City Council Regular Session – May 25, 2021

Video Description:
City Council Regular Session – May 25, 2021

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

Read along below or follow along here:

Unknown Speaker 8:26
Mayor we can’t hear you. There you go. Try again. Hear me, we can go ahead and call. Alright, we’re gonna go ahead and call the May 25 2021 long city council regular session order. We can go ahead and start with pledge allegiance. Councilmember pack. Do you want to lead us tonight? Thank you. Yes. So I pledge allegiance, allegiance to the flag of and are we one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty. All right, just a quick reminder to the public. Go ahead and you’re going to be you need to watch the live stream if you want to participate in tonight’s first call public invited to be heard. If you miss it, don’t fret. We will conclude tonight’s council meeting with the last caller final call public invited to be heard. So that said let’s go ahead. And can I have a motion to approve the minutes of may 11 2021. The regular session meeting? So moved. Second? Second. All right. It’s been it’s been moved by Dr. Water seconded by Councilman Peck. Seeing no debate for changes all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously and the regular session minutes of the 11th of may are passed and adopted. All right. Any agenda revisions, submission of documents and whatnot Casper Peck.

Unknown Speaker 10:00
Thank you Mayor. I’m so at the time of the council voted to legalize marijuana in Longmont. Council also voted to take half of the marijuana tax and put it toward affordable housing. So we’re in the new budget, you’re creating the budget for 2022. So I’m going to move to direct staff to earmark or set aside the second half of the marijuana tax for mental health and addiction with the application of the funds to be determined by staff and council at a later date. Second,

Unknown Speaker 10:36
all right. It’s been moved and seconded. This is just to put it on the agenda to discuss not voting tonight. So my so let’s go ahead and just, I have no problem putting it on the agenda to have this discussion. My only other question will be what is the opportunity costs? I’d like staff to also tell us we can spend it on this. What else would we spend it on? But all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the Motion carries unanimously. Thank you, Counselor, Beck. Anything else? Okay, Dr. Waters, the fourth. Can I ask a question, Mary? Maggie, thanks for those years.

Unknown Speaker 11:14
The question is to the to the council. Is there any chance that the council would consider moving the open forum from June 15 to June 23?

Unknown Speaker 11:27
If so, I would move to do that. And the reason why is that I’m going to be out of country on June 15. on a trip that was planned a year ago, they got rescheduled, we had no control over when it was rescheduled, when we set these dates, I didn’t know then it would be a conflict with the open forum. And if the council would indulge that I just hate missing the open forum. But it it’s it’s on me that I would miss it if it’s going to be on the 15th. I understand that. And I would fully understand if if nobody wants to make the change. But I I can’t do it without at least asking whether or not there’s any possibility. So my question is the 22nd of June that that council meeting was cancelled. So why did we cancel it? I think probably because of CML, CML. That a CML week. So my question is CML is still occurring, right. So what if we were to change it in the 29th? Can we swap that out? I think it would be the 30th when I think it’s the thing of the right year now it’s the 29th to Tuesday 30. So when I got it, you’re right. You’re right. I’m sorry.

Unknown Speaker 12:37
Yeah, I was. I was just, I was just yeah. So I was just told that CML move the conference to September, okay, then we can also put we can also do the other day, if you want it as well. All right, what do you guys want to do? Caspar Christiansen?

Unknown Speaker 13:01
The 22nd was canceled, I planned. That’s the only time I can take a vacation, because we’re not meeting them. And so I would be happy to change it to 29th. I would now like to change it to the 22nd.

Unknown Speaker 13:19
Let’s keep it let’s keep the 22nd canceled. And then let’s just swap the forum with the 29th. Anyone object to that.

Unknown Speaker 13:26
All right, Harold, let’s go ahead and swap it. Let’s do the 29th is the Go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 13:34
Somebody say Harold? Yeah, I did. So the 29th is a regular session scheduled currently. And we do have ordinances for our next water bond issue going on first reading that night. So if we still had the regular meeting, as well as the open forum, it would be alright. But otherwise, we have concerns about when we’re going to be able to close on that issue relative to those monies. And why don’t we go ahead and make a small list of things that are crucial to budget water bonds, etc, that we can deal with on the consent agenda, and then go right into the public forum for that work. Jim, would that work? He could we also have to present the audit that night because we have to have it done before the 30th of the month. So there’s a lot of listening. It’s I’m complicating things for the city that I shouldn’t complicate. So we’ll just proceed with the plan and I’ll catch up on the open forum. All right, customer Christiansen

Unknown Speaker 14:38
Oh, I was I yeah, this would make trouble for Jim. But I was gonna suggest since the Open Forum was scheduled for the 15th we could just do what Jim wants to do the 15th. But that would mean he’d have to do it two weeks earlier, and that’s not really very fair to him. Anyway, I

Unknown Speaker 14:55
agree on that one. So Harold, why don’t you do this? Why don’t we keep it on the 15th but if you can come up with Another option, let me know. And we can talk there. No.

Unknown Speaker 15:03
Yeah, we don’t have to let me so yeah, let me work with staff and see what, what other options are. If I send this out to

Unknown Speaker 15:09
a worst case scenario, we’re still we’re still on for the 15th. And if we can make it work, Doc, we will. Fair enough. All right. Okay, let’s go on to city manager’s report. Do we don’t have any special reports of presentations tonight? Right. All right. So then do you have any slides tonight, Harold,

Unknown Speaker 15:26
I don’t have any slides. I just wanted to say to you all that the numbers although,

Unknown Speaker 15:31
you know, if you don’t have slides, what I want to do is I want to throw up the first call public invited to be heard screen, oh, well to start calling in and queuing up now. So we don’t have to take a break when we’re still not tired. So let’s go ahead and throw up the first call invited to be heard. And then Harold, why don’t you go ahead and give us the the COVID update.

Unknown Speaker 15:52
So what I wanted to tell you all, as the numbers continue to move in a really good direction, we’re continuing to make progress on vaccinations. As you all know, the big update for me today is the masking order changed, and, and so we are for councils direction to follow the Boulder County orders, we are allowing the option of going on mass to anyone who’s fully vaccinated in our facilities. There are a few exceptions to this, which include childcare, indoor camps and youth program facilities. And so we are and we’re in the process of posting the guidance on the building. So everyone’s aware of that. And then as we talked about earlier, that really then shifts us into I’m at the point we were looking at the open forum, June 15, being the day where we have our first in person council meeting, obviously with the other conversation as we look at that. Still June 15, in terms of all of this coming together. But you know, everything’s moving in the right direction. And as we continue to get more people vaccinated, the better the numbers are doing. And again, the correlation is there between vaccination in case numbers. And our seven day positivity is decreasing. And we’re at 1.1%.

Unknown Speaker 17:11
Cool. Do you have any questions or comments regarding COVID for our esteemed city manager? Alright, and I guess my only question is on June 15, whether we have counsel or whether we have an open forum? Are we gonna let everybody come? There’s just no no restrictions, right?

Unknown Speaker 17:30
Yeah, unless it goes to 100. And then if it goes to 100, we have to have overflow. Okay. components available so we can have people in different rooms. That’s great.

Unknown Speaker 17:40
I’m looking forward to it. I know about you guys, but I’m excited. It’d be great. So Alright, cool. So how long I don’t see the I haven’t seen the public inviting be heard screen up.

Unknown Speaker 17:55
It was up when I was talking.

Unknown Speaker 17:57
Mary good. So it’s been up for about a minute and a half. And then I just took it down. Alright, well, let’s keep it up for another minute and a half. Do we have anybody in the queue?

Unknown Speaker 18:08
Not at this time.

Unknown Speaker 18:10
All right, let’s just keep it up for another minute and a half and kind of just chill here for 90 seconds or so. And then we don’t get anybody calls in. We’ll proceed with our our consent agenda. Actually, why don’t we leave that up? dawn, why don’t you go ahead and read the consent agenda. That’ll give us plenty of time.

Unknown Speaker 18:30
You got it there the consent agenda. item nine a is resolution 2021 dash 52. a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the University of Colorado Boulder for grant funding for research on the effects of trails on plant species diversity. Nine B is resolution 2021 dash 53 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and Boulder County for a lease of the Boulder County Fairgrounds parking lot for Rogers river run. Nine C is resolution 2021 dash 54 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving the revocable permit and agreement between the city and avid for adventure Inc. to use union reservoir for recreational purposes. 90 is resolution 2021 dash 55 a resolution of the Longmont city council approving every bookable permit and agreement between the city and able to sail for summer camps. Nine he is resolution 2021 dash 56 a resolution of the Walmart city council approving an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Longmont and the state of Colorado Department of local affairs for grant funding for defense counsel first appearance grant program. I move the consent agenda. Second,

Unknown Speaker 19:46
that’s great. It’s been moved and seconded but we’re going to go ahead and wait to take the vote till after we hear first call public invited here just in case somebody is upset or wants to say something. So do we have anybody in the queue

Unknown Speaker 20:00
We do not not at this moment, and it’s been about three and a half minutes. All right,

Unknown Speaker 20:05
so let’s go ahead and close the first call public invited to be heard. And let’s go ahead and take a vote. Anybody want to make a comment or take anything off the consent agenda? All right, then seeing that let’s go and vote All in favor of passing the consent agenda, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the consent agenda passes unanimously. Okay, let’s go on to ordinances on second reading. We’re gonna go ahead and throw it up again. Let’s go ahead and open up the public hearing on item it looks like we have one item 10 A are next 2021 29 a bill for an ordinance authorize the city blocks at least a real property known as Vance brand, Municipal Airport, hangar parcel sh 90, the premises Western airport development LLC tenant. I’m assuming we aren’t going to have anybody call in because we vote on these all the time, then nobody ever calls in, but we’re going to still take take a few minutes. So let’s take you guys mind if we just hang out here for 60 seconds or so. And then we can reopen it if somebody calls in.

Unknown Speaker 21:12
Anybody opposed to that plan? Okay, so we’ll just wait for 60 seconds. I just

Unknown Speaker 21:27
want to say just getting back from Ohio. I believe Councilmember waters is related to Bob Evans. And my wife was surprised to see how many Bob Evans are out there. You know,

Unknown Speaker 21:37
Mayor Pro Tem, it’s the one it’s the one thing right around the world when you meet somebody with a how roots. It’s the it’s the first question. And everybody gets wide eyed. Really? You are related to Bob Evans. Yep. Bob Evans, married my father’s sister. So Uncle Bob and Aunt jewel. There you go. So crazy, small world, right? Small.

Unknown Speaker 22:04
I have to tell my wife that who grew up in Cincinnati, and that was one of my father in law’s favorite places to go.

Unknown Speaker 22:11
But well, here’s just here’s just a good example. number of years ago, when I was employed, I took a team we were invited by University to a conference International Conference in Korea. So we arrived in Korea were hosted by the university folks, all of whom had gone to Ohio State University. And they’re, of course speaking Korean, and we had interpreters and I asked any Have you ever eaten a bob Evans restaurant? Of course, they all had. And, and by the time when I said, well, gee, he was my uncle. By the time we left most of Korea knew that that was the that was the one credit that I really brought to the conference was a relationship with Bob Evans. So

Unknown Speaker 22:52
Mayor on this side, and we do have a short presentation, by the way from staff.

