Longmont Planning and Zoning – August 18, 2021

Video Description:
Longmont Planning and Zoning – August 18, 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: https://otter.ai/u/leF5O2WmUxSsaQewlshHIVwPrlA (Part 1) and Here: https://otter.ai/u/SDkX5DmlcFMQFQu_qzkEvVHjLW4 (Part 2)

Unknown Speaker 0:00
Welcome, everybody to the August 18 2021. planning and zoning commission meeting. First item on our agenda is I’m happy to say when we’re live. Yeah. Chairman chernykh. Yes. Commissioner boon. And chair you may begin. Great. Thank you. Welcome everybody to the August 18 2020. Planning Commission meeting. First item on our agenda. Jane,

Unknown Speaker 0:30
Jane that’s on your end. You need to stop that video not stop the video but close the window. That’s your you may be playing the live stream.

Unknown Speaker 0:38
Great. Thank you. Welcome everybody to the August 18 2020. I don’t have a window that’s playing the live stream first item on our agenda. When we came

Unknown Speaker 0:50
on your end, I need to stop that video. Not stop the video but close the window. That’s your you may be playing the live stream or anything you want everybody to be at any point in time. Playing the live stream first item on our agenda chain

Unknown Speaker 1:19
case somebody must have had it playing in the background. And now it stopped. Sorry about that, folks. Let’s start this again.

Unknown Speaker 1:28
Yeah, we’ll start over after that kind of rough season. Do I need to start the video again? I do not believe so. We are still live. Okay. Great. Money must have had it playing around and not stop. Folks. Let’s start this again. Yeah, we’ll start it looks like it’s coming from korkut. Do I need to start the video again?

Unknown Speaker 1:52
korkut. Do you have the live stream playing? When I unmute you is when I hear the repeating audio. Recording stopped. Oh, folks do not touch the recording in progress.

Unknown Speaker 2:25
Cut i’m gonna i’m going to ask you to unmute. Let’s see if it’s still repeating our our audio. Go ahead and unmute. Can you hear me repeating our arm? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it’s on you. Every time I unmute. I hear myself or the audio from the meeting. I’m going to get out and

Unknown Speaker 2:59
come in again. I don’t know what’s going on. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 3:05
Chair. I’m sorry. We’re gonna have to give him a minute to come back in. No, that’s fine. We didn’t even make it through roll call. Okay. Goodbye.

Unknown Speaker 3:40
So just as a reminder, commissioners, please mute your microphones until it’s time for you to speak or you get called on by the chair that’s going to help with any of our background audio issues. Jane, you haven’t seen him come back in yet, right? No, I have not Okay, let’s get him back in. simplex. It’s taking him a while to even join. I think he’s got something going on is in there. And are you going to rename them? Here you go. I’m working. Yes. Right there. I don’t want to jump in if you’re already on it. Okay, perfect. Thanks. Alright, korkut Let’s try this again. Go ahead and unmute yourself and let’s test your camera. Okay. Do you hear me? I do. Let’s wait a second and see if we hear ourselves again. usually takes about 20 to 30 seconds. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 6:26
I have a prompt here. This meeting is being live streamed it says and I have the guarded or leave meeting options.

Unknown Speaker 6:33
You You don’t manage any meeting controls. So we are managing the live stream. So when you when you say you see, can you just close out of that. Now where did he go? Did we just lose them? Looks like they lost them again. Clearly, that was not the right direction to give him.

Unknown Speaker 7:10
Susan I got the same prompt. It was zoom prompting me that the meeting was being live streamed and it said either leave the meeting or just got it and so I just hit got it and basically approved that. Okay, stay in a live stream meter. Got it? So musta hit Yeah, leave. Okay. Let’s let him in again. around. Alright, he’s good.

Unknown Speaker 8:13
Alright, korkut Let me promote you here so that you can unmute yourself. Can you can you hear me? Go ahead and unmute and turn your camera on. There you are. Okay, I guess that was the wrong button.

Unknown Speaker 8:40
Yeah, the pump is still there. And I tried to close it and then it took me out. Yeah. Okay, what about now is the prompt still there? Yeah, it’s still there. Cuz I’m not gonna touch it. Sorry about this. I don’t know what’s going on.

Unknown Speaker 8:56
Alright, looks like I do not hear a repeating audio. So, Jane, if you want to continue with the roll.

Unknown Speaker 9:05
Certainly. How about if I start over the desk is chairman chernykh. Here. Commissioner Boone here. Commissioner Goldberg. Here, Commissioner hight Commissioner honor on here. Commissioner Polin, here. Commissioner teta. Here, Chairman you have a quorum. Great thank you Jane. Okay, um

Unknown Speaker 9:35
anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard, which is items four and seven. So not the agenda items but the public invited to be heard section. I just lost my script. I know. Anybody wishing to speak during public invited to be heard items four and seven or during any public Hearing items, we’ll need to watch the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen and it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person, and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. Next on our agenda is communications from planning director Glen van inwagen.

Unknown Speaker 10:37
commissioners, thanks again for spending your quality time with us tonight. I just wanted to introduce animal Roy, who is our environmental and sustainability planner. I think this is our first Planning Commission meeting. So I just like to welcome her she comes to us from Wisconsin. She was a planner with Lake County, Illinois, which is a county, I believe, just north of Chicago about 700,000 folks. She was really handling current planning issues, but really worked in the environmental sustainability area and was the first sustainability Program Manager appointed in Lake counties. So she is here with a cast of 1000 backing up Eva on the river town project. So at least like to have Hannah at least say hello.

Unknown Speaker 11:38
Hello, everyone. I’m very glad to be here. Thank you very much Len for that nice introduction. And I’m looking forward to working with you all. Great. Thank you, Hannah. Great to have you here. Thanks so much. Thank you, Glenn. Anything else, Glen? Nothing. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 11:55
Next on our agenda is public comment. So this is public invited to be heard. I’m not for any items that are on the agenda. Anything else anything else you’d like to talk to the commission about? So we’re displaying the information. And it’s on your screen now. please dial 1888780099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 828-836-5314 or five, when we’re ready to hear public comment will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak otherwise it does what we had just for the last 10 minutes. We will take a five minute break to do this because it does take time to get people into the meeting if they call in. Again, a reminder this is for anything that is not on the agenda tonight. None of the projects that are on the agenda. It’s about anything else. Okay, we’ll take a five minute break. We’ll be back at 721

Unknown Speaker 16:53
Alright chair, I’m going to drop the slide and then we’ll wait for the live stream to get caught up. Alright, looks like we are caught up on the live stream and we have no callers this evening.

Unknown Speaker 17:24
Okay, thank you, Susan. So seeing no one for the public invited to be heard. We will close that. We’ll move on to item five on our agenda, which is approval of our July 2021 2021 minutes and approval of the electronic participation policy, which I expect we’ll have some discussion about as well. How about commissioners, if we take the handle the minutes first and then get into the electronic participation policy, but first, let’s take Commissioner heights question

Unknown Speaker 17:58
was the question I was going to propose exactly what you just proposed, which is to bifurcate them and I would move to approve the charge 21st 2021 minutes. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 18:08
Any discussion about the minutes? Commissioner polen or a motion to second? motion to second the approval? Okay, so we have a motion to a group by Commissioner height and a second. On that motion by Commissioner polen. Any further discussion about the minutes? Seeing none, let’s take a we need to do a roll call vote. I’ll just do it in the order. I see you. Commissioner height. Yes. Commissioner Boone. abstain. Okay. Commissioner underrun. Yes. Commissioner Goldberg? Yes. Commissioner tetto? Yes. Commissioner polen. Yes. And I will vote yes on. So Jane. The minutes are approved on 601 with Commissioner Boone abstaining because she was not present at the meeting. So now we will discuss the the electronic participation policy and I would like to kick it off with a question to city attorney Tate. And reading it in item two. A on the paragraph the border commission determines that meeting online is warranted for good cause. Good cause may include but is not limited to a public health emergency. A finding that online meetings increase access and participation, significant inclement weather or the inability to assemble a quorum in person if I’m reading this, right ability to do this tonight, if we accept this policy, as written is based on that last phrase the inability to assemble a quorum in person. Am I correct about that? Is that what we’re operating under?

Unknown Speaker 20:15
A chair? Sure not. Certainly that would fall under that classification. However, the commission could also find a different basis for good cause, for example, a surge, and in COVID, if the commission made such a finding that a surge in COVID constitutes good cause, that would also be appropriate. This is drafted to give the commission some flexibility.

Unknown Speaker 20:44
Okay, so so the first sentence, we could discuss what good cause means and as he said, Make a finding that there’s something outside of that list. that qualifies as good cause? Yes, chair? That’s correct. Okay. Um, let me pose it out to the commission Commissioner Poland? I mean, you know, what do we think is good?

Unknown Speaker 21:10
Yeah. As an example, would we when do we find the cause? Do we find it before the meeting? Or do we stated during the meeting? Is that a question for us to take? Yes, that’s a question for Teresa.

Unknown Speaker 21:29
and cherish her neck. Commissioner polling. If I understood correctly, the discussion last month, it seems to me that this commission considered making something that would be a good cause finding through the end of this year. So you would not have to do it on a case by case basis for each meeting, you could do it for a defined period of time, that would be acceptable. Um, you could do it also, on a case by case basis. My recommendation would be that you did that, that you do that. At the meeting, immediately preceding the meeting that you plan to have a virtual meeting. Does that make sense?

Unknown Speaker 22:20
It does, except Teresa, my one thing would be inclement weather is something we wouldn’t know week ahead or a month at a time. That would be something that would probably occur a day. So I just want to make sure we have something in play to say that we were playing to be here, but because of conditions, we had to do it remotely. And that that would be okay to do a last second change like that.

Unknown Speaker 22:47
Understood? Yes, I understand your question. So under the Colorado Open Meetings law, for this commission to convene and take a vote typically would require 24 hours notice, in the event of an emergency, I believe the Open Meetings law contemplates as much notice as is possible. So in the event that we had inclement weather, what we could do is work with our very able liaison, Jane, to notice a meeting very quickly. And that could that could even be a very quick electronic meeting to take a vote about whether good cause is found or not. Commercial, right.

Unknown Speaker 23:37
You Yeah, I agree with both of those comments. One, whether or not, we’ve already made a determination for this meeting to participate electronically, I think we did that last month, more or less at the end of the year, based upon good cause being, you know, COVID just really isn’t fully under control. So I think we have good we have good guys to the end of the year. I also was going to suggest by Commissioner polling had identified that we make this determination sometime in advance, possibly we can identify in to be a certain number of days and or well, and to provide for exigent circumstances, for instance, a snowstorm or some other weather related circumstance that prevents us from from meeting and like Theresa was saying, like, Attorney Kate was saying, we probably should have a policy or a procedure by which we can call and have that meeting for exigent circumstances to make the determination.

Unknown Speaker 24:52
So Commissioner height, are you suggesting that this policy needs to be rewarded?

Unknown Speaker 25:01
Yeah, I apologize, because I didn’t really know how to share my edits. I kind of edit everything, including letters from my mom. But I do have an awful lot of edits to this particular document that I’d love to share with everybody. I was going to share them with attorney Kate. But I think I thought we would just discuss them. It’s probably unwieldy to discuss all the comments that I have. But I’m happy to do so if you want.

Unknown Speaker 25:34
So question for city attorney Tate. Again, I’m given the High Commissioner height just said that he has a number of edits slash concerns on Can we move forward with tonight’s meeting with the policy as written with a finding having been made at the last meeting, that we needed to hold this meeting electronically tonight? And could we find a procedure in which Commissioner height could provide the commission, his suggestions and edits? Not right now, but in some other format, so that we could review those and maybe have it all approved before the next meter shack up, I

Unknown Speaker 26:28
would recommend that rather than operating outside of the current adopted policy, that you all do adopt some sort of policy tonight so that we do not have any procedural issues with decisions that are made tonight. And then I would recommend that that Commissioner height sent his his proposed amendments, we will call them, perhaps, to Jane and Jane could distribute those to the commission in advance of the next meeting. And you all could certainly add that. Sorry, puppy. You all could certainly at that meeting. Take under consideration whether to amend the policy that that it that would be adopted tonight. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner poling.

Unknown Speaker 27:24
Yeah, looking at 2g, which says that he go over to it real quickly here. to, to the extent possible phone timely notice is given to the public. I believe that at least for the short term that should cover us for this meeting, and for allow us to have the next meeting and that I believe at the next meeting, then we can everybody can prepare their thoughts, and we can have a fuller discussion on this.

Unknown Speaker 27:55
So let’s do this by motion. I’ll put forward a motion that that we accept the electronic participation policy during city of Longmont board and commission meetings document or commission upon and I’ll second that. Okay. All right. Further discussion. Okay, let’s take a voice vote. Commissioner. Hi. Oh, Mr. Bowen.

Unknown Speaker 28:26
I was just gonna say we need to make sure that this appears on the calendar at our next meeting for our more in depth discussion.

Unknown Speaker 28:35
Right, I believe, given what attorney tait said, Jane would be handling that procedure. Just make sure it’s on the book. Right.

Unknown Speaker 28:45
Right. I agree. Okay. Before we go, I got one more question. Attorney Tate. How is it that we are participating, you know, in for the last year this way?

Unknown Speaker 28:58
Cheers your neck Commissioner height you all adopted an interim policy. That interim policy permitted electronic participation during a declared emergency. There was a declared emergency until approximately a month ago. At that time, the city manager withdrew that declaration. And so that’s why the commission now has to adopt something else if it plans to remain if it wants to have the option for meetings to remain virtual. Or just appreciate that. Thank you. Any more questions or discussion? Okay, let’s take a vote. Commissioner high. Commissioner Boone I Commissioner UNrun High Commissioner teta high. Commissioner groberg. High Commissioner Paulin I yes for

Unknown Speaker 29:57
and I will say yes as well. And Jane that passes seven to zero unanimously so we have accepted our new electronic participation policy during city of warm up board and commission meetings. policy. Okay, next item on our agenda is our public hearing items first is item six a the river town annexations zoning and concept plan. And Eva, I believe you’re presenting all of these right?

Unknown Speaker 30:34
am indeed chair so bear with me tonight. It’s gonna be a long night. Okay. All right. Well take it away. Thank you, sir. Oh, I’m Commissioner owner on needs to jump in real fast. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 30:45
I have a disclosure. The applicant is a client of mine. I’m working with them in another project, not in Longmont. Haha. However, I have no prior information about this particular application. I received the package as you did the rest of the commissioners Few days ago.

Unknown Speaker 31:07
Thank you, Commissioner honor on appreciate that. Eva, please take us through it.

Unknown Speaker 31:13
Thank you, Chair. Sure. And again, commissioners, Eva pedja, offski Planning and Development Services. Again, this first item is the river town annexation. Next slide, please. So I’m going to walk you through the background. As you know how this works. I’ll walk you through the nuts and bolts, the development code issues and then we’ll turn it over to the applicant. But for the good of the group. Again, this red box here is the project or the not the project of property. Its address is 21 South sunset, it is on the west side of sunset Street, just north of Boston Avenue. That’s about 21 acres, and it’s currently located in unincorporated Boulder County and it’s zoned general industrial. And you can see the st. Breen Creek borders it on its North Side. There’s also on the south, the properties to the south of it along Boston Avenue are all part of the city or in the city of Longmont. They’re all zoned primary employment. The property to the west is Rogers Grove. That’s a public Lee’s owned property. It’s a city facility. To directly to the east of across the street on Sunset, there’s a construction storage facility. That’s not in the city. That’s an unincorporated Boulder County, also general industrial. And then as most of you may recall, you all recently recommended approval, and then it eventually did get annexed of the river set annexation, that would be at the northeast corner of Boston and sunset, that little six acre piece there. And so this property is designated in the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan as mixed use employment. Next slide, please. And so this is the concept plan that the applicant proposes. Again, they’re proposing to annex it with a zoning of mixed use employment, which is consistent with our comprehensive plan designation. As you can see from the plan here on the right side, the yellow box says the east side they’re proposing 20,000 square feet of commercial they’re on the east side. And then that green triangle on the North is about a half acre of amenities. That’s not been completely fleshed out. It’s just labeled as amenities, but it’s green. We’ll let the applicant explain that to you. I presume it’s some type of open space amenity. And then the blue in the center would comprise of some sort of multifamily residential and townhome on the very west side of budding Rogers Grove, about a 380 unit apartment complex and some townhomes and then the applicant proposes in this concept plan, primary access come from its current entrance on Sunset Street, but that there be some secondary accesses from Boston Avenue. There are some flatted easements with a subdivision plat for these properties down here. There’s a Shell gas station there at the northwest corner of Boston and sunset and on its west side where the arrow is there’s currently a platted access easement. Similarly there then there’s the gymnastic school to the west of that and then to the west of that are some more commercial, multi tenant buildings and there is a planted access easement there, which is how the applicant came to this concept plan. And other things that see these proposed uses. It’s the residential and the commercial uses. Those are considered a secondary uses in the mixed use employment zone. It was in your staff report. Have it in here. But when we consider secondary uses in our zoning regulations, we typically take the aggregate we don’t do it on a parcel by parcel basis. So if you look at the whole mixed use employment zoning in this general area, which to the east of this property includes, you know, the left hand brewing factory and so forth, then this proposal would be considered a secondary use in the zone. Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 35:30
Just a little bit of background here. So again, it’s it’s got some adjacency to the creek, Creek Ibbotson. on the north side, the property owner would be required to dedicate land for Channel widening for the resilient St. Rain control project. And in addition, and this is again all at time of development application not annexation. But we do have some language in annexation agreement that council would look at that discusses these items. But in addition, the property owner would be required to dedicate Greenway to improve our seat rain Greenway there. Again, this property is in a floodway would require a clump komar conditional letter of map revision from FEMA, before any type of development could be permitted. So this is further down the road. And so we did receive a phase one and phase two environmental site assessment the property has historically been a gravel mine and a concrete batch plants. Both phase one phase two found no evidence of our ECS. And the fire department had no concerns about the reports the reports didn’t have any mitigation measures recommended. Therefore, staff didn’t have any recommended mitigation measures in the staff report. Next slide, please. In terms of traffic, I want to move this box here. Sorry, it’s, there’s a box here that is blocking my slide. Thank you. Okay. There was a traffic study that was completed it was in your packet, and based on the potential build out of 20,000 square feet of commercial and 334 units. It feels that the weekday trips would be about 3400 vehicular trips, daily weekday and the traffic study concludes that the projected traffic wouldn’t change the level of service at Boston and sunset, regardless of whether anything was ever built here or not. And then they say in the traffic report that if this development is goes through, a couple of traffic mitigation measures would be a left turn lane on northbound sunset coming into the property. And the traffic study felt that there was no need for a right turn deceleration lane for southbound sunset due to the volume of traffic, and a species and habitat report was also submitted. And the report concluded that the site has no habitat for federal or state protected species and plants. The Creek does not provide riparian habitat suitable for those species. There is an eagle’s nest nearby, but they have no habitat at this location. And of course, if development were proposed, if the property is annexed, the city would require a 150 foot riparian setback from the edge of the creek. Next slide, please. And then just so for the community outreach, we had a neighborhood meeting in November of 2020. We got I think, two phone calls. It was a virtual meeting. One was in support of the annexation. One call was concerned about the density and the impacts to the community. And then in January, the applicant filed a formal application and we sent out a notice of application. I received four comment letters. They were mostly supporting that we protect the riparian habitat along the creek. And lastly, we’re opposed to any annexation and subsequent development. And lastly, we had to send out a notice of public hearing. And on August 3, I’m sorry, this is an older version of my PowerPoint, obviously because today of course, on the eve of your meeting, I received 15 letters of via email this afternoon, which I know that Jeanne forwarded to you so disregard these, these last couple bullet points, but somewhere in support somewhere in opposition. Mostly it was floodway density but mostly it was environmental concerns about the riparian habitat. Next slide please.

