. Oftentimes we’ll get a study and they will mark it up and they will redline it, and then we’ll send it back to them to the traffic engineering consultant and we’ll say you need to, we need to rework this report. We found all these errors. So we do quality control, check
Unknown Speaker 2:30:00
There’s traffic studies that come into us.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:04
Great. Thanks. I think then given all the line of questioning from Chairman chernykh and the others, I’m down to just one last question. I think it was Jenny Gersh. Schneider Lopez that just mentioned peace and quiet. It was included on the letter that
Unknown Speaker 2:30:20
was, you know, that would you call the chain email that was sent out that we received several times from many different folks. But this also seems to be a recurring theme, preserving the, you know, the neighborhood vibe.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:34
However, on the presentation that you had today, I think you touched on the fact that we have 29 properties going in with actually code would allow many more than that, maybe up to 56 units.
Unknown Speaker 2:30:52
When I think about peace and quiet and preserving, you know, the neighborhood field,
Unknown Speaker 2:30:57
I just wonder if you could speak to it week, what could be going in on this, a lot of land could be something much more dense with more vehicles with more impacts the traffic, but given the application in front of us really only include about half of what could go in there, this might be a desirable option in this part of town. Do you have any general thoughts on that? Am I reading that? Right?
Unknown Speaker 2:31:25
Um, my general thoughts are, yeah, again, the City Council brought this property in it’s not long ago. And they brought it in a single family residential to be developed that way they didn’t. They didn’t zone it open space. They didn’t own it. Agra donated agricultural, they zoned it single family residential, which gives the landowner certain property rights. So they do have the right to develop with single family homes. And again,
Unknown Speaker 2:31:53
our comprehensive plan allows up to eight units per acre. So you are correct, potentially, if if they wanted to, if they could somehow make it fit with all the other requirements from public works engineering and stormwater, they could potentially put in 56 units, but they are not they’re doing 29. And that’s pretty consistent with the concept plan that was submitted to city council as well at time of annexation.
Unknown Speaker 2:32:20
Great, thanks. I appreciate your help.
Unknown Speaker 2:32:26
As a follow up to that for Eva, I had a question.
Unknown Speaker 2:32:34
Eva just mentioned that the council brought the property in as single family residential
Unknown Speaker 2:32:43
what how does that square with the the old comp plan and envision 2020?
Unknown Speaker 2:32:53
Because that that was at the request of the applicant, right.
Unknown Speaker 2:32:59
Commissioner teta arm. I don’t have the old comprehensive plan from before 2016 in front of me. But I think that what was applied for was consistent with what is in our envision Longmont plan. Again, we designate properties that that aren’t even in our city, you know, for the instance, if they want to annex we would say Oh, okay, you know, look at your land use category. And that’s what our expectation would be that you would want to consistent zoning. So
Unknown Speaker 2:33:34
if it wasn’t single family before our 2016 updated, it certainly is now.
Unknown Speaker 2:33:43
Unknown Speaker 2:33:45
Unknown Speaker 2:33:52
Thank you, Chair Sherman
Unknown Speaker 2:33:54
shannock have two questions for Eva, please.
Unknown Speaker 2:33:59
Just for my own knowledge. Do you know the general age of the valley subdivision? To the west? And question number two, there are several parcels to the east of this proposal between this proposal and denio. subdivision to the east.
Unknown Speaker 2:34:22
Unknown Speaker 2:34:25
my understanding is they are not annexed.
Unknown Speaker 2:34:30
Unknown Speaker 2:34:32
I can foresee in the future probably in the near future, once this one goes through that those may come through with a similar proposal. And we’re going to be in a similar situation looking at similar issues on on those properties. So if you could just address those two things. I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:34:59
Unknown Speaker 2:35:00
Boone, the valley subdivision was constructed in 1984. So it’s been around for a while. And your second question? I’m sorry, it was something regarding the Boulder County properties to the east. And what was the specific question?
Unknown Speaker 2:35:17
Maybe it’s beyond our
Unknown Speaker 2:35:20
discussion, but it appears that once this one goes through, that those properties may follow a similar path to this one. Considering that they have the valley subdivision on the west and denio. On the east, it’s kind of an infill pocket
Unknown Speaker 2:35:39
that might go the same route. Do you see that happening in the near future? Or do we just don’t know at this point? So Commissioner Boone, am annexations our property owner driven? So we wouldn’t be initiating that? And if so it would be up to the next property owner to the east and whether they want to annex and if they don’t, then the other owners wouldn’t be able to because you’ve got to have continuity with city of Longmont limits. So there’s no way of knowing what each individual property owners plans are for their property. But it would be owner driven. Sure. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:36:22
Commissioner polling, I think had your handle
Unknown Speaker 2:36:26
earlier. Yeah. Um, Commissioner teda, kind of asked a question I was going to ask and I was hoping maybe a little more information. And that was on the prior comprehension plan.