Unknown Speaker 22:57
With the with the mayor,

Unknown Speaker 23:01
I mean, the airplane hangar lease. Yep. All right. Okay. Let’s keep it short, because I can’t believe that it’s that different than normal. Let’s go ahead. Well, it’s related to the air quality stuff.

Unknown Speaker 23:24
Man, I’m going to drop the screen and give our live stream about 20 seconds to get caught up. It’s been about two minutes, 30 seconds, and no one has called in at this point.

Unknown Speaker 23:34
All right, go ahead, David Slater. Thank you, mayor and council members, David Slater airport manager. Just wanted to if Susan, if you can put up that PDF of the aerial layout that would be helpful.

Unknown Speaker 23:54
Least partial sh dash 90 is a hanger parcel with a site plan that was approved pre approved back in 2007.

Unknown Speaker 24:05
The lease next door to it which is right behind the airfield electrical vault is the lease for the air quality monitoring station designated as dash one is is a non aeronautical lease approved by Council in February of 2020 for a five year term. The FAA requirements allow for non air aeronautical uses and leases unless there is an aeronautical demand for the property. The lease for the monitoring station includes a clause that if property is needed for nautical use, the lease will be

Unknown Speaker 24:40
cancelled with a 45 day notice. If there’s any question of priority, the aeronautical need has priority over the non aeronautical needs based on FAA policy.

Unknown Speaker 24:51
But given some other challenges with air quality monitoring station at this location, staff would like to briefly talk about that Regarding data collection, issues that have been encountered, and Miss Jane Turner of Public Works, will provide further information on that. Thank you. Thanks, doctor. Yes,

Unknown Speaker 25:21
I’m here, Marin Council, as you saw on that map, the addition of the new hangar is really close to the air quality monitoring station. And it was something that was unforeseen. But Dr. Hellman has already noted some complications with the data that we’ve been collecting, just because it’s so close to the airport. So we do have some concerns about another hangar being even closer to the air quality monitoring. And we believe that the best choice is probably going to be to move that station if that new hangar is going to go in. And we just wanted to make sure that you’re aware of that as this was coming through, because that will

Unknown Speaker 25:57
be a few days that will be down on data to move that station to a nearby site. Thanks for letting us know. So that’s really Christiansen about where will that in the funding airport grounds will that be located? Marin Council,

Unknown Speaker 26:17
we’re still looking at a number of potential sites. This was something that we just learned about. And we want to do a really comprehensive review to make sure that we’ve considered all potential sources of, you know, air pollutants in the area so that we’re getting good clear data. At this time, we’re not certain that it will stay on the airport, it could be just nearby. But we’re still looking at that. And I understand that it’s going to be at least 90 days before they break ground on this hangar. So that will give us some time to do a good job of finding a new spot. Thank you. All right, we have motion. May I believe in a public hearing? Oh, is anyone but is anybody called in? No, ma’am.

Unknown Speaker 27:02
All right, so we’ll go ahead and close public hearing. Thanks for your Bagley, David or Jane. Maybe it’s Jane, or Dr. Turner? Is there an estimated cost for the relocation of the of the air quality monitoring station? Marin Council,

Unknown Speaker 27:23
I’m optimistic that we can find a site that has electricity. If we can’t, it would cost significantly more. But assuming that we have electricity at the new site, we’re looking at nine to $12,000 to move it. Is that factored into the cost? Who’s gonna pay that? That I’m assuming would come out of oil and gas revenues that pay for all the air quality monitoring?

Unknown Speaker 27:47
Alright, but that’s a $12,000. We’re not going to spend on something else we could have. We could have used that money for to move the station to build the hangar, which seems a little odd that the person who wants the hangar wouldn’t, which wouldn’t really share that cost. Here’s a related question. And it’s for maybe David, or maybe it’s Harold. Harold, you and I had a conversation earlier about, I have no idea. From an overhead view of the airport. What land at the airport, would anybody think to be land that you knew you on which you wouldn’t want to build a hangar because there are other assets that could be developed? That would bring greater value to the airport, and to the community? This doesn’t look like one of those parcels. At some point in time, it would be really helpful for me I know about other council members to get your take on what are those parcels? So when we do when we we get another request like this, we could do it that Overlay and have the question answered, is this is this area? Is this property that we should be developing hanger on? Or should we be thinking about other possibilities?

Unknown Speaker 28:54
If you can, if somebody can bring that graphic up, I can answer that question for you. What happened? Oh, yep. wasn’t prepared to bring that back. Hang on. Oh, that’s not it. Let me share my screen. Let me pull the screen up. Let me do that for you if you bear with me real quick.

Unknown Speaker 29:40
All right. Let me y’all see my screen. Yes, this is the location that they’re talking about with that hangar. And so I think David, correct me if I’m wrong. That’s Really the last developable? It’s a small developable piece in that area. That correct, David? That’s correct. So it’s only a small piece, when we talk about generally, what we’re looking at in terms of the future development at the airport, where the opportunities really exist. It is in this area right here, because that really, that is the opportunity, especially, as we talked about before, this location here and the potential you have for broader industrial development that has that connection into it. So in terms of what I was saying, prime development opportunities on the airport, this is really the area that fits that definition. Does that answer your question?

Unknown Speaker 30:46
Yeah, that’s real helpful. Should we Is there anything on the on the north side or other parts of the airport, that for you fall into that category of kind of prime real estate?

Unknown Speaker 30:57
I’m bringing down our list left over by my office. Yeah, I’m bringing it back out to share you. share with you.

Unknown Speaker 31:15
David, are you talking about this corner right here? Yes, sir. This corner here, that’s really the last spot here on the north side of the airport, which and there’s a parcel here. The challenge with this one is just generally the current state of infrastructure in that area. The infrastructure over here is tough, I guess, to put it mildly to deal with. And so let me slide in. This is where the existing FBO is. And this is an open space here that I think has a lot of opportunity. This is where David’s offices and then you have this parcel here. That is the other remaining parcel on the north side. This one for a similar from a similar standpoint to the other is you do have some interesting opportunities here off of Airport Road, in terms of interaction. That’s the other piece. That’s really all that’s left on the north side. No, I thank you.

Unknown Speaker 32:24
All right, we have a motion. I will move passage and adoption of ordinance 2021 dash 29. Second,

Unknown Speaker 32:35
I moved it and we’ll say I just saw a counselor. Christus his lips moved first when I was looking at the screen, although I heard all of you. So all in favor of ordinance 20 211 dash 29 being passed by council this evening. say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, ordinance 2020 2129. passes unanimously. All right. We are now going to go on to general business. And is Eugene here.

Unknown Speaker 33:10
Here, Mayor. Hey, Jane. Sorry about that. So just before we start, we’re about ready to do the appeal of the planning and zoning commission decision regarding view estates preliminary subdivision plat. And do you want to just give us a brief refresher on what is the legal criteria that we are to use when hearing this appeal.

Unknown Speaker 33:36
So mayor, the local municipal code sets out the sort of standard or review.

Unknown Speaker 33:43
You are sitting in appellate role for the planning and zoning commission. If you were to overturn the planning zoning commission, that is because the decision would not be supported by any competent evidence in the record. The planning and zoning Commission’s decision was plainly inconsistent with the review criteria as shown by clear and convincing evidence, or the decision maker planning and zoning commission in this instance, exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the municipal code. So we’re not hearing this as if it was coming to Council for the first time we have to find one of those three reasons, right? Correct. All right. Anything else you’d like to share before we start? That would be it. All right. Well, I appreciate your your input. Sorry for calling on you without giving you a heads up, but no problem. You Mr. Mayor knocked it out, Park. Appreciate it. So let’s go ahead. All right, great. So we’re going to go ahead and have a presentation by staff and then we’re going to invite the appellate to the appellant excuse me to go ahead and provide their, their their take. They will be limited to 35 minutes, although I’m sure we would love to hear less, as far as time goes, and then the app Kitt can go ahead and have up to 35 minutes as well. So, Eva, why don’t we go ahead and hand it over to you. We’ll get started.