Unknown Speaker 39:51
So staffs recommending p planning and zoning commission resolution 2021 dash seven a recommending approval because As of the review criteria being met, we will then take this to city council. Dates are still be to be determined we have to work through the annexation agreement before I can schedule those dates. So stay tuned on that. And with that next slide, I would just like to introduce our team here tonight from the city staff before I turn this over to the applicant for their presentation. But I would like to introduce we do have Christopher from public works engineering, Cameron, folks who’s co project managing this with me from public works engineering, and Caroline Miko from traffic engineering. She’s happy to answer any questions you have about the traffic study, or the access points that are proposed. We have Hannah Mulroy, that you just met tonight, she’s our environmental sustainability planner. She’s happy to answer any questions about the species and habitat report. In addition, we have Jim Crick from natural resources, who is our I believe our staff biologist who review the species and habitat report as well. So we welcome any questions you may have after the applicants presentation. And with that, I will turn it over to the applicant. I’m not sure which one of you guys is presenting if it’s David, but I think we could queue up the next slide. Thank you. Thank you ever.

Unknown Speaker 41:31
So if you could turn your cameras on whoever’s next to present. There you go. You should be able to unmute now, David. Yes, I’m here. Perfect. And let me open your presentation. They’re Okay, thank

Unknown Speaker 41:52
you. Good evening, commissioners, David Starnes, with the river town online development group. We’re going to provide a brief presentation about our proposed concept and where they gave it for the details provided previously. And we look forward to having a discussion with commissioners about moving this project forward and really adding a high quality mixed use community to Longmont. Next slide please. As either mentioned, this site currently is in the county. It’s a former concrete batch plant the golden properties so it’s industrial in nature, it’s blighted is the commercial uses there are not in great shape. So we look forward to providing a mixed use community that will be a great asset to Longmont the current zoning is general industrial or propose land use and zoning designation is mixed use employment which is consistent with the indivision Longmont comp plan. Next slide please. As mentioned, this site is located with within the st. Breen Creek corridor focus area. This is one of four areas identified in the city’s vision long on campus comp plan as opportunities to accommodate future development the greatest opportunity to accommodate future development. Our goal and the goal identified in the comp plan is revitalization of uses along the st. Bryan Greenway is encouraged as improvements to the floodway are implemented and feature risks are mitigated and we understand the city is working through resiliency brain and we look forward to having our property removed from the floodplain undergoing the necessary floodplain remediation projects to be able to develop the site. As mentioned in the st rain Creek foot focus area within the comp plan the integration of high density residents that this uses is encouraged as part of the MBE employment designation in this area, as they have mentioned, it’s really slowly kind of commercial and industrial use and so we look forward to complementing the commercial uses with a mixed use that has medium density residential as well as commercial employment options. Next slide please. On this next slide please. This area The site is compatible with the surrounding land uses are the residential portion would be located adjacent to st green Creek on the north and Rogers group to the west. And these nature areas prefer to quiet and peaceful setting. For the residential buildings. The commercial is located along sunset I’m sweet as a buffer between the residential and commercial areas. Next slide please. And just want to highlight to the Brevard County annexation that you see with our 20 acre site. It really represents phase two of our site as Eva mentioned earlier, earlier this year, our phase one which was a six and a half acres located at 18 South sunset was annexed into the city and we are going through conceptual planning and we are going to submit it I plan at some point in the future to redevelop this site, which is currently uses outdoor storage into some high quality netzero commercial flex space, which is we believe sorely needed in the city. As part of this, we sold about half acre to the city of Belmont for the resiliency breeding project. So, in terms of the overall concept, again, the river town annexation, that’s before you tonight is our kind of phase two project which will provide medium density residential and commercial to complement the proposed commercial with the phase one at this north east corner of Boston and sunset. And next slide, please. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Tony de Simone from capos companies on the development partner that’s moving forward. And Bryce, more details. Thank you. Thank you, David, and

Unknown Speaker 45:54
good evening planning commissioners. It’s a pleasure to present tonight on the river town site. My name is Tony de Simone, and I’m one of the owners of Confluence companies. We’re a golden based, vertically integrated developer, builder and property manager. And we we solely do projects in Colorado in our backyard, in places where we know we can make a difference. Our motto is creating exceptional places. And when when Dave waldner approached us about this opportunity, we were we were really excited. We’ve got a 10 year history with Dave doing successful projects. Our last one was in Lewisville at North Main apartments at Steele ranch. And so so with that, we really feel like we can create an exceptional place here. So next slide. So in in reviewing the comp plan, envision Longmont. There’s several goals we feel like we satisfy here, I’ll just touch on a few of them. Yeah, as we mentioned, this is an infill development. It is a blighted site. There’s many, many challenges to redeveloping this site. But ultimately, we feel like we can create a higher purpose and make a really active and vibrant community by doing so. The trend right now is really creating these liveable centers, that allows residents to live close to where they work and lead active and healthy lifestyles. And being close to the you know, the the parks and the trail systems were able to do that. One of the things that we really like to do with our developments is create communities within communities. And the project that I would encourage you to visit that we’ve completed about three years ago is called Timberline farms in Arvada. And the images that you see in front of you are from that from that community. One of the things that we’re able to do in these communities is create these community gardens, which really brings people together. And that site is almost identical to this one with the challenges of their we dealt with them Beaver Creek in the floodplain, tying into the trail systems, but ultimately really creating a walkable community that accesses all those things. And it’s one of the most desired places to live on the west side of town. Now. Next slide. In this slide, you’ll see some of our craft co working space. It’s one of our one of our brands that helps bring communities to life. One of the things that’s really missing on this part of town is, is that modern employment, and one of the things we started doing COVID is the shift from, you know, those large office settings back to the suburban, whether it’s working from home or working from these co workspaces. And so that’s one of the things that we’re most excited about here is is a mixed use site, bring a commercial and bring some of that suburban office to Longmont. That’s that’s very much needed. I mentioned the trail systems also, this would really be a multimodal site, being able to tie into those trail systems, we really focus hard on not creating the max density but adequate density to really create walkability. So, so with that, we’re really excited about it and look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you

Unknown Speaker 49:35
said your entire presentation. You’re all done. Yes, that that concludes our presentation. Okay, thank you, Mr. B. Some appreciate that. Susan, this is a public hearing item. So I would like to get us into the public hearing comments if you could put that slide up, please. One moment Okay, so if you would like to comment on the river town annexation item that’s in front of us right now, now’s the time to call in. So call 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 82883653145. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we’ll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please do remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. We need a little bit of time to do this, we need five minutes. So start calling in now and we will take a five minute break and be back at about 758 Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 52:44
For those folks that we just let into the meeting, make sure that you mute the live stream and we will be calling on you once the meeting begins again, one at a time by the last three digits of your phone number

Unknown Speaker 55:13
Alright, chair, I’m going to go ahead and drop the slide and wait for our live stream to get caught up.

Unknown Speaker 55:26
And we do have five people who have called in. And it looks like our live stream has gotten caught up. So let me lock the meeting. And when everyone is back, I can begin with the first caller.

Unknown Speaker 55:47
Okay, so if commissioners can turn on their videos, perfect. Okay. All right. I think we’re ready to start.

Unknown Speaker 55:57
Very good. Caller, your phone number ends in zero to one I’m gonna ask you to unmute 021. Good evening. Good evening. Can you hear us? I can hear you tell me to wait till everybody comes back online. We are good to go. So if you wouldn’t mind stating your name and address for the record, you have five minutes.

Unknown Speaker 56:23
Hi, this is Eric Wallace 339 Pratt Street, in Longmont, the president of uptown Brewing Company. And also sure in the long run Economic Development Partnership, I’m not here speaking on behalf of ADP tonight I’m speaking on behalf of lefthand. And as a as a concerned citizen. I’m, I’m in support of this. This is right down the road from us down Boston. And so we’re neighbors we’re supportive of what they’re trying to accomplish. as a as a business owner, we have almost 100 employees and we’re having a really, really hard time attracting and retaining workers and talent because the housing market in long line is basically been gutted in the middle that workforce attainable housing is is just gotten very scarce. I just had a meeting with several our of our newest people and all of them had different variations of horror stories on finding somewhere to live in Longmont. I think that this this is the exact kind of project that Longmont needs, it needs more of not sprawl, but infill redevelopment, higher density, it’s I see it is completely in line with envision online and advanced Longmont 2.0, which if you’re not familiar with, I would encourage all the commissioners to become fluent in that as well, since that’s Loma edps, where the implementation organization, public private partnership to implement advanced Walmart 2.0. So this falls very much in line with that, especially in terms of connectivity, transit, this project is right down the road from where the new transit station for RTD would be going. It’s right on the Greenway. It also is part of the development vision for the River Corridor itself. So it’s ticking off a whole number of items that city council has approved in both the Envision Longmont and events on my 2.0 plants. There’s a commercial aspect to it as well. So very much, very much in favor of this kind of thing happening. And I would say that we need much more of this kind of development. in Longmont, we need to go a little denser, we need to go a little higher, we need to do it in the core. And we need to do it in all of this. All of these areas that are the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being spent on the River Corridor and flood mitigation and pulling all of this area out. Those public dollars need to be put to use and creating a denser community that is greener, smarter, more sustainable, and give our next generation of younger people coming up through the workforce the opportunity to invest in and own and build equity in the town that they work. I think that it’s that not only has long term benefits for our community and for what Longmont is as a as a vibrant standalone community. But it also will increase the likelihood in the viability of locally owned small businesses up and down both the River Corridor and in our business districts both along over on the over and along Main Street. So this is This is this is like a poster child for the kind of development that should be happening in Longmont on a wider basis. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:12
Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. Appreciate that. Susan, can you bring in our next color?

Unknown Speaker 1:00:19
Of course, the next caller, your phone number ends in 065065. I’m going to ask you to unmute. Are you there? Sure you are. Can you hear right? Hi, effect can. Awesome. Go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:42
Sorry, this is why Lehane I own the building at 1830 Boston Avenue. And my concern and question is, I want more clarification on this easement in between and going through my property

Unknown Speaker 1:00:59
3400 cars would be a huge, huge impact to the businesses in my building.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:06
I can’t take this lightly. So I’d like more clarification on what that easement is. Is it a utility easement? What is it going to be? Is that your your entire comment this hand? Um Yeah, I would like to see, you know, the documentation on the easement. And what it should be used for. is I’ve seen nothing except for a drawing at this point. Okay, I guess that’s my comment. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate you calling in tonight. Susan, could we go to the next caller, please?

Unknown Speaker 1:01:52
Yes, chair. The next caller your phone number ends in 452. I’m going to ask you to unmute 452 There you are.

Unknown Speaker 1:02:07
Buddy evening commissioners Sherry Malloy. 2113 rangeview Lane Longmont, residents since 1986. Thank you for volunteering your time and energy to serve on this important and I’m sure very challenging city board. I’m here to speak to the River County Extension proposal. I realize your job is to look at proposals to the LDC lands to see whether they comply with LDC standards and meet your criteria. Because of its location, I would ask you to consider an additional standard for this proposal. For properties adjacent to st Brian Creek like this one, it is prudent to apply a standard concerned with protecting the common good. This additional common good lens must reflect good stewardship of our public investment while protecting our greenways riparian habitat in the wildlife it supports. This additional lens helps ensure social justice for all Longmont residents. This big, bigger picture view is particularly necessary for this property because its western boundary is fairground Lake, and Rogers Grove. Roger Jones selflessly donated this 55 acres to the city for preservation into law, my residents might always have a place to connect with nature, learn and enjoy. Any proposals for development in this area must complement this special area. When I look through this lens and read this proposal, I see several shortcomings. I’m a member of stand with our st. Brian Creek we are a growing group of community members who advocate for protecting our st. Fran corridor from potentially damaging development, which adversely impacts by pairing health and wildlife. The city reach of the st. Ryan has tremendous ecological value. It is critical wildlife habitat and has immense aquatic conservation value. This proposal is in very close proximity to one of the only nesting bank swallow colonies in Boulder County, a species of special concern, a well established as greenness is within 600 feet. The entire St. Brian corridor is a stream habitat connector, which is how wildlife moves from one area to another. This section of the same brain has yet to be funded for flood mitigation. This entire site is still designated as a flood way. The standards require the entire segments removed from the floodway. Before any development can occur, FEMA is not expected to change their floodplain maps for another two years. Consideration of this annexation seems premature. The RSP price tag is well over $350 million. And townie requirements to build in a floodplain would be very cost prohibitive. But because of public investment and mitigation, outside interest like this hope to benefit from our investments. The developers stated they will be ordering a blight study which I quote, quote will be the first step in pursuing an urban area. in your district in analyzing possible tax increment financing options to help pay for public improvements and quote, this means even more public dollars are intended to be used. We the public should get something in return for the big tax dollar price tag. Due to the massive public investment, the public deserves a significant voice in any and all development along this corridor.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:26
Furthermore, it is morally and fiscally irresponsible to put people and property in harm’s way. There has been 12 flood events in this corridor in the last 120 years. Even with the best mitigation efforts, common sense dictates this corridor will flood again. Flooding is the third most common natural disaster. We had 17 inches of rain in four days in 2013. For the river not to respond to what’s happening with climate change would break the law of physics. undeveloped open space and agricultural lands recovered with relatively minor damage or monetary intervention from the flood. developed areas and particularly residential properties were greatly impacted. Some, like the mobile home park were completely destroyed. This annexation application needs to be amended. There is nothing in the applicants big design plan that suggests any respect to the adjacent natural environment. The proposed high density residential area of 380 units is way too much for this sensitive area. Any development in this exceptional corridor should be exceptionally designed. This proposal doesn’t meet the required goals stating it must be compatible with surrounding property in terms of land use site and building layout in design. I want to be clear, I am not opposed to any development along our st. Frank corridor. I just want it to be right. rivers and creeks are not just sections of privately owned water. These continuous streams support all beings, plants, trees, animals, insects, pollinators, humans, within its vicinity, all are interconnected and all need to be respected. Thank you very much. Thank you Miss Malloy. All right. Susan, next caller please.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:21
Share the next caller. I’m going to call on your phone number ends in 949949. There you are. Hello. Hello. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Alright, you may begin. State your name and address for the record. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:46
Hi, my name is Ruby Bowman 1512 lefthand drive in Longmont. review criteria see on page 10 of the TNC communication memo states the fall as follows. The application proposes development compatible with surrounding properties in terms of land use site and building layout and design and access. planning staff wrote the following sentence to show that the application meets this criteria, quote, the residential portion would be a compatible neighbor to the same grand Creek on the north and Rogers Grove nature area to the west as these nature areas would provide a quiet and peaceful setting for the residential buildings and quote, it was clear to me when I read the statement that the city has its priorities mixed up. The issue is in about wildlife habitat in natural areas benefiting people living in a high density housing on the river town property. The real issues are the potential adverse impacts that development will have on our precious natural areas. This review criteria should have been should have been evaluated from the wildlife perspective. In 2018, the Natural Resources Department conducted an open space survey and found that 74% of uninvited respondents rated protecting natural areas from development as very important 66% rated protecting rivers, creeks, riparian corridors and wetlands as very important and 64% rate at preserving wildlife habitat as very important. The residents who live already live in Longmont made their priorities clear to the city. They want our natural areas protected from development. The developer did not provide specific information about building layout and design for its development. So plantings statement about it being compatible with surrounding properties. is not supported by facts. encroachment into the natural environment can, excuse me can mean noise light trash pollution due to the sheer number of people living in the development. The Commission should deny the riverton annexation application because it does not meet review criteria C and D. I also would like to know why the city is moving forward with the application at this time. Safford in the communication memo that the entire site would be removed from the floodway that the top that the entire site must be removed from the floodway before development can occur. The river town property is situated along the section of the same brain that is unfunded for the resilience St. Rain project. Even if the city were to locate funding for only the overreach, say in the next three years, the design and construction of RSVP and the revision of FEMA maps takes a long time. It could be many years before the developer would be allowed to bill. Does this annexation have a time limit on when construction has to commence? Or is the annexation and open end agreement? There are many questions that need to be answered by the developer and by the city regarding a definitive timeline. I am a resident of Longmont who’s lived here for over 24 years. I’ve supported my community to make it a better place to live as have many other city residents. Yet at times, it seems as if we are not heard by those who make decisions about development in our city. I’ve sat in council chambers when residents pleaded with City Council to consider the adverse impacts that development projects will have on their trailer park community or other neighborhood in unincorporated Boulder County. They take time to attend the public hearing to state their case. And they aren’t paid to be there. Yes, they and we are the ones who are are expected to pay for the infrastructure that supports developments like the one being proposed by the river town developer, even though it’s detrimental to our quality of life and wildlife habitat. Please reject this annexation. Clearly it’s not ready for primetime. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:35
Thank you for calling in tonight. We have one more. Chair. So the last person I’m going to ask to unmute your phone number ends in 323323. There you are, can you hear me? I can. Great you may begin by stating your name and address for the record.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:58
My name is Jamie cmo and I live at 1020 Venice street here in Longmont. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I’m calling in to express my concerns and recommendations regarding the annexation of the river town property which is directly adjacent to st Marion Creek and Rogers Grove natural area. First, I’d like to point out that because of the resiliency and rain flood mitigation project along this stretch of the st rain is not projected to be completely funded for another three years. And the mitigation work itself will not be completed for even longer, it is premature to talk about developing this parcel. In addition, this area’s within both the 105 100 year flood plains per current FEMA floodplain maps and will not be removed from the floodplain for some time. Because most property comes up for annexation only when development is desired. It is interesting that the owners of this property are applying for annexation now when development cannot occur for years. As a seemingly common for habitat and species assessments. I noticed that the assessment for this property was conducted in winter and not during the breeding season. Therefore, little wildlife was seen during the survey. on page six of the assessment This was directly addressed by mentioning that surveys would be conducted in spring or early summer of 2021 to confirm the absence or presence of Northern leopard frogs, because they would not be visible in November. Were these surveys ever conducted? If so, what were the results? If not, why not? I conduct bird surveys for the city at Rogers Grove all year long. And while I can confirm that I’ve never seen any species of state concern on the verb of town property during the surveys. I have seen species such as snowy, ygritte and Kildare utilizing the admittedly heavily degraded river town wetlands. Before any development occurs on this property breeding season surveys must be conducted. page eight of the habitat and species assessment says that development of the river town Longmont project site presents an opportunity to improve conditions of the buffer area by establishing native landscaping and improving vegetation cover and habitat value for urban adapted species. This should be a requirement for any future development on this parcel, and any parcel that abuts a sensitive habitat such as St. Green Creek and improving the buffer area along favoring Creek. Why can this area not also be improved to provide better conductivity along the riparian corridor to facilitate what facilitate wildlife movement? The habitat and species assessment also states on page 10. But given the highly disturbed nature of the project site, its proposed development is not likely to have an adverse impact on wildlife. How does this follow up? No property exists in isolation from the area around it, especially property a budding a body of water. Even though there are sensitive fish species in St. Breen Creek not far from the river town property. The habitat assessment states that there’s no occurrence of fish species because the assessment only looked within the boundaries of the property. impacts on the surrounding environment depend on the development. For example, if there are many impervious surfaces, this will increase runoff. tall buildings with large windows may cause bird strikes. Light pollution disturbs both resident and migratory species. Speaking of the surrounding area, there is a red tailed Hawk NASS not far from the property on the north side of the railroad tracks. It has been active for at least the last two years. I don’t know if this is the same nest site mentioned in the assessment where it was seated that it was no longer active. But any future development of this area must take this nest is active at that time, as well as the Osprey nest at the nearby fairgrounds into account to mitigate any potential for disturbance. In my final comments with regard to the habitat and species assessment, I reiterate the comments I submitted in response to the annexation request back in January, there was a colony of nesting bakes was on the broader scope property just down from the river town property. This is one of the only known boxwalla colonies in Boulder County. As a condition of annexation, the property owner must agree to the creation of an easement for flood mitigation on the river town property, so that this colony is not destroyed as it surely will be under the current service circumstances. I also asked that given the history of unlabeled and improperly labeled hazardous chemicals stored on the property, as well as the number of violations of the facilities own spill prevention, control and countermeasures plan that a phase two esa be conducted and groundwater on and near the property be tested for contaminants and treated a found. Likewise, the area of stockpiled soil and concrete should be exempt and is determined to determine whether there are any potential hazardous materials in the pile. These should be removed and treated if so at owners expense, and not the expense of taxpayers, or any of the historical hazardous waste releases prosecuted and or fines imposed. Thank you for your time and attention. Appreciate you calling in.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:24
Sure. Give me just a minute it appears that our video his or her live stream is stuttering a minute, hang on just a second.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:39
All right, looks like we are back. So for the record, we may have lost a minute or so. And so I will need to upload a corrected version. For the record, not for the record, but for our YouTube channel. And looks like we’re back. You may continue. Great. Thank you,

Unknown Speaker 1:18:01
Susan. Thank you to all of our callers who call them tonight. We really appreciate having the feedback. We’ll go to discussion amongst the commission. Anybody want to kick us off with questions? Commissioner polling? Sure. I’ll

Unknown Speaker 1:18:14
I’ll go through several and then I’ll get other people a chance. I’m Ava question for you to begin. And these are in no particular order. These are just kind of how do we know what the percentage is? The city has figured it out for primary versus secondary. I think the only mentioned I’ve heard was during the applicants. They said it was less than 50%. I’m wondering if we have any kind of more firm numbers. I can get that for you shortly. Chair and Commissioner polen. Okay. The second one I have is regarding Do we have any idea on the land dedication, what that looks like mounds locations.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:59
I chair and Commissioner Paul and I don’t have the exact amount I put out the draft annexation agreement to public works. And they need to fill in those blanks. So they’re going to work through that with our resiliency rain project manager and then that will be detailed in the annexation agreement. I unfortunately don’t have the exact size and amount right now.