Unknown Speaker 2:36:40
Eva had mentioned that this area had been in for at least about 20 years, on the radar. Longman had
Unknown Speaker 2:36:48
given a designation I just wondering, you know, going back 20 years, if if we know what that designation was, and just confirming that the properties along Fordham street
Unknown Speaker 2:37:02
share this in designation, even though it’s unincorporated boulder right now. And as agricultural, how does long month see those properties along for them?
Unknown Speaker 2:37:13
Commissioner Poland, I do not have my historical comprehensive plan map with me, because I’m at home. So I can’t tell you what it was before 2016. If you’ll give me five seconds, I’ll go grab my comp plan map until you but I’m pretty sure they’re consistent. But if you just bear with me, I’ll be right back. I appreciate that. Yep. Sure.
Unknown Speaker 2:37:37
And then I’m just gonna also give some of my initial thoughts. And I know that and I understand that the people walk forward in the street or currently have a agricultural aid open, I’m not going to call it an open space, but a undeveloped space, just to the west of them. But when I look at this area as a totality, we have the Valley Park subdivision to the west.
Unknown Speaker 2:38:09
And when I look at the density of those houses, especially the houses on long the eastern border, this subdivision that is being contemplated, appears to be almost
Unknown Speaker 2:38:23
twice as wide as most of those lots.
Unknown Speaker 2:38:27
And then when I look to the Golden Pond estates to the east of them,
Unknown Speaker 2:38:34
it appears that there’ll be roughly about the same kind of density as the Golden State
Unknown Speaker 2:38:40
Unknown Speaker 2:38:43
So when we talk about compatibility, while the people on Fordham street may say it’s not compatible with us, to me, it’s almost like the step down buffer from the Valley Park subdivision. And in that case, it does fit it’s getting a little less dense from Valley Park over to their house. It’s not the undeveloped that they currently have. But has been noted by Ava, there has always been a plan to have this developed. At some point. That’s always been a thought with the city of Long not so
Unknown Speaker 2:39:20
and I don’t know if your back.
Unknown Speaker 2:39:23
Yes, Commissioner Paulin checked, double checked my comprehensive plan map and can confirm that all of the unincorporated Boulder County lots are all designated single family neighborhood so they would all fall in the same category as this property. Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:39:41
And then I do believe I remember some of the talk we had about trying to connect across the railroad and I don’t believe we made that ended up making that recommendation to the city on annexation just because of the issues with trying to get their past
Unknown Speaker 2:40:00
Unknown Speaker 2:40:02
BNSF, or the railroad company. So while I do remember we talked about it, I’m pretty sure we didn’t put that into our recommendation to the city council.
Unknown Speaker 2:40:13
And then looking at it and looking over at once again at the Golden Penny states, and the Valley Park state, the belly Park subdivisions, they don’t have official ways to cross over to get to
Unknown Speaker 2:40:26
the path. When you look at a map, there’s a couple
Unknown Speaker 2:40:30
Unknown Speaker 2:40:33
But nothing official. And I would not expect us, therefore to recommend an official crossing here.
Unknown Speaker 2:40:41
And then another concern from Adam was with a setback from the Golden Pond. I’ll do one thing I noticed is when I looked at the preliminary plat, the the drainage area, that area to the south is actually noted as being 153 feet wide.
Unknown Speaker 2:41:00
So it’s approximately from what I can tell from what the map shows from the railroad to the boundary of the detention pond is 153 feet. So
Unknown Speaker 2:41:11
that’s more than 150 feet that we would have for right period setback anyways. So to me,
Unknown Speaker 2:41:18
that shouldn’t be a concern.
Unknown Speaker 2:41:21
So that that was some of my initial thoughts. I guess one thing outstanding, I still would like to maybe debate more with the commission is, if we should buy ahead and ask for a updated natural life survey during a spring summer time period.
Unknown Speaker 2:41:41
Thank you, Mr. Vaughn. I have a couple of of questions.
Unknown Speaker 2:41:46
And then, you know, it sounds like maybe we’re getting to a discussion about conditions and decision.