Unknown Speaker 35:10
Thank you, Mayor Bagley, Eva offski Planning and Development Services and council members. Thank you. This item before you is an appeal of a planning and zoning commission decision. Next slide, please. I’m going to walk you through the background of all of this, and then we’ll turn it over to the other parties. Just to hold on I need to move you guys off of my PowerPoint slide. This is an appeal of a planning and zoning commission hearing that took place on April 17. The applicant had sought approval of a preliminary subdivision plat for a 29 lot residential subdivision. And the commission conditionally approved the request with some conditions. And I’ll go over that in the next couple slides. And then within the seven day period, we have three nearby residents who filed appeals of this decision. Next slide, please. So I’m going to walk you through just to orient you to the property, the red rectangle there in the box. This property’s on the south side of ninth Avenue 2725 West ninth Avenue. It is west of hope. Last, there we go. Thank you. It’s seven acres. It is west of Overstreet immediately west of Fordham street in Boulder County right there. And then it is east of Airport Road. And if you see this little triangle area on the south side of night, this is the valley subdivision. There’s a city park right dead in the center that’s the valley neighborhood park to city park Coursers Twin Peaks golf course to the north, and golden ponds recreation area to the south. There’s also a BNSF railroad that abuts the property on the south. So it’s was annexed in 2019. It was annexed with a zoning of residential single family. It is consistent with the Envision Longmont designation which is single family neighborhood. The properties to the east immediately to the east are zoned agriculture in Boulder County. And the properties to the north and south are zoned public that would be the golf course and the nature area. And of course we have the valley subdivision to the west. Next slide, please. I apologize for the barking in the background. My husband just came home from work. So hopefully they’ll die down shortly. So again, this property was annexed in 2019. Again, by Council, it was zoned residential single family that’s consistent with the land use designation that city council gave this in our comprehensive plan. Again, it was zones designated single family neighborhood in our envision Longmont plan, which was adopted in 2016. The allowable density in this zone is up to eight dwelling units per acre courses site is seven acres. So they’re providing a little over half, what’s the allowed density. Next slide, please. And so there was some talk in the appeal about sprawl. Is this allowed? Does this meet the review criteria? One of the review criteria for approval of the subdivision is is this proposal consistent with our comprehensive plan and any annexation agreements and concept plans. And so I’m just walking you through this. This property, if you look in the the red circles here, roughly, in our comprehensive plan, this was again on the left side This was before it was annexed and this is when it was still in Boulder County. And all those neighboring properties are that are still in Boulder County. As you can see, they’re all designated they weren’t designated since 2003. It’s been a lot of years, it’s been designated as single family residential, was called low density residential under our old comprehensive plan. I’m sorry about the typo there it was from 2003 to 2016, not 1060. And then on the right side is our current envision long, long, comprehensive plan. And as you can see this property and its neighbors in Boulder County, should they wish to annex are all designated a single family neighborhood. That means that that’s our expectation as a city that you know should the neighboring properties wish to annex. This is what we would if they asked to annex and they asked to zone it, we would think that the appropriate zoning would be for single family residential. Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 39:50
And so the requests that came in was for a preliminary subdivision plat This was after the property was. So the way the order of operations is you get you get an ad annexation it gets annexed in with a concept plan. The concept plan is very similar to what you see here on your screen. It was for a residential subdivision, the next step would be to request a preliminary subdivision plat, which would go to the planning and zoning commission. And so as you see here, it was a plat 29 lots, and they range from 5400 and change to at 800. And change square feet. They meet our standards and our subdivision regulations for in terms of minimum lot size, minimum lot area, etc. There are also outlets in the subdivision, if you look on the right hand side of your screen, that would be the south, I just didn’t want to I didn’t want to flip this because, you know, then you wouldn’t be able I’d have to scrunch it. But on the right side that’s actually south and that’s one big outlawed it’s a big quarters of an acre a little bit more. And that’s a detention area that’s required by engineering. And then if you look on the left side adjacent to ninth Avenue, those are also out lots and those are for landscape buffers. And that’s to buffer those first houses off of nine from any you know, traffic, noise and such. And then in addition, they propose to public streets. These, again, are consistent with what we saw in the annexation concept plan that you approved. This is for peak view lane, which would be a North South Street coming in off of ninth Avenue, and it would drop into Wade road Wade road currently dead ends right here on the western edge, which would be like, yeah, right where Susan is western edge of the property. So it’s essentially carrying Wade road up to its eastern property line. The reason for that is the fire department requires two points of access. And so the applicants are required to extend the road and stub it out to its property line. And so in terms of process, the way it works is you go through a preliminary plat review, and it goes to planning and zoning commission. If it’s approved, it then comes in for a final subdivision plat. And that is reviewed administratively by staff in the preliminary plat process. We don’t do you know the fully detailed reports in that point, we’re just doing preliminary technical reports like drainage reports, traffic studies, and so forth. geotech reports. And then if it’s approved by planning and zoning commission, then we get into the real details. And that’s where our engineering team here at the city really dig in to the fine details of, for example, drainage. And in the preliminary process, we’re really looking for more high level, you know, conceptually, Canvas 29 lots of division work, and not impact neighbors and provide appropriate drainage and so forth. And so that was looked over by our development review team. And I’ll get into that in the next slides. Next slide, please. So again, there was a hearing on April 21, staff recommended conditional approval, because we felt that it met the review criteria. And it was outlined in the staff report, which is in your packet. And just again, you know, as far as packets go for planning and zoning commission, we don’t put technical engineering reports typically, because you know, the planning and zoning commission, they’re just volunteers. They’re not, you know, professional engineers. And so we really rely on our professional engineers to review these reports. And they aid me and the other planners and making recommendations in our staff report. So the commission voted unanimously to approve this with conditions. The three conditions were that the applicant provide verification from Platte River Power Authority that they you don’t object that they provide a statement of no significant impact from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife. And that they submit a migratory bird nest survey within a week of construction activities. If any nests are found, we then go through our mitigation process. And those minutes from that meeting are in your packet. Next slide please. So we received three appeals from three parties. I believe one party will be doing a PowerPoint presentation and the other two parties will be speaking to you directly. And they will be talking about their concerns which include impacts to water wells, drainage, wildlife and environmental concerns and sprawl. Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 44:38
So again, just to reiterate our process, you’re hearing my presentation, the next you’ll hear the appellants, presentations, they have 35 minutes total and then the applicant has a presentation as well. Then you’ll open the public hearing mayor and then council can ask questions of staff or the appellant or the Applicants and then do their discussion. At that point, there’ll be a rebuttal stage for staff, the appellant and the applicant on case they want to rebut any statements that were made. And then finally counsel will discuss and vote. Next slide, please. And I’m just going to introduce our staff real quick. So again, I’m Eva Jeff ski. We also have Don burchett. Here if he had any questions about the right parian setbacks, you know, Don’s quite the maestro on those questions. So he’s here tonight, Cameron Fox from public works engineering is here. He reviewed the drainage reports and helped me and making the recommendations to planning and zoning commission. We also have Tyler del here from public works. He’s our stormwater engineer. And he’s also obviously reviewed this project, he can answer questions about stormwater. We have Mara Nelson from public works engineering, and she’s my co project manager from engineering. And she handles all the streets and utility questions. We have Tyler, stay me here. He’s, of course our traffic engineer. And we have Jim angstadt, who’s our Public Works engineering administrator. Next slide, please. And that concludes my presentation. I hope I gave you enough background there. I believe the appellant Allah, Adam survice is here to provide his presentation. Thank you. Alright, let’s, let’s go ahead with the appellant. Thanks, can everybody hear me? Great. Let’s see. I don’t see slides lose me just a minute. Rex.

Unknown Speaker 46:41
Just wanted to say it’s a great honor to present to Bob Evans, a nephew. Okay, so let’s see. So this is a summary of why we’re appealing. I’m a resident of the valley subdivision. And I’ve been talking to quite a few of my neighbors about sort of our experience with this process and our frustration with the process and why we we really wanted to appeal this decision. First reason is there’s quite a conflict between past comments from the developer and planning staff versus what has been presented to the planning and zoning commission during that last meeting. And we think that there was an inadequate review by the planning and zoning committee. And there appears to be some inaccuracies in some of the information. But I’m sure the city engineers will will clear those up. So just a general comment. All the following issues have been brought up multiple times, at each stage of this process at the community meetings, planning zoning meetings, and the City Council when this was presented last time, each time, the response is, well, this is just a 30,000 foot view of things. During preliminary planning, all of these issues will be resolved. It seems like that’s that’s happening again, none of these issues are really being resolved. And the the community is frustrated, and would like a second, a second look at a lot of these things. So you can go to the next slide, please. So the first sort of examples are our perceived conflict between the past comments from a developer and planning stuff versus what was presented at the April. You know, the next slide, please. Okay, so as Eva mentioned, this slot is right north of golden cons. And it’s a, you know, great asset to the community. During the 2019 planning zoning annexation meeting, the engineer from Rocky Ridge even touted that is a benefit of this of this development, saying quote, I imagine the continuation of the trail system going west east on the south end. And by the way, all the quotes are taken from the YouTube recordings and the blue text is sort of my commentary. Um, so again in the 2019 meeting, one of the city planners said as part of the preliminary plat, it’s going to need to connect to any greenways and trails we need to figure out how this happens. During the city council annexation meeting in 2020. The city planner also said during delivery planning, that would be the time to flesh out the crossing to golden pawns. Then during this April meeting at the planning and zoning board, there’s not a crossing the BNSF suggest even going offense now. And our frustration is that as part of the the the Longmont masterplan or whatever it’s called. You know, it’s sort of insists on multimodal transportation. And right now, the only multimodal transportation for this neighborhood is really just pedestrian access to the valley. Or I guess there is a bike lane now on on ninth Avenue. Next Next slide, please. Traffic has been a big issue that keeps getting brought up. During 2019 and 2021 of the city traffic engineers said again, quote, when we look at the long term plans or needs for ninth Avenue, we’re not anticipating a need for any widening, then in the summer of 20/29 Avenue was widened. So that was very frustrating. During the planning zoning meeting, Rocky Ridge engineer presented the things down at the bottom there. They admit that it doesn’t meet city standards, but somehow includes an appropriate transportation plan and improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation without giving details. So we’d really like to see how details on how that actually happens. Next slide, please. as David mentioned, drainage has been a huge issue for this entire process. 2019 Rocky Ridge engineer said that they want to put a a drainage pond and the south end is even mentioned. And again, once we go through the preliminary plat process, we’ll know exactly where the water table is.

Unknown Speaker 51:39
In 2020, the city planner said at the time of preliminary plat, we essentially press reset and do and do a do over we will require all new drainage studies, traffic studies, habitat and conservation studies, the developer has the obligation to provide the information we request. And then at the April meeting, as Eva said, the there was no technical drainage or geotech report posted on online. But they were sort of mentioned during the meeting from city engineers. One of them said that their shallow groundwater the geotech report we have is light on the impact it will have. And then I personally asked for those those documents on April 14, and didn’t get them but then received them after the fact. And it appears from my reading that the water table measured in 2019, during a pretty historic drought year was four to six feet below the surface. So next slide, please. And let’s see. So one of the commissioners asked about the drainage pond. And as the engineer from Rocky Ridge, the detention pond area could be landscaped in a way, when it’s not wet and soggy, do you have a vision yet is what you think that detention area might be used for. And the response from the developer was that it has a pretty steep slope before to one slope. And then it would be appropriate for activities like playing soccer, you name it, if I lived there, I’d definitely be playing in that detention pond. Um, so I’ve zoomed in on the bottom here. So it’s a, it’s a five foot deep pond, you know, that area with a four to six foot deep water table and drought year. Seems like there’s just gonna be standing water there. For most of the year. I looked into the drainage report a little bit more today. And it appears the outlet is set to be two feet below the minimum surface. So that sort of at minimum, there’s going to be two feet of water in there doesn’t seem like a appropriate place to play soccer. Next slide, please. A question has been brought up? What are the historic flows across the site? There’s a section in the drainage report that has historic drainage but doesn’t have an actual flow number in sort of units of volume of water per unit time. So we’d like the engineer or city to to address how the the historic flow relates to the new flows. Next slide, please. And, you know, we think this is a legitimate concern. This area in 2013 was inundated with water, the sort of triangular property in the middle is the valley that Eva pointed out earlier. And the long rectangle to the on the sort of just right of that is the property in question. Next slide, please. Right. And then this has been this was brought up actually at the April meeting and in emails to The engineer as part of the new drainage, there appears to be about a four foot hice swale or berm that’s proposed to be developed along the west side of the property along the valley subdivision with a with a fence on top. And this seems in conflict with a comment from the engineer of Rocky Ridge saying that this will not adversely affect surrounding properties. In my mind, having a sort of tall berm and tall fence in in my backyard affects my property. Next slide please. So, as I mentioned this, the question was brought up is this urban sprawl? The response from the city was when we think of urban sprawl, we think of development is on the outer edges along greenbelt buffers and expanding into an annexing agricultural agricultural land that sprawl. Well, you know, that’s precisely what this is. This is was previously zoned rural before annexation. It’s directly budding farmland working farmland to the east. It abuts the greenbelt to the south. It’s right at the western edge of Longmont. So if you go to the next slide, that sort of highlighted the area. So you can see like the green part is open space or agricultural use, the valley is really the exception. You know, it was developed in the 80s. Before some of this, these ideas of, of of