Unknown Speaker 1:19:24
Okay, thank you. Can you give a quick description on what the difference is between the current zoning and boulder versus the new proposed zoning. As far as what’s allowed any

Unknown Speaker 1:19:44
Rights Commissioner Paulin chernykh. I am not an expert on Boulder County zoning I can only imagine general industrial and since it was previously a concrete batch plant that those types of heavy industrial uses are allowed on this property at the moment. Excuse employment, I can pull up the code shortly. But again, its primary uses are meant to be like industrial flex office research and development those types of land uses.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:16
Okay. And then I guess my last question for right now will be, can you tell us more about the agreement with the adjacent property owners for vehicle access? And that was actually one of the questions by one of the callers. Correct.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:31
Thank you. I’m glad you asked that question. Um, Susan, you want to can you put that document up on the screen. So the caller that called in that owns the property on Boston Avenue, I spoke with her at length last week. And I also sent her a copy of this subdivision plat. When these properties along Boston Avenue, as you can see on the bottom, where it says Boston Avenue, these are the four lots there. Five lots, and there was a subdivision plat. And so that was recorded. And as you see where the bubble diagram is, hopefully you can read it on the screen. But it says, kind of toward Susan, if you have your cursor are zooming in. Thank you so much. It says there 40 foot access and utility easement. There’s a vertical line, not there the vertical line that’s coming in? No. Right there. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. See, it’s 20 feet and 20 feet there. So that’s that access easement. And then if you go toward the right, that’s where the Shell Gas Station is. And that there’s a little note there that says 20 foot access and utility easement right there. Yes, thank you. I’m from Boston Avenue. And if you were to sorry, I don’t have the aerial map up. But there are stub outs, if you will, into this annexation parcel from the north end of these two access easements. So I talked to them as Haynes at length, and I gave her a copy of this plat and told her that we discussed it at length with public works. But we did have concern, obviously, because these are third party parcels. And so we require the applicant to put a note on the concept plan, which it’s in your packet. It’s one of the last notes at the bottom, but it says if the property is annexed and the applicant submits a development application, they will be required to obtain written permission from these adjacent property owners for using access through their properties. Oh, yes,

Unknown Speaker 1:22:38
yeah. So I guess the then my follow up question to that is what happens if the property owner doesn’t grant the access? Right.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:47
And so with that, I’m going to turn that over to Caroline Michael, our traffic engineer, and or Cameron fowlkes. Or Chris huffer, who would like to tackle that one? Any volunteers?

Unknown Speaker 1:23:07
So I’ll go ahead and jump on. Commissioner polen. Thank you, Cameron, folks. So with that they do have two proposed accesses. So the thinking was that they could maybe negotiate one of those accesses secondary access, with the main access being off of sunset?

Unknown Speaker 1:23:29
So I I guess the question then still is, what happens if neither of those Southern accesses are granted? Is does this become a like a court case? Or what happens?

Unknown Speaker 1:23:47
Right, so they would need to possibly look at a different access, maybe towards Boston through the western parcel that like the bring that up? Yes. So there, there is another possibility to go through the rest from the residential duplex development on the far west side. So there you go down south towards Boston, they would need to work through property ownership there, which I believe is owned by the county and the city of Longmont. There is another possible option for access to Boston through this kind of triangle shaped property south and west of the residential duplex. Okay, on the development,

Unknown Speaker 1:24:33
thank you, and then even to wrap this up. So So basically, at this point, granting the annexation doesn’t mean that they can just go ahead and build at a point later in time, this still have to be figured out just saying that. We recognize that there has to be further discussions, but we approve of this in concept.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:58
Yes, that’s correct. Commissioner Paulin. This is again a concept plan. It’s not meant to be a detailed site plan. If this property’s annexed by city council, the next step in the process would be a development application. Again, there would be neighborhood meetings, more public outreach. And so this is only a concept plan. Again, as they work through if it’s annex, they’d have to work through the details of site access. And that’s where we would really get down to the detail of needing those, those neighbor permissions to use the access points. And if they’re not granted, we’ll look at alternative access points, as Cameron was saying, a little bit further west. And then they would have to turn in with any development application, a fresh new traffic study. And so if any of those access points change, the traffic study would give us some suggestions and mitigation measures as well. Okay, thank you. That’s all I have for right now. Ever,

Unknown Speaker 1:25:59
I’m going to jump in on Commissioner Poland’s kind of getting a lay of the land sort of questions. With the concept plan drawing that we have in front of us. I assume that there’s this drawing gets included with what goes to city council? I mean, this is part of the agreement. Correct?

Unknown Speaker 1:26:22
Yes, chair. Sure, Nick, the copy of the concept plan gets attached to the annexation agreement as an exhibit, and it’s recorded against the property. Okay, no deviation significant deviations would have to come back through the city council for approval.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:37
Okay. So the densities that are listed, especially for the residential, parts, the bubbles, the math doesn’t work for me. And I’m wondering whether the densities should even be listed on the drawing, for example, in the residential apartment development, 15 and a half acres at about 15 D use per acre. That’s 237. Do you use math 320. As mentioned in the in the applicants presentation, the duplex development area is three acres at one and a half to use per acre. That’s four and a half. Do you use not 14? So can you help me understand the math and none of none of that? comes and the applicant’s numbers don’t even come close to adding up to 380 which is at the bottom of the sheet. So what what numbers and what densities are we really looking at?

Unknown Speaker 1:27:41
Yes, chernick? Good question I went by, if you scroll a little bit further down on this concept plan, I don’t know if you’re able, Oh, I’m sorry. No, this isn’t the it’s just a snippet. I’m sorry, Susan, my bad. Sorry, that will the one in your packets, has the the notes at the bottom and it kind of went over and it said 380 units. And that’s what I went by. But I do agree with you that those densities didn’t pencil out for me. But I went by the larger density, which was in the traffic study, and in these notes here at the bottom of the concept plan, which is in your attachments. And so with that, I will turn it over to David Starnes, the applicant to explain where they were going with their densities there it since it’s their concept plan.

Unknown Speaker 1:28:32
And also I’ll just add in as Mr. Starnes is coming up online here, in the traffic study, one table said that there would be 320 apartments and another table and the traffic study said there’d be 330 apartments. So even the traffic study is not internally consistent with itself. And so Mr. Starnes, can you help me understand your plans on density, please? Oops, you’re still muted. You need to take yourself off, mute, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:10
Thank you can our chairman if it’s okay with you? I’d like to turn it over to Tony to DC mode dimension to density. And then I’m Chris McGranahan, who’s our traffic engineer about the traffic. So the question? Sure, absolutely. Thank you, Tony.

Unknown Speaker 1:29:23
Sure. Yeah, I can answer that, you know, everything at this point is largely conceptual. Density wise, we’re really kind of shooting for more of a medium density on on the multifamily component. When you add up the multifamily units and the paired homes towards the back, I think we’re looking at a density of about 320 units, which is kind of on the lower end of what we’ve been talking about. And then approximately 20 to 20,000 square feet of commercial on the site. So that’s that’s kind of the density We’re looking at. Okay, so

Unknown Speaker 1:30:02
Mr. De Simone. So you just mentioned 320. And I know this is all conceptual right now, but, um, but 320 total units, including the duplexes. So, possibly give or take a few and there, but you’re not, I’m not hearing you say 380. That that’s correct. We’re not we’re not trying to do that many units. Okay. And, but you’re also not doing what pencils out from the math that one can derive from the drawing itself, which is like 237 plus five. That Yeah, that that map is not accurate. I could I could say that for sure. So, okay. Um, and yes, it’d be great to have your your your traffic engineer pop in here, just so I can ask him about his understanding of those numbers to Sure. Chris, would you mind popping in there?

Unknown Speaker 1:31:03
My name is Chris McGranahan, I’m with LS transportation consultants at 918 89. York Street, Denver 80206. So I’m looking at my traffic study here. And what we assumed in the traffic study was 320, apartment units, 14 duplex units. And then 20k of non residential, which is comprised of 5000 of retail and 15,000 of office. And, you know, as Tony said, Those it’s conceptual, but it sounds like if he’s saying 320s, the total route, probably conservative in the tropics, because we assume 320 apartments and then an extra 14 duplex units.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:39
Okay. So Mr. McGranahan on from your expertise of working with traffic how, how broadly with the Do you numbers have to shift before you needed to really redo your your report and say, Hey, traffic’s gonna change because of that?

Unknown Speaker 1:32:00
Well, I think the biggest, adding 20 or 30 minutes or taking away 20, or 30 minutes probably is less impactful than if we lose access points. So as we move forward, if one of those access points to the south goes away, or we end up with one on the southwest corner, as just talked about a little while ago, that would likely be more impactful than adding or taking away 20 units.

Unknown Speaker 1:32:20
Okay, great. Thank you for the input on that on. Thank you, masterpiece, mon. Appreciate your your input to. Eva, I have a question for you. Given what we just heard. You’re probably looking up answers to Commissioner Poland’s questions. So when so we’re the recommending body to city council, City Council’s the deciding body on all annexations? Um, but do we, in your opinion, given the what you know about the process? Um, do we need to condition the PCR? If we were to say go for approval of this to say, city council, we recommend this, but don’t pay attention to the, to the numbers on a drawing? Or can can we have their have their concept plan drawing just strike all the numbers on you know, I mean, what’s what’s the best Avenue? So that city council gets the best data possible from the applicant?

Unknown Speaker 1:33:32
Yes, sure, sure. And so the again, the conceptual plan is just said, it’s conceptual. So we know that some of the density numbers kind of fluctuate between documents, it’s really, if you would like to add conditions of approval, it would be because some aspect of the annexation proposal would only meet the review criteria if you had this one condition. And so it’s up to you if that really concerns you, whether it’s 320 units or 330 units, and you want to condition it that way. And I can also defer to Glenn, then Wigan or director is see if he has any thoughts about that. Um, I mean, I’m fine with your answer. So, you know, totally get it. Commercial polen.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:28
Okay, take that off mute. Um, I just want to say My only concern with that document is that you’re basically going from about 230 to 330. To me, that’s significant. I mean, if it’s 2031 way or another, okay. I wouldn’t mind if if somehow we could incorporate it updated. It I think, basically, he go 20 D use per acre. You get closer to the number that we’re looking at. I don’t know that the Something at least that I think with is a CHAIRPERSON chernick said something that’s more accurate to present to the city council because when you look at that dc 15 per 15 acres, it comes out to 225 thrown another 510 for the other portion, and the overflows, your your, to me, that’s a significant difference in what there’s one place and another, I would like the numbers to free up a little bit better if we send this to city council.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:26
And so, Eva, back to your point that, hey, if you put a condition, man, it’s it’s because we’re not meeting a review criteria. But But basically, what I’m pointing out, I think is not that I think it’s more that we just have like some technical issues here. And can they be cleaned up? Before this? Were to advance to city council? chair Srna?

Unknown Speaker 1:35:55
Yeah, I think that’s it’s absolutely within your prerogative, if you would like to add a condition that says prior to city council or the applicant shall clean up the concept plan, so that the density per acre shown on the concept plan matches the data that’s shown in the traffic study and in the notes of the concept. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:16
Yeah, thanks for your help on that. Um, other comments and questions from the commission? Commissioner? Hey,

Unknown Speaker 1:36:29
where is my mouse to unmute myself. So I have a long dissertation. But I’ll say that because it’s probably going to fail. But what I want to do I try to address are some of the environmental issues that were brought up earlier by some of the public Nismo. Roy, welcome. Are you there? Hello. My brother, there’s a lot of them and development in Lake County. So maybe you know my name by him. He had trouble with trees a lot in any trees are precious. I understand. Explain for me, I’ve raised this question before, several years ago, when you are fixing a riparian way to change floodwaters or flood zones or flood districts. The resilience and brain project is widening the same brain or water basin or the the creek

Unknown Speaker 1:37:28
to widen it. So I think that I’m probably not actually the best person to answer that question. But my understanding is is not necessarily a widening, it could be a deepening in places, and it’s to contain the floodplain. So the body of water might not actually get any wider. It’s shaving it out. But I think either Jim or Christopher might be able to speak to that a little bit more than I can. So I’m not overly involved in the RSVP process.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:53
I understand what you’re saying. But my next question then gets to as I was reading some of the comments, to bring this property out of the floodplain, there were discussions about raising it when you raise the property. How does that? How does that handle the water? Or does that water that would have flooded that property? Where does that water go? If it’s no longer it can no longer reach that property? Where does it go? This water that’s now can’t access this property? This property is out of the floodplain. Where’s that water go?

Unknown Speaker 1:38:28
Chris huffer might answer that question. I see him popping up here if that’s okay, I’d rather have an engineer answer that question. I’m more of a planner. So it’s like like Christians. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:38:40
Commissioner height? I’m sure Hannah could answer the question for you. But it’s a good question. Because this is in the middle of the floodplain. When we take away that storage area, it’s basically pushing water out somewhere else. And so we always look at elevations. So whatever is a lower elevation? Well, I say putting something in the middle is going to raise the elevation of the flood plain. So our base flood elevation is going to go up and whatever is underneath that elevation, it will spread out to that area. So the Cloner the conditional letter of map revision that’s required for this property to develop will have to show that there is minimal to no impact to other properties surrounding them. And there are ways to do that by creating additional volume in other areas. So you can widen out the channel. You can provide other conveyance means that goes around. But that has not been determined at this point in time as to what exactly will happen. But there is the preliminary plan for the resilient st brain. This shows basically widening the channel at this point. It does get a little bit deeper, and then we have with a bow flow channel running through the bottom of it. But those are very preliminary plans at this point. As has been indicated, there is not funding for this stretch of the of the river or the creek. But those things will need to be determined before any development.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:22
So that’s kind of what’s been my supposition that if you raise the property, to take it out of the floodplain, you really, ultimately are just pushing the water further downstream for your downstream neighbors to deal with that my question is, considering whether or not that’s compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and you’re indications that, yes, you can divert that flow by making the channel wider, having other diversionary structures, I don’t know when you’re calling them. Does the applicant when it’s raising its property responsible for dealing with? How does that all mesh together? Because it sounds like that’s a lot of off property work that has to be done? Who coordinates that city? The applicant?

Unknown Speaker 1:41:11
Commissioner height? Yes. So the city has a floodplain manager, Monaco bertolini, who’s not here with us tonight, but she is responsible for reviewing all of their documentation. She has to sign off on it before it goes to FEMA. And they have to show the whatever work is being done, whether it’s a coordination with the city through resilience and brain, if they fund portions of the resilience and brain project, or if they go on their own and do something to make their property developable. They have to show that there’s no adverse impact on surrounding properties upstream downstream, either side of them.

Unknown Speaker 1:41:48
And if it can’t make that demonstration, it doesn’t get approved. Correct. Okay. Great. happy to know that. My next comment, and I don’t know, Chris, if you’re the right person to answer that. In connection with developing this property, maybe maybe not. There’s some RSVP language of resilience, St. Brain project RSVP. money’s coming to wideness. There’s currently some dedication of the stream bed to the north. I don’t see this property reaching the north side of the stream bed. Am I misunderstanding what I’m looking at?

Unknown Speaker 1:42:34
Somebody else may be able to answer better than I can’t Commissioner height, but I believe that the dedication was on the south bank of the

Unknown Speaker 1:42:40
Okay, then maybe I read it wrong. addition to that dedication, it’s also 150 foot setback to any development along the riparian right avoid or the right parian way. And that’s just the city standard throughout the st. Great Basin, correct. That is correct. Okay. And handling, because we’re next to Rogers Grove, which is projects next to Rogers Grove, the environmental impacts on wildlife and habitat. That’s what’s been studied in these environmental or this wildlife assessment.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:21
I did not review the wildlife assessment, I may ask, I believe Jim Couric or Hannah may be able to answer those questions for you. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:43:30
I’ll give it a shot. And then Jim can jump in if he needs to. So the species Habitat Conservation Plan looks at kind of current conditions on site, possible mitigation measures that would need to be taken into consideration. So it’s just nasty in bird surveys, the northern leopard frog that came up, it doesn’t as much look into potential impacts of development. We’re also pretty early on in development review process. So we haven’t seen full elevations or light photometric plans, things like that. So the level of detail and learn understanding the impact will get greater as we move through the development review process. The species Habitat Conservation Plan is more so what is there and what could be possibly impacted?

Unknown Speaker 1:44:12
And the seasonality of the sampling or the investigations? Do you check that you ask them to recheck that are you satisfied with the level of investigation that we have before us tonight?