Unknown Speaker 2:41:54
This actually goes back to mismas watts, comments about the pedestrian and vehicular
Unknown Speaker 2:42:04
traffic and and its effect on young families.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:08
And I understand from from the presentation that we have to put through Wade road in order to create the second fire access for the fire department. So it must connect, and therefore that loops the traffic through.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:29
So there is no option for the city to make the new part peak view or Park view Street, just a detached Street.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:41
But there are a couple things that affect families and children.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:48
One is that if if I remember right, and this would be a question for Ava, or possibly for Mr. jemanden.
Unknown Speaker 2:42:58
I believe in the BNSF letter, they want a six foot fence on on to block people from being able to cross those tracks.
Unknown Speaker 2:43:13
That fence I assume would be on the south side of the South
Unknown Speaker 2:43:19
drainage area. I mean, it would literally be up against as close as you could get to the tracks, or would it actually block people from getting to that detention area?
Unknown Speaker 2:43:30
Where would a fence like that from for BNSF ‘s point of view go in?
Unknown Speaker 2:43:37
What’s your height? I don’t think we’ve gotten into those details with the railroad. But my assumption is it would be on the south side of that outlot abutting their tracks. I don’t think I don’t know why they would prohibit people from using the open space. Right? Because they’re just there. And they don’t want people jumping the tracks but right. And so. So that being open space, I think it was also in your report ever that
Unknown Speaker 2:44:06
there’s a pocket Park over in Valley in the valley subdivision. And you said it was within a certain distance?
Unknown Speaker 2:44:15
Is that requirement for its proximity as the crow flies or as one would actually walk? Because it looks like from the aerial views that you have to walk around a bunch of built houses, you can’t just cut straight across to it. So it doesn’t meet the city criteria as one would walk for is it just measuring off a map? It sure sure. Nick? Yes. Good question. Yes. So so for the edification of the others. residential developments over a certain number of units are required to provide their own internal pocket Park. But you’re exempted from that if you’re within a quarter mile of an existing city neighborhood park which the Valley Park is
Unknown Speaker 2:45:00
City neighborhood park. And I believe the code says it has to be within 13 120 feet of walking distance. And so I used my measuring tool on the computer and did that analysis and verified it. Okay, so it is within that 1300 feet.
Unknown Speaker 2:45:22
Unknown Speaker 2:45:24
bat, this takes us kind of back to the discussion about whether that detention area could be natural vegetation, which might be nice for for
Unknown Speaker 2:45:36
for wildlife, but maybe it would be better if that detention area, when it’s not wet and soggy,
Unknown Speaker 2:45:45
would be landscaped in a way that kids could use. Back to this nice wats point.
Unknown Speaker 2:45:52
Maybe this is a question for Mr. jemanden. Did the other three have a vision yet as to what you all think that that detention area looks like and what its what its use for the residents might be?
Unknown Speaker 2:46:12
Yes, thanks, Chairman chernykh. Um, as far as the vision for what that area can be used as for the residents, definitely the open space that they can use, it will be maintained by the HOA in the subdivision. on right now, there is no pocket Park proposed in that area. But it would still be accessible for residents out four to one slope, and they could use it for just activities playing soccer, you name it, and it’s a pretty big open area to begin with. So yeah, definitely, if I was living there, I would definitely be playing in that detention practice is not going to be, you know, filled up with water much. In fact, near my subdivision, they have the same situation where they have a large detention pond and a wide open field. And, you know, residents use that just to play and hang out. Okay. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:47:08
So, I would make a comment to the commission that
Unknown Speaker 2:47:13
I think that that conditioning, this stage of approval on natural vegetation, and that detention area is kind of putting
Unknown Speaker 2:47:26
it’s too early on. And it also I believe, as Mr. jemanden just mentioned, the HOA really should drive in my opinion,
Unknown Speaker 2:47:38
how that space is used and therefore that drives how that space is landscaped.
Unknown Speaker 2:47:44
So, I, I had been considering the CMOS idea that we condition this requiring natural vegetation there, but I I wouldn’t go with that condition at this time.
Unknown Speaker 2:48:01
All although there is we should I believe we should discuss a possible condition for her suggestion and Mr. serwis suggestion that a new habitat study be done sometime other than winter.
Unknown Speaker 2:48:16
thoughts and comments on that.
Unknown Speaker 2:48:19
Mr. Goldberg, you turned off your mic turned on your mic.
Unknown Speaker 2:48:24
Commissioner. Commissioner Chairman Chairman I thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:48:28
Indeed Yeah, I have a list of and I want always to bring
Unknown Speaker 2:48:35
a condition to the recommendation but in the end, I think I’m aligned with you and Chairman Poland on that might be a good idea to do a habitat and species assessment in spring or summer.