Unknown Speaker 56:38
developing areas within with an eye to conservation and sustainability existed. Next slide, please. We were happy to see that the wildlife and birds are taken into account. These were again raised in 2019 2020. There used to be an active Osprey nest on top of one of the power towers on the property. And we think, you know, in this case, our concerns have been validated by the wildlife study and the zoning Commission’s requirement for further study. But we also take this to mean, you know, to validate our concerns, we’re not just saying not in my backyard, I think these concerns are valid. Next slide, please. And then just on to some, some frustrations with the the meeting itself. I don’t want to belabor this, and I don’t want to sort of point finger fingers. But if you go to the next slide. During the meeting, the commissioners were sort of snacking and drinking and getting up and leaving going off camera. It just did it. It didn’t seem right. And I think the city councilor should at least just say, hey, let’s redo the meeting. Let’s Let’s show some respect to the community. Next slide, please. A few other areas of concern that neighbors have brought up next slide. A few of my neighbors are engineers. And they noted that a lot of signatures and professional engineer stamps are missing from a lot of their documents. There, they found that to be kind of shocking that that this, this isn’t a common practice. Next slide, please. So addressing the question of that this is actually zoned for up to 56 housing units. Um, it’s it’s frustrating that this keeps getting brought up. So the property is seven acres. But there’s a point eight acre detention pond, there’s up to 2.3 acres of paved roads that are required. There’s a setback on the on the north side. And when you subtract all those numbers, you’re actually left with about three three and a half acres of land. Three and a half acres times eight is 28 units. So they’re really right up against the the maximum allowed units if you if you don’t want to count building on on paid services. Then someone else brought up the idea that the property to the east. The farm actually has a conservation easement from the county of Boulder as part of their property and it appears that the extension to the dead ended Wade road extension runs right up against that, that conservation easement. So we’d like to know how how the developers or city is going to work around that in the future. Next slide please. So our suggestions and requests delay any further plan activities Until permission can be obtained from Platte River Power Authority. I think that’s that’s already part of the suggestion from planning zoning. Wait until drainage concerns can be addressed and water table measured under more realistic conditions, not in a drought year. Don’t do another wildlife study in the dead of winter. The first one I think was done in January or December. You know, this is a vibrant, thriving area. It’s just recovering now from from the floods. Um, we’d like to consider creative uses for the site, or maybe limit the number of units to limit the sprawl. And then the access to golden pawns. This was a suggestion from the city council last time is there needs to be a solution, there needs to be some creative solution, no overpass or, or whatever. It’s it’s a, if you want to keep continuing to develop this area, then it’s just going to be more social trails crossing the railroad. And again, we really like the planning and zoning plat review to have an engineering focus and address the concerns raised by the community in a respectful manner. Thank you. Alright, let’s go ahead and hear from the developer. Oh, sorry. I think my two appellants one or two.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:32
Get the time you have time you still we are at just you know. You’re at your 20 minute slot. Theoretically, so excellent. you’d like them to present they present. And can you hear me? Can you hear me? I’m sorry? We can’t we can’t hear you. Yes. Am I on? I’m sorry. Mary, you are on? Can I am on? Yes. Could you start your video? Okay. There you go.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:03
Okay. All right. Um, thank you, Mayor Bagley and council members for your time. My concerns are many, but most of them have been addressed by Adam. Thank you very much, Adam. I have four concerns. The water table since the water table is high and you’re planning on using one foot to four feet of filter. How much higher Do you plan on building each structure? Will it be no higher than 30 feet from where the land exists exists presently? Or will it be no more than 30 feet from a possible one foot to four foot fill of dirt. We were unsure about how you plan on doing that where you’re where you’re starting from. You indicated that you would build homes of like kind the homes on wing road are by levels is that what your plan is to build buy level homes without basements because the water table is so high? Has a survey been completed. As I noticed on ninth in Maine, they removed and added truckloads of dirt before developing that took a very long time. Flood everyone in this vicinity to the eastern West were impacted by the flood severely, both financially and emotionally. It looks to me as if you’re going to build homes in a location that has potential flood risk. Well, my neighbors to the north of me are concerned about their wells drying up or the builder, perhaps shutting them down during construction. What is your plan to remedy either one of those situations? The power towers where exactly will the detention pond be in relation to the proximity of the power towers that belong to Platte River Power Authority? Will you be building a fence around and protect to protect the children in the neighborhood? The last one is Leroy, my neighbor that abuts the outlet. That’s the buffer outlet that you designated off of ninth Avenue has indicated that he has property to the east of the ditch south of ninth Avenue. Will you be communicating with him as no one has approached him regarding that he owns about three feet to the worst of the ditch. He doesn’t want the liability of kids playing in the ditch and getting hurt. So I have to say thank you All right, thank you. We have one more opponent to your phone correct? Yes. Hello, my

Unknown Speaker 1:04:29
name is Jenny Kirsch shader Lopez. I’m, I am one of the neighbors in the area. And I want to thank you Mayor Bagley, council members, commissioners, developers, engineers, planners and all of you who are present this evening. Thank you, Adam. And Mary Rose for what you are shared. And tonight I speak on behalf of the wild nature, the precious waters, the wildlife and on behalf of some of our elder neighbors who would be present at this meeting. was in person. At this point in time of growth, development and expansion and long lat It is essential that we make choices that lead towards present wellness and future wellness for both our human communities and the ecosystems we are living among. Tonight I will speak on a few topics that happened discussed in the pNz meeting. That was specifically on April 2021. Um, so a commissioner referred to my comment that was my concern for the impact on on the peace and quiet in the neighborhood and the surrounding area as well as the impact on the wildlife that this subject and that this subdivision could be up to 56 units. And I just want to say that the peace and quiet is not only for the people in the area, but it’s also for the birds and all of the wildlife. Noise pollution that negatively impacts human health effects wildlife, human noise pollution can enter feel interfere with animal communications hinder their foraging abilities and impact where they live. Birds are the main producers of pollination and ecosystem balance within urbanized areas and without birds and the loss of the birds. Within the wetland areas, the vegetation health can be severely impacted due to the lack of pollination. Therefore, it is essential that we consider the impact of increased noise pollution this development with create um, this is on the water wells on Fordham Street. I’m an engineering administrator spoke regarding the topic of impacting homeowner wells on Fordham Street. He said the intent is not to disrupt disrupt anyone wells anyone’s wells, and if basements are built, it would require a well permit from the state engineer and a 600 foot analysis would we would be required. Um, my question is who would pay for those permits, with those be the expensive applicant, the developer, the city of Longmont, or the homeowner, um, and on Platte River Power approval, the commissioner spoke to the developer at the pNz meeting, saying the applicant was advised over and over again that you need to have this approval from Platte River Power, it could result in a complete redesign of your project if it is not approved. I personally spoke with Western power Western area Power Administration who also owns one of the large structures that is right on the south end of the property. And he said that one of the structures from Platte River Power has buried lines underneath that entire land, the seven acres of land that have 115 kilovolts transmission lines, and they have an easement on each side of that. And I’m just wondering if that information is taken into consideration here. He also said that a general homeline has 13 kilovolts running to it. So these are very powerful and dangerous lines that the interfered with. And there’s also the envision that that underneath the power lines is a um, the retention pond that might have a soccer field and it just seems dangerous to have those huge power lines right beneath a community area. Um, and let’s see,

Unknown Speaker 1:08:50
on drainage According to information on storm drain, drainage of this land, excess water goes into the drainage ditch on the east side of the property. And there’s a drainage ditch right on the east side of that entire property, which flows directly into golden ponds and then into the st brain River. pond. One is the first pond that the pond and the drainage just flows into, that was most affected in the 2013 flood and had to be rebuilt. That was just finished a few summers ago and it’s still recovering. Each summer there are algae blooms, which many of you know about if you walk it golden ponds, and fish kills and the wildlife is just now establishing itself. For example, a beaver dam and a whole family of beavers is directly adjacent to the outflow of this channel with an increase of residents within the area, there would be an increase of water pollution in that ditch due to human waste and disposals that would be introduced to the area and affecting the golden ponds nature area and the st. Green River and the wildlife living in and around them. Will there be a waterfront Pollution impacts study. That was one thing that wasn’t brought up yet. Um, that mill ditch is also a safety hazard. So I know there has been animal drownings in it. And if there’s children in their backyards, I’m curious what the plan is to do with that ditch that has water running through it. And when the water is the water levels are high, it’s a it’s a fast running ditch. So I’m curious who would be responsible for making that safe? And for it also to be able to be maintenance and cleaned out? And who is responsible? Who would be paying for that? Is that the city? Or is that the applicant or the developer? Um, as some of you know, golden palms was a private piece of land that was donated to the city of Longmont by the vv golden Foundation, Vernon golden, who had mined gravel on this site, and he donated the lantis Longmont citizens as a place to fish walk and enjoy nature. Golden pawns is accessible to all folks and serves as a he’s Haven and access to nature right in the middle of the city. I hope we can preserve the wellness of the wetlands, the river, the wildlife for the long road and the future generations, as well as the nature areas as long as well as all the nature areas as long life grows. As these have been so as there have been so many setbacks with this project, it has been up for proposal for several years now. I, I like I take I take a leap and I propose that this narrow plot of land is to be rezoned to other uses, such as community garden to folks who do not have land access or a garden. And that the same or that the same brain school district creates a garden for the elementary schools and begins to educate and create food source and healthy intergenerational community growth or in some way that gives back to the natural world and the next generation just as golden pawns in which it is connected to has inspired. So thank you all for your time and consideration for our appeals and our concerns.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:25
Right, thank you very much. All right. Do you guys mind if we take a two minute break? You just want to keep going. Let’s just take a quick two minute break restroom, etc. And then that’ll let the the developer Get ready. So we’ll be back into Alright, how’s the appellant look at running the developer look now ready to go? Do we have the developer here? mayor, I believe?

Unknown Speaker 1:17:29
I believe we do. It’s Collin. Are you able to unmute yourself? Colin?