Unknown Speaker 1:44:24
Yeah, I would say the investigation just happened in March of 2021. So it’s nice and recent. I know there was concern about the northern leopard frog wanting to be a survey being required in the spring, we’re actually going to have them do it closer to groundbreaking like we would do with most other environmental mitigation measures. We do a closer to nest surveys, leopard frog survey, all that happens a little bit further in the through the entitlement process. I will say we have a right to and I suspect we will exercise that right to ask for updates as we move through the process. So this is again, that’s just the formal annexation request. They will be Coming through for site plan and potentially other entitlements. And at any point I can ask for updated species habitat conservation plan or specific areas to be updated, if I feel it’s appropriate.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:13
Thank you. And now for my dissertation, which is as other members of the Commission now, I, Insightly hamstrung with secondary uses in the multi use district zones. I think I agree with others that, you know, infill higher density, lovely concepts, but are multi use standards allow in certain zones, and this is one of them multi multi use employment allow residential as a secondary use. It’s been explained to me that it’s been interpreted by staff by the city by the land development department at secondary is applied on a district wide standard. I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of how our zoning code applies. Specifically, you know, 15 Oh 403081, which is where secondary uses are defined, comes out of the box a describing the 92nd secondary use on a residential property can only be on a lot a lot. That’s adjacent to an arterial to an arterial Street. Yeah. That seems to suggest that development applications that we’re looking at are life specific. The one that I think staff relies upon is no go for Oh, three Oh, a one see additional considerations. It’s compatible with the surrounding area. It’s consistent with the underlying zoning and the comp plan and the purposes of the code. And then the use will that diminish the availability of land within the district for the primary use. And I think what I’m hearing from staff is that it’s that language that leads to the application that the secondary use is applied on a district wide basis as opposed to a lack specific quarry development personal specific basis. And I don’t think it bears it holds up under close examination. Specifically, you know, the multi use standards. Density is applied on a per acre basis is 18 DTU per acre. It’s not within those zone. It’s that that applies to a specific development parcel. Multi use, multi use areas can only have multifamily at a density level of 18 G’s per acre. And that’s 15. Oh, and 15 Oh, 403. Lots specific applications of density. Not district wide, but development parcels specific. And then, I guess Lastly, envision Longmont policy 6.3 B, which was referenced in our development package today. In the ME district, multi use employment district, you prioritize employment, while supporting secondary uses that incorporate multifamily or live work circumstances. I can’t support this, this, this concept plant, which has two acres of commercial and a 21 acre parcel, less than 10% of the property is devoted to the primary use. Even though overall, you know, I think I agree, the housing stock needs to be improved. It just can’t happen in the MEP district. I don’t know if others will buy along with me, but that’s how I’m going to come out on this project. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner High Commissioner owner on

Unknown Speaker 1:49:24
Thank you, you know, when there is a difficulty interpreting a rule rather than going into the close look of what the language is saying we need to step back and understand why that rule is there. And what is trying to achieve and try to understand really a large scale overarching objectives and try to put that rule within there. If we’re talking about supporting labor last 10 years of experience told us that if you don’t provide enough housing, if you don’t mix the users it’s gonna be a proven to fail vulnerable be increased transportation costs. And ultimately, it’s going to be not sustainable. When I read the especially the corridor, recommendations of the complan, talk about the infield and mixing the users city’s interpretation of looking around and understanding the problem make a lot of sense in this particular area. We see underused industrial businesses, and they are not supported by the kind of support they need by other users. And we just heard from, you know, the first broker, the Mr. Wallace talked about the need for housing in close proximity. So that is the reason why I i understand the interpretation of the city. And I agree with the interpretation of the city. And when we talk about the secondary use in these particular zones, we need to not just look at the lot, but we need to look surrounding areas, what’s going on there, because every contribution to that mixture, is what the vision is creates. That is to say, if you’re trying to achieve what this document is trying to tell us, we need to provide what is missing in the close proximity, not just a lot. And that makes complete sense to me. I like to talk a little bit about some of the comments as well. I mean, I agree with the way again, staff interpreted the criteria. And I just want to make a couple of comments. Again, the big picture gives us the best understanding of what preservation of nature is. This is an urban corridor. This is an urban riparian corridor. There are a lot of developments around it. And this is the door, you know, kind of Hall in the Donner. There were a lot of investments made so that this urban corridor work, like if we leave these parcels underused, contaminated and possibly developed by further industry, because it’s in the county, are we really doing that? Every time we don’t approve a development in this corridor that development contributes to the sprawl. In the big picture, we’re hurting more that there are a lot of examples all around the nation about successful urban corridors accommodating a good amount of density together with the life wildlife not developing is not the only engine. The other question is that, you know, there’s the equator, you know, argument that is to say, this is a place for all the Longmont users. Well, it is underused, not all all my all Longmont citizens are using this place. And the reason is because of the underdeveloped parcels are around. So by saying that, you know, this is for the whole people and then not doing what it takes to attract people to use this. Conveniently. We’re not doing a justice either. What we’re saying is that, as it is under us right now, let’s keep it under us, even though a lot of public money said. So that’s my two cents on that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner on around Commissioner polen.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:29
First, I will address Commissioner heights question. I think it’s similar to where Commissioner on Iran was going. The problem is if we try to take each individual parcel as it comes up and apply the rules, it will be very hard to do any kind of I don’t want to say major development but areas to put in high density because a high density does take up quite a bit of land. And if you’re going to Say that every peripheral that comes up can only be less than 50% going toward high density, you’re really limiting how you’re going to try to develop those individual parcels, you’re not going to be able to go ahead and put in the high density housing that is needed to support that whole area. I think that’s getting back to what the city was saying. And what Commission on around was saying is, as we look at this, and we take a look at individual parcels, we can’t treat them as individual parcels because they are part of that neighborhood. And as the owner of leptin brewery said, they are looking for places nearby for their employees to live, that would help the the situation of that area, when I look at that area, I think of that area, it’s not very far from Hanover, and Nelson road, and the mall area there. And all the buildings there and all the businesses there, they could be supported by people, which would really be walking biking distance from this development. So this development isn’t just for this parcel, is to support that area. And I’m even going to say expand it out, it would be helpful for the areas outside but keeping with the city’s way the city views it, it would be beneficial for those other areas, which are now commercial industrial businesses in that area, and would support them. So that’s my viewpoint. It’s the fact that we can treat each individual personal because if we treat each individual parcel, we’re not going to be able to put in the high density housing that’s required to support that whole area. So that was my little diatribe on that. I do have some questions. I’m Eva. There seems to be one little piece of property to the east of this and to the north of the prior a annexation that we approved, which is unincorporated Boulder County. Do we have any idea what’s happening with that piece of property?

Unknown Speaker 1:57:09
Yes, Chair Srna Commissioner Paulin? As far as I know, no one’s approached the city asking to annex so it’s still in the county general industrial is currently served functioning as construction storage facility. When I go down there, it used to be last in construction. It was their offices and their, their truck and equipment storage. I don’t believe Lawson owns it anymore. But I know that it’s still some type of construction storage facility when I go out there. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:57:41
My next question is for Mr. Starnes. And it is what is going to happen to the existing buildings which are currently on this property.

Unknown Speaker 1:57:55
The existing building folk Commissioner polen, and chair, the existing buildings will be torn down. There’s a variety of tenants that we have in there now, as part of our redevelopment of the property 18 South sunset caddy corner, our goal will be to relocate some of the existing businesses, such as a vivid technology and a couple other businesses in there into our new space. There’s an industrial business in the back that we would work with to find new locations within Longmont. So they all the tenants that we have, they’re currently there are all aware of our process. And until, you know, assuming we’re successful moving forward, you know, we have leases within, but we will coordinate in terms of relocation, either within our future redevelopment site at 18, soundset, or elsewhere for them online. So they are up to speed on what’s going on.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:47
Very good. Thank you for that. Since I have you here. I have another question. This was brought by several of the people who have written in and called in wine now for the annexation. You know, just to get your opinion, your point of view on this, why now for it. While we know that nothing really can go on until the floodplain gets settled out for this is what’s what’s I want to say what’s the rush for this, but they’re happy to chime in as well. But our goal is.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:19
Yeah, so our goal, we understand that this can be a lengthy process, you know, we’ve engaged our development team, you know, we are working towards doing a little more Nick Clemmer, which, you know, it takes time and we, you know, believe that this infill site, I mean, we would like to be annexin because it we think it represents a great asset to the community to be redeveloped, but it takes time to get the property developed into go through the annexation process, and then the site plan and development process. So it can be, you know, year or two to do that entire thing. And so our goal is to get moving as soon as possible. on that. I’ll maybe have Tony chime in if you want to add some additional commentary if that’s okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:01
Yeah, no, I would I would agree with David it just it’s a long process, we have a lot of experience dealing with environmentally sensitive areas and floodplains. We’ve successfully navigated several sites in both in Castle Rock, Arvada golden, and it just takes several years to get through it, you know, really Our first step is to, is try to achieve annexation. And then once we have that work towards a site plan that everybody’s comfortable with, and once we have a site plan that that we feel is acceptable and is acceptable for the city, we then can start spending a little little bit more money chasing it with the engineering that it takes to work through the clumber process. So and those reviews sometimes take years to get through. So we kind of take this as a step approach to get the project ready to be developed.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:57
Thank you for that. I don’t know if this is for Chris or for Eva, I have a question. This is in regards. With the flood. One question would be why is there a particular reason why this area’s still unfunded? And B? Are there any benefits for the city by doing this annexation? Now, I know before when we talked about some of the properties out to the west of the city and the benefit and the fact that you can kind of link up areas and better do a continuous work, whereas trying to work with Boulder County, you’re introducing another person, there’s other things to work around. So two things. Is there a particular reason why it’s unfunded and b are there benefits for the city if we annexes. So, Commissioner Paul, I’m

Unknown Speaker 2:01:50
going to defer to Christopher on the first question about the funding. But to answer your second question. I one of the main benefits yes is for permitting purposes, they wouldn’t have to go through Boulder County permitting, which has a reputation of taking a really long time. They would be working through the city of Longmont floodplain administrator is board aleni for permitting, and I’m going to turn it over to Chris about the funding. Yes, Commissioner polen. And

Unknown Speaker 2:02:20
Chairman Charnock funding, obviously, we don’t have unlimited funds. So RSVP has been working through and prioritizing. And obviously, you can’t do a an upstream reach without doing the downstream reach to get the effects that you’re looking for, to try and bring the floodplain back into the channel. So we have to work from the bottom and up and getting the most bang for our buck. And getting the most properties out of the floodplain from the new hydrology that was done new mapping that’s flowing through the city as prioritize working from downstream to upstream. And as we’ve gone through, we have gained help from FEMA. We have several brands from FEMA, and a lot of city dollars that have gone into this project through the drainage fund. But then there’s also the transportation for all of the bridges and working with the railroad to reconstruct the bridge. It’s just we have limited funds, and we’re kind of at the end of what we have set aside and what the husband budgeted and approved through counsel. I’m not sure if that answers your question.

Unknown Speaker 2:03:45
That does that does. Thank you. Eva, I do have a question. This is in regards with the mixed use employment. There is some concern by the community about putting high density and in this case, high density next to Rogers Grove and then area. Are there any limitations as far as what type of residential property can go into a mixed use employment? In other words, can something like a single family development go into mixed use employment or does it have to be some kind of high density?

Unknown Speaker 2:04:27
Yes, Commissioner polen. Single Family residential is not a permitted use in the mixed use employment zone. It would have to be some type of multifamily development. And again, high density residential is allowed in the mixed use employment as a secondary level use. I did get that data for you. So there are about 54 acres in that little segment off between Boston Avenue and Rogers Grove and toward price road on the east includes left hand brewing with Lee’s furniture, a construction company among many Others.

Unknown Speaker 2:05:02
And out of those 54 acres, currently, there is no residential then

Unknown Speaker 2:05:07
there is no residential right now, currently, it’s all industrial users there.

Unknown Speaker 2:05:12
So we’re talking everything tells b 54. And we’re looking at about 20 ish that we’re going to put in residential here. Correct. Okay, thank you for that. And then one final question, at least for now, for me, um, the in the applicant pack, they mentioned that this was determined to be a blighted area, and I guess, who determine that and can you give a quick dissertation on what it means to be blighted? And I guess, what are different ways that you can get something to be unblinded? Right, Commissioner Paul,

Unknown Speaker 2:05:55
and I’m going to have David Starnes answer that question, because I’m not involved in this blight study. We do have a redevelopment manager at the city, Tony chicon. But I’m not familiar with this blight study. So I’m going to turn it over to David.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:13
Thank you, Mr. Polling? Chairman, I’m sure Nick. Yes, our goal. You know, we had a blight ablaze study is related to under state statute for urban renewal and aronow defines play to seven criteria, whether it’s, you know, it has environmental contamination, or odd lots that meet just a criteria. Because of the nature of you know, this site, you know, that it’s underutilized, it’s undeveloped. Our goal is to look at a larger urban renewal district for this entire area. We’ve been in communication with some of the adjacent property owners. We had a blight study, you know, several years ago, that just kind of looked at identifying conditions of blight, which they did. Obviously, city council as a city or renewal authority takes action on visiting a renewal area that was never processed back then. Our goal? Should they ever be interested in working with adjacent owners, and working with Tony Chicago from the city would be to present a proposal to the urban authority about looking at an urban renewal area and then doing an updated flight site that we did that we would need to do again, since it’s been several years. So that’s the goal. And again, with ermanno statute, you know, in blight, the goal is to potential use on financing to assist in remediation of these bloody conditions, and provide economic development opportunities that would remove the blight. So that’s kind of where we are now, we haven’t formally submitted anything or proposal we just been doing some internal discussions. And then we’ll be working with the city’s redevelopment manager to explore updating of life study and then proposing that to city council and urban authority at some point in the future, assuming we’re successful with moving forward the annexation process. It helps me answer. Yes, it does. Thank you. That’s all I have for right now. Hey, thank you for Mr. Bond, Commissioner Boone. Thank you, Chair Sherman. I wanted to just comment on Commissioner heights comments.

Unknown Speaker 2:08:26
I support his concern about secondary uses. In this particular case, especially because the development is going to happen for years. And it really, it really appears that if some if an applicant is trying to put residential units into a mixed use development, and therefore using the surrounding district, for the percentages that the first one in kind of has a benefit. And then once that’s granted, it limits what maybe other surrounding properties would do. So that’s that’s a concern. Personally, I think it’s premature to accept any kind of a concept development plan at this point. And I don’t know if we can approve an annexation of this type without this particular preliminary concept plan. It seems like once a flood mitigation happens that the setbacks are going to change the developable area is going to change, etc, and that it’s premature to even consider this content plan at this point. Also per the applicant’s own words, right? Relative to number of units, I believe he defined it as medium density. That especially would be true of the duplex area. And medium density is not an around use secondary use for this. So let me so those are those are my comments with respect to the secondary use, I’m concerned about the secondary use. There have been some recent applications where the whole district was considered for the secondary use. And it was, I think, fair, because development was eminent and it was going to happen right away, this is going to be years with the flood mitigation, it’s going to be years and years. So that’s really all I have to say about that. I’m concerned that the only habitat information we have is from March to the winter when a lot of stuff isn’t happening. And I think some of the callers and some of the letters also expressed those concerns, I realized that none of that is final at this point, just just a concern. That’s all I have for now. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:20
Thanks, Commissioner Boone. Commissioner Goldberg, before we get to you, I’d like to try to address when a commissioner burns questions by asking Glen Van inwagen to explain something for us if I could Glen. Here. So Commissioner Boone, just made the point that using this district approach to considering secondary uses could favor the first one. And And could you explain to us how the city staff responds to that. And I’ll just add on to another scenario that I’ve been kind of bouncing around in my head since Commissioner heights comments, which is, if we’ve got a district area, and one developer is putting in, say, you know, a little bit more residential than might normally be allowed as a secondary use, then somebody else comes in and say, uses up the rest of residential as a secondary use for that district. And what happens to the last person, I mean, this is kind of just a restating of Commissioner Boone’s first one and benefit. But, but I’m looking at at the end, like, so the last person to develop if all of the residential as a secondary use has been used for the district, and how does the city then track that? Then, how’s that fair for the last developer? So two questions.

Unknown Speaker 2:13:16
Yeah, those are good questions. I guess when I thought it through after talking to the staff and how we’ve made this interpretation, I guess I kind of lean towards maybe what Commissioner korkut was talking about is think about creating and I’ll say it another way a walkable area, I think that’s kind of the goal of the mixed use area is that you’re providing jobs, shopping and housing opportunities close together. But then you also have to think where should those retail users be located? Where should the employment uses be located? you typically want those out on the corner of arterials. So there is some location, you know, the first first one in I don’t know how to deal with that. That is, I think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. And if they have an opportunity to create a mixed use district, and you’re meeting all those land use criterias of what properties need the best access? And how do you buffer and another case, you might be buffering existing neighborhoods where you wouldn’t want to put industrial uses right up against them. So I wish there was just an easy formula, you could just plug in the numbers and boom and tell you what those land uses are, but ultimately, I think you’re gonna have to take them on a case by case basis. And ultimately, there might be a you know, a 20 acre parcel that the only uses employment and then their alternative would be, you know, they could come in and maybe try and amend the comprehensive plan. And to make a case of why employment doesn’t work in that particular case. But that’s, that’s kind of a tough road to go down.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:09
So, let me follow on with if if a project like this, which has such a long lead time, because of all the plumbers and everything for the flood, plain, etc, that needs to all be worked out. If there’s another lot in this district that we’re talking about that, that the city is looking at, as an aggregate, if somebody came up and said, Yeah, I’ve got this, this project, and and I can get it built within a year and a half. And the project in front of us tonight is still, you know, working its way through, um, does the city say, Well, no, you can’t because, you know, we’ve already used up all of our residential, we’ve committed the residential percentage for this district, to this project that’s going to take, you know, four years. So no, we, we can’t actually let you do that, because somebody is already committed to that.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:21
So the other parcel would already be annexed and ready to go. Yeah, I’m saying, Yeah, yeah. I don’t know if the city is faced that situation. I would say we’ve kind of made a commitment through a conceptual plan. So I’ll top my head I would say you’re right, we’ve kind of set the land uses. Okay, from from

Unknown Speaker 0:00
The annexation standpoint, I guess I’ve always felt that somebody is willing to annex now. You get them now, because now, the city can control what happens on that property. There are some small benefits because we do get property taxes now versus later on the property, certainly for vacant land. It’s not that high, but there are some benefits to getting it annex now that the city realizes. Okay, thanks, Glenn. Appreciate your expertise, or Commissioner Goldberg.

Unknown Speaker 0:40
Yeah, thanks, Chairman. Listen, I want to start by thanking Chairman boon for her feedback here. This was really, I think, a good time to be having this discussion. But maybe the first thing I’d like to do is ask Eva. Just a follow up off of Chairman boons comment. She mentioned that, given the lower density that we were discussing that the lower density of housing that was presented or that that Chairman shrink revealed, that may be entering us into a type of housing that’s not permitted as a secondary use. In this area, can you can you start there is given the updated numbers, the lower numbers, are we is this apples to apples here? Are we able to use the secondary conditional use as a as an option here or we dabbled into neutering

Unknown Speaker 1:42
a chair? Sure. And again, Commissioner Goldberg, in our land development code, and our zoning standards, mixed use employment, while it doesn’t allow single family houses, it does allow attached residential so the townhomes there would be permitted with site plan review. And then in terms of the density, you know, that the what you’re referring to and the secondary use as part of our comprehensive plan, where it says, high density can be allowed. And I think that we would include the townhomes with the whole project as an aggregate, that it’s essentially higher density. And we do allow different forms of that building to look like in sort of there would be some apartments, and then there would be towns.

Unknown Speaker 2:30
Thanks, that helps me move along with my line of questioning a little more confidently. But I guess the first thing I wanted to follow up with that with is with a ton of respect for Commissioner Hi, you know, we’ve addressed this how are we calculating percentages? You know, is it by lot, or by the region or district, we’ve discussed that now in a meeting or two. And I’m gonna just second Commissioner honor and honor on stands here. I can’t be as eloquent as he was. So I’ll just say, what he said, you know, in the end, I like stepping back, recognizing what is the goal that we’re trying to achieve? What is the objective of the rule? What’s the reasoning behind the rule, and then really, I see us as kind of the referees, you know, here on the meeting to determine and make sure that our rules are, are meeting those goals. And, and so there’s a little bit of, there’s something organic there. And, and I think we do a really good job of that and recognizing when the rules need some varying or not So, but given the feedback from the, from Eva and team, how they’re calculating it, I’m just going to move forward confidently and comfortably with this kind of high level analysis rather than per lot analysis. Although I appreciate your your perspective. Eva, one of the members of the public, Ruby Bowman took issue with the line, the residential portion would be a compatible neighbor to the Sebring Creek on the north, and Rogers Grove neitra area to the west. I guess my question is just real simple. Why did we put that in there? Why do we feel comfortable that this is compatible? Given the nature areas around us? Can you just give us a little insight to your thinking behind that? Yes, Crusher. Goldberg,

Unknown Speaker 4:35
I think that when we look at land uses, particularly near a nature area, we look to find the least intensive land use near a nature area. You know, if you had an industrial use, right, this is essentially zoned as you know, those are going to be more impactful. There will be more traffic there’ll be more noise potentially right? More Potential lighting impacts if they have night duties, and so the least impactful land use typically is residential, particularly against nature area.