Unknown Speaker 2:48:50
Given that discussion, and given Chairman Poland’s
Unknown Speaker 2:48:56
really exhaustive summary, recognizing that the project hasn’t met the review criteria, a through I listed in our packet, given the discussion around infill being desirable and kind of the opposite of sprawl.
Unknown Speaker 2:49:16
Given the fact that
Unknown Speaker 2:49:20
the project before is not looking to max out on properties and max out on really looked at maximum maximize as many properties or as dense as possible as they could in the space but actually providing a nice
Unknown Speaker 2:49:38
kind of step from the neighboring communities.
Unknown Speaker 2:49:42
Recognizing that a train crossing just isn’t feasible, and logistically challenging and adjust sounds like real burdensome and not practical for the developer.
Unknown Speaker 2:49:54
And once if we add in that spring or summer, habitat and species assessment
Unknown Speaker 2:50:00
I’d be inclined to
Unknown Speaker 2:50:03
move forward with this project. So before the hearing from the rest of the commission are happy to put forward a motion.
Unknown Speaker 2:50:13
For thoughts about the habitat study being redone. I, I’m hearing language of spring or summer, Miss seamos said breeding season, but breeding season for what kind of species?
Unknown Speaker 2:50:29
That’s not. I mean, I’m not clear if we as a commission have the expertise to,
Unknown Speaker 2:50:37
to determine the best time to do a new habitat study. Other than like, soon,
Unknown Speaker 2:50:44
spring, like when there’s different animals there. crusher flake.
Unknown Speaker 2:50:50
Thank you, Chair.
Unknown Speaker 2:50:52
I do know that in the last week, week and a half the national and I’m going to get the name of this wrong I’m sure.
Unknown Speaker 2:51:03
National, it’s either the migratory bird count or the bird count occurred. And it seems that that could be a way to hang this
Unknown Speaker 2:51:17
idea on basically saying, Well, if other people think that the experts that monitor bird life and such, feel that this is an appropriate time to look at that area, that group of of
Unknown Speaker 2:51:34
animals, birds, whatever, then perhaps spring is an appropriate time to do that kind of assessment.
Unknown Speaker 2:51:45
just tossing that out.
Unknown Speaker 2:51:47
You You make me realize that there’s another way to phrase it, which is to do a new habitat, study, not in winter.
Unknown Speaker 2:52:00
Oh, there’s that.
Unknown Speaker 2:52:03
But you know, we’ll get less count after they have all taken wing, for example, after all the birds are flying, that will be a different kind of a study.
Unknown Speaker 2:52:12
Unknown Speaker 2:52:14
Unknown Speaker 2:52:16
If so, if this national Migratory Bird count just occurred?
Unknown Speaker 2:52:24
Unknown Speaker 2:52:26
if we require a new habitat study, to be done tied to that? Are we requiring the developer to wait an entire year?
Unknown Speaker 2:52:37
I would say not, I would say in order to try to get things back on the rails and going towards and going forward to the next submittal. Obtaining such a species
Unknown Speaker 2:52:51
account of a variety of animals that may or may not be on the site would be an appropriate next step. Perhaps I don’t know how we word that into a condition.
Unknown Speaker 2:53:10
Any, any thoughts? Any ideas? Any commercial problem? Yeah, um, I don’t want to really get too too far into the weeds on this.
Unknown Speaker 2:53:20
I think if we say a summertime, if we give a June July timeframe, something that is almost like opposite of the winter,
Unknown Speaker 2:53:33
I’d be happy with something like that. I’m sure that at different times through the spring, through the summer, through the fall through the winter, you’re going to have different animals, different birds at different times. I what I would like to do though, is try to encompass some kind of middle ground. Okay, they did in the winter. Let’s now do it in the summer, we got kind of like a book end of the year there.
Unknown Speaker 2:54:00
So and given the fact that condition three is they have to submit a migratory bird nesting survey
Unknown Speaker 2:54:09
and have it completed within one week of construction activities when they begin if it’s between March and August. That’s something else that’s going to happen per the condition. So if we just say do a wildlife survey, know, the other half of the year to take care of your book into the year, I’d be happy with something like that.
Unknown Speaker 2:54:29
Unknown Speaker 2:54:33
Yeah, I was gonna address that to
Unknown Speaker 2:54:35
current condition 1.53 indicates to try to address Migratory Bird issues. That if there’s construction activity between March and August 31, which I’m assuming bookends when migratory birds would be testing
Unknown Speaker 2:54:50
that they were doing an assessment. So that would kind of cover that.