Unknown Speaker 1:17:37
Yes. Can you hear me I wasn’t sure if I should. I’ll start my video here. Let’s Let’s just wait 30 seconds or so I’m sure Keltner Martin’s gonna be back in a second. All right, let’s go ahead and continue.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:05
Perfect. Thank you, Susan. And everyone can hear me okay. We can. Good, good. So I My name is calling Jim mendon. I represent the applicant who is Bob and Aaron young. And I’m work with Rocky Ridge civil engineering. So tonight, I’m just going to kind of give you an overview and hopefully address some of the technical concerns that the applicants raised and their three letters. And then again tonight, go ahead and go to the next slide. So these are the ones that I’m going to touch on, on environmental which seems to be an important one, groundwater, storm drainage, the PRP a powerlines, the surrounding development traffic, the railroad BNSF crossing and forced the engineering stamp. And again, my goal is to adjust those to the best extent possible. Go ahead and go to the next slide. Alright, so we start with the environmental wildlife impact. So there is a current habitat and species study, which was mentioned a couple of times. Some of the key language in that study was that no work that they concluded was that no threatened or endangered species, or their obvious habitat were seen on the subject site. And no wetlands or waters of the US subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on a project. Um, but there was some concerns about getting more updates to habitat and species study. And as that, you know, pNz made the recommendation to approve with us some additional reservoir conditions and one of those was that the applicant should submit a migratory bird study, meeting or needing to be completed within one week. construction activities. If those activities occur between March 1 to a later date, it was August 31. So with that, and the other condition of providing a statement of no significant impact from Colorado parks, and wildlife in front of US Fish and Wildlife, we believe that should address any concerns that may have not been met in the current habitat and species study. And even pNz. You know, they realize that another habitat and species study would be redundant, we would be willing to do as an applicant. But we believe that the migratory bird study when it gets completed and getting, getting those statements from those jurisdictions, with sufficiently covering anything that the habitat and species study did not cover, go ahead and go to the next slide. All right, groundwater, so groundwater, Adam was mentioning four to six feet. And I would say that is accurate for the geotech report at the south side of the site, where the detention pond is being placed. And that also happens to be the low point grading wise. Um, so there is an underground? Well, I guess I should say there’s an existing sanitary sewer line that follows Wade road as it extends out of the value subdivision to the east. And under that existing Creek drainage ditch, that’s 13 ish feet below the ground. So that’s well within the groundwater table already. And it’s existing. And it did want to mention that there’s an under drain that’s going to be proposed in the detention pond. And we’ve been working with city staff Campbell said Tyler doubt to work out some of the specifics as we move into the final plat on what that underdrain is gonna look like. But essentially, it will keep the pond from filling up to the two feet. Mark, as Adam had mentioned, that should should keep it dry, and safe and usable for residents should they feel the need to use it. And then there was some questions about the impact on nearby wells, and specifically the state welcome for watering. So to ensure that there are no negative effects to the existing nearby wells, a state well permit will be obtained by the applicant. And this isn’t because this is because we are proposing that dewatering system I just mentioned the under drain for the excuse me at the detention pond.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:44
It falls under the category of a dewatering system per Colorado code regulation section four two dash two 5.2 dot 18 where it says all the watering systems require a permit. So we will be getting a new watering permit which is falls under the well permits that would apply for the pq estates project so that you give us a really good idea of how the water table will be affected and if it will affect the surrounding wells to the east specifically. Glad to go to the next slide. All right, so we got storm drainage. Um, a couple of technical details when it comes to storm drainage. We talked about impervious area, and that is the amount of area that is not perfectly water into the ground. So impervious percentage of this site, the peak the subdivision will be increased from about 5% to 50%. So that’s a pretty significant increase, and that will generate more runoff. More water will be flowing along the streets flowing into that ditch if there was not a detention pond, but her Longmont regulations and most stormwater standards, you have to provide a detention pond when you increase the impervious area and thus the runoff. That way you don’t have negative impacts to downstream developments. And so that second point there flood mitigation is accomplished by the proposed detention pond. And it does discharge to that existing drainage ditch on the east, but it will do so at 90% of the historic allowable release. as set forth in the city of Longmont, storm drainage criteria man, we’re also working with city staff. We won’t be releasing more than can that way we won’t have any downstream impacts from flooding.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:50
I know there was a concern about the historic runoff through valleys subdivision as of right now, the half of that runoff in the 100 year event actually goes into a an existing drainage pipe that goes across the peak view state’s site along Wade road and goes right into that existing drainage ditch, the rest will overtop where we will extend Wade road onto our property and flow down into the road close to an inlet. And the 100 year event generates an outflow, it will overtop that inlet into the tension pond, where we will pass it through just like historically does know with no negative impact to the downstream developments for this case would be golden ponds. So hopefully that will bring to light some more of the concerns or answer some of the concerns regarding the storm drainage. Yep, go ahead and go to the next slide. All right, wanted to touch on the PRP a power line. So they are underground mines. And I actually was on the phone with a engineer representing PRP today. And they provided a little more clarity, there’s two underground lines there. One is owned by wapa, or the western area Power Administration. And the other is owned by pure PA. Pa came in after was was there hence the reason why it’s a 15 foot Whopper easement. And they ended up assuming all maintenance responsibilities for the waffle line. And there’s so as one of the applicants Matt mentioned, there’s a 15 foot easement along the entire east side of that property north to south. And as such, because of what’s inside it, there is no fences allowed. And we cannot encroach within buildings or any vertical structures. And instead, we’re going to put a just a template ditch access road which should help keep the existing or existing drainage ditch excuse me, in better condition. And I do believe that will be maintained by the HOA will maintain the road but the ditch will be maintained by the city since it’s still in good property. But I’ll let AVR someone else correct me if I misspoke on that. Um, the above ground lines. As you go to the south of the site, there’s two large poles, one of them’s wapa. One of them is PRP, and they’re located right next to the detention pond outlet. And the outlet was designed for tension and can be utilized as a player at play area really at parents discretion. It’s not intended to serve as a park since the value subdivision has that pocket park right and center. So that meets the city requirements for distance from residence or lots to parks. So we didn’t have to put a park otherwise we would have different design criteria. And that’s maybe a shallower slope, maybe some benches and stuff. But in this case, it’ll just be an open area with a path bottom. And as mentioned before the underdrain should help prevent any standing water in the pond making it usable for play area. If parents feel like that’s okay. We will be 20 plus feet away from the existing electrical poles and haven’t heard from pot River Power Authority if they want those fenced in. I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t put a fence just to kind of delineate between that law and the fence and that high berm on the west or the east side. I would say that’s not I would agree with Adam. It’s not the best for compatibility. But from our standpoint, some the other compatibility requirements are just looking at like residential lock density and how other subdivisions were designed. For instance, it’s pretty clear that denia or Valley subdivision is a lot denser than the peak view estates subdivision whether we go to the 58 or the 26, or whatever we do 29 is what we’re proposing it’s still quite a lot less lots per acre than the valley subdivision. Which ship provided better transition between the ag zone

Unknown Speaker 1:29:17
lots on the east side of PPS states Amber, higher density Valley subdivision, another subdivision that is nearby on ninth Avenue and hoever is the denial west of divisions. And the PPO states is much like that one and lot size and product type are similar and even with the differences between what we’re proposing on peak view, and what deny West is proposing, there’s peak view still compatible with the surrounding development because mainly because it’s consistent with the zoning criteria of the RS r SF zoning as Avery mentioned her in her presentation. That is the zoning designation that was taken on by the sight when it was annexed into the city. And we maintain and are consistent with that zoning, pick the estates. And yeah, so we address that concern. Go ahead and go to the next slide. All right, traffic impact concerns. Um, there was an existing study done. And it’s common procedure, at least in my experience with the city of Longmont and city staff for the developer to hire a third party engineer that will do the traffic study that must then be reviewed by city staff to ensure that it is consistent with all of the city’s criteria, review standards, etc. And thus, it’s pretty well reviewed by city staff. And, yeah, and then, as far as standards are concerned, PPO states traffic study was thoroughly reviewed and scrutinized by the city staff to ensure that the compliance was accomplished with the traffic standards set forth by the landmark criteria. I don’t see any issues with the traffic study and traffic impact, it’s very minimal. And while I’m on this slide at wanted to touch about the multi modal comment. While it’s true that the pedestrian path to golden pawns may not be a thing, because of our some pushback from BNSF, railroad, there is because of that secondary access point, as David mentioned, for fire, it just gives the pedestrians and cars a mother access onto ninth Avenue, kind of providing some more circulation, it doesn’t provide an access across the railroad tracks, they’d have to go to hover for that for the Airport Road is the next nearest crossing. But if Ava or other city staff have more to say on the BNSF crossing, they can do so but I am about to touch on some of the things on the next slide. So there is an existing pedestrian access, at least that’s what looks like on Google. On there’s a clear path that leads from Wade road, just to the east of the eastern edge of valleys subdivision. It cap goes to the south, crosses the railroad tracks and connects to a concrete path that south of the railroad tracks right along part one, I believe that is what it is On Golden Pond. So

Unknown Speaker 1:32:34
with that existing access, we did have some communication with the railroad company and some of the specifics that they gave back to us where we were trying to figure out, okay, would it be, would they be open to having a legal crossing at that location, the railroad company itself, and we were unsuccessful in getting them to approve it. In fact, they strongly recommended the installation of a fence as Adam suggests, or mentioned, on they want to fences on both sides of the tracks as there was evidence of a lot of trespassing on their property. And they also indicated the small pedestrian bridge leading to the tracks in the south side should be removed, and that’s by the golden ponds. So that’s just a little bit of background on the communication we’ve had with the NSF. Thank you, Susan. Yes, so that engineering staff concern is a valid concern. I talked to city staff that internally at our company and the city of Longmont doesn’t require stamps on preliminary drawings and reports like the preliminary drainage report and cloudinary plat. But we will have to stay up for final drawings such as final plat. Those more technical reports at eight are mentioned in her presentation that we’ll have to submit, those will all have to be reviewed and stamped by professional engineers before the city we’ll even think about approving them plus from our standpoint, from steepy concerns. It’s very important that only engineer drawings are stamped final engineer giants, excuse me, our staff because we’ve had instances in the past where contractors well take preliminary plans build off of them. And then because there was a stamp, you know, now as an engineer, we’re liable for those plants when we put our stamp on them. So they’re incomplete. They haven’t been well vetted by city staff to make sure their standards are met. And we haven’t well vetted on because we’ve just had more of an overarching view versus like technical details. Like we don’t want to parsley up on that for safety concerns because the public may be at risk. The contractor goes and uses those plans in a very man does something with them. So just a couple of notes on the engineering stamp and then final slide. So just In conclusion, pro submitted habitat and species report, the drainage report which is just a preliminary report, The utility plan the traffic impact study, grading plan, and requested statements have no significant impact that we will be getting for the from the US Fish and Wildlife and Colorado Parks and Wildlife applicants. applicable concerns, we believe have been assessed and understood and determined to be satisfied, at least to the best of our knowledge from a technical standpoint. And we just want to thank you for your time. And a couple of last points from some of the applicants concerns that were not listed in this presentation. One of them was about the water table and the depth of fill. Um, as of right now, we will not be proposing base proposing basements because of the geotechnical recommendations of the high water table, we will be proposing an under drain system to provide hopefully some crawlspaces. But from a technical grading standpoint, we’re estimating from existing grade as it stands right now, we’ll probably on the east IP bringing in about four feet of fill to make those work for crawl spaces. If we decided to do no crawl spaces, that result in less fill, which from a developer standpoint will be less cost. And so there’s potential we may end up going that route as well. So hopefully that addresses most concerns. And thank you for your time.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:33
All right. So as we as the council, what we need to decide. So first of all, if we have questions, that means we have to read so Council, if we’re gonna ask questions, we reopen everybody goes through the process of staff, appellants, developer again, so we at this point, I’m going to go ahead and call in Council for comments. And castmember I’m sorry, Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, but we’ll start with you.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:08
Thank you very badly. First of all, it’s prudent that I make the disclosure that I’m the planning and zoning commission liaison, as well as that this project actually came before the planning and zoning commission prior to my election to city council while I was a sitting member of the planning and zoning commission. So I need to make those disclosures. And if folks are on city councilor uncomfortable, I will recuse.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:38
I don’t see anybody Cal Mayor put down I have a problem. And I don’t think anybody on the council at this point does as well. So thank you for disclosing.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:48
And I and then I one more thing first, sorry, sorry, my ragley. Good. I know you had Eugene, recount these items before the presentation, but it was a fairly lengthy presentation. So I just like to remind Council, that the decisions are based on three items specifically, as far as the appeal is concerned, one being the decision is not supported by any competent evidence in the record to the decision is plainly inconsistent with the review criteria shown by clear and convincing evidence. And three, the decision maker exceeded its authority or jurisdiction is contained in the municipal quota charter. 413, to me is already a cross off because that is their authority as the planning and zoning commission. So that’s easily crossed off, in my opinion, to the decision is plainly inconsistent with the review criteria. I do not believe that was any additional evidence was presented that would show that it was inconsistent. I Well, I have made notes and and I can talk about each item that was presented in the appeal. That’s not necessarily germane to the concept. I don’t believe they presented anything that was outside of the jurisdiction or the plainly consistent review of the criteria. And then the decision not supported by any competent evidence in the record. I do believe that all of the items were and even stated by the appellant was that generally speaking, the conditions as proposed by the planning and zoning commission spoke to a lot of those concerns. And while they still have those concerns, those were addressed by the planning and zoning commission in their their conditions to the approval of the project. So, in my opinion, there’s no reason to overturn the ruling of the planning and zoning commission. So I move upholding the planning and zoning Your Commission’s ruling.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:03
Second. All right, there’s a motion on the floor posed by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez and seconded by Councilmember Martin. Other comments, Councilmember Christiansen

Unknown Speaker 1:40:19
it has always been my opinion that planning and zoning gives kind of short shrift to the right few criteria, one of which is that it will not adversely affect the community, the surrounding neighborhood and also the wildlife. And I do believe that they did not give sufficient view to what would happen. For instance, if the people who have wells in that area were cut off from those wells, those are the things that they’ve been using for 50 years. And it gives them self sufficiency to some degree and they don’t have to pay for nearly as much water as they would have to we there needs to be something I needs to be something in the in the conditional use that discusses this, I would send it back to planning and zoning to put that in as one of the conditions that they deal with the issue of who pays for that. And also who deals with the drainage ditch. I don’t. I do think that those need to be conditional uses. And then further discussions. You know, one of the saddest things to me is when I read something that Linda lights wrote, it was immediately obvious that the concerns of the residents fell on deaf ears, I left the hearing feeling helpless and hopeless. And like none of us mattered. I don’t want anybody in this town. And I don’t think anybody on council wants anyone to feel that way. We do listen to you. And we are reading your letters. And a lot of people wrote some very, very good letters about this. And I do think that there are enough concerns that they should make a few more conditions. And that’s why I I would not vote for this. That said we we live in a capitalist society and from the very beginning of America property has been What gave you standing in the community without it you couldn’t vote. So I would say to the people in the valley subdivision that if you look at that map, the valley subdivision was the anomaly there, they built that land using like this agricultural sit county land that was purchased by someone and rezoned. That’s exactly what’s happening here. So if you don’t have the money to buy it, then the city doesn’t own it, the city cannot decide that it’s going to be turned into a park because we don’t own it. That’s the way it works. You know, and I’m sorry, but you know, this is a fairly small impactful development compared to the valley subdivision which was quite large at a time. And that’s a very pleasant neighborhood, I think. So it’s it’s very difficult, but I would not vote to just run this through without having planning and zoning. take one more look at it and put down a few more conditions. Thank you. Councillor Martin? Thank you, Mayor Bagley. My still gone. Martin, I’m sorry, I called on you. And for some reason. Yeah. No, I when I was trying to unmute myself, I hid my video. So I knew I was called on I just couldn’t get back on the screen. So first of all,

Unknown Speaker 1:44:15
either the developer or a city engineer or somebody, I would please like to have clarified the result of this dewatering permit because

Unknown Speaker 1:44:31
that is, uh, my understanding is is that it would alleviate the concerns about

Unknown Speaker 1:44:40
ruining other people’s wills. If the if that works, right. Is that true or not true? I don’t care who answers it but I need somebody to.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:52
So I guess my I guess my question is, um, before we again before we go in here, we can all talk questions and ask question. But I just would remind everybody, this is opening up this once again, is opening up the the legal procedure here is we’re asking questions, if we actually solicit further input from staff, we will need to go back and give everybody the same 35 minutes all over again. And so my question is, I would encourage people not to ask, but well, if you want to ask a question, you can, we’ll do it. But if you have enough information, to make a decision, I would encourage us to make it. Other than that. We might as well all ask questions at this point, because we’re going to be opening it up again.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:38
So Excuse me. Go ahead. I did not understand that. Can I ask the question of Councilmember or of Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez? Yes, you may we can we can talk amongst ourselves all my way. Is that your understanding Mayor Pro Tem of what the dewatering permit would do.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:57
Thank you, Councilmember. Martin, I will tell you that, regardless of maybe some of the comments made earlier as a liaison to planning and zoning commission, I will tell you, they take no less than two to three hours on any agenda item, their meetings lasts longer than ours, just so to say that they don’t give due diligence and time and respect to each item that comes before them is not accurate. And I don’t understand, necessarily anybody that would say that. Residents concerns are not heard. Because I I see and hear commissioners naming by name in their comments and questions. People who have spoken in public invited to be heard, as well as you know, those who are against or applicants as well. So I just want to I want to point that out that planning and zoning Commission’s commissioners meetings with less agenda items go longer than our council meetings. So to say that they don’t give due diligence to items is incorrect. What I will say is that public works and natural resources I guarantee does their due diligence and water displacement without bringing on a staff member to to abide by this I there was many questions many answers from staff about the effects deleterious are not on the shallow water groundwater, shallow groundwater wells that basically are for landscaping, irrigation or hobby agricultural irrigation because these are not large parcels between the Golden Pond estates subdivision and what would be this, this this subdivision and we’re talking about now as far as frontage on ninth Avenue, maybe three tracks I know on Fordham there’s multiple tracks that go to the south. And so many questions asked answered in public works and Natural Resources staff was confident that the engineering would not have a deleterious effect on the shallow groundwater wells for the adjoining properties to the east. whether you’d like to open that up to a more expert opinion is up to you know, I’m

Unknown Speaker 1:48:31
I am satisfied by that I was also persuaded by the

Unknown Speaker 1:48:38
the flow into the golden ponds area. explanation, which I thought was, was well was well done. So yeah, no, I am. I am satisfied. I just needed a better definition of terms that I had.

Unknown Speaker 1:48:57
All right. Thank you, Councilmember. We’re gonna go with councilor waters. So we’re gonna go with Councillor Christiansen. So I think my question maybe Mayor bag maybe of you, I suspect it’s more likely. I have a couple of questions more likely of Eugene. So Eugene, if you’re there, I know you are of the three criteria and Mayor Pro Tem, I think appropriately I you know, kind of checked off number three. I think he checked off number two, but I’m wondering about the wording of number one, I can’t imagine a lower standard to be applied to this than then what’s written here. So this could have been written that there’s sufficient or necessary and sufficient or compelling or persuasive, but you use the word any. So if there’s even the tiniest shred of evidence to support the record, we’re in a position to approve the planning zoning decision. Is that the intent here?

Unknown Speaker 1:49:59
mayor and council Using may city attorney, thank you for your question, Councilmember waters. So I remember when we’re drafting this section of the land development code, our intent was to make it similar to rule 106 appeal, which is

Unknown Speaker 1:50:14
appeal of an agency final decision to a Judicial Court. And those criteria loosely follow those criteria applicable to 106. appeals. And it is that that is the

Unknown Speaker 1:50:33
evidentiary criteria from the rule 106 appeals any any competent evidence? And it’s meant so that the appellate body is there to correct plain air, not to second guess that is really what that standard is about.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:53
Alright, in my misinterpreting the debt is like the lowest possible standard one could establish. It’s a very low standard. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it’s disturbingly low from my perspective, but it is what is Mayor Pro Tem. Can I ask you, since you are the most experienced member this conversation, I think, but pNz. And we’ve not heard many appeals, right, at least in my term on Council. This comes to this goes to P and z comes to us not as a as a final plat with a whole bunch of questions still to be answered. We have no information at PRP, a based on the notes here is still not responded. There was a comment made earlier. So I’m asking you not anybody else. comment made earlier about the potential redesign of the entire project based on what brps response is. So in your experience, when we when I guess though the applicant hears from PRP or our staff hears from PRP a. And if that response requires an entire redesign, what then where does this go? goes forward? them? it? We’re done with it? Because of because there was the modicum of evidence? I mean, yeah, what happens? No. So

Unknown Speaker 1:52:11
as I think you were made aware in the presentation that that was a condition of the approval from PRP.

Unknown Speaker 1:52:20
Yeah, I know we have here from PRP. We haven’t they haven’t heard from PRP. And when they do, if if what they hear from PRP require it requires a redesign of the entire

Unknown Speaker 1:52:30
I go back to the drawing board. And that is back. Well, that’s part of the developers risk, I guess, if you will, of developing a site is that they look for something and if they didn’t do their due diligence, and they don’t get that sign off from PRP, and they have to redesign, they’re going to have to come back through the process of because they’re going to have to change their plan, or they’re going to have to change something, and it’ll be a material change. It’ll be a significant material change to the design and plan. And we’ll have to come back before planning and zoning is my understanding, unless PRP says that the engineers for the developer, I assume, did their due diligence and understood, as the gentleman that previously spoke to a said, they understand where the easement is and how they’re going to deal with the easement. While I know that we haven’t technically heard from trpa yet, because this is how fast the appeal has come to us. Because this was just last month that this approval happened. It hasn’t been a few months. It’s just it was last month’s meeting. And so it’s a condition and if they can’t meet the condition, it’s not approved regardless

Unknown Speaker 1:53:44
of what was. It was an April, it was an April 17 hearing. Is that right? Yeah, yeah. And

Unknown Speaker 1:53:53
I think I read in the notes that somebody has been in touch with PRP at least three times with note with, you know, radio silence from PRP, which seems to me so that’s a better question that I can’t answer. I get it. I

Unknown Speaker 1:54:07
guess the RPA doesn’t ever respond. I don’t know what the answer to that question.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:12
Yeah, I get that. You have up Do you have a point of view on the there’s a County Land Conservancy on the property to the east to which raid reweighed Road would would, would end basically but and so and so. We have Wade road that stops is a road to nowhere then.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:34
Well, so in the valley subdivision. You know, obviously how they planned it, they they didn’t just end it they they did stub it out, but they planned for an extension of Wade road from the valley subdivision to the east. And so I believe it would probably be the same thing. And as we’ve seen from other annexations sometimes developers are willing to pay out the conservation easement. Buy that out. And that’s what it would take is somebody willing to buy out a conservation easement to further develop to the east. But considering when the valley subdivision was built, you know, nobody knew when anything was going to be developed further east at that time. So I don’t find that to be a particular concern.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:21
Last question. The four foot berm with a six foot pins west side of this project east side of the valley project, right?

Unknown Speaker 1:55:36
acknowledged by the applicant as not a very good selection. I can’t I try to remember his words, is an ideal or whatever his words were. In from your perspective, in your experience with planning and zoning, it’s acceptable to to in the interest of one development to create a problem for the development next door in terms of that kind of

Unknown Speaker 1:56:06
debate dividing whatever the method is for dividing, we’re distinguishing between one development and another.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:14
I agree while it may not be ideal, I do not believe it required a variance. So by code, it is allowed by law. And unless we would like to change that, which is Council’s prerogative, and we can we can look at something like that in the development code updates. I don’t think there’s a lot that we can object to in the sense that it is private property. And that’s something I would like to stress for folks is that the city of Longmont doesn’t own this property, it is private property. And within the law, they can develop it, they can develop it as they see fit, as long as it’s within our code. Whether we like it or not, you know, this will come up I think a little bit later in a different conversation in tonight’s agenda. But at this point, in AI, I’m fully willing in a very, I guess, excited to revisit these conversations about what our development code looks like, don’t get me wrong. I think that has a lot to do with fordable housing in a different conversation. But outside of that this is this is what the law states is private property, as long as they’re within the law, they can do what they wish with their property. And so while it may not be the most, you know, attractive thing that they could do to separate themselves from the valley on that western border. It’s not against the code. And they did not ask for a variance because it doesn’t require one. And, you know, in our last appeal that we talked about that was full of variances, and and that gave us a little bit, probably more room to talk about it. But in that specific instance, I don’t I don’t think we can can make a decision on this property based on a non variance item.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:03
Thanks, Greg, great responses by the way. I appreciate your knowledge and background on this jelmer Christiansen gentleman in the comment.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:15
Yeah, I do. Count Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez, I did not mean to impugn the planning and zoning board by implying that they did not do due diligence, but because I’ve been to some of those meetings and they’re really no, I appreciate all the time you are president who was on many planning and zoning board and he said he just it’s your being president than being on the planning and zoning. But I didn’t all I have to go by is the notes that I read which are excellent. By the way, Jane Madrid always gives us excellent notes from the planning and zoning board. I didn’t see any, any real discussion, but maybe I missed it about the well problem. And so that this concerns me that these issues of liability should somebody you know, everybody says now Oh, it’ll probably be fine. But you know, if it’s not, and these several house households to the north, and also to the east, lose their access to well water, it’s going to affect them for the rest of their lives. So I I would like to see, I just like to send it back to planning and zoning to have them take a look at the liability issues with the ditch and the liability issues with the water for their wells. That’s all.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:48
I guess I’ll just respond briefly and that I you know, having been there I remember a very lengthy conversation about it. Outside of That, you know, you’re obviously Welcome to vote how you please.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:06
All right, there’s a motion on the table and Seeing no further hands and the motion is that we’re voting yes. The Council is passing a resolution upholding the planning and zoning decision. And the chair will. There’s no objection, I’m going to ask that we have a friendly amendment specifically stating the reason being that that the appellant failed on the three items mentioned by Eugene earlier and then reiterated by Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez. So there really is a record of I would say it’s a finding of fact, but at least there’s a record as to why we’re making this decision that we did that. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:49
Well, I agree. All right. And then the second on that was who Councilman Martin. Okay, still second.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:58
And you’ll have to forgive me we got a German Shepherd, human side. All in favor? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:07
Opposed say nay? Nay.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:11
So raise your hands fewer and I Okay, so the motion carries four to three with myself, Councillor Martin, Councilmember Bible fairing, the mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez eyes and then councilmembers Christiansen waters and peck as Nate’s so that concludes our public. That concludes our appellate appellate decisions. To as you can tell, it’s nice. It’s also German Schnauzer and a pit bull. But so let’s go on to see here. Um, looks like we have an activation referral for meritage homes along Highway 287. And if Aaron fostex here, she has a presentation for us.

Unknown Speaker 2:02:02
I do Mayor Bagley Mayor Bagley councilmembers Aaron fosdick with the planning division. Thank you, Susan. I mean, go ahead and go right to the next slide. Tonight before you have an annexation referral of approximately 26 acres over two properties and you can see where the location of these properties are just west of Main Street highway 287, north of highway 66 really north and east of the Willis heights subdivision and north and west of the super Walmart on highway 66. This property is within the Longmont planning area, which as you know from envision, Longmont is part of the future land use plan. So this area is within the LPA which is defined in envision Longmont as those areas we expect to urbanize within the city of Longmont at some point in time. The envision Longmont plan does designate this property as single family neighborhood, which the plan further describes is primarily being a neighborhood of single family detached homes. I also want to mention that highway 287 is designated as a regional arterial and the Envision Longmont plan. Next slide please, Susan. As part of the annexation referral, we require the applicants to submit a concept plan letting us know what their intention is for the property and what zoning they’re going to request. So consistent with the Envision Longmont land use designation. They submitted this concept plan this is a zoomed in version of what’s in your packet. As you can see they are requesting residential single family are RSF zoning. And this again is consistent with the land use designation in envision. The proposed uses would be single family detached housing, they’re also showing a central pocket Park, detention, parking circulation landscape buffers. Obviously, this is more detailed than some of the concept plans that you’ve seen. But there still would be a lot of work obviously to flesh out the details of this. But this gives you a pretty good idea of what the applicant is thinking. I do want to mention that I have the applicant as well as the representative for meritage homes on the call tonight. So if you have specific questions for them. At the end of this short presentation, I’d be happy to have them join me. Next slide please, Susan. In terms of the process, you all have seen a few annexation referrals recently. So I know this is fresh in your mind. But an annexation referral is really the chance for council to determine whether the public interest is served by considering the annexation request. Obviously this is in our planning area again. So it’s something that’s contemplated as being part of Longmont. If council does choose to refer the annexation into a formal application, there are numerous steps that are outlined here you can see in the graphic the steps that we require for a major development application including annexation, so they would come back in for a pre application meeting which would really outline all the steps they would need to take for an annexation application. We would hold a neighborhood meeting noticing all property owners within 1000 feet of these properties, then they would be able to submit an application with all other required documentation, which for annexation is a substantial number of documents. Those would all be reviewed by the development review committee that would go through full DRC review, they would make a recommendation to planning commission who would then make a recommendation to Council, we would hold public hearings with both bodies and then council would be the decision making body on the annexation request, they would need to demonstrate compliance with review criteria, we would obviously have an annexation agreement with the applicant and then certainly they would need to satisfy all requirements of set annexation before we recorded that. So that’s just to give you an idea of if you refer the property tonight, what the steps would be after afterwards. Next slide, please. So this is really the end of my presentation. Just to let you know what Council’s options are tonight, you can either authorize staff to accept this referral and process the application that we just discussed. And that would be finding that the annexation would be in the interest of the city. This referral would not obligate council to approve the annexation, you would do that at a later time in conjunction with a public hearing. The other option would be not to authorize staff to accept the annexation application finding it would not be in the interest to consider the request. So with that, I’d like to invite the applicant if they have any remarks to join me. Certainly I’m available to answer any process questions if you have questions for the applicant. I have Karen Henry, and Lisa from meritage. online as well. There’s Lee salvors. Hello. We’d be happy to answer any questions that counsel might have. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:44
All right. At this point, all we’re doing is allowing basically going to go ahead and staff to say consider the annexation and bring it back to us. So I personally don’t have any questions at this point. But other council members, do we have council questions? Councillor Peck?

Unknown Speaker 2:07:00
Thank you very badly. I do not have any questions. But I would like to move to authorize city staff to move this forward for the annexation. Second, I can.

Unknown Speaker 2:07:12
Right, Counselor waters. So Aaron, is this the time? Or would it be when this comes back that you would want to know the kinds of questions that we want to have answered? Like what’s the 50 year financial or economic analysis and impact study of extending our our our infrastructure that far north of 66? What are the extraordinary benefits of any to the community? What’s the nature of the housing? What? What kinds of homes? Are we talking about? Are these executive homes? Are these working class homes? What should we expect in terms of inventory because because the moment we the moment we approve the annexation of the property, we have quadrupled or tripled or double the water the value of the land for the property owner. I want to know what the long term costs and benefits will be. Obviously, obviously 90 Homes is a benefit and those people to the degree that they paid, you know property taxes or sales tax in in Longmont. But I’d like to see some numbers on that. And what the, you know, Harold made a pretty good case. In our last meeting when we were talking about utility rates and replacing or upgrading or restoring our water infrastructure, that there’s a council 50 years from now that we’ll be making the same decision about this project if it’s annexed. So you want those questions tonight or later.

Unknown Speaker 2:08:38
Mayor Bagley, Councilmember waters, I can speak generally to some of what you just brought up. And then I would invite Lisa to talk about the types of housing that meritage might be proposing. I’m guessing the applicant would be thankful to know what types of questions you might ask at an annexation hearing. In terms of some of the infrastructure, as you know, we do not require a fiscal impact analysis with annexation. That’s certainly something that the applicant can provide. And I know some applicants have included that information. But that’s not something that’s required as part of annexation. I will say that it is the city’s policy that development pay its own way. So any of the infrastructure that will be needed to serve this development on or off site will be required to be paid for by the developer. In terms of, you know, additional fiscal impact analysis, that’s something that certainly council could could request. I think you’re also aware we no longer require exceptional benefit. But certainly the applicant could include information on what they see as the exceptional benefits. Really what we would want to see from this applicant in an annexation application is how they’re furthering the vision guiding principles and goals stated in our comp plan and how they’re contributing to the city. You know, finding obviously, that this is a benefit to the community of Longmont. So that’s kind of a general answer and if you want more specifics, the applicant could certainly will Look at providing that when they come back to you. If counsel does refer this, I would also invite Lisa or Karen to talk about the types of housing I’m not sure if they’re that far along in their process other than knowing that single family detached but obviously meritage has has homes in Longmont and throughout the Front Range so they could probably let you know what they’re thinking a bit at this point.

Unknown Speaker 2:10:23
All right. Mayor Pro Tem Well, first, I would like to allow the our guests to respond to accounts my waters if they would like to go ahead, Lisa,

Unknown Speaker 2:10:41
Lisa Albert’s with meritage homes on the VP of land development, and I’m happy to be here tonight. And I have to have to say Aaron, you did an excellent job of the presentation. So I hope I can really focus in on the questions you had on meritage homes but we are building in Longmont right now at harvest junction.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:00
We’ve done quite well with our product out there. meritage Homes is truly a first time homebuyer and what we call a move up homebuyer. So maybe you you start adding to your family and you move up to larger homes. So we’re looking at 50 foot wide lots. So somewhere between 30 and 40 foot wide product, two car garages all detached. So really just modeling what we’ve done in harvest junction, we might offer a little more diverse, smaller and and the same type homes, but we’re really trying to target that, that market in Longmont especially right there off to 8766 with the super Walmart really close by we just think it’s a it’s a good move for people to live close to commercial and retail and access to the highways. And how many homesites was this again. There were 99 on the concept plan. Okay. Alright guys, we’re back. No, sorry.

Unknown Speaker 2:12:05
I just want to Oh, I’m sorry. Mayor Pro Tem goes next. And then I

Unknown Speaker 2:12:10
were I was just allowing for a response to Councilmember waters guide. I remember that. I’m sorry. I forgot. So just go ahead. And then we’ll go with Councillor Beck. Yeah. All right. Sounds good. Thank you, Mayor Bagley. Um, so

Unknown Speaker 2:12:23
I think my positioning on annexations has been fairly consistent and clear over the last number of years as him that I’m generally always in favor of getting land into the city’s purview versus allowing it to be county driven. The other statement I would like to make is that we have before, not approved annexation request because they weren’t providing necessarily the product or we had concerns about the sustainability based on what the council’s vision has been concerning housing. And so for me, I look at the size of the property 26 acres, more or less the location and adjacency to to commercial such as the super Walmart, as said, as well as the location on highway 287. To me, these things scream out to me a little bit more density, you know, what I’m saying? You know, I could see lining the adjacent subdivision with single family homes, and then having more density, maybe townhomes or, or paired housing along 287. Because we’re talking about a major route, you know, we’re talking about a state highway there, where we do have buses coming up, we we have close adjacency to a commercial center where you can go get your groceries if you need to. So to me that just screams that we’re under utilizing the property at 99 homes on 26 acres. And so that’s one thing I want us to consider as a council because we talk about this. And to me if we just stick a bunch of single family detached homes. That to me, is getting towards the concept of urban sprawl. Because I know when we recently talked about that, the Terry Lake annexation, we’re talking about mixed use multiple different kinds of housing products. And so that’s what worries me about this annexation. I’m pro annexation, because like I said, I like to get a in our jurisdiction. But I think this is a prime property where you could put some, you could do it appropriately, where it could be mixed neighborhood residential mixed neighborhood instead of residential single family. Because like I said, adjacency you align the properties in Willis heights, I believe is the name of the subdivision. If you have those be single family detached so you know there’s not a big crazy gap there. And then you have some a little bit more density closer to the highway. That’s and I see that as a great opportunity and an exceptional benefit for our housing stock in Longmont. So that’s what I’d like to see as as some suggestions. But as like I said earlier, counsel already knows my position on annexations. And so I will be in favor of referring this for approval. But I would like to see maybe some more thought put into a little bit more density. Thank you. All right. Customer pack.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:34
Thank you. Um, I agree, it was actually going to say some of the comments that Mayor Pro Tem made, as we are struggling with getting the this the north end of 287 to be more dense. And this is a this would be a prime example, I wouldn’t even mind having an apartment building. Because we were probably not going to have the concerns with other developments that are being annexed, for example, traffic or multimodal, again, being close to retail. So I am excited to see this annexation come through. I think it’s exactly why and how we need to build. And to Councilman waters point, one of the big reasons that we should annex this end, is that it it? If it is within the city’s boundaries, then it would have to comply with our inclusionary housing ordinance. And we would get more of our affordable units that we desperately need.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:41
So Councilmember Martin, and then Councilmember Christiansen. Just want to repeat that that what everyone has said so far, which is I think, yeah, we should refer this for annexation, because we don’t want it to be developed in a way that is antithetical to our vision for the city. But before approving an annexation, I would like to see a concept plan that was that was denser, maybe taller. I mean, you know, we can’t build tall and inside the city because of various considerations of respecting the neighborhoods. But we can do it out there on the edge. And I’d like to see a lot more density and and affordable units. Kazmir Christiansen, and then and then if someone could give them motion after this to be great. Yeah, I think that this actually fits in really well, to what is adjacent to the west. And I think it’s a pleasant looking clan, I would urge you as mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez has said to put in some denser housing to the west, to east by the highway, because that would be very helpful. And because what we’re trying to do, what we need to do is tie this town together, have our entrance on Main Street actually look like an entrance and have that be, you know, just put some love into that area. And if we had enough people up there, if we had sort of another anchor up there, that would probably be a lot more useful than the old fishing tackle shop and and the marijuana shop. And anyway, um, yeah, I think this could be a very important development to helping us develop North Maine in a little bit more vital way. It’s been kind of the redheaded stepchild of long mountain in it. It’s a great area, it’s higher, and it needs to get its own share of what we’re doing with the rest of the town. So good luck.

Unknown Speaker 2:19:19
I’m gonna have to refer the annexation. Mayor, it’s already a motion on the floor by council member Peck seconded by Marsha to refer. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:19:28
But thank you, then, with all the love towards redheads and stepchildren I can muster? Let us take a vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right. Then the annexation referral passes unanimously. And my advice is daubers is just stick close to staff to make sure that the concerns of counsel are are met head on well before we vote on this that will save everybody some headache. All right. Thank you very much appreciate you guys wanting to build in long line. We’re a great we’re a great community he’ll enjoy it. All right in Kansas go on to. Alright, let’s go on to item 12 see the 2021 legislative bills recommended for city council position. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Rodriguez.

Unknown Speaker 2:20:17
Thank you Mayor Bagley I know there and then on the agenda but because this is normally assistant city manager seeders item, I would just like to wish her happy birthday.

Unknown Speaker 2:20:30
Birthday, so I you know, yep. So, Mayor Pro Tem, I would say we all seem like the pledge. But if you’d like to see your Happy birthday, I think now would be an appropriate time. Sure thing. Assistant city manager. This is for you. Happy birthday. Sandy. I want your video on. Okay, I’m here. Alright. Now we’re ready.

Unknown Speaker 2:20:55
Now we can go. Well, I encourage anybody to sing along if they would like. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Sandy cedar. Happy birthday to you. And many more.

Unknown Speaker 2:21:18
Thank you so much. Mayor Pro Tem. Council is no legislative update today. You’re right.

Unknown Speaker 2:21:24
All right. Okay, it’s now time for final call public invited to be heard. So let’s go ahead and take a three minute break. If somebody calls in, we will leave it up during that, that next call. And have everybody give their give their say. So anyway, we’ll be back in three.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:35
All right, we’ve got about 10 minutes, 10 seconds before a three minute break is up. So let’s all come back. And did anyone call in near we do have one caller. All right. And we have another couple. Yep. All right. I’ll go ahead. Yep, let’s leave it up to the first caller, please. Very well.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:54
Cut it off. All right, great.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:56
So the first caller, your phone number ends in six. 63663 I’m gonna ask you to unmute color 663 Are you there?

Unknown Speaker 2:25:13
There you are. Yes, here I am. I have to get out of the other room. My wife is watching right now. My name is Clark Allen. I live. I live in the greens.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:27

Unknown Speaker 2:25:28
Yes, we hear you. Okay, I’m sorry. So there’s nothing going on the TV right now our minus delayed is that if you need to listen to us through your your telephone not not watch the live stream?

Unknown Speaker 2:25:43
I’m not I’m not I’m upstairs. Okay. My wife is listening to the live stream and she says nothing is happening. That’s all. Anyway, now I start them. You, you certainly certainly me. Okay. Thank you very much for taking the time to stay light and listening to me. I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciated the

Unknown Speaker 2:26:07
presentation today of the public or the individual. Hold on a second, my wife is just yelling at me.

Unknown Speaker 2:26:20
Okay, let me go on. So anyway, and I really do think that they wrote some really valid points today. I have really do believe that to some degree,

Unknown Speaker 2:26:36
you overlook a dramatic point, which relates to the wells, I’ve come out of Wyoming where I have seen more and more wells that have gotten destroyed by development. And I do believe that the world in this area will be really negatively impacted, especially when you take that drainage basin away from them. And those seven acres, and the amount of additional fertilizer will go into there. Unfortunately, I have a friend who personally lost the well, due to the fact that he had the development put around him and his world got polluted by the fertilizers that people were using on their lawns, and it was pretty pretty upsetting for him. And and I really, really encourage you to go back and take a strong Look at that. I also do believe that the more and more we build over in this area, the greater and greater Our flood related problems are going to become. And I don’t think we’re effectively really looking at that it’s a problem we’ve had. It’s a problem. That was dramatic, it was a problem that I was dramatically personally impacted by and never want to see happen again. And I don’t think anyone is taking enough energy and time to really look solidly into that aspect of what these developments are doing. The last piece is this whole business about traffic. When I’ll tell you, I’ll be real honest with you. I moved in here almost 10 to 15 years ago, 15 years ago. And I used to be able to get down Airport Road driving the speed limit within from here to entering on heading towards boulder in about seven minutes. It now takes me 15 minutes to get from my house down to that point. And it’s strictly because the traffic has so dramatically increased in this area. And I don’t think that having a road going 45 miles an hour. Also within this area. I think that we’re just not really taking anything into consideration when it comes to developing and just expanding and expanding and expanding the city without giving any consideration to how you’re going to deal with the trash or and eventually.

Unknown Speaker 2:28:54
I’m gonna have to cut you off because we’re well over three minutes, but I appreciate you calling in. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, next caller. All right, the next caller your phone number ends in 812812 are you there? caller 812 There you go.

Unknown Speaker 2:29:20
Oh, hello, mayor and council members. My name is Jerry Brown, Emily and I was pleasantly surprised today when I was riding the bus.

Unknown Speaker 2:29:30
I looked up and I saw a poster of Rosa Parks. So I just wanted to mention that. It was it was very it was very nice to um black myself and it was nice to see a black poster on the bus. Thank you. Thank you Betty. Alright, is that it for our callers? Yes, Mary it is. All right,

Unknown Speaker 2:29:58
great. Let’s move on to Mary Kelly. Comments. I’ve got one of those with you all wait though customer pack. Oh, you should go first mayor. That’s fine. Okay, great. I was just gonna say I was asked by a group here in town sponsoring the Juneteenth celebration for two requests. Number one is they would like to use the flagpole at City Hall and I was like, I don’t know if we have a spot Do we have a flagpole city hall? But if not, the choices are City Hall and Roosevelt. And they want to film the raising of use the flagpole to film the raising of the Juneteenth flag. And then in addition, on June 19, they would like us to fly the Juneteenth flag beneath the American state, and then the Juneteenth flag. And I told them, I don’t think that’d be a problem. But I’m I don’t get to make those decisions alone. And so I wanted to see if if that would be possible Herald and do it in a way that my fellow council members could voice their opposition in the event that there was opposition. That’s going to be a problem for anybody.

Unknown Speaker 2:31:12
I can just coordinate with you when they reach out to me and, and we can do that if that’s okay, Harold. Alright, cool. I saw Harold get

Unknown Speaker 2:31:21
ahead. I had not. So Let the record reflect that. Either Harold’s playing video games and is really excited. Or he just gave us his boy wish. I wish. I’m not playing video games. I know. I know. You’re not I know. Let’s just talk about it. All right. Cool. All right. I just wanted to warn you here that I asked. Alright. In go. tacit approval. All right, then let’s go ahead and customer back. And we’ll both Caspar Christiansen

Unknown Speaker 2:31:47
Thank you. I just wanted council to know that I testify today for Senate Bill 21 to 38, which is that rail special district bill. And just reaffirming that council supports that bill with the amendments submitted. But I also voiced my concern about getting it passed on the ballot with with the residents of Boulder County being frustrated with the tax for RTD, adding another tax and offered another amendment that they submit the bill without the taxing authority. And that once we had all of the costs and where they wanted it to go that they go to the legislator legislature with all the upfront costs, and get the taxing authority at that time after it passes. So I just wanted they probably won’t take my amendment. But I wanted to say

Unknown Speaker 2:32:45
Jasper peck on behalf of counsel at least myself. A thank you for your continuing ongoing concern for rail and be Thank you for taking your personal time to go down there and do that. So we appreciate that. Thanks, Counselor. kristianstad.

Unknown Speaker 2:32:59
I’m so pleased Mayor Bagley that you are have been talking to the Juneteenth people. I’ve been nagging various people for the last seven years to have a Juneteenth celebration. If people don’t know what Juneteenth is look it up. It’s something we all ought to celebrate. And so I am really happy. And I will keep mentioning in every council meeting until Juneteenth that we’re going to have a celebration here it’s a it’s a something we ought to be very proud of that we finally finally finally got rid of slavery. Thanks. Mayor Pro Tem.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:41
Thank you, Mayor Bagley I think as some folks if they’ve been tuning in the whole time to our meeting tonight heard that I just recently returned from a trip to southern Ohio. And I will tell you that after said trip, I will tell you, I cannot be happier to be back in Longmont and to be representative at least for the time being in Longmont and the good work that we’re doing and seeing, you know, the challenges that are facing municipalities across this country, not just based on the pandemic, but based on varying factors. You know, in Ohio, obviously, that’s a rust belt state. And they’re trying to reinvigorate their economy in a way that we don’t necessarily have to worry about. And so I just feel so blessed to be a part of this community. And I hope everyone else feels blessed too. I know that we can always make it better. But boy, oh boy, when you go and see some some other parts, you understand how blessed you are. So I just hope I hope folks know that we’re working to try to make this better, but could be worse.

Unknown Speaker 2:34:53
That was the softest insult doctor waters in laws that I have ever heard. And I thought That was awesome. So yes, Dr. Waters, endless sock, and that’s great Mayor Pro Tem and I agree with you. I don’t want to live there either. And that doesn’t go that doesn’t go without a rebuttal. I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding. Bob Evans. I love food.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:18
I just say I’m just gonna say amen. To what we just heard from the mayor Pro Tem, that’s all. Okay, anybody else have anything else to say? All right, great. Then let’s go ahead. And Carol, do you have anything? Comments? Mayor council? Eugene. No comments, man.

Unknown Speaker 2:35:40
Awesome. I know. It’s been a busy couple of weeks for you guys. Well done. All right. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please? So moved. Second, I will second. I’ll give Dr. Waters the opportunity. Second. So Jasmine Martin is move that we adjourn. Dr. Waters is seconded it graciously. Let’s go ahead and make a vote. All in favor of joining say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. All right, the the eyes have it unanimously. We are adjourned. See you next week, guys.