Unknown Speaker 5:13
That’s where we were coming. Thank you. Yeah, I think that that’s great feedback. I think it was, forgive me instead, the newest member to our team handle more Roy, who was speaking around the species and habitat studies, the environmental site assessments. Eva, is it true? Sorry, I still kind of directing this toward Eva. I’m just giving credit to the two who was offering the feedback. Even what I heard was that a, you know, the feedback in the pega was that the site assessments, the speed, the speed, and habitat assessment all kind of met the burden disco round, but that there will be opportunity to revisit those or have those done closer to the actual development. Could you just spend a second touching on some of these nature studies? When will they be revisited? You know, there was concerns around seasonality I heard Hannah say that we can ask for that to be done during the summer and not the winter. But when when again, will we see these these these studies again?

Unknown Speaker 6:20
Yes, Commissioner Goldberg. So again, all one word, when we get an annexation application, we’re really just taking stock of what’s out there, what we need to be mindful of, are there any federal or state protected species, we should be aware of things of that nature, you know, any birds. But really, when you know, if the property’s annexed and a development application comes in you absolutely every time request a fresh species and habitat study. We we and we look into those in great detail because this is right, this is the more detail area, this is the site plan. So we really want to get into more details. Whereas we’re kind of looking at it on a higher level during annexation, like these are things we need to look out for. These are things that could be an issue, we didn’t identify anything, that could be a significant issue, if we annexed in this property. But again, if it’s annexed, and they decide to come in with a development application, will require a fresh species and habitat report. That’ll be reviewed again by Jim and Hannah, as well, to make sure that everything’s in compliance with not just local on our regulations, but state and federal regulations as well.

Unknown Speaker 7:36
Great into when if this gets annexin in if and when there’s a development, we’ll have to meet the setback requirements of the river resiliency and brain project, will it have to be, you know, 150 foot Forgive me while I read a building setback from the creek and 100 feet setback from Rogers Grove, unless there’s some variance granted?

Unknown Speaker 8:02
That’s correct. Commissioner Goldberg. So upon development, one of their things they’ll have to show and prove up in their species and habitat report is where the edge of the riparian area is, and then the setback will be taken 150 feet from that have any more detailed questions on that? I’ll toss it back to Hannah and Jim. But that’s generally speaking, the requirement and then it’s 100 feet from Rogers, again, only only if the newly revised upon development species and habitat study shows that there is riparian habitat on the east side of Rogers grow, you know, that would be a budding this property, then yes, those would be the requirements, our expectation from city planning is that you set back the buildings and parking and get it out of that 100 or 150 foot setback. And then if they are not able to, for whatever reason, they would have to go through that variance process with the sustainability evaluation system that city council recently implemented.

Unknown Speaker 9:08
Great. And would this excuse me, would this property or any development have to be officially out of the floodway? You know, I think in the packet is so that it had to be removed from the floodway that working on komar. I won’t pretend to be able to describe exactly what that is. But governing bodies above us will determine that this is this property is now safe or out of the floodway entirely.

Unknown Speaker 9:33
I Yes, for sure. golberg. I can I can toss it over to Cameron or Chris. But that’s generally you have the correct answer. You can’t develop anything in the floodway right until you get squared up with FEMA. And so they would need a conditional letter of map revision before we would allow any development. And I don’t know if Chris or Cameron want to add anything to that they miss anything.

Unknown Speaker 9:58
Mr. Goldberg is just Cameron I think a we’ve got it covered correctly. You’re correct a vote. There’s no development allowed in the floodway until the Colomer has been approved by FEMA, and then, you know, in the future, they finish out with a lower process. That’s correct.

Unknown Speaker 10:16
Great. Great. Thanks, Cameron. And Eva. You know, I think that then I’m inclined to just look back at some of the comments from our public. I think it was Sherry, Sherry Malloy, who mentioned kind of the lens of common good. And when I look back at our packet, I looked at, you know, how does this integration and project How will this all fit with the comp plan, and are just greater goals. And there’s a pretty long list of how this will help us help the greater good and help, you know, our long run community as a whole. They’re listed on page nine, we see recognizing goal 1.1, embracing a compact and efficient pattern of growth 1.1, a prioritizing the development of sites located within the service area, or infrastructure, or is readily provided, supporting the adaptive reuse or redevelopment of underutilized areas, promoting a sustainable mix of land uses, striving for that balance mix of residential climate, and retail, continuing continuing to work towards completing the Greenway system. You know, there’s a bunch of them there, there’s probably 10 of them listed there that are all, I think, really looking at our town and each project through the lens of common good. So I really appreciate it just kind of reflecting on that. You know, and I guess, recognizing that what we had when we hear time and time, again, is the need for increased housing inventory. And while it’s a little bit of a bummer, that it’s not high density, you know, everything is in high density so that we can start addressing the housing needs, and solving the housing needs in our town. We are seeing that nice mix of medium and higher density projects coming through. We’ve approved several of them in the last year or so. And here’s another one that just seems like a good fit for our town. So, I guess with you know, I’m leaning to be supportive of the annexation and zoning and concept plan. So maybe I’ll stop there and just see if there’s any feedback from the commission before we make the next move. Any other comments? Any motions? Mr. Bolen? First of all, I’d like to comment on this. Given the thought that was put into invention long Mac, given the fact that Boulder County had put this as industrial use for this whole area, you could have been out towards even the pond towards Rogers Grove all the way out there, it could have been developed, it just never was because nobody ever wants to develop that there wasn’t an industrial need for that. I think that this is actually a good use. It is what envision Longmont looked for in this kind of area, this kind of mixed use, maybe it is a little bit for this parcel, a little bit heavy on the residential. But I do agree with the city’s view that you look at it as the overall area for mixed use employment in the area. And in that case, it does fit. I do find that this is something that is needed. We heard the business community say that yes, we do need more residential use in this area. We do need more people who can live and do easy transportation, walking, biking, whatever it is to get to those businesses, you know, the business community has spoken.

Unknown Speaker 14:03
Given the fact that envision Longmont already envisioned putting something in this area, they didn’t envision it being an open area.

Unknown Speaker 14:11
I do think that this is a good development for it. I do understand the applicants need In saying that, hey, we just want to start the process. Now. It’s going to take us multiple years, we know that we understand that there’s going to be changes may potentially down the road depending what happens with the with the work on that on the left hand Creek but they’re okay with starting the process now getting it in and starting to work on it. Given the fact that we do have the 150 foot setback from riparian areas and that they would have to go through and ask forbearance for the apps. I think there is protection down the road to make sure that things are reviewed. I think that as a general concept, what they’re looking for in this area, what they’re putting into this asset plan, which is why they want to annex it, I think it is a good use. So what I’d like to do at this time is I would like to move that we approve PCR 2021 seven a Okay, we

Unknown Speaker 15:14
have a motion to approve PCR 2021 dash seven a I would like to put a friendly amendment or a suggestion to change the motion to PCR 2021 seven B in order to add a condition to correct the concept plan densities to align them with a traffic study before this is sent to city council, something like that.

Unknown Speaker 15:55
I would be amenable to that. Yeah, and I try to hit that note I just missed it. So yes. Okay. So could we restate? Sure. What I would like to do is is approved PCR 2021 seven B with the condition that we update our that the applicants update the map that is supplied with the proper numbers that shows their intended build out of approximately 320 ish to make the number square but however the the terminology for that is okay. All right. Commissioner honor. I second. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to approve PCR 2021 dash seven be seconded by Commissioner honor on and for Jane for our recording secretary for her purposes. The intention and commercial polling Don’t let me put words in your mouth change this if if you want but I think the intention of the condition on seven be would be to ensure that the densities expressed on the concept plan need to align with the traffic study before this goes to city council. Is that acceptable? commissionable? That is optimal? Okay. That’s your owner on since you seconded. Do you agree with that as well? Yes, I do. Okay, great. So, um, let me just chime in with my own thoughts about some of the discussion. I agree with Commissioner honor on Commissioner Goldberg, Commissioner polen. about this project overall. But I completely recognize Commissioner heightened Commissioner boons concerns about the first person in and about each individual part parcel not meeting what some of the state standards are so. So we’re in a kind of a difficult position. And I’m going to iside more on the side of looking at the bigger picture. And trying not to, as Commissioner owner on pointed out, trying not to contribute to sprawl. I also think, Mr. Wallace, when he called in, he pointed out that this is an infill project, it’s not going to contribute to sprawl, we need denser higher in the core. I like how he summarized that that those are, those are three goals, which will help the city in the long run. And, and so those have made me lean towards supporting risk of Commissioner Poland. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 19:02
on that. I agree with Lauren, Ben, Norwegian, that you kind of have to look at things on a case by case basis. This is not the case where we’re looking at the first person and who’s taken the entire pie to put residential. We’re looking at somebody who’s really come into an area where there’s not much left to input after this gets done. And they are saying, you know, what, currently, there’s no residential in this infill area and we think that there needs to be more than infill so on this case by case basis, if you look on a case by case basis, for me, this is easier to to justify the fact that yes, we do need residential in this area. There’s it’s not like we’re preventing anybody coming along down the road to do residential in this area. So this isn’t the person who’s doing the first is getting the benefit this this one is they saw a need and they’re not preventing anybody down the road from from awesome trying to meet that need. would agree that in the future, if there are developments where we’re looking at it, it’s a bigger area with more undeveloped area around it, that yes, that would be something to consider. I just don’t think for this particular issue that that comes into play. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 20:18
I’m pretty sure around you have your hand up, but I’m not sure if that was from previous.

Unknown Speaker 20:22
It’s from the previous I don’t know how to shut it down. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 20:27
There should be a lower hand command, you might get it in the three dots. Yeah, I think he got it. Commissioner height.

Unknown Speaker 20:40
Thanks. I just want to reiterate that when envision law was being put together, we’re moving around a zoning map and we’re putting together zoning districts, some of us were concerned about where industry where business or commercial enterprises were going to take place. And that to be entirely a residential area. residential areas, sometimes tend to develop NIMBY attitudes to encroach businesses and commercial enterprises. In particular, s this particular project across the street, the former loss and storage are now being used by somebody else as a storage yard for construction equipment, not annexed into the city. If and when it wants to come in as the when it comes in after this project is developed, it’s gonna have a tough time when the adjacent 20 acre parcel 18 acres of witches developed as residential, for this property to be for this is just made up Lawson project I’m talking about for it to be anything other than somewhat compatible with residential activities, which is flipping the dog over on its back by the tail. We have now allowed a secondary uses become a primary use, which potentially proved prohibits the primary use from taking place on a property next door. I read secondary use the way in a common sense manner, I think it’s applied to the lot. It’s how we apply our zoning standards across the board. So I beat this to death. I really suggest that that what we possibly need to do is suggest a text amendment to our code. If this is the way we as a church interpret the zoning codes to apply at a district level as opposed to a parcel level. Thanks. Commissioner Boone.

Unknown Speaker 22:57
Thank you. I just wanted to reiterate that I do totally support infill and infill residential and high density residential because I think that it’s needed in this city. I wish we could separate the

Unknown Speaker 23:16
zoning and annexation from the concept plan because I totally support the annexation and zoning I just don’t support the concept plan. So I don’t even know how to vote because I only support part of it. I guess that’s all for now. Thank you. further conversation, comments, anything? Okay,

Unknown Speaker 23:48
so we have a motion on the floor for approving PCR 2021 f seven D. Let’s do a roll call vote. I’m starting with Commissioner boom.

Unknown Speaker 24:02
Hey, I knew I was gonna go first. Actually, you know want to be to be fair, given your I didn’t think about it. Let me let me do it in a different different order.

Unknown Speaker 24:12
I don’t mind I don’t mind going first. That’s okay. Um, you know, I would like it on record that I don’t support the concept plan, but I am going to support the motion.

Unknown Speaker 24:22
And we will see down the line in my opinion that this concept plan will change. Okay, so that’s a yes. That’s a reluctant Yes. Okay. Commissioner height is a nay. Okay. Commissioner polen. Yes. Commissioner teta? Yes. Commissioner Goldberg. He has commissure on around. Yes.

Unknown Speaker 24:54
And I will also vote yes. So Jane that passes 123621 with Commissioner height, dissenting, and I need to find our statement here. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you’re unfamiliar with counsel procedures and intend to appear before counsel, please contact the planning division for further information at 303-651-8330. I want to thank the applicant and their team for coming tonight and explaining their project to us. And, Eva, we have you for the rest of the night. So hang in there. Commissioner polen. Did you also

Unknown Speaker 25:49
I would like to the public. I think it’s been noted that there were 17 people, some foreign some against this. But once again, it was good to see the public in putting on this, getting their ideas, getting their thoughts, allowing us to have a good discussion about this. So once again, want to thank the public for that. Yep,

Unknown Speaker 26:11
totally agree. Thanks for mentioning that Commissioner ball and it’s 945 I think we could all use about a five minute break. So how about if we reconvene at 950? All right. See in a bit.

Unknown Speaker 31:37
Alright chair, I’m going to go ahead and drop the slide. And then we will wait for the live stream to get caught up like it says. Alright, looks like we’re all back. Great.

Unknown Speaker 32:08
Welcome back, everybody. We’re moving on to item six B on our agenda which is 1402 Kaufman street conditional use site plan. Eva para cesky. Could you please walk us through the project?

Unknown Speaker 32:23
Certainly Thank you cherish your neck and commissioners, Susan, thank you. Alright, we’re gonna queue this up. So this is the 1402 craft mystery conditioning site plan. Again, Eva, Petit Jeff ski Planning and Development Services. Next slide, please. So again, I’m going to just give you some background. So this property, kind of a larger parcel any kind of backs on to two streets. But for the purposes of this development, it’s taking place on the east side of Kauffman Street, as you see from this map. It’s north of Mountain View Avenue, on the south side of Mountain View, is the cemetery there. And then this property is again is part of a larger parcel, it kind of curves around toward Main Street. And there’s currently a commercial business there on Main Street, a tire shop elga, you two tires. And then there’s a house on the would be the Northwest section of the property. On the top left side, there’s a house there. And then the rest of this parcel is primarily has nothing on it, there is a garage there, kind of toward the east side of the property line. There’s a used car victory motors sales business that abuts this property to the east on Main Street, and its zoning is mixed use corridor. Next slide please. And so with that subdivision, as I was just telling you about, as you can see from the arrows, they’re creating a lot line up on the north end, so it will kind of separate off the tire shop and the house there on the north side, leaving about a half acre parcel or so slightly larger. And so the minor subdivision is something that’s gone through an administrative review with with the development review committee. And then after this lot was reconfigured into this new lot. They submitted a conditional use site plan application. And that’s to develop this property with a 6300 square foot commercial building. One of the tenants bases would be for auto repair, which is a conditional use in the mixed use corridor when it’s 250 feet from a residential use. And I apologize but from that previous slide of Susan, if you would just throw up the previous slide real quick Sorry about that. Um, if you look to the left of the yellow parcel on Kaufman street or to the west, those Are all apartment buildings. So we could go back to the next slide. And so our land development code while this type of business would be allowed by right, it is allowed by right in the mixed use corridor. It’s conditional because of its proximity to those apartments. Additionally, there’s two other tenants bases that the applicant proposes for light industrial uses. Again, those are allowed uses by right in the mixed use corridor. However, if you have more than 5000 square feet of that type of land use, it’s a conditional use. So the whole site plan is a conditional use site plan. The development review team went through the development standards, it meets all of our standards. So there’s no variances associated with this, it meets our landscaping, parking, setbacks, height, etc. And as you can see, there’s an existing garage on the east side of the property there. And that’s planned to remain and serve as an accessory structure to this next slide, please. So these are just the building elevations the applicants also has a presentation. But again, this project does meet our land development code is a one story with a clear story. 24 feet in height 64% of the front facade facing conference street provides glazing awnings, entrance doors, its primary building materials are stuggle has a stone wainscott, and some painted metal panels as well where you see the black. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 36:38
So again, the reason this is a conditional use, again, just to reiterate, is because might industrial and automotive repair use as well, they’re allowed by right? If you’re within 250 feet of a residential use, or if you have more than 5000 square feet of light industrial, you’ve got to get conditional use approval. So staff looked at the performance standards section of our code to see what limitations or notes we can add. And we had them add some notes on the cover page of the site plan. And there are restrictions on hours of operation for delivery, and outdoor areas to mitigate any impacts to the residential to the west. We also received an acoustic study from the applicant and the acoustic study. Because ultimately determined that the uses wouldn’t exceed the allowable ambient noise levels. And finally, there were really minimal traffic impacts associated with this development would generate about 76 vehicle trips a day. And they do provide on site parking. Next slide, please. And so just in terms of community input, and we had a neighborhood meeting back in November of 2018, because it’s a conditional use, we notified 1000 foot radius, so we did capture a very large audience. However, only one person came to that meeting. They didn’t identify any concerns, they were just there out of curiosity. And so it took the applicant a while to submit their actual application after the neighborhood meeting. Excuse me, the code does not have a limitation on time and or, you know, a maximum amount of time for you to turn in a notice of application after a neighborhood meeting. But so we determined that although a couple of years had passed, because there was so little public input at the neighborhood meeting, we would go ahead and accept the notice of application. We sent out a notification again to 1000 foot radius and posted the signs. We did tell the applicant that if any significant concerns were raised, that we would put it back to another neighborhood meeting. And we did not get any comments when I sent out that notice of application. We then sent out a notice of application and posted signs on August 3. And again, I hadn’t received any comments from the public. Next slide. And so at this time staff is recommending approval of resolution eight be conditional approval. We had some just a few loose end comments from Cameron folks and public works. They were really engineering design, not really anything that would impact the footprint or the design of this project. And so again, we just recommend conditional approval, that they turn in revised drawings to meet the development review committee’s corrections. Next slide. And with that, I’ll turn it over to the applicant. I believe Paul Sorenson will be making the presentation for the applicant and then we’ll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Hi,

Unknown Speaker 39:57
I’m Paul Sorensen, was Sorenson edge During construction and we do really appreciate your your taking a look at our project. We’ll try to keep it our presentation pretty short. As as David mentioned, this is the 1402 Kaufman street minor plat and conditional use site plan. And we’re proposing a new commercial building in the M mu C mixed use corridor. Next Next slide please. As as, as a again discussed this is a minor subdivision to construct a 6200 square foot building. It’s going to include three commercial bays all allowed proposed uses in the mec mixed use corridor including vehicle repair and maintenance, and light industrial manufacturing. This also supports envision Longmont characteristics for mixed use corridor. It may contain a diverse use of uses and types of structures encourages appropriate transitions of uses densities and building designs between mixed use corridors adjacent neighborhoods, and it’s a targeted infill and redevelopment project. Next slide, please. I would like I would like to now turn it over briefly to john bags of Russell Mills studios. They are they did the site plan and the landscaping and john can describe you know, the the various landscaping and all the effort we went through with the with the city to come up with with this plan that you’re looking at now that we feel is going to be a pretty attractive amenity to the city. So with that, I’ll turn it over to john at this point. Yeah, thanks, Paul. Thanks to the commissioners. So I was just gonna do a little bit deeper dive on the site plan kind of explained the nuts and bolts of a little bit of the design here. So Kaufman streets on the left, so plan North there is an existing sidewalk along Kaufmann.