Unknown Speaker 2:54:55
I note looking at the geological ecology general
Unknown Speaker 2:55:00
CalFresh ecological resource survey that was completed of January 14 of last year.
Unknown Speaker 2:55:10
If you did that six months later in June of this year, that would allow them to get the report done and have it at six months, polar opposites from one another. And to cover the that winter, with a more specific deadline, six months hence. So that we can be my suggestion is that they, they redo the survey or update their survey in June.
Unknown Speaker 2:55:39
If you had popped in really fast with your hand up, you had something to add,
Unknown Speaker 2:55:46
and shrink, I think it was just addressed. I just wanted to remind couldn’t remember if you were heard of discussing about when to study what to study, and I just wanted to remind the commission, that staff had added a condition of approval, noting that the applicant should be required to do the migratory bird study, which is pretty boilerplate for us when we have development projects. And if there are any bird nest within the vicinity, we have to do mitigation, excuse me.
Unknown Speaker 2:56:17
So actually, Eva, you, I’m sorry, you’re, you’re having a coughing fit right now. Hopefully, you can still hear it.
Unknown Speaker 2:56:27
Unknown Speaker 2:56:31
if we asked for a new habitat study to be done, as compared to the condition, which is to just check the site before construction begins?
Unknown Speaker 2:56:42
could ask for a new habitat study to be done?
Unknown Speaker 2:56:48
Unknown Speaker 2:56:50
Okay, so it’s done? Um, what does the staff do? Based on that new report? I mean, it’s not as if,
Unknown Speaker 2:57:01
when would would you come back to us? I mean, what
Unknown Speaker 2:57:07
do you do with it? It? Is there any point in redoing it? If it doesn’t change? The process? Overall, I guess, is the question.
Unknown Speaker 2:57:15
So a couple things, if the commission decides to require another study in the summer, our staff will take that in, and we’ll evaluate it, and we’ll see Has anything changed? I don’t know that it will. Because they’ve, they’ve noted that there are no waters of the US. That would be habitat for certain types of species in this location. So I don’t whether it’s summer or winter, I don’t know that it will change. If there’s no prairie dogs in the winter, if there’s no holes in the winter, I don’t know that there’s gonna be holes in the summer, you know what I’m saying? So, um, so I don’t know, you can certainly require it, and we can look at it and evaluate it. I personally don’t know that is going to change the outcome much. Or that it will change the fact that it has said that it found no federally or state protected species. But we can we can do it.
Unknown Speaker 2:58:08
What we would do if it did change significantly, and it said that there were suddenly some federal and state protected species, the reports typically come up with recommendations about how to mitigate this, how to handle this. And we would just take those recommendations and require those of the applicants before any site work were done.
Unknown Speaker 2:58:30
Now, you just said something that reminded me about these habitat studies. They’re looking for state protected species or federally protected species, right.
Unknown Speaker 2:58:43
Unknown Speaker 2:58:45
it may be the case that during breeding season, there’s just a whole lot more animals around.
Unknown Speaker 2:58:55
But what would change the path or change some of the decisions about this development is only if those animals are state protected or federally protected? right?
Unknown Speaker 2:59:08
Correct. And another condition of approval, we recommended in your resolution was that the applicant provide us in writing statements from both Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the US Fish and Wildlife Service saying that the statement is called a statement of no impact. So that’s our other teeth, if you will, on this is those two items as we’ve asked them to provide that level of documentation in the conditions.
Unknown Speaker 2:59:38
So this is really helpful because I’m starting to realize that adding condition to do new habitat study is redundant to the conditions you’re already suggesting that we have.
Unknown Speaker 2:59:52
But I think I want to ask a different question, give people time to ponder this, on the first condition which you
Unknown Speaker 3:00:00
suggested to us about the African shall provide written verification of no objection from Platte River Power Authority. This is something that really jumped out at me. Because in your written report to us, you
Unknown Speaker 3:00:15
stated a couple times and pretty strong language that the applicant was advised over and over and over again.
Unknown Speaker 3:00:24
You need to have this approval if you don’t have this approval, this could actually result in a complete redesign of your project.
Unknown Speaker 3:00:33
Teams fighting words in the planning world, right? Um, so
Unknown Speaker 3:00:42
why is Platte River not responding? What’s the I mean, are we
Unknown Speaker 3:00:48
is if they if Platte River doesn’t respond? Or if they do come back and say no, you know, you can’t build there. And it does result in a complete redesign. What happens to this project?
Unknown Speaker 3:01:01
So cherisher, Nick,
Unknown Speaker 3:01:03
I will let Collin answer the question about Platte River, because I know that he’s been attempting to get that information from them. And that onus is on the applicant, it’s not on us at the city to go get that permission. It’s the property owners job. But to answer your second question, what if they came back and said, No, we don’t approve of you being around our easement, it would obviously require some kind of redesign of this whole subdivision layout. And if it does, and what we’ve told the applicant many times is, if this project got approved with this condition, and then later, Platte River comes back and says, we know can’t do this gonna have to redesign move around work around us, what we’ve told the applicant is then you’re going to have to go back to planning and zoning commission to re review and approve your preliminary plat because we could do minor changes, you know, little little changes, but you know, here and there but not not something significantly different, it would have to come back to this commission for approval. Okay. And in that that process that you just described of it coming back through us is inherent in that condition statement. It’s understood that if that condition is not met, that process kicks out. Correct? Okay. All right. Mr. geminin? Could you let us know how it’s going with Platte River?
Unknown Speaker 3:02:31
Yes, Chairman chernykh, they’d be happy to. So I have been in communication with their lead engineer in this particular area of pop River Power Authority on not to the extent unfortunately to get written approval in time for this pNz meeting. But to the extent that they have reviewed our preliminary plans, they know we are proposing lots right against their easement. They since asked us to add a note to the preliminary plat that says no fencing will be allowed in our 15 foot electrical easement. They also suggested that we get their concrete duct bank potholed because we’re going to be proposing utilities. And we have since done that, where we wrote will be extended that’s on the south side of the site. And also enough communication, I have a couple of giants from them on their planning profiles. And actually today, I heard back from my main contact saying he was retiring and passing the information off to another guy, which I will be in contact with in the next couple of weeks to hopefully get a sign off from them, and maybe even add a signature block on the construction giants itself, for Platte River Power Authority. So from my perspective, we don’t want to obviously have to go back to preliminary plat, we can avoid that, right. So but we’re confident that Platte River Power Authority knows what we’re doing. We’ll get approval from them here in the early final plat stages, and obviously redesign or design the site accordingly. And as such, you know, that’s why the retaining wall is where it is on the science property and the road crossing. So yeah, I’m confident we’re on the right path. Hopefully that answers your question. Yeah, it sure does. Thank you. that’s a that’s a, you’ve made a lot of progress compared to what was in our report where you just couldn’t even raise a
Unknown Speaker 3:04:31
response from that. So thank you for that. Appreciate that.
Unknown Speaker 3:04:38
Okay, so commissioners, we’ve been talking about possible more conditions,
Unknown Speaker 3:04:47
or Does somebody want to make a motion?
Unknown Speaker 3:04:50
Unknown Speaker 3:04:54
Yeah, I think just to keep the discussion rolling.
Unknown Speaker 3:04:58
For the reason
Unknown Speaker 3:05:00
I listed on my last rant and with the benefit of
Unknown Speaker 3:05:06
our discussion around whether to or not to add a condition or run another habitat study. I appreciate everyone’s feedback there that was really valuable. So for the reason that I wasn’t before given our discussions around an additional study, and why that may not be a wise decision, I think I’ll go ahead and recommend
Unknown Speaker 3:05:30
PCR 2021 to be with the conditions that the applicant provide written verification of no objection from Platte River Power Authority,
Unknown Speaker 3:05:41
provide a statement of no significant impacts from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and from the US Fish and Wildlife and refresh Migratory Bird nesting survey be completed within one week of construction activities if they commenced between March 1 and August 31.
Unknown Speaker 3:06:00
Unknown Speaker 3:06:03
just to say that differently, the conditions you’re proposing are the conditions that were suggested to us by city staff.
Unknown Speaker 3:06:13
Okay, Commissioner flake correct. I will Second. Okay, we have a second on the motion to approve PCR 2021 dash two B with the three conditions as stated. Do we have further discussion?
Unknown Speaker 3:06:28
Commissioner pollen? Yeah. I’ve already stated my preference for approving this development. And the reasons mainly because it does fit in with the overall characteristics of that area being developed. But I do want to speak to the people, especially the people who are in Fordham.
Unknown Speaker 3:06:49
I counted 20 people submitted emails, we had six people calling on the phone, giving us their concerns.
Unknown Speaker 3:07:00
Some of them had stated from prior experience that they felt that they weren’t being heard.
Unknown Speaker 3:07:06
I want to try to alleviate that fear. I want the people to know that we have heard them. We have read their
Unknown Speaker 3:07:15
I’ve read their emails, at least I’ve gone through all the emails, I’ve actually noted all the names. I took care in trying to understand what their concerns are. I believe we have gone over as a commission, what their concerns are.
Unknown Speaker 3:07:31
We understand that they have a certain way of life that they are living in under certain condition. Unfortunately, they do have property that’s next to somebody else’s property. And that person has a right to do with what the city says they are allowed to do with the property that is to put in single family homes.
Unknown Speaker 3:07:52
I do believe that as we’ve talked about, they could have up to 56 homes. There are 29 homes.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:00
It’s kind of a bittersweet, but just take the they didn’t push us to the limits.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:08
So I want them once again to know that we have heard them. We have talked about their concerns.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:16
And we understand them. But we do
Unknown Speaker 3:08:20
are presented with facts that we have to go ahead and proceed with and base our decisions on so just want to add that little comment.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:29
Thank you commission upon any other discussion for take about.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:35
Okay, let’s go ahead and do a roll call vote. Start with Commissioner teta.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:42
Unknown Speaker 3:08:45
Unknown Speaker 3:08:47
I vote yes.
Unknown Speaker 3:08:50
Unknown Speaker 3:08:53
Unknown Speaker 3:08:55
Commissioner polen. Yes. Commissioner groberg.
Unknown Speaker 3:09:01
Unknown Speaker 3:09:02
Commissioner flag I
Unknown Speaker 3:09:05
and I will also vote yes on. So Jane that passes unanimously seven to zero.
Unknown Speaker 3:09:12
And we have a
Unknown Speaker 3:09:16
statement to make here on this item now enters a seven day appeal period. During this time any aggrieved party may appeal the Commission’s decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning and zoning Commission’s decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the City Clerk’s Office and the planning office within the seven day appeal period, which begins Thursday, April 22 at 8am and ends Wednesday, April 28 at 5pm.
Unknown Speaker 3:09:48
Eva, thank you so much as always for all of your help walking us through these complicated projects. Mr. jemanden and all of the other members of your team
Unknown Speaker 3:10:00
We’re here tonight. Thank you for your presentation and answering all of our questions. We have more on our agenda.
Unknown Speaker 3:10:10
And the next thing is our final call for any public comment. So we have our slide up. If you want to comment on anything,
Unknown Speaker 3:10:24
please call 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 8511747965. And when we’re ready to hear your public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. To do this, we need five minutes to get set up. So we will be back at 1014
Unknown Speaker 3:14:58
Unknown Speaker 3:15:00
Let’s give our live stream a few seconds to get caught up. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 3:15:19
All right, the screen just left and we are back. And we have one person. Okay. Thank you, Susan. So the one caller, your number ends in 374 on if you would like to unmute, and remember to state your name and address for us before you make your comments.
Unknown Speaker 3:15:42
Call her 374. I’m asking you to unmute. There you go. Can you hear us? Is it? Are you able to hear me? Yes, we can you may begin.
Unknown Speaker 3:15:53
Okay, so I’ve just been following along in the last couple hours on the peak view planning. And I want to say I appreciate you guys going through this fairly thoroughly. I do have an email from the city engineer Cameron,
Unknown Speaker 3:16:08
Cameron folks, and this was about the water runoff. Now I’m not too worried about birds or anything else. I just want to make sure that whatever gets developed there doesn’t flood my property. And I know you guys talked a lot about the wildlife but I only saw or only heard a few mentions about flooding with river plots. And I’d like to read this email real quick from Cameron and ask when this is supposed to be done. He says the applicant will need to provide stormwater conveyance for the off site drainage from the valley subdivision. Based on the subdivision construction plans about half the lots drain towards PPR states. dq estates must pass outside drainage that is currently going through the site. We have made several comments requiring to have a pinprick of a off site drainage to the south. This can be done in several ways but is typically a swale ditch or inlets with piping that need to be installed. And it says the city of Longmont uses guidance from the Mile High flood district
Unknown Speaker 3:17:05
formerly known as urban drainage and flood control district to determine rainfall values. The rainfall values are based on historic rainfall information from the NOAA at about 100 years. And he goes on to say that the data is periodically reviewed and that the data that you guys are using to baseline is good, but that then, as stated number one PPO will need to provide convenience of the offset flow entering their subdivision. The city requires a one foot freeboard when designing a swale ditch for conveyance, they have to show that the conveyance has a 12 foot or 12 foot extra or 12 inches of extra capacity for a factor of safety. And he goes on to list these requirements that must be done. And he says this is supposed to be done on he says staff is currently on the first review of the preliminary plat and drainage report that the applicant has submitted. And he says typically, we go through a few rounds of preliminary plat comments before the applicant is approved. And we can submit. So I was just wondering, has anybody seen this? And has this been checked off? Or is this just being green lighted without anybody looking at it?
Unknown Speaker 3:18:12
Um, Sir, this comment period is not really a question and answer period. But I really appreciate you reading the email. And that goes into our official record of this meeting. And of course, we have the YouTube recording of this meeting as well.
Unknown Speaker 3:18:33
There’s still a couple spots on our agenda right after your phone call, where we have an opportunity to discuss as a commission, more things that are just brought up by commissioners or, and also the planning director. So keep watching. Okay, thank you very much for making these comments. It’s now in our official record.
Unknown Speaker 3:19:01
Thank you appreciate it. And I realize I forgot to state my name. It’s Samuel camp and I live at 816 Hayden court. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 3:19:14
We will close the public hearing.
Unknown Speaker 3:19:18
And, um, items from the commission is our next
Unknown Speaker 3:19:25
agenda item. First off, I just want to say we all got an email reminder from Jane about there’s a diagonal highway project that is asking for input about first and last mile. So look for her email and, you know, help out with your expertise. course. Thank you to Susan and Jane for handling all the behind the scenes. technicalities tonight, can’t do it without you. Um, and um, and we still have Ava
Unknown Speaker 3:20:00
Unknown Speaker 3:20:02
either I would actually like to ask you, given the public comment we just heard, um,
Unknown Speaker 3:20:09
if you have any input about that.
Unknown Speaker 3:20:13
Definitely chair. Sure, Nick, his comment letter is in our system. And he was one of the first people that commented or the only person that commented when this application initially came in, I think I briefly touched on it in my presentation, and I mentioned that he really had a lot of detailed questions about the drainage, and I put him in touch with Cameron Fox, who’s our drainage engineer reviewing this. And as you heard, Cameron gave him a very detailed explanation about our very methodical process. Unfortunately, after the public hearing ended, Christopher, his supervisor jumped off, he could have stated much more eloquently how this process works. But in general, it has to meet all of our standards, as you know, and our design standards for the city of Longmont are drainage standards. And so to my knowledge, again, on a preliminary plat, we don’t tighten the details we make sure is an overall concept, it’s gonna, it’s going to the drainage will work. And then as we go into what’s called public improvement plans, which come with a final plat, that’s where we get into that level of detail where Cameron will be asking Rocky Ridge engineering, as you met, calling on to really detail out the specifics of that, that would be a requirement for any approval. Okay, so our color could continue to stay in touch with camera.
Unknown Speaker 3:21:45
Unknown Speaker 3:21:47
follow up on on the nitty gritty details.
Unknown Speaker 3:21:51
Yes, chair? Sure. That’s correct. They can always contact Cameron or myself at any time, and we’re happy to walk them through the process and show and share the plans. Okay, great. Thank you so much, Eva. Um, any items from our council representative? Aaron Rodriguez.
Unknown Speaker 3:22:13
No comments at this time. But I thank you all so much for your hard work. Another long and thorough meeting. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 3:22:21
Thank you, sir. On items from our planning and development services director Glenn van juega.
Unknown Speaker 3:22:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll just echo that. Thank you for all the effort you put in. I did want to mention, it’s been
Unknown Speaker 3:22:41
a little while since we met and we are actually at 100% staffed up in the planning division. And our most recent
Unknown Speaker 3:22:51
staff member is animal Roy. And she comes to us from Lake County, Illinois.
Unknown Speaker 3:22:58
And she will be our environmental sustainability planners. So she will live within section 15.0 5.020 and section 15.0 5.030, which is all habitat riparian protection. So hopefully in the near future, she’ll be both for you and making a presentation. But that’s the only thing I wanted to mention, other than we do have a meeting scheduled for May 19. So plan on that. Okay, sounds great. Thank you, Glen. I really appreciate it.
Unknown Speaker 3:23:35
saying nothing else. Nobody’s like waving their arms madly. The next item on the agenda is a gentleman.
Unknown Speaker 3:23:43
Oh, wait. Teresa Tate. Did you have something to say, Teresa?
Unknown Speaker 3:23:49
This chair, I just wanted to let the commission know that the South more retail Plaza appeal did go forward to city council. And city council affirms the planning and zoning Commission’s decision. So just wanted to provide that information.
Unknown Speaker 3:24:04
Thank you. So that was the what we heard in February, correct? Yes, sir. That’s correct. Okay, great. Thank you for that update. Teresa. I really appreciate it and thanks for help tonight.
Unknown Speaker 3:24:16
My pleasure. Okay, now with no further ado, we are adjourned. Thanks, everybody.