Unknown Speaker 42:02
What we decided to do is we’ve we’ve set that building back 20 feet from the sidewalk there in created a another sidewalk adjacent to the building

Unknown Speaker 42:15
have a concrete stairs that come up towards the middle of that sidewalk acting as an access point. But there’s also access accessible access on the south side near the the access vehicle access point.

Unknown Speaker 42:32
One thing to keep in mind is week we pulled the concrete sidewalk adjacent to the building off just slightly so we could bring in some foundation planting. We definitely wanted to make sure that we grounded the building in some in some landscape. Along Kauffman street there is a small Parkway there with turf grass and ornamental trees, there is overhead lines. So putting any large deciduous trees is not possible. Going around to the north side of the building, there is an access walk that connects that the walk in front of the building along the west side and then connects to the to the parking area along the east side. There’s a small gathering picnic table there for you know,

Unknown Speaker 43:23
having lunch or having a break for any one of these three businesses. And then as you move from that, that space, there’s an accessible route that’s outlined.

Unknown Speaker 43:36
actually kind of a long run if you run from the the picnic table to the east, and then up against the existing garage south. And then it’s the van accessible space. So there’s our accessible space there, along with some additional parking spaces. To the south of that there’s a trash enclosure that would match the the architecture that’s proposed with the building with a couple of trash dumpsters there. There was a large existing tree on the south side that we wanted to do everything that we could to preserve that. So we jogged the curb around that in order to preserve that along the south side. wanted to create a buffer there. I did want to point out that there is an existing fence along the east side that we’re going to keep and maintain. It’s in good shape. So there there was no need to remove it. We are going to add landscape along that edge. We are going to replace the the fence along the south side. Add some additional landscaping there. And then to round out the site plan there is the proposed access we’ll have a vehicle gate there, one to add some security to this space but also to create a visual buffer there. As well, when the businesses are closed, that’s all I had. I’m going to hand it over to Abby Rutledge with markley designs. The designer for the the architecture side. Next Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 45:26
Thank you, john, commissioners. So as Eva previously mentioned, we’ve worked closely with city planners throughout this design period to create what we believe is an attractive building facade, which meets the city’s development code. Particularly, we have used a variety of material textures and colors, as well as ample fenestration along with vertical and horizontal building articulation, to create a building that should not only serve to be as nice fit within the surrounding neighborhood, but should enhance the expectation of a commercial building within this mixed use corridor. The horizontal articulation being used is areas of overbilled from the main metal building structure, which will incorporate finishes varying from those on the main structure. We use contrasting light and dark tones in order to create depth additional to the overbuild articulation. For the vertical articulation we use we’ve used four sections of parapets in varying length for enhanced visual interest. With our forming alternating materials, large windows and awnings, and our vertical and horizontal or protrusions. I think we’ve got a pretty great design that we’re all excited to see progress. We hope you’ll agree. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Abby. Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 46:41
So just to just to summarize, we feel as though that we are presenting the city with a very attractive new commercial building that will that will be an amenity for the city for for many, many years to come. Our proposal, we believe complies with city standards. The city Longmont land development code conditional use approval under Section 15 oh 206 C and so we comply with that as well as section 15 oh 4.030 D which restricts uses for automotive maintenance within 250 feet of a residential unit. So in accordance with the with the conditional use requirements, there’ll be no vehicle bodywork or painting done on this site. There’ll be no outside vehicle repair or maintenance. And so and as Abby pointed out, we meet the architectural standards as far as exterior materials and color scheme go facade appearance and articulation which we worked greatly with the city staff on on coming up with with those design elements that meet the the code requirements. We have access in parking provided Ada access, and we handle the drainage on the site as well. Next slide please. So we do recognize the on a conditional site approval criteria, we do recognize that conditions that we have to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties and with other things and mitigate potential adverse impacts. And so this proposal is compatible with allowed uses in the mec zoning. It’s compatible with neighboring similar land uses along Kauffman street for example. Directly north of the site. There’s another business called car works at six at 1406 kauflin, which is another auto repair shop. There’s Laura tire company just to the south and across costs Kaufman street from us tire sales and service and victory motors, which has their main facility on Main Street also has another facility just south of us at 1330 Kaufman so we’re compatible with the neighboring land uses along Kaufman Street. And I think really importantly, we’re also compatible with long term goals and city of Longmont for this mixed use corridor. Next slide please. So this is a vehicle repair and maintenance service again within 250 feet of a residential uses along West Kauffman Street. And in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts from that. We’ve agreed that there’ll be no outdoor vehicle repair or maintenance activities. There’ll be no outdoor storage or displays of vehicle equipment unlicensed, inoperable or junk vehicles. And all activities that generate noise, odor, vibration, glare or any other adverse impacts will all be conducted indoors. More will limit the Hours of operation from 7am to 7pm. And the exterior lighting that we propose will all be directed inward and downward. So in general, we feel as though we’re offering to the city a really fine new building that meets all the codes in this corridor. And we hope you would agree. Next slide, please. So with that said, we really appreciate your time. I know it’s been a long night for you all, and we’re willing to entertain any questions you may have. Thank you. Great. Thank

Unknown Speaker 50:38
you very much, Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Beggs and Miss Rutledge. Thanks for your presentation. This is a public hearing item. And so I would like to open up the public hearing on this. So Susan, if we could put up our slide with our calling information. Thank you. If you want to speak about this project, now’s the time to call in please call 1888780099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 82883653145. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we’ll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon. We need five minutes to do this. So we’re going to take a five minute break. We’ll be back at about 1015

Unknown Speaker 55:45
All right, sure I’m about to drop the slide. There you are. Okay. Let’s go ahead and give our live stream just a minute to get caught back up. And we have had no one call in.

Unknown Speaker 56:04
Okay, thank you, Susan. So seeing no one being present for the public hearing, we’ll close the public hearing part of this, this item, and we will go to discussion on questions with the commission.

Unknown Speaker 56:20
Anybody? Commissioner Boone? Oops, you’re still muted. Okay. My question is, there’s not very much parking. Um, I see five parking spots. Because I have enough to put the site plan up again. And will there be a parking impact to the neighborhood? Because you have to do street parking. I know street parking is allowed. But sure. I’m sorry, Commissioner Boone.

Unknown Speaker 57:13
Um, actually, the city does not have minimum parking requirements for commercial businesses. That’s in our land development code. We only have parking maximums. So we leave it up to each business owner applicant to determine what the right amount of parking is for them. They just can’t exceed a certain amount. And in this case, Oh, I’d have to go look at my code. I think it was one 251 for every 200. I’ll check the code right now. But at any rate, it didn’t exceed the maximum allowable parking.

Unknown Speaker 57:46
I can see that it doesn’t exceed the maximum my question, I guess, is to the applicant, as to is there enough? Or is there going to be parking on the street? So I I’ll take that one.

Unknown Speaker 58:09
It was determined with with the applicant and client that this amount of parking would meet their needs for the uses that were within the building. Up, you need a mute. Commissioner, boom, did you have more to say? Ah, no, I

Unknown Speaker 58:39
guess not. I guess not. There’s not a minimum requirement. It just seems.

Unknown Speaker 58:45
It just seems to me like there’s not enough and that parking will impact the neighbors. That it’s a very attractive building. Thank you for this report.

Unknown Speaker 59:02
Yeah, as a follow up to that question, how many employees do they expect to have when all three of those buildings are occupied? Which would go a long way to determine or for us to help kind of get a feel for the parking spaces versus what’s going to be used up and what how many people are gonna have to park out? off on Kaufman?

Unknown Speaker 59:30
I can I can probably take that. I’m not sure. I know that the owner will be in the northern Bay is automotive repair and he has just himself and one other person. He’s kind of a specialty automobile repair. He doesn’t really work on normal cars. It’s he works on race cars from the middle of the last century. His clients run him in rallies. So he does just a real specialty type of type of shop. In fact, his floors are so clean, you can fry an egg on it and then be fine. Unlike most auto repair shops, the other Bay is yet to be leased. I think this, the third one is currently, one of his tenants on the 1401 main street side is going to go down into there. And so they are already, you know, parking along the main street lot they don’t have I don’t know what their employee count is. But the parking stalls that we present were were designed in cooperation with the owner and the existing tenant. And with the prospective other tenant, we feel as though they don’t really have a real high parking demand. It’s not like a, you know, a retail shop or something where you’re going to have a lot of customers coming in, in and out all the time. The owners shop is, you know, his customers come by maybe, you know, rarely drop the car off, he’ll fix it and they’ll come and pick it up. So they don’t have a lot of a lot of customer or other traffic. And it’s our understanding that the parking space we’ve provided is acceptable to the owner and to his prospective tenants. So

Unknown Speaker 1:01:21
that’s where we are. Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Sorenson. Commissioner Hi. Thank you, Mr. Carson. I have a question regarding the subdivision of this property right now it’s one lot is that correct? Well, it’s

Unknown Speaker 1:01:40
it’s a couple of lots, there’s the 1401 lot, the 14 one main street lot, which we’re not really doing much on except for some maintenance improvements on the on the drainage into concrete. And then there’s the existing house that the owner currently lives in, which is addressed 1402 Kaufman that’s on the north corner. And so this larger lot was part of that original lot from that house, the garage the existing garage was part of that that original house so we’re subdividing it into three lots the existing house will maintain its basically its lot the way it is now is going to be shortened a little bit on the south side of that lot. The 14 on one main street side will become a separate lot and then the new building will will get re addressed I presume and it will be a third block

Unknown Speaker 1:02:32
okay and it looks like the house sits off to itself but as I’m looking at it looks like it’s lot two and last one last one being the new building live like to be in the existing 14 or one main street. They’re connected by a driveway. there’s a

Unknown Speaker 1:02:52
there’s a common drive thru you can you can drive a lot of a lot of service trucks come through there. It doesn’t show on this screen but but just north of the existing garage. Yes, that’s that that’s that’s available for traffic automobiles trucks to come through from from Main Street on to Kaufman. But that’s one of the reasons we want to have the gate on the south side. We don’t want to encourage people just to cut across here and they’ve done that before there’s an existing driveway about in the middle of where the proposed building is that that the owner is planning to put a gate on because a lot of people wanted to cut across there to get from Kauffman domain. But it does have access like the trash trucks will most likely come in off of Main Street. And they can negotiate their around their way around the north side existing garage. And then the front loaded trash trucks asked why we have the thrashy closer situated the way it is. So they can just pull right in there and then they can exit out on Kaufman Street. So the traffic flow is pretty efficient through here I think.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:04
So when last sell divided they get sold to separate owners where you have easements between

Unknown Speaker 1:04:11
there yes. Yes, there are access easements going across from from Main Street through there are utilities, mints, to service, existing garage, etc. I saw on the plat.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:27
Okay. And lastly, my final question I think is for this parish shecky. The conditional use, I think that you’re recommending that staff is recommending is that they adopted red lines, which I think is attachment six. What do those red lines indicate? I can’t tell minor things, major things. I don’t know what I’m looking at a lot of red lines that don’t have indications of what they’re redlining.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:58
Sure, Commissioner. Hi, man. Karen Fox here on the line, I believe he’s still here. Yes, he’s still here. But if you look on page three of the staff report, I summarized what remaining red lines Cameron had. One was add a note that the existing backflow needs to be recertified when their utility meters relocated, labeling the location of the water meter on the plan, putting a detail sheet for the handicap parking sign, maintaining the sidewalk width, so labeling items on the grading and drainage plan those type of engineering items.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:37
Commissioner, hey, if I can chime in, if you’re using Adobe Acrobat, as your PDF reader, you can open up the comments panel. And you can see the text of all all the redline comments. I will say

Unknown Speaker 1:05:54
the document wasn’t flattened well. So in order to filter out all the ones that say AutoCAD in the comment box, you can just type in fowlkes. And then you’ll see all of Cameron’s comments in there.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:07
Okay, because, yeah, I get a lot of comments, but also AutoCAD as xx, text note 12. I mean, like that.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:17
So I tried to summarize that on page three of the staff report, if you see the bullets there.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:22
I understand. I just it look like the number of red lines were more than the bullets. I guess I did. Appreciate that you had summarized it as such that they are relatively minor in these bullet points. Thank you. Pressure, Robert.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:54
Thanks, Chairman. I think this is a cool project. I think this is elevating the area. I think this is a creative use of the space. I appreciate that. There aren’t any real hurdles here. landscaping parking Hi, no variances needed there. Nope. It’s been found to or projected to stay under any noise restrictions or noise limits. The light will need to be managed properly. But sort of every property and project that we approved, the traffic impacts will be minimal. They’re not doing real loud stuff like the body working real messy stuff like body work and maintenance. And so I’m not really seeing a reason why we shouldn’t prove this seems like a good fit and really elevating the area. Thanks,

Unknown Speaker 1:07:54
Commissioner Goldberg all chime in that I really appreciate that the applicant did a sound study to see what the effect would be on the apartments on. And it looks from going through that and studying the diagrams on that that that your consultant has determined that the sound emanating from the garage from the new building would be no louder than the ambient sound just emanating from Main Street. So I really appreciate that, that you provided us with the documentation to know that and to see that that’s proven. I personally don’t see any reason to say no to this project. I’m finding I always ask myself one of the reasons to say yes, what are the reasons to say no. And I see no reasons to say no, I do see a very nice building design, thoughtfulness about the landscaping, like pulling that extra sidewalk toward the building the van accessibility you know you’re dealing with with your ADA requirements in a thoughtful way. So let me just go ahead and make a motion to approve PCR 2021 dash eight B which includes the condition to to revise the drawings to meet the DRC comments on any discussion or or a second to that motion. Commissioner teta?

Unknown Speaker 1:09:41
Yeah, I think it looks like a great project and I’d like to second

Unknown Speaker 1:09:44
it. Okay, so we have a motion to approve PCR 2021 dash eight B with a second from Commissioner teta. more discussion, comments. Okay, seeing none, let’s take a Roll call vote. Commissioner cater? Yes. Commissioner polam? Yes. Mr. Goldberg? Yes. Mr. Boone? Yes. Commissioner owner on Yes. Sure height i and i will vote yes as well. So if Jane that passes unanimously seven to zero, and now No need to read this. This item now enters a seven day appeal period. During this time any aggrieved party may appeal the Commission’s decision by submitting a written appeal letter, stating why the planning and zoning Commission’s decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the City Clerk’s Office and the planning office within the seven day appeal period, which begins on Thursday, August 19. At 8am and ends Wednesday, August 25. At 5pm. Thank you to the applicant and everybody on the team Mr. Sorenson Mr. bags and this Rutledge, thank you for sticking with us until 10pm to present you, thank you thank you back.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:21
We really appreciate your what you do. And having sat here for the entire meeting we I get a better sense of how difficult your job could be at times.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:30
Very much. All right. Thank you very much Mr. Sorenson. Take care and we will move on to our next agenda item. Let’s let me get back to my script. Our next item is item six C on our agenda, which is scooters coffee, conditional use site plan. Eva, could you step us through this one now? Please?

Unknown Speaker 1:12:09
I apologize. I thought I was unmuted and on camera. I apologize. I’ll start that again. Eva, pesky Planning and Development Services. This is the scooters coffee conditionally site plan on Main Street. Next slide please. Again, I’ll just walk you through property location and some background again, this this parcel is part of the larger horizon Park shopping center on the west side of Main Street north of 21st. It has several commercial retail buildings. As you see in the white there, the white top roof tops are craft store Big Lots and a number of other liquor store and some dollar store Murdock’s and a king soopers. Up on the north end, touching on the 23rd Avenue up there on the north. There’s a noodles and co right there, a budding Main Street just north of where this project is. And of course, there’s the UC health Urgent Care building that you’re probably all familiar with at the northwest corner of Maine and 21st. And so this project is in the parking lot of the shopping center. The UC health building is actually on a separate parcel where the building is located. And this proposed coffee shop is in the parking lot north of UC health in this horizon Park Shopping Center, the total area is less than a third of an acre of where they’re proposing to put in the coffee shop. And finally, the zoning is mixed use corridor. Next slide please. And so the proposal is to as in this parking lot area, I just north of the urgent care, they’d like to put in a very modest 565 square foot coffee kiosk with a drive thru Service Drive throughs in the mixed use corridor require conditional use approval, which is why we’re here tonight. The development review team has evaluated this project against our development standards. And we can say at this time that no variances are being sought. They meet again all of the development standards are with regard to landscaping, parking, height, setbacks, etc. These are the building elevations here on the right, the top one, as you can see there, that’s the side facing Main Street. And then the one on the bottom is the order window which is on the south facing side. And as you can see from the site plan, where the red arrow is, there’s Main Street there on the right or on the east side. So there’s an entry point into the horizon Park shopping center right now there’s a curb cut with an entrance And so customers could get in from Main Street through this driveway. Alternatively, if they wanted to, they could come in off of 21st Avenue, just west of the urgent care, there’s a driveway entry, they could come up in from there and come over to the project site here. And so the applicant left a two way driveway if you look on the south. That is, and then just south of that, that’s the urgent care property. So they left some room so that as you can see, there’s the urgent care parking lot, customers and patients can still come in and out of that parking lot without being impacted by the coffee shop, which is just a little bit north of it. And so the drive thru for the coffee would just be north of that two way driveway. So the applicants proposing that entrance go in are going eastbound, and then you kind of go around a circle, there’s an order window, obviously. And then you come around and on the north side, right there where Susan’s cursor is, that’s where he is the pickup window. Actually, I believe that is the elevation you’re seeing on the bottom of your screen, I’m sorry, that’s the north facing elevation, right. There’s also a bike rack a couple parking stalls for the employees. And we’ll get into that next. But there is no proposed walk up window for pedestrians. We’ve talked to the applicant about that i think it wasn’t in their business model when we initially requested that. And so let’s go to the next slide. We’ll talk about that a little bit further. So um, of course, we have our envision Longmont plan, but we also have a Main Street corridor plan. It’s a sub area plan, and sort of a plan that Council adopted a couple years ago with some more strategic planning for the Main Street corridor. And and so for this area where this property is located, there’s character areas, and this is called the North Main Character area for the purposes of this report, and so

Unknown Speaker 1:17:10
this property it talks about 21st and main being a potential transit stop area. And and one of the goals of the plan, it says if feasible to have some small scale retail amenities, such as a coffee cart to serve writers from this transit area. And so we thought this would be a really good opportunity. And we would be remiss as planners to ask for a walk up window. Because obviously, if you’re using transit, you don’t have the vehicle. Moreover, this would also serve patrons, patients and doctors of the urgent care immediately next door. Instead of having to get in their vehicle and drive through the coffee shop, they could actually walk over if there were a walk up window. Next slide please. Again, so this is a conditional use. Because of the drive thru component. The coffee shop itself is a use by right but the drive thru is what brings us here tonight. And so again, similar to the previous project, we look through our performance and operational standards for conditional uses. had them put some notes on the cover page with restrictions on hours of operation and delivery areas. Those are on the cover page of the site plan. Additionally, staff is recommending a condition. And this can be it the Commission’s discretion to add a condition to revise that east facing building elevation which faces Main Street to include a pedestrian oriented walk up window, off a little crosswalk for Safeway, excuse me safe team pedestrian connectivity, and that would be in alignment with the Main Street corridor plan. Next slide, please. And just briefly, again, in terms of our community input, we had a neighborhood meeting in October of last year 1000 foot notification, it was a virtual meeting because of course that was during the the COVID shutdowns. We didn’t get any Collins at the neighborhood the virtual neighborhood meeting with either questions or concerns. I then sent out a notice of application an application was filed in November after the neighborhood meeting. Again, large notification radius. I got one comment. It was from the manager of the apartment complex sort of to the north. They were expressing support that their residents could potentially use this coffee shop. And then lastly, we sent out another notice in August or the third. Again I did not receive any comments from anyone regarding this application. Next slide. Please. And so staff is making a recommendation for conditional approval with the again, that condition that they revise the building elevations for the pedestrian walk up window. And this would be in alignment with the Main Street corridor plan, which would then meet the review criteria for approval. Next slide. And so with that, I think Chris Lee is here with Kenny Lee architecture, to do a brief presentation for the applicant. And then we’re all happy to answer any questions you may have.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:36
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Yes, thank you very well, thank you, the rest of the commissioners here for sticking around and, and listening to our presentation, we’ve got a little bitty building and kind of a small presentation here to to go with it. Eva has touched on many other parts that we wanted to touch on as well, if you could get to the next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:00
Just a quick summary, Mike and Megan, are the owners, they’re local to Longmont there. And Mike’s gonna have a few words here in a minute here as we get through the rest of this. But just a quick summary, it’s 24, seven main street just north of that UC health facility. It is Mike and Megan are entering into a land lease agreement with the owners of the overall development over there. So they will just be utilizing part of the land there, they will not own it. And that will not be subdivided, they’ll still be still remain as its own individual or it still remain as part of the overall whole property there. The intention is to infill kind of an underlying underutilized part of the parking lot over there. If you’ve been by there lately, it’s not utilized very much. I think most of you see health patrons are using the front of the building, as well as some of the stuff to the west. And I expect some of our employees will also use some of the parking the shared parking area to the west of our property, their small little area, it’s about just over a quarter of an acre, their building is super small, about 550 square feet, we’ve got two access points, like David mentioned, to coming off of Main Street, one right directly adjacent to the north of our area, and then one a little bit further north towards the King soopers. And then we’ve got to the west and south off of 21st Avenue. The intention like Eva mentioned, the business model is as a vehicular drive thru. That’s the way things work the As you notice, the building is super small. And every you know, a lot of times we we scope our buildings to make sure that every square foot is utilized efficiently. In this case, it’s every square inch of this building is utilized efficiently. So Mike’s gonna touch on that a little bit more here as to how and why that that vehicular model works so well for them. We’ve got some of the hours there, these are operational hours is where we’ve got those noted and like Eva mentioned, we’ve got delivery hours are, are usually one of the afternoons when things are less busy during the time of the the operations of the building. Typically, there’s going to be two to seven employees on site. Again, that’s going to be based on the hours and the type of rushes they might see during different times of the day. You can go to the next slide, please. Again, more summaries here but the red.on. The left just kind of shows overall big scale of where the new buildings going to go. On the right side, you can see it again, it’s taking up that small parking area that’s just to the north of UC health facility. And like Eva mentioned, if you want to go to the next slide again, please Susan. You can see her we do have that two way traffic I also traffic in and around the health facility is still maintained at all times. And we’ve just got that loop. We’ve worked closely with the city to maintain the proper number of cars in the stacking queue from the pickup window which is on the very north end of the building all the way around, back around to where the order window is which is right where the sort of the arrow at the end of the drive thru nomenclature is yet right there. That’s where the order window or the order standard would be. So we’ve worked there to make sure we’ve got just enough cars in the queue to meet the requirements there. That landscaping we’ve worked really, really closely with planning to we’ve got a couple of existing good mature trees that we are going to maintain and keep and the health facility has done a really good job on their part of the property kind of from our property south along Main Street to really spruce up that area. So we’re kind of playing off some of those similar things. Get some nice turf grass planted up there some good shrubbery and planter beds up there. And we’ve worked good and closely again, right around the building and also out adjacent to to the Main Street to the private driveway to the north to get the buffer yards and buffer yard requirements met to keep keep proper screening around everything. To the far west of the building. We’ve got a trash enclosure and that the architecture on the trash enclosure is going to match the architecture of the building as far as materials go and if we When I go to the next one, please, you’ll see the, the renderings of the buildings or the the elevations of the buildings. But again, we have worked well with planning to make sure like I mentioned, we had to make a few adjustments to avoid some variances. We’ve got plenty of glazing and awnings facing Main Street. We’ve also got glazing and awnings facing north and south to the adjacent properties there too, but good undulation of building materials, good mixes of colors, we’ve got some good shapes and overall good appeal to the building. And I think the next slide is just kind of a consideration or thanks for your consideration. And I also would like to turn it over to Mike Snyder. And he’s the he will be the building owner and operation owner of the facility.

Unknown Speaker 1:25:49
Thanks, Chris. Chris, is that you’re Okay, perfect. Now that sounds nice. Thank you, everyone. For for the consideration. Just want to briefly briefly introduce myself. My name is Mike Snyder. My wife, Megan and I are the owners or the franchisees in scooters, coffee. If you’re not familiar with the brand, it’s it’s absolutely wonderful based out of Omaha about 300 stores, mostly in the Midwest, but starting to grow in Colorado. This is our second location. The first is a little south of us in northglenn. Despite owning that opening that February of last year, one month before shutdowns we’re very happy to still be growing and and also despite the labor market for the retail that we’re in. More than half of our employees are still from our original crew when we when we first open so very proud to be bringing the project here to Longmont, where we live and bring it to our community. So just want to thank everyone for your consideration sticking with us in the late evening here.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:05
Thank you, Mr. Snyder. Commissioner, hi. Okay. Commissioner Bowen. Yeah, um, given the fact that I think we’re about ready to

Unknown Speaker 1:27:19
go to public comment, given the fact that they’ll take a little bit over five minutes. Given that we’re at 1047. I would like to make a motion that we allow this meaning to go past 11pm.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:31
Already. There’s a little bit of housekeeping. We have a bylaw that says that we need to have a motion approved to go past 11pm. Do I have a second Commissioner Poland’s motion Commissioner height you second. I will second that. Okay, so we have a motion and a second to go past 11pm because of our bylaws about our electronic meeting format. We need to do a roll call vote. So Commissioner honor on. Yes. Commissioner teta? Yes. Commissioner height by Mr. polen. Aye. Mr. Goldberg? Yes. Mr. Boone? Yes. And I will vote yes to so Jane that passes unanimous unanimously seven to zero. Thank you for always reminding me about that one little detail as we get toward the witching hour. So this is a public hearing item. So I would like to open the public hearing on this. And if you want to call in and talk about this particular project, now’s the time to do it, please call 1887880099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 82883653145. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember the mute the live stream when you’re called upon. And we will take a five minute break in order to get people in into the queue. So we will meet back at 10 just before thanks

Unknown Speaker 1:33:40
Alright chair, I’ll just dropped the slide and we’ll wait for the live stream to get caught up. Okay. Thank you, Susan.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:04
Alright, looks like our live stream is caught up and we have no one that has called in. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:34:11
well saying that we have no colors for the public hearing, we will close the public hearing of this item. And we will move on with comments and discussion. Commissioner height.

Unknown Speaker 1:34:22
Hello. Yeah, I had raised my hand earlier. The security for getting that we had a public hearing and the public was invited to speak. Now the public is out here. Mr. Snyder. Mr. Lee. I didn’t know Mr. Lee, if you could put back about in your presentation. The view from the drive thru looking at the drive thru, it would be ostensibly that the West elevation Nope. No. Further further, further, further, further. One more there at one backup with the car. Yes So I noticed that this elevation doesn’t show up on your concept plan. It is I think, if this is your building, this would be what I would have presumed to be the West elevation is that correct?

Unknown Speaker 1:35:15
This, this actually is a mirror of what we’re doing. So our pickup window would be on the opposite side of the building. So just taking the mirror this one over. So what what’s facing us would face Main Street, what’s where the car is sitting right now would actually be on the north side of the building.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:31
Okay, way backwards. Do you have that window in the front under that? I mean, could that be that that does show up? Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:38
So if you go two or three, or go back a slide, Susan. It’s the one in the top left corner. That said, Ronnie with window. Okay, yeah, that’s the one that’s facing Main Street.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:51
So staff has recommended that possibly you have a walk up window. And you get comment that every possible square inch of your 500 square foot building is put to good use. Is there some way you can sandwich in walk up window?

Unknown Speaker 1:36:09
I’m going to differ a little bit to Mike on that one, because he’s operating the one he’s got, like he said in the other location to see how that would work. But I know there’s a there’s a counter underneath that. That window now that is used in operations. Mike, what do you think?

Unknown Speaker 1:36:23
Yeah, Mr. Hyde, I appreciate the question. And Ava appreciate the heads up. And thanks to everyone for letting us go a little bit over here, it would be a big, it would be a significant change to the interior of how we manage the bar and serve drinks and everything to turn that into a walk up window. Not only is it taking away space for us to you know, create drinks and have our coffee machines, but it also would require us to have a second point of sale system. So it that went with the building of our size, it actually is a pretty substantial impact. We didn’t take it back to our team, we looked at it, we reviewed the North Main Character area description in the corridor plan and with the size of the plot, and the fact that the drive thru lane wraps all the way around the front area there. We just couldn’t find a way to internally, you know, despite internally, you know, modifying the building and the way we we set up our operations, but also extra really just being able to add it and then comfortably do that, from a safety perspective. Was was the team’s you know, overall feedback on it.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:35
That was my next question. I was presuming that you probably wouldn’t be able to do it internally. But externally, could you make your drive up window also accommodate a walk up patron? I will admit that I’ve done it to other walk up on the drive of coffee joints have just walked up to it. But not when it’s busy. It is there waiting to do that safely or no. So

Unknown Speaker 1:38:07
it would not it would certainly not be prudent during a rush hour in the early morning. Our existing store in Northland we do have some patrons that will walk up typically those will be in the afternoon, employees of nearby retail will walk over. But that’s almost always during time where there’s just no one else in line. So we’ll serve we serve individuals in that scenario. But we To be honest, we prefer not to especially because during busy hours, it can be really a one it’s unsafe. And then two it can be confusing in terms of between a car and individuals walking up who has the right away. Appreciate that. Thank you. Refer groberg

Unknown Speaker 1:39:01
Excuse me. Thanks, Mr. Snyder. appreciate you bringing this project to us. Thank you just wanted to continue off of Commissioner heic line of questioning. I mean, high level, it’s very charming. If it’s in our town, it meets, you know, our goals for this area, you know, for this part of the city. There’s a need for a desire for it, and we’re excited to help you get there. Of course we take your eye out let me speak for myself. I take city staffs recommendations pretty seriously. So the recommendation from city staff at this moment is that we make this walk up window a condition of approval. Because I just want to be 100% clear, based on I think how you responded to Commissioner heights questions, if we approve this, as recommended by the city does that I put the brakes on this, does this become no longer feasible for you?

Unknown Speaker 1:40:08
Now, I would say Commissioner Goldberg, that’s a very real possibility.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:15
Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Schneider. Thanks. Thank you. Well shoot that I guess that puts the onus back on us.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:24
And staff to, you know, consider isn’t it our job to mandate, you know, the business be operated in this capacity? You know, we require the addition of this, walk up windows that a deal breaker for us. I appreciate the North Main Character, vision and main character area and the recommendations from city council to provide a pedestrian oriented service and where feasible, encourage or enable or support walk up or pedestrian friendly businesses. But yeah, I think I’m going to have to turn to my peers for some just discussion on how big of a deal is this for us? And is this a, you know, is this where we need to like, draw the line or not? Commissioner? Oh, no.

Unknown Speaker 1:41:25
I agree with Commissioner Goldberg. And there are reasons why this is a conditional use in this particular zone. I have my reasons. But I’d like to hear from ever what is the justification? Not sure. Tricia, and a commissioner on Iran, the justification you mean for the condition? Yeah, condition and why this is a conditional use in this particular I mean, this particular part of the corridor is very car oriented, the parkings are all on the front, etc, so forth. And I, I mean, I assume the reasoning behind it is to turn that around, that is to say, make it much more pedestrian oriented. Am I right with that? I mean, why this particular? Why Dr. tools in this particular zone, our conditioner? conditioner on around?

Unknown Speaker 1:42:37
I’m not sure I’m going to defer to Dr. Chet, as he was part of the land development code update team. I know our consultant Clarion associates, worked with our team. So I’ll defer to Don on that question. But in terms of why are we asking for this condition? Again, when we look at the review criteria for approval, one of the review criteria says that you need to be consistent and in alignment with our long range planning goals. Yes, we primarily talk about the Envision long want comprehensive plan, but it also means in alignment with other sub area plans, like a main street plan, which which really ties in with the Envision Longmont plan. And so, in the Main Street corridor plan, it talks about setting up a transit area talks about revitalizing underutilized parking areas, improving the main street facade and so we felt like this was an opportunity for us to capitalize on that. And that’s why we asked for the condition. But I will defer to dawn or Glen who want to talk about why drive thru specifically our conditional uses in the mixed use corridor.

Unknown Speaker 1:43:57
The reason I’m asking this, the only reason why this is in front of us is because it’s a conditional use. And therefore, we need to know what makes it so so that we can make a decision.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:16
Chairman sure NEC members of the Commission Don birdshot planning manager you know, the goal for the area when, as I understood it from the plan that was done for the main street plan and when we looked at envision Longmont, as well as with the code updates was that we knew that we had some areas that were definitely developed.

Unknown Speaker 1:44:44
I would like to say a long time ago, but unfortunately some of that was developed when I started here, city as really auto dominated kind of development. The

Unknown Speaker 1:44:59
look that We did with envision, and with some of the Main Street corridor plan was trying to identify areas for redevelopment, where we could increase additional density. And try to create mixed uses, you know, true mixed uses not only horizontally but vertically mixed uses. And in order to try to encourage some of those, we did look at trying to determine how additional auto oriented kind of uses would have an impact on these areas, if they came in and wanted to develop properties. So in the mixed use commercial zone, this is one of those areas where this kind of a use is identified as a conditional use, it doesn’t mean that it’s not an appropriate use to go in. And the commission can make a finding that this location is an okay place for it to go in, and that the need to provide this walk up window is not necessary. But again, when even and we were looking at this, trying to look at the code requirements and look at the intent of the plan to try to encourage that ability for people to walk within the district to be able to get services. That was one of the things that at least as is our look at this proposed use was something that we felt could be beneficial to the area by having the ability for those people that work at the Medical Center, for example, to be able to walk, you know, out of their building across the parking lot and up to a window and order a coffee and walk back without having to get in a car in the parking lot, drive to the parking lot, drive through an area. In order. I totally understand that this coffees, the way that they are designed, does not

Unknown Speaker 1:46:52
allow for that kind of, of a person to come up there. And I understand the safety concerns. You know, there are other designs that we have seen where people have allowed for Windows, they have windows that you can actually walk up to that are separate from the drive thru areas and in that area that Commissioner height was talking about on the front of the building. But again, if if they’ve looked at it, and they don’t believe that they can accommodate it, I think the commission just needs to consider consider really what their business model is and make a decision of whether or not this is truly something that should be approved, you know, for this for this area. But, you know, again, it was trying to achieve the intent of the Envision Longmont in the Main Street corridor plans by trying to encourage mixing of uses and walkable areas versus just auto dominated areas. That’s working. A follow on Commissioner? Yeah. You know,

Unknown Speaker 1:48:06
let me lower my hand in the previous application. The reason why that permitted us was in front of us was the proximity to the base residential uses. And then the question we asked what’s the impact and then we were convinced that the impacts were really mitigated and taken care of, therefore, we felt good. Here. The impact is making it much more car oriented. And there is a solution there is a walk up window. And that would mitigate. And personally I feel much more comfortable with that solution, even though I understand the difficulties and such. I mean, I really liked the coffee hours. I really liked the drive throughs I, you know, especially during the COVID proved to be that it’s really important to have a writer option as well, because you don’t want to walk into a coffee as though you couldn’t anyway. So I understand all that. But I’m kind of you know,

Unknown Speaker 1:49:16
I mean, if I say no to the condition. That negates the reason why this is a condition of use and what we’re trying to achieve in that whole corridor. That’s my personal opinion.

Unknown Speaker 1:49:33
So somebody else’s hand up was a commissioner polling. Yeah, I think it was Commissioner pulling first and then Commissioner. No, I think the commissioner height first. Okay. All right. Commissioner height. Thank you commission. So,

Unknown Speaker 1:49:51
okay, I kind of I hear what you’re saying. And I agree with what you’re saying. That that as you know Bridgette just explained to us it was conditional use, and we take a look at it to make sure that possibly we de emphasize the driving aspect of what this corridor portion looks like right now. I’m familiar with that area, because I office near there. And from what I know of it, you know, it’s a big parking lot. It has a gas station in it, it has a supermarket and an arc and some other areas where those people are going to be driving, they’re not going to be getting out of their cars to walk up to this place. The traffic on Main Street and 21st is heavily it’s, it’s, it’s driven, it’s not walked, a transportation hub might come in there that might change that. But right now, it’s all driving and my supposition is going to be the medical professionals in that that urgent care facility are going to do what I would probably do, which is walk up anyhow. And, and, you know, though, that is the target audience for a walk up, and it would serve them greatly, but they’re probably smart enough to know better, but are going to do it anyhow, they’re going to walk up anyhow. And from what I hear from Mr. Snyder is that, you know, without redesigning and changing his 500 square foot building into a 600 square foot building and changing the system that he’s working with. It’s not gonna work. So I appreciate the empathy, the thought of imposing this condition, but I’m not going to support it. Thanks, Mr. Paul. Mr. Snyder,

Unknown Speaker 1:51:56
suppose this is a franchise is this basically a cookie cutter building that they sell to every franchise?

Unknown Speaker 1:52:07
This does sit a prototype It is one of the bits the second most recent prototype based upon what we originally submitted. And And my understanding we’ve got Alex on the line here from scooters but there are no prototypes that have walked up windows.

Unknown Speaker 1:52:27
Yeah, hi. Good evening, everybody. This is I’m a construction manager for scooters coffee also do pre development work for for the company. This is the second most recent prototype but I’ll tell you the most recent prototype also is drive thru only, you know, the the the company’s just determined that that’s our business model. And as you can as you you know, figured out there’s there’s really no room inside of this. This building, we would have to completely rearrange the the configuration to add a walk up window. So we basically stay away from

Unknown Speaker 1:53:11
you know, the brand way back before I was ever involved with it did have what we call coffee houses. But for business reasons. We’ve moved away from that and exclusively build drive thru kiosks like this.

Unknown Speaker 1:53:29
It thank you for that. And Mr. Snyder, I do have a second question. I’m on the south end of your property between New and urgent care. It shows there are lanes that go east and west and then you have your drive thru lake. So it goes East it goes West you have your drive through lane going back east again. And I’m just wondering, is there anything that is your drive through lane through at West lane or is it just basically marked by lane pain? Press I believe that his paint, is that correct? I’m trying to confirm that now. I can’t remember who was paying or if it was a six inch curb I think we decided it was paint because we were concerned about snow removal. And if it were a six inch curb, it would be lost in the snow and if we’ve got differing snow removal companies coming to take care of snow it was going to be a problem so it is just paint so they really didn’t hope I’m sorry.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:44
Yeah, that dark dark black line there would be would be a parking lot striping. Okay, thank you. That’s all I have. Commissioner teta.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:57
So I guess I’d like to echo Commissioner heights sentiment about the drive up in the auto intense area that this is in. But I would be supportive of trying to impose that condition if everybody felt like it was imperative. But I don’t really feel like the purpose of this being a conditional use of a drive thru being a conditional use is for us to be able to impose these kind of additional can expectations on a business. That’s it.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:38
Um, I have a couple questions. Eva, question for you. So this corner is intended to be a transportation hub at some point. What’s the timeline looking like on that?

Unknown Speaker 1:56:02
I’m gonna defer to Don or Glenn on that. I didn’t work on the Main Street corridor plan, and we don’t have Aaron here tonight.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:08
Okay. I’m going to have stones. I know, it’s it’s quite a ways out. It’s certainly our goal to have a bus rapid transit. And yeah, the plan calls out enhanced,

Unknown Speaker 1:56:28
enhanced transit center here. But whether it’s in three years, five years, 10 years, I don’t know. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:39
I have no clue. I can text. Mr. Greenwald. If he’s still awake and see if I could get that information for everyone. I have no idea. Christopher turned on his. So maybe Chris has some ideas for us.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:53
Chairman, commissioners Christopher with public works, I have some very little idea. I know that, that

Unknown Speaker 1:57:02
in our five years tip we have identified for a great separated crossing a 21st and main to start that design. And most likely have construction in 2023,

Unknown Speaker 1:57:16
which would be kind of a piecemeal towards this transportation hub. We do not have any of the other improvements identified in the next five years for that area for main street or for the surrounding area. But it most likely fall within like a 10 year time frame for full build out of that. Okay, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:57:38
I’m so hearing all of that. It makes me think that there’s lots of time for Mr. Snyder, to discover how many people are going to be like Commissioner height and walking up up to his window. And if there are a lot, he can come up with a different operational way to handle that. He might, you know, I’ve seen more and more drive throughs where, where there are staff standing out at the order, the order sign? You know, there’s there’s a multitude of ways in which Mr. Snyder could be creative with his business. If there were enough people walking up to his window. I, frankly was surprised to see city staff suggesting that we enter into a condition that affects a business person’s operations of their business. I don’t think I’ve seen us do that before. Our conditions are usually about things like, you know fenestration and and setbacks and, and and expecting you know, noise constraints, not not telling somebody how to operate their business. So I’m, I’m not really sandgren about placing a condition on somebody who has made it very clear that this is outside of his his, his business model. On Eva, I have a I do have a more technical question. It’s about the photometric plan. Changing gears just a little bit. Okay. I’m looking at the photometric plan I’m drawing. Remind me What is our standard as to what the the foot candles are supposed to be at the property line? Was it zero or was it point one, or one Sharon? It’s

Unknown Speaker 1:59:58
actually point Why it’s not zero. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:00:02
so it’s point one. So, on their photometric plan, though, if you look at some of the numbers that I assume are indicating the property line on the north, and on the west, they’re exceeding point one. But how do we deal with that? When they’re putting a building in the middle of a parking lot? That was designed a long time ago? And and I mean, is that light infiltration coming from? Just the ambient light elsewhere in the parking lot? When can we even apply the point one foot candle requirement? got really, yeah,

Unknown Speaker 2:00:46
because this is all the scooters. Development is not on a separate parcel. It’s part of the horizon Park shopping center. So then it includes all of the parking lot waiting for the entire horizon Park shopping center.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:02
Okay, so so that’s why why this didn’t come up as an issue with staff review is, is because in effect that that point one foot candle at the property line doesn’t doesn’t apply.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:17
Right. And also, I believe I’m trying to pull it up as quickly as I can on my computer, but I believe that drive thru businesses, I know gas stations are allowed a larger allowance on foot candles. So, um, but I know we evaluated against the lighting code when we did the review.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:37
Okay. Thanks. Thanks for that all throughout a thought to the other commissioners. So we’ve got this huge parking lot. Right. And and so the applicant is saying I’m going to put a scooters right here next to this urgent care building. If they had been proposing put the scooters like in the middle of the parking lot, would we be talking about a conditional use to provide a walk up window when everybody had to cross a huge amount of parking to get to that walk up window? Is, is the suggestion for the walk up window only because of its proximity to the urgent care building? mean this to me? If if we weren’t? If the idea of a walk up window makes sense, it should make sense no matter where this thing is located. But it doesn’t make sense if the thing is located in the right smack in the middle of this huge sea of asphalt, not my opinion. Commissioner polling?

Unknown Speaker 2:02:47
I think in the short term, you’re right, I think in the long term, the city is thinking that there’s going to be a Transportation Center in this area. So in five or 10 years, it would be nice to have a coffee shop that people could walk up to. I think that’s their long term goal. My personal opinion is, I think, the same as what you had stated, I do not believe that we should make a condition that makes an additional additional thing to their business plan. Their business plan is for drive thru. Now, truthfully, if I was going by there, and I want a coffee, I mean, if I worked at the urgent care, I would probably go through the drive thru and then go into into work. I mean, I would probably get it on my way into work. I would also maybe if I had a break, take a look and say, oh, there’s nobody in the drive thru and I would probably walk up and get it. Now for people who bike if you’re a bicyclist. I don’t know. bicyclists go through drive throughs and waiting dry fuel lines. I mean, that’s a little different than somebody walked. I mean, I have seen bicycles get behind Carson traffic. So I could see a bicycle easily, more easily going through the drive thru then at that case, maybe somebody’s going to work on his bicycle and say, Hey, I’m just gonna wait in line and follow the charts. And I do that in traffic anyways. So I do not believe that we should put that kind of condition on this business. That’s my thought. You’re on? Yes. Commissioner owner.

Unknown Speaker 2:04:30
Oh, come on Commissioner height and Tara convinced me that, you know, we shouldn’t impose a condition on this particular case. That being said, in principle, I’d like to challenge a couple of things. One is that when we asked fenestration setback, most control, we should tell them what to run their businesses. When you reduce this, you know, nose certain businesses cannot function. We do that, knowing that we’re going to change the formation of the business. When we ask them to provide windows where they don’t want to provide windows, yes, the whole thing changes inside. And I don’t see that. This is to say that I completely understand why the city is coming with this particular condition. But, you know, it’s such a cute building. And I’m asking myself, that is to say, what does this building do to the pedestrian, and to the corridor? Well, there’s the building person were present. Even though it’s small, it has a presence, and it’s very visible from the sidewalk, and that creates an ambience. So it’s different than being in the middle of the parking lot. It’s close to the sidewalk, which is a plus. Which makes me more comfortable about seeing yesterday. I wish there was a pedestrian access, I wish there was an accommodation for people on the sidewalk to do something about it. But still, the positives are high. So that’s why I’m supporting with no condition.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:21
Just to reply to your point about asking for more fenestration, and that can totally change how operations inside a building work. Yes, absolutely. But in cases where that building is a spec building, and and they don’t yet have a tenant, much more willing to condition them for that in order to, you know, get the kind of fenestration we want, especially when it faces a residential area. So just an aside there.

Unknown Speaker 2:06:58
Commercial porn. Also, I’d like to also point out from a technology standpoint, and maybe they don’t have this now. But you know, people do go online to put in orders. And, you know, we talked about this briefly before somebody mentioned it, it’s not out of the thing that it says, hey, look, we’re getting a lot of Walker pressure from UC health. You know, what, let’s put in an online order, and have somebody who has a remote, one of those remote things to go in, take up the order to them. I mean, I think this will be if there’s a business for it, there’s an easy solution where they don’t they can do it without even changing the building, that if if there’s that much kind of need, that they can make a solution for it without changing the building down the road. So Commissioner groberg, did you have your hand up? Yeah, yeah. Thank you. I have valued this conversation by the Commission. I think at least several of us are aligned, where we’re going here, and maybe all of us, kind of Lincoln Commissioner height on that one. You know, the reason why this is here today is because of the drive thru. And the drive thru is the is what requires us to meet and I think we all agree that the drive thru fits here. Excuse me. I don’t think that we are in the habit of putting in on very many conditions that impact operations. I think it’s something that we do very rarely and very cautiously, and with, you know, a kind of great discussion before proceeding. And I just don’t think this one fits that bill. I don’t. I love the intent that city council, and staff and teams and I think there was buy in from community as well have a little bit of vision for starting to create these districts along the Main Street corridor and giving them identity and purpose in serving our community. But I think this is going to serve our community. Great. Yes, I think there’s other competitors in the area that have found a way other coffee, little islands that have found a way to incorporate the walk up window. And if that is a differentiator, even present differentiator, or Mr. Snyder determines that that’s, you know, an attribute to store that he wants to apply at a later time. I think that’d be great. And he has promptly he has the supportive city council and other folks to encourage him to do that. But it shouldn’t be what makes or breaks this deal. So I think with that said, I’m inclined to move forward with recommending that we approve the scooters coffee conditional use site plan application, finding that the review criteria has been met as reflected in PCR 2021 dash nine a And I just want to make sure, Eva, there wasn’t any other conditions listed besides the walk up order window. on your on your recommendation for B, was it only the welcome window or were there other like outstanding items that needed to be resolved? Oh, that’s correct. Cool. Okay. Well, then I’m gonna stick with my recommendation that we approve the scooters copy conditional use site plan application finding that meets the review criteria as reflected in PVR 2021 dash nine eight.

Unknown Speaker 2:10:37
Here we have a motion on the floor to approve PCR 2021 dash nine a commissioner polling. I’ll second that. Seconded by Commissioner poling. Do we have further discussion? Okay, let’s do a roll call vote. Commissioner honor on? Yes. Commissioner poling. Yes. Commissioner Goldberg? Yes. Commissioner height. I Commissioner Boone. Yes. Commissioner teta? Yes. And I will also vote yes. So that passes unanimously seven to zero. Let me read my announcement. This item now enters a seven day appeal period. During this time any aggrieved party may appeal the Commission’s decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning and zoning Commission’s decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the City Clerk’s Office and the planning office within the seven day appeal period, which begins Thursday, August 19th at 8am and ends Wednesday, August 25. At 5pm. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Lee Mr. I didn’t get catchy last name cannot believe close. Yeah. Okay. Thank you all for for sticking with us all the way till 1130 tonight, appreciate your you’re presenting to us. Good luck with your project. We have more on our agenda. So we’re gonna continue on with a few more things. Okay, we have our final call for the public to call in. So Susan, we need to put the slide up. And if you want to call in and make any comments about something that was not on the agenda that was not a project on the agenda tonight. Now’s the time to do it, please call 1887880099. When prompted, enter the meeting id 82883653145. When we’re ready to hear public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed to five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the livestream when you are called upon to speak. To do this we often give five minutes given the hour of the evening. I’m going to check in with Susan at three minutes. But we might might use the whole five minutes so I’ll be back in about three minutes.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:27
Chair we actually have one caller, if you want, we’re at about four minutes here. I’ll go ahead and stop sharing and we’ll wait for the live stream to get cut up.

Unknown Speaker 2:16:54
Alright, looks like our live stream is caught up. And when the commissioners are back on screen I can take the first caller.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:07
What’s looks like we’re waiting. There she is. Okay. Sure Boone’s here, I think we’re all here, Susan.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:14
Alright. The one and only color that we have tonight. Your phone number ends in 949. I’m going to ask you to unmute. Are you there? There you are. Hello. Yes. Hi.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:34
My name is Ruby Bowman 1512 left hand drive. I would like to know if the planning and zoning Commission has a policy regarding conflicts of interests. Say for instance, a commissioner participated in a public hearing discussion and cast a vote for a project even though the project developer was a client of the commissioner. Isn’t this? Isn’t this a considered a conflict of interest? And Shouldn’t the commissioner have recused himself or herself? And when is the commissioner required to recuse him or herself? Please, I would like a copy of your conflict of interest policy so I can better understand what is considered a violation where you please have staff Forward, forward me a copy of the policy. Thank you so much.

Unknown Speaker 2:18:30
Thanks for the comment. So assuming you’re still watching, we have an agenda item in just a moment where we can have a discussion amongst ourselves and city attorney Teresa Tate is still here. I’ll make a point of of asking that question of her. Let me get back to my agenda. Yes, items from the commission next on our agenda. First off, huge, huge thank you to Jane and to Susan, this was a huge cast of characters. You know who had to pull into the meeting tonight. I think we set a record. About 33 people started off the meeting. So thank you very much for everything you’ve done. Tonight. City Attorney Tate. We just heard in his Bowman’s are questions about conflicts of interest. When should commissioners recused themselves as compared to when can commissioners disclose something but still serve? Could you enlighten us all as to city policy on that?

Unknown Speaker 2:19:45
Yes, absolutely. So, a conflict of interest is the individuals to determine so no one else can determine whether someone has a conflict of interest only that inhibition can determine that here, Commissioner owner on disclosed that he had a client that he was working with who was on a matter in front of the Commission. He also disclosed that he had did not have any for knowledge of this this matter. Presumably Commissioner on our own, in that disclosure was telling the commission and and the community that he did not believe. Perhaps I’ll say it a different way. That Commissioner on around was was saying that he believed he could be unbiased in the decision. And that is for him to determine, and only him to determine. And so he fully disclose a conflict, which is exactly city policy that we do that, and only he can decide whether or not he needs to recuse. so in this situation, Commissioner on our own, followed the city policy, and was compliant with it.

Unknown Speaker 2:21:10
Okay. Thank you for the explanation. City Attorney Tate on, I know that I have communicated with you and other city attorneys in the past to determine whether my potential conflict, you know, you’ve you’ve advised me just how much of a conflict Do I have, and then you left that decision to me. So, just for Miss Bowman and those who are watching, I know that that I myself have consulted with the city attorney’s to ensure that I’m complying. I believe, you know, from knowing other commissioners that they have done so as well on and

Unknown Speaker 2:22:03
Commissioner may do so at any time. And part of the role of of the, the office, part of my role is to advise you as a commission, and to advise you individually as commissioners. Okay. Commissioner honor on. Thank you, Teresa. Appreciate that.

Unknown Speaker 2:22:25
Thank you. First of all, I’d like to apologize for everybody for the confusion in the beginning of the meeting that, you know, wasted some time. I don’t know how it happened. But somehow, I started the livestream. And that created a week ago and some I apologize. In terms of the conflict of interest. I like city attorney Tate mentioned, if I didn’t believe that, I would vote on this in a very neutral, non affected way by my client, I wouldn’t join the meeting. My talk about what’s going on in the River Corridor developed pretty early, in 2010. With my students, we did a studio looking at the policies of the hall corridor, and we did a presentation of the council there. So since then, I’ve been really following very closely all the policies proposed to the whole corridor. And, you know, as a citizen of this city, I care for those policies. So even before I met my client, I had very good idea of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate and what is in the comprehensive plan and how I interpret those. So my ideas did not developed, because of my clients at all, because of this application at all. It has been evolved through time. Slowly, and I have a very strong understanding of the long term benefits of Longmont and the whole region. Actually, Longmont is not just one city, it’s a part of a metropolitan area. And we depend on each other in in the general system. And you know, my ideas about what’s the right land use, what’s the right density has been have been evolving for a long time. It didn’t happen just overnight.

Unknown Speaker 2:24:51
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner honor on appreciate that Commissioner poling. Yes. First of all, thank you, Commissioner honor on that It was, thank you for your explanation.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:03
I just want to make sure that there if there’s any follow up needed, and if so we have somebody who will be taking care of that blend, Teresa, do we owe Ruby? a follow up? And if so, who would be responsible for that? I just want to make sure we cover the bases on this.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:25
Yeah, yes, I’ll take that question. Um, Commissioner polen, as I understand it, and Miss Bowman asked for a copy of the city’s policy. Under the law, that is an open records request, it doesn’t have to come in in any specific way. Therefore, the city will treat it as an open records request. And we’ll provide Miss Bowman, any policy that the city has on conflict of interest that can be found in the city code in the city municipal code, but we’re very happy to provide that chapter. Great. Thank you so much. Commissioner Gilbert.

Unknown Speaker 2:26:13
Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, just to push the meeting five minutes longer. And to really contribute nothing of value. I just thought I would stand up for the group of us that report here month after month, I just think when I go to bed at night after these meetings, and I think about have we served our town and we served our city, you know, and tried to move the needle towards good. While we don’t always agree, I do know that. Integrity, and credibility is that the foundation of why we show up. So, you know, I just think I’m proud of the work that we do. And I know that we’re all in it for good. And integrity is something that we really stand behind. And so I hope we model that for our residents and neighbors that we serve, whether it’s Ruby Bowman or others. So, you know, more of a token to the other images on this screen, saying thank you for I think what we do is provide, you know, really good service in the neighborhood. Thanks, Commissioner Goldberg Commissioner teta.

Unknown Speaker 2:27:32
On another note, I think, now that we’ve dealt with this secondary use in the MUE district two months in a row, I think it’d be appropriate that we at least consider whether with or without staff and some kind of a, an amendment maybe to code. Try to clarify that. I just see us visiting that again and again. Okay, um,

Unknown Speaker 2:28:02
Glen, just was going to be cleared. Last month. That was me, you are Despite this, me. Thank you. Okay. I’m

Unknown Speaker 2:28:14
Glen and in, given the expressed interest and looking at how, how code might be adjusted, so that we have more clarity on on those district level versus lat level zoning decisions? Would it be possible for maybe you and Dawn or whoever’s appropriate to kind of figure out a way for us to kind of find our way through this? I mean, you know, maybe it’s, maybe it’s a working session or, or something like that.

Unknown Speaker 2:28:54
Yeah, that’s what I was going to suggest is, yeah, we just have an open discussion, have an opportunity to look at all different alternatives and see, is there a better way to do it? I think we’d be open to that. Um,

Unknown Speaker 2:29:09
why why could help too. And I, I think it would be good if if we invited all the alternates as well, because they have have a good insight to these issues. But it would, would help I think, for there to be at no more than a page, have some bullet points that kind of summarize the issues that are coming up on not necessarily pros and cons, but, you know, like, Well, on the one hand, we’ve got, we’ve got a way to look at things by district. There’s there’s things that that that come from that and problems that come from And on the other hand, we can look at it by by a lot. So it just might be a way for all of us to focus our, our thoughts in a working session, and, and also to kind of inform those who have not been at the meetings.

Unknown Speaker 2:30:19
Yeah, and I think at this point, anyhow, I don’t believe we have any regular business for your next meeting. Perhaps, if you want to take the night off, I understand. But if you want to have a study session on this issue, I, I think we can put that together. Okay. Thanks, Brian. I’m Teresa. Um,

Unknown Speaker 2:30:50
my impression is that Commissioner height could be a valuable resource here in providing a perspective. And he if he would be so willing, I think that it would be really helpful to staff and this attorney if he was willing to provide a list and some recommendations from his perspective.

Unknown Speaker 2:31:18
Yeah, I was gonna say, I have a list that I’m more than happy to share. Oh, we know you did.

Unknown Speaker 2:31:29
Yeah. And and, and I think I think that’d be great. You know, so Commissioner heights list, um, you know, Glenn Roeder an email expressing some of the city staff point of view that I was privy to. And, yeah, we could put that together, and then we can have a discussion about it, and see what comes with that. Okay, I’m seeing some thumbs up and some nodding. And I don’t think you’re nodding off per se. But let’s, let’s finish our agenda here. So items from council representative Aaron Rodriguez, but he’s not in attendance. So we’ll skip that on any items from the Planning and Development Services Director Glen

Unknown Speaker 2:32:15
van Morgan. Mr. Chairman, and commissioners, I was you probably read, we got some initial census numbers last week. We’ve just got the basic population number for April 120 20. And some of the demographic information but certainly not the full load. So we are waiting for that. And we did talk to the commission some time ago about doing a full presentation of what the census data is showing us and comparing it to some of our goals and see if it’s, if they’re in alignment. So we are planning that for October. It also happens to be planning month, which I know you all have on your calendar. So we thought the timing would be really good. And I’ll just

Unknown Speaker 2:33:06
have a shout out to Erin and her crew in December, last December 2020. She estimated our population at bn 99,000 and she left it at that kind of hedging her bets a little bit. The APR 120 20 census number is officially 98,895. So if you prorate that to December, it was almost smack dab on it. So I think I estimated she was off. Point Oh, seven of 1%. So not bad.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:45
But that’s all I have. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. And again. Thank you. Definitely echo. It’s a tough job and we appreciate all your time.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:56
Thank you, Glen. And I’ll I’ll tell you, I’m planning on planning month. Okay. Awesome. All right, with that in mind, unless I see anybody waving their hand saying no. We’ll adjourn. Alright, Take care everybody. Thank you.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai