Longmont Planning and Zoning – October 27, 2021

Video Description:
Longmont Planning and Zoning – October 27, 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/w3xJ7boXi8-Wd6v9RCV5L3YU6Ro

Unknown Speaker 3:17
Good Alex. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the October 27 2021. Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. First item on our agenda is Roll Call.

Unknown Speaker 3:27
Chairman Chernykh. Here, Commissioner flag here. Commissioner height as a commissioner Kotch here, Commissioner honor on. Commissioner Polen here, Commissioner teta? You’re Chairman you have a quorum.

Unknown Speaker 3:51
Great. Thank you, Jane. Okay. Anyone wishing to speak tonight during the public invited to be heard, which is items for an eight or during any public hearing items, which is agenda item six A tonight will need to watch the livestream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. Instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen when it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. Next on the agenda is communications from planning director Glenn Vanden Morgan.

Unknown Speaker 4:40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and planning commissioners. Welcome this evening. We had intended to have your electronic participation policy for you. But as you know, we’re a little bit down on staff in our city’s attorney’s office so soon as we’re ready. We will put that back on the agenda and We appreciate all the work that’s gone into it to this point. But that’s that’s all I have to communicate this evening.

Unknown Speaker 5:08
Okay, great.

Unknown Speaker 5:09
Thank you, Glen. Appreciate that. Oh, and while we’re talking about city attorneys, everybody should notice that we do not have an attorney present tonight from the city. Glenn gave me notice that in advance if we run into an issue that need absolutely needs legal counsel from the city’s attorney, we, our only option would be to to table the meeting until a date certain in the future. But hopefully, we won’t run into something like that. Okay. All right. Next on the agenda is public comment. This is for anything that’s not on the agenda tonight on because we have a public hearing section for that item. So public comment anybody who wants to say anything you want to the commission. Dallas if we could put the instructions up on the screen, and then I’ll read through this. Thank you. So the information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 87162873678. 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 five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. To do this we all the technicalities behind the scenes we need five minutes, we’ll take a five minute break. We’ll be back at 710

Unknown Speaker 11:45
chair I’m going to unmute. I’m going to drop this slide and we’re going to wait for the stream to catch up.

Unknown Speaker 11:52
Great thank you Dallas

Unknown Speaker 12:29
Alright, Chair, I see we have one caller.

Unknown Speaker 12:32
Yeah. Um, so Dallas if if you want to get them into the meeting, it’s caller who’s number ends in 949?

Unknown Speaker 12:47
Color 949 Are you there?

Unknown Speaker 12:52
Hi, I’m here. Hi, my name is Ruby Bowman, can you hear me? Yes, we

Unknown Speaker 12:58
can hear you.

Unknown Speaker 12:59
Okay. Hi, my name is Ruby Bowman 1512 left hand drive. At the August Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, I asked the commission for a copy of planning and zoning conflicts of interest policy. Deputy City Attorney Theresa Tate responded to my comments and said the policy was contained in the city municipal code. To obtain a copy takes it I would have to do an open records request or Quora. I submitted a request to the city clerk’s office and received responses to my chorus from the records manager. She informed me that the Longmont municipal code does not contain specific policy concerning conflicts of interest for the Planning and Zoning Commission, nor is there a general policy for boards and commissions. At the August meeting, Miss Teresa take spoken elaborate detail about what was contained in the city’s conflicts of interest policy. He explained that only commissioner on Iran can determine whether he had a conflict regarding the river town annexation, even though the river town developer was a client of his and honor on voted to recommend approval of the annexation. The state also talked about disclosure of conflicts. I now know the truth about there being no conflicts of interest policy in the city code. I would like the commissioners to tell me which city documented mistake use to base her legal opinion regarding the policy. What was the basis of her statement when she told you that only Commissioner honor on and no one else can determine whether he has a conflict of interest on the matter before the commission. The statement doesn’t make sense to me. If this is the case, it opens to the possibility of corruption on the commission. The City Clerk’s office provided me with a copy of penzeys bylaws. There’s only one sentence in the bylaws pertaining to conflicts. It’s resuscitate. extrapolate all deep all the details of her explanation to the commissioners regarding the policy from that one sentence. I don’t think so. Please direct staff to provide me with a copy of the city’s conflicts of conflicts of interest policy, as explained in detail by mistake at the August meeting, not send me on another wild goose chase by requiring me to do another core request. The city attorney staff should be more cooperative and not so secretive about the policy. When I requested a copy of boulders conflicts of interest policy from the Boulder City Planning Department, the development review manager readily provided a link to the policy in boulders Municipal Code, Boulder City didn’t make me do a corps request. They seem to be more open about their policies in Longmont and maybe the reason for this is Boulder has a genuine conflicts of interest policy. While Longmont does not. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 16:25
Thank you, Miss Bowman.

Unknown Speaker 16:26
Appreciate your comments. Dallas just to double check, we have no other callers that appears

Unknown Speaker 16:35
that is correct.

Unknown Speaker 16:35
Okay. So we will close the public comment. And we will move on to Item five on our agenda which is approval of the August 18 2021 minutes. And any discussion amongst the commissioners about the minutes. Commissioner height

Unknown Speaker 17:02
I’d move to approve the minutes of the planning Zoning Commission for rec 2021 with one small caveat with respect to the discussion on the first portion of our the Riverton river town know that the river town annexation the second part of our discussion, which was excuse me, because I reached down and find it in their records

Unknown Speaker 17:39
I apologize. It was with respect to the 1402 coffee ministry conditional use site plan was that is with respect to the small coffee shop in the parking lot at 20th in Main Street in any event, we move to approve but I think I had observed too that the issue with whether or not there could be walk up customers, I think I observed that I suspected that medical professionals, medical professionals from the building adjacent to where this building was going to be constructed would probably be walking up. That was the only caveat I would add to those August minutes.

Unknown Speaker 18:34
So Claire, do you want that added to the mood I

Unknown Speaker 18:40
get that I would like to have that added. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 18:43
So, so this is basically a conditioned approval of our minutes. That’s on the floor emotion to approve our minutes if if there is a statement added that Commissioner hight made the comments that he just referred to. Do we have further discussion or a second? Commercial poll.

Unknown Speaker 19:09
I’ll second.

Unknown Speaker 19:10
Okay, so we have a motion to approve in a second. On the floor. All those. We need to do this person by person. I’ll call the names of each Commissioner. Commissioner flag. How do you vote

Unknown Speaker 19:31
I’m I’m not able to hear you all clearly because I’m getting many feeds in on the sound.

Unknown Speaker 19:40
So I’m actually Commissioner teta. I know your mic is still on. Is that on? If we shut off your mic and Commissioner on Ron’s mic, or if we just go one at a time that might help Commissioner flag? Commissioner flake Do you want to Give your vote on the motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner flag is your sound working?

Unknown Speaker 20:19
Commissioner flag go ahead and try now.

Unknown Speaker 20:23
I can still hear Commissioner Chernykh I abstain.

Unknown Speaker 20:32
Okay. Fair enough. Commissioner honor on

Unknown Speaker 20:37
this Yes.

Unknown Speaker 20:39
Commissioner teta? Yes. Commissioner Luke Hodge.

Unknown Speaker 20:46
Dane. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 20:49
Commissioner. Hi. Aye. Commissioner Polen.

Unknown Speaker 20:54

Unknown Speaker 20:55
Okay, and I will vote yes as well. And so Jane That is five yeses, zero nose and two abstentions from commissioners the caution flag. So our minutes are approved with the condition. And Commissioner height if if Jane needs more clarity from you, I’m sure she will contact you to work out exactly what it is you said or she can go back to the video of of the meeting. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 21:27
Thank you. Sure.

Unknown Speaker 21:29
Commissioner. Susan. Looks like we just lost Commissioner flag. Okay. Would you give us a moment and allow her to log back in?

Unknown Speaker 21:42
Sure. We’ll take a brief pause

Unknown Speaker 21:58
Jane, is there a way to reach out to Commissioner flag there she is. Okay. Yeah, here she comes Commissioner flag give us just a minute we’re gonna get your name corrected. And permissions changed here

Unknown Speaker 22:37
all right, Commissioner flag would you mind try unmuting your mic? Everything sound okay, now?

Unknown Speaker 22:43
Um, yeah, I’m only hearing one set of voices at a time.

Unknown Speaker 22:47
Excellent. Glad to hear it.

Unknown Speaker 22:48
Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Unknown Speaker 22:54
We will

Unknown Speaker 22:55
get back to our agenda. Good to have you back. Mr. Flagg. Next on the agenda is Item six A which is the Daniel’s annexation concept plan amendment. And I believe we have planner Eva Paradiski. To walk us through it.

Unknown Speaker 23:14
Thank you chair. Sure. Nick and commissioners Eva Jeff, ski principal planner, Susan or Dallas. Whenever you’re ready, you can cue up the staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you. So the start this first item is an annexation concept plan called the Daniel’s annexation. Next slide please. And so I’m going to give you some background on this and then the applicants will discuss their request further. As you can see from the red box here. This is the location it’s the southeast corner of state highway 66. And Alpine Street. On the total land area in the red box is about eight, eight acres. But the land area of this concept plan amendment is just under two acres, it is this area on the right and on the bottom on the east and on the south, where you see the dirt. That’s the subject I guess, if you will of this portion of the annexation agreement, annexation concept plan amendment. So this property was brought into the city in 2006. And at the time, it was zoned residential PUD. And it there was an accompanying concept planned, which I’ll get to next. And it was rezoned in 2018, to residential mixed neighborhood when we did the very big overhaul of our land development code. And we rezoned all the many of the PUD properties to st zone and so the RM NS zoning allows many types of residential uses it allows single family allows multifamily duplex triplex including obviously paired homes. And and so it matches or it’s consistent with the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan designation is mixed neighborhood. And so the allowable density range currently for this property is a minimum of six and a maximum of eight dwelling units per acre. So for the total aggregate of this annexation, the allowable density would be between 48 and 144 dwelling units. And what’s proposed here, and I’ll get to that in the next slide is 16. residential lots in this area where the dirt is on the on the east and on the south, plus 52 units that currently exist in the village Co Op apartment building, as you see right there, on the left side of the red box, and so there’s there would be a total of 68 dwelling units. Next slide, please. And so currently, when the when the concept plan came in, in 2006, the proposal if you see the hatched line there, that’s the village Co Op, 52 unit apartment building. And then as you can see on the right side, and on the bottom are the east side and the south side, there were to be eight planted, single family lots accompanying this Co Op building. And in the concept plan, there would be a new local street, as you see here, this cul de sac that would be accessed from Alpine Street. Next slide, please. And so, over time, as you’ve probably seen, the village Co Op building was constructed, it’s 52 units, it’s right there on the southeast corner of highway 66 and alpine street. What the current landowner of the remaining portion of the property would like to do is take those eight lots that were planted already as eight single family lots and replant them into 16. Lots for paired homes. And then the total density would be 68 units. And again, as a reminder, from the previous slide, the zoning does allow up to 144. This is somewhat compatible with the development that’s across the street to the west. With the KB Homes, parent homes development in which they have 88 parent homes, similar to this under construction currently. Next slide, please.

Unknown Speaker 27:38
And then just briefly, in terms of public outreach, we had a neighborhood meeting back in January. Again, this was during, you know, the COVID restriction, so we did it on a Zoom meeting, there were 22 attendees. Generally, the concerns were related to you know, concerns from the neighbors from the adjoining adjacent single family neighborhood in Pleasant Valley, increased density, adding eight more homes and what those traffic impacts might be. And then we sent out a notice of application when the formal application came into us in March. And again, sent out notice, we got two written objections for the same concerns density and traffic. And the notes from the neighborhood meeting, as well as the comments from the notice of application are located in attachment three of your packet. And finally, we did send out a notice of public hearing for municipal code and posted signs. I did get only one letter I was an objection. And it was from one of the parties who also wrote in an objection back in March to the notice of application. And I believe that actually I know I wrote here prior to packet being sent out, but I believe that I actually got that into your packets. So it should be there at the top or somewhere there. After the neighborhood meeting and the notice of application comments. It was one of the same parties. Next slide, please. And so that’s just a brief overview of what was approved what the zoning allows and what they’re proposing to do. Again, the reason we’re here is because one of the review criteria, you know, normally this would just have gone through a planning process. But the one of the review criteria is that whatever they’re proposing, is consistent with any previously approved approved annexation concept plans. And since the original Dannic Daniel’s annexation concept plan only showed eight lots, you know, we advise them you’d have to come back in and get a concept plan amendments, and then if that’s approved by city council, ultimately then they could come back and read Platts because they’re planning more than three lots this would come back to you as a preliminary plats as well in the future. If this is approved, and with that, I’d like to turn this over to Joel Siemens and Kim Voss, who are representing the property owner, and they will discuss the review criteria and the rationale behind the request.

Unknown Speaker 30:14
Great. Thank you, Eva. And before they start, we need Commissioner height to make a few comments, please.

Unknown Speaker 30:20
Thank you very much. dealing with conflict of interest related disclosures Joel Siemens Brackenridge, civil engineering was retained by my law firm with respect to another land use project in a different jurisdiction. The work that I hired, Mr seems to perform was not used in connection with that project. My conclusion is I am not in any way shape or form biased by Mr. Siemens work on this project. But I do want to make that disclosure. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 30:54
Thank you, Commissioner height. So yes, let’s now move on to the applicants presentation.

Unknown Speaker 31:01
Great, thank you. So Jolin can if you’d like to turn your camera and mic on and Dallas, if you want to queue up the applicants presentation, that’d be great.

Unknown Speaker 31:16

Unknown Speaker 31:18
thank you, Eva.

Unknown Speaker 31:19
Everybody hear me okay. Okay, let’s trust that you are okay.

Unknown Speaker 31:27
Yes, we

Unknown Speaker 31:28
can hear you. Yes. Okay. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 31:30
because all I see is my presentation. Okay, so hello, my name is Joel Siemens with Rocky Ridge civil engineering for 20/21 Street here in Longmont. Thank you for the time, Chairman Chernykh. And commissioners and with us we have Matt Delage with who is our traffic engineer, and Ken vos, who is real estate consultants, and also Jim Morris, who’s the applicant. Today we’re gonna talk about the village duplexes like Eva introduced as adjacent to the village Co Op. Next slide. This is simply a vicinity map showing some of the streets and the location of those existing lots, lots two through nine. Next slide. And because we’re in the maps I wanted to add aerial of, of how it stands today, the village crop building is built for to two units. Lots two through nine are vacant the detention ponds in place. So well the court is also installed awaiting final approval.

Unknown Speaker 32:50
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 32:53
So the existing conditions, the total area that Daniels annexation, PD, taking out that right away toward the north, the Greenway is 6.64. I use this just for more conservative calculations. And so we’ll get to that in a second. Lots, two through nine are being developed and our utility mains street sidewalk and all drainage features are in place.

Unknown Speaker 33:26
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 33:29
This is a copy of the platted lot or sorry, the recorded plat on a record with Boulder County, showing the lots in areas and the easements and the lots as we planned it next slide. So my goal today is to go through the review criteria analysis to letter explain the the processes and and there there are six. First of all, to see what the how it’s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan complies with city standards is compatible with land use layout access. Number four does not adversely affect the neighborhood. Number five complies with sustainability evaluation system and also includes a multimodal transportation plan. Next slide. The first one address is the comprehensive plan and these are some of the the numbers that you’ve got crunched as well. Again using 6.64 acres instead of eight against the current zoning of residential and mixed neighborhood resulted in a lower net of 39 to 119. Again, this is more conservative just to show Just tightens about on that. So it shows a more conservative number. So taking out the 52 existing units, that area leaves the for the co op leaves 67 units available for development. And we are proposing 16 units. Next slide. So making sure that we’re meeting and complying with city standards. So while the court is adjacent to all the laws for access, pedestrian vehicular and emergency access, there’s adequate fire hydrant protection. In the street, there’s a eight inch water main in the street, a eight inch sanitary sewer main in the street and our drainage swales in the back of the lots and lots in the street of will the court. Next slide. And this is North is to the right of the page. It’s just showing some of the technical data if we have to reference later of of the infrastructure that’s been installed.

Unknown Speaker 36:10
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 36:15
I don’t number three, proposing the development of compatible surrounding properties per envision Longmont. I want to quote from the Envision long months, the mixed neighborhood plan. goal is to provide residents with a mix of housing options and densities within close proximity to services and amenities. And also it’ll serve as a transition between single family neighborhoods and higher density corridors centers and employment areas similar to the duplexes being built to the west currently on the

Unknown Speaker 36:56
other side

Unknown Speaker 36:58
of Alpine. Next slide. Number four,

Unknown Speaker 37:06
looking at how it affects surrounding properties. So I wanted to focus on some of the address issues that were addressed during some of our reach outreach.

Unknown Speaker 37:21

Unknown Speaker 37:23

Unknown Speaker 37:26
In short, we’re proposing a lesser dense product, we’re only proposing 16 units rather than maximum that we already talked about. So according to our calculations, again, which are more conservative as 51 Less units than what’s allowed for this area, there’s this concern about off street parking. And the following exhibit on the next page will show how parking is accomplished on the site. So if you go to the next slide

Unknown Speaker 38:06

Unknown Speaker 38:09
was a double click so go back one,

Unknown Speaker 38:13
if you would.

Unknown Speaker 38:18
Say go back one more. There we go.

Unknown Speaker 38:22
That’s one. So he shared driveway parks for cars or two per dwelling unit. And then each dwelling unit also parks two cars in the garage. There was a concern that they might borrow some of the spaces their village Co Op but to assure there’s plenty of parking, both for the owner and for visitors that come visit. Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 38:54
Number five

Unknown Speaker 38:55
talks about complying with a sustainability evaluation system making sure mitigate impacts of development within the city’s riparian areas and there are no environmentally sensitive areas. Here there’s a detention pond that’s already built and approved. In the southeast corner of the development. There are some drainage swales in their own outlot When we touch either and so everything is in place and there’s no need to or no adjacent environmentally sensitive areas. Next slide. The last criteria addresses the appropriate transportation plan showing multimodal transportation access. And so as you can see on the next slide, if you would, there is sidewalk circulation throughout the development We use a darker line to help highlight the circulation. The work connects to RTD stops as to the east. And also, the walkway is Jason to Greenway to the north, which was acquired by village crop to install and is currently in use today.

Unknown Speaker 40:29
Next slide.

Unknown Speaker 40:32
So, the proposed development satisfies all six review criteria with the Municipal Code put forward, and we thank for your time we welcome any questions and so we can address them to me, the civil engineer or Matt, the traffic engineer or can or Jim. Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 40:55
Thank you, Mr. Siemens. Great, um, this is a public hearing item. And let’s go ahead and open up the public hearing on this. So Dallas if we could put the instructions up on the screen again for people to call in specifically to this item. The information is displayed on the screen for you folks viewing from home, please call 1888780099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 87162873678. 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 five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the livestream when you’re called upon to speak. To do this we need five minutes so we will return at 745

Unknown Speaker 46:01
chair I am going to drop the slide and let the live stream catch up. Right now we only have one caller

Unknown Speaker 46:09
make it ours

Unknown Speaker 46:55
it looks like our live stream is back, shall I call on the first caller? This please? Perfect number 958 Would you please unmute yourself?

Unknown Speaker 47:13
Color 958? color with the last three numbers 958 Are you there?

Unknown Speaker 47:29
To say

Unknown Speaker 47:35
hello. Hello 958 We can hear you.

Unknown Speaker 47:42
Okay, my name is Bob bond. I live at 2435. Lilly court, which is the street in question, apartment 312. I had addressed the previous session looking to find some additional off street parking. And I suggested hammerheads in the driveway. The what I heard earlier tonight was that two cars per living unit was going to be adequate for these units. But yet at the same time, I take a walk in the evening and I go down Flagstaff Street in the block, which is immediately to the east of these, the west facing lots. And I see half of the garage garage doors when they’re open the garages or warehouses, there’s no cars in there. The driveways will have anywhere from two to four cars in the driveway. And there’s more than half of the street parking space on both sides use up. Now those are single family locations. If the density on them is doubled, I think we’re going to have some problems there. And I do feel that although it sounds like this meets all the qualifications of density, like in actuality, if you look one block to the east, the actuality is that there’s a hell of a lot more cars per building, then what you folks indicate would be adequate. That’s all I have to say right now. Does anybody have any immediate response for what I said?

Unknown Speaker 49:42
Mr. Mr. Vaughn, we don’t do a back and forth q&a. So and this is

Unknown Speaker 49:50
okay. Yeah, that’s what I have to say.

Unknown Speaker 49:53
Okay, great. Well, thank you very much. Really appreciate it. All right. Good night. Dallas any other callers that might have snuck in there? I don’t see any.

Unknown Speaker 50:07
Nope. We have no more callers. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 50:11
So we will close the public hearing on this item and go to discussion and questions amongst the commission. Your buddy want to kick us off commissure flag.

Unknown Speaker 50:27
Thank you, Chairman. I don’t see anybody listed as being from traffic engineering this evening. And my question actually was in regards to if there had been any traffic studies for that area in Alpine, showing how much traffic is going through the neighborhood, versus how much is being originated within the neighborhood areas. We have any of that kind of information.

Unknown Speaker 51:00
Good evening, Commissioner flake. Again, as I think I noted in the staff report that because when a project generates less than 500 daily trips per day, are not required to submit one traffic study. So one wasn’t submitted. However, I will say that Matt de lik is here, who’s the traffic engineer for the property owner. So if Matt wants to jump on, and if you have some data to share, that’d be great.

Unknown Speaker 51:32
Okay, this is Matt Dallas, Dallas Associates. We’re traffic consultants. Can everybody hear me okay?

Unknown Speaker 51:44
Hello, yes, we can hear you.

Unknown Speaker 51:46

Unknown Speaker 51:49
Anyway, we did a traffic impact study back in 2017. For this same project, when it was eight units less than what it is now. And

Unknown Speaker 52:05
in that,

Unknown Speaker 52:07
in that traffic study, went through here. This, this project generated on a daily basis, about 254 trip ends. Now, let me define trip ends. For those who aren’t, aren’t traffic geeks like myself. If you live it, you’re obviously live in your house and you go to the grocery store, when you leave your house to go to the grocery store, that’s one trip in. And when you return, that’s another trip. And so a grocery trip is to trip ends just define what a trip end is. Because I’m going to use that terminology. Though, the previous proposal, that 254 trip ends on a daily basis 18 In the morning, peak hour, and 21 in the afternoon, peak hour. And peak hours are defined as the time between seven and nine in the morning and four to six in the afternoon. The highest hour in each of those two hour brackets. Now we’re adding eight units to the single family aspect of of this development. And it will jump the trip generation on a daily basis that goes to 330 drip ends in the morning peak hour 23 and in the afternoon peak hour 29. So in morning peak hour, the Delta the increase over the previous proposal is five trip ends. And in the afternoon peak hour it’s a trip and those are single digit increases. Now in our analysis in the traffic study we did back in 2017 there with Page Three this we counted traffic at the intersection of ute highway highway 66 and alpine Street and along the frontage of the property. Now these cars were obtained in 2017. And then we’re in 2021. Now, but we did traffic forecasts using conventional increases in traffic based on Longmont criteria, and in what might be termed the long range future. is typically 20 years hence and in this case, or longer is future in our traffic study was 2040 The increase in traffic over what will be on Alpine Street in the future was a 2% increase. So that’s a very small 2% increase in traffic on Alpine street or, or what’s going past this, this this street right now or in the future. So a 2% increase. So that’s what we found 2% increases is barely noticeable by most people. I’m available for questions. So shoot anything at me.

Unknown Speaker 55:52
Yes, Commissioner flake follow on question.

Unknown Speaker 55:54
And the follow up question I have Matt is. So do you know what the amount of traffic that just drives through that area is? And how, and I, my understanding is that it’s just a 2% increase above that, which is already in existence. So by far the most traffic that is on that street already? Is from not within the neighborhood area. Is that a correct statement?

Unknown Speaker 56:27
Well, I do the 2% is a 2% increase over our forecast the traffic? Recall that we I mentioned, we did the traffic study back in 2017. So we had traffic counts of 2017 when we get to that page in this report.

Unknown Speaker 57:01
So the the traffic on Alpine Street and traffic engineers. Well, daily traffic is, is an important element of traffic engineering. For analysis purposes, we use the peak hours because that’s the highest hours of the day. So what I’m going to tell you is the afternoon peak hour because that is in fact, the highest hour of any given day. So on Alpine Street, the afternoon peak hour, this is the north south, traffic on Alpine not related to this development was 136 vehicles. And we’re adding 29. Now, that’s the traffic now, the 2% I gave you earlier was our forecast that 2040 traffic, which is significantly higher than then the 136 that I just told you. So does that help you?

Unknown Speaker 58:09
You’re you’re muted.

Unknown Speaker 58:12
Yeah, I my, my thought was that. I was trying to find out if there’s so much traffic on there now on that street, or at least in 2017, or whatever. So that, yes, there’ll be traffic coming and going from the development. But the amount that it will contribute is not great in comparison to what is already there driving through

Unknown Speaker 58:48
the neighborhood.

Unknown Speaker 58:50
That’s That’s my conclusion also. Yes. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 58:58
Commissioner height. You had a question?

Unknown Speaker 59:01
I did. Thank you. Mr. De like in the meeting documentation prepared by rocky ridge of the neighborhood meetings, there was a reference several references to a traffic memo to be conducted with addition of? Well, it’s going from eight to 16 units. Is that what yours study that you’re referring to right now? Is that this additional traffic memo?

Unknown Speaker 59:29
No, I did not prepare a memorandum for this meeting or for the project as you see it today. The study that I was referring to a minute ago was the study we did in 2017 over the 52 senior units and eight single family dwelling. Okay, I appreciate that. We’re jumping the eight to 16

Unknown Speaker 59:54
Gotcha. Mr. Siemens, if you’re available, can you identify what you’re referring into in your minute notes of this additional traffic memo. Is there an additional traffic memo beyond this analysis that is going to be prepared?

Unknown Speaker 1:00:13
Yes, you can hear me but I can’t turn on my video, but that’s fine. So eventually, as we submit with preliminary plat and final plat and the site plan and PIP changes, that’s when we bring all the raw data and and come back to this board. Specifically, when we do preliminary plat, we’ll have Matt’s revised memo. So right now, we’re just doing concept plan. amendment for the first step. And so we do the technical memos, verify drainage traffic utilities, and get in the nuts and bolts for the preliminary plat and then do the follow up. So that’s that’s the timeframe. But you will see that memo in the process. Appreciate

Unknown Speaker 1:01:05
that. I have one more question for you. It may be Joel, you’re the right guy. Maybe somebody from Walmart can can sit at the intersection at pace and 66 is going to get signalized at some point in the future.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:18
That you know that at all? I do not know.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:21
Patient 66.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:24
Eight and 66 has a light.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:26
No, that’s what I was thinking.

Unknown Speaker 1:01:29
Oh, it does have a light now. Okay. No, I think I should know that. But thank you for

Unknown Speaker 1:01:35
I should know that. I do. I think there was a comment in the in may represent Joel’s discussion that possibly traffic is going up. And I think it’s 21st Street. I might be wrong. But moving in a in an east west direction, cutting around I think at that, at that point in time, possibly if a lack of a signal at 66 and pace. Mr. D like is there any information that you have regarding traffic moving for possibly a more direct route out to highway 66. In other words, going through the neighborhoods east or west?

Unknown Speaker 1:02:18
Well, right now hastened 66 or signalized. as we as we know. However, this traffic from from this development and others that kind of surrounded come out to Alpine streets, which also comes up to highway 66, approximately a half a mile to the west of pace. Now, right now, a signal is not warranted at 66 and alpine Street. And the signal warrants are based on volume. So the volumes aren’t there to warrant a signal in the in the future. In our study that we did back in 2017. And forecast that traffic out to the year 2040. We indicated that there was a fair possibility that the Alpine 66 intersection would be signalized in the future. But that would only occur if the volume warrants are met. As you as you well know, highway 66 is a CDOT facility and they won’t allow a signal on their facility without it meeting the actual warrants in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:39
But it’s possible sometime in the future that might have to happen. It might happen. Okay. That’s another question I have regarding traffic and I’ll leave it to others I have more questions but on a different topic.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:54
Any any other questions? Commissioner the

Unknown Speaker 1:04:00

Unknown Speaker 1:04:02
Thank you

Unknown Speaker 1:04:03
Chairman. Um I mean I had the same concern as Commissioner hide with with the adding a light there at Alpine in 66. Do you know if in your traffic study you will include the traffic going on 66 and turning into alpine or maybe going forward because you know if we add a traffic light that means some that now are going through paste and might be diverted through us So will you include traffic from Highway 66 in your study?

Unknown Speaker 1:04:41
Well, if in the future, we’re gonna signal Warren is done at that intersection at Alpine and 66. All the traffic going in to and out of that intersection will be counted. For Well, every hour of the day, every 15 minutes of the day, for probably at least two days, and that information will go into conducting what’s termed a signal warrants study. So the short answer to your questions, yes, all the traffic will be included in that work. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:24
Thank you and had some questions about the sidewalks I think. Are they are they buffered sidewalks? No, no. Literally Street

Unknown Speaker 1:05:40
as in

Unknown Speaker 1:05:40
detached from the street, yes. detached? Yes. Yes. Yes. There.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:45
So, okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:05:47
So that means when if there will be a wheelchair going on the sidewalk, they will not be slanted by the driveway. That’s right there. Right. That did it’s a flat sidewalk and then, right, that’s right, is further in the detachment. Right?

Unknown Speaker 1:06:04
That’s correct. So the driveway, cattle come up, and then the sidewalk and driveway will continue.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:09
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that’s all for now for traffic. Thanks.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:17
I saw somebody else had their hand up. I think I might have been commissioned polling. Yes.

Unknown Speaker 1:06:22
Yeah. Joel, can you just talk a little bit about the way the driveways are set up? Um, there was a couple of concerns in the notes people wrote in on, I wrote in about the shared drives, and can you just explain what you what you’re doing? What you’ve looked into? And then what your opinion is for that?

Unknown Speaker 1:06:50
There we go. So you bet. Is there a way I can get back one of the slides that shows the cars and the illustration in the presentation?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:01

Unknown Speaker 1:07:01
Which presentation? The applicants presentation

Unknown Speaker 1:07:05
applicants presentation? Yep, give me just a moment. And which slide would you like me to go to?

Unknown Speaker 1:07:24
So I don’t have them numbered in front of me, but it’s toward the back. That’s the only one that shows illustration car. So I think it’s five from the back. Or maybe four from the back.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:38
I will load it in just a moment.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:49
That’s the one. So Dallas, if you could zoom in to one of those, we can see it a little closer. Whoops. Maybe we just

Unknown Speaker 1:08:00
look at that.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:05
Or we could just look at that. I don’t want to complicate things, but yeah, perfect, but I’ll do fine.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:23
Yeah. Worker, would you like is there a specific part you’d like me to focus on?

Unknown Speaker 1:08:26
No, that’s good. That’s, that’s good detail. So. So again, this is concept plan. We think there’s some efficiency, putting the pavement together that way, maximizing the green spaces on either side. And so the intent is to design a driveway that’s 40 feet wide 20 on one lot 20 on the other lot, with the lot line going right down the middle. And that would allow 20 feet for two cars in the driveway itself and 20 feet for the other drive. And so that’s that’s the intent of this concept plan. Again, we haven’t done all the nuts and bolts and we have three more steps to go through before you know there’s approved so there’s a lot more work to do. But that is a the current concept.

Unknown Speaker 1:09:23
Well, is there any kind of demarcation then in the middle to kind of like tell the neighbors were Were there a lot line is on their driveway?

Unknown Speaker 1:09:31
That’s a good question. A lot of times they will pin the lats. So in the right away, they’ll have surveyors pins on on the lock corners, so they’ll have them in the back as well but also in the right away all the way at every lock corner. So yes, it would be very visible and they’re, they’re about $1 size so they’re they’re very noticeable

Unknown Speaker 1:10:00
then it looks like there’s two to three cars potential to park along the street between those open up between the driveways, then.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:10
Yeah, the only thing we have to watch out for is hydrants. There’s two hydrogens located. Of course, there’s some area we can’t park next to that. But yes, there’s there’s a lot of space in lowly street or lower court as well to park.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:26
Okay, thank you Dallas, can we drop? Yeah. Great. Thank you. Um, I have some questions for Eva actually.

Unknown Speaker 1:10:45
Eva Hi. So, Mr. Vaughn, who called in on, he made some comments that that that I wanted to try to get some clarity on for all of us. So first off, when we’re looking at projects,

Unknown Speaker 1:11:11

Unknown Speaker 1:11:13
Mr. Vaughn is right, that a lot of Americans use their garages as warehouses, that’s beyond the purview of our commission, we can’t change that. So, um, but when you’re looking at a project, if if the developer says this is going to be a house with two car garage, we have to assume that two cars could be could be parked there, right. And so if the developers saying these are duplexes with two car garages, and they can park two cars in their driveway, we’re actually talking four cars per unit for this. Am I right about that?

Unknown Speaker 1:12:01
Yes, Chernick. That’s correct. So the municipal code, we can only do what the Municipal Code allows. And if you can prove up in your drawings, that you have a two car garage, meaning meeting the minimum dimensional standards, we would have to approve that. And so as long as there are two car garages are at least 20 feet wide, approximately 1820 feet deep. And as you are saying, Yes, that’s correct, they would all have driveways, and potentially could also have two cars parked in the driveway, in addition to two cars in the garage. Moreover, there’s also parking on both sides of the court.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:39
Okay. And, and, and over at the concept stage. But does a project like this have parking minimums or parking maximums.

Unknown Speaker 1:12:50
So in residential zones, we have parking minimums for single family attached is this is what we would classify that as the requirement is to have a minimum of two parking spaces per parcel. And so as long as they can demonstrate through a site plan review, or that they have two cars in a garage, or a driveway, that does meet our standards.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:14
So right now, this concept is actually doubling our standard by having four potential car spaces per per unit.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:23
Correct. That’s potential and and, you know, Mr. Vaughn is right. You know, we certainly have a lot of residents who don’t use their garages for parking. And unfortunately, you know, that we cannot control you force someone to put a car in your garage.

Unknown Speaker 1:13:39
Some people put TVs in their kitchen, you know, can’t control that either. So, uh, now, there was something I didn’t understand from Mr. Barnes comments, and I did see this in his letter as well. He was suggesting something about Hammerhead driveways. And I didn’t quite understand how that would work and what the benefit would be. And he said driveway is not a hammerhead into the cul de sac. Do you?

Unknown Speaker 1:14:14
Can you

Unknown Speaker 1:14:15
add anything to that?

Unknown Speaker 1:14:17
I will defer to Joel on that. Because I wasn’t at the neighborhood meeting. I can only imagine he’s trying to say that people would park curved maybe. But I’ll leave it to Joel because I’m just conjecturing.

Unknown Speaker 1:14:31
Great, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:14:32
So you have a correct conjecture. So instead of just going 40 feet straight rectangular you you’d come in at 20 and then go out and have wings probably all the way to either a lot line. So you have one driveway but actually the parking spaces are that way. And you can you can do a variety of different things. But what that does is it limits the The landscape opportunity and maximizes the runoff. And so we’re not a big fan of that because it generates more stormwater to the pond. So

Unknown Speaker 1:15:11
So Mr. Siemens, when you say it increases the runoff, that’s because you’d be paving more of the lot in order to create the hammerhead. Okay. Would you actually it almost sounds as if you would lose the double stacking scenario, which you showed in that drawing. And, and you would actually park fewer cars, wouldn’t you?

Unknown Speaker 1:15:39
The defending? What we haven’t done concept, Lee, what would that would look like, but you would need a 20 foot swing before the house, and then 20 foot on that side to get two cars on each side. So yeah, we haven’t laid that out to see if it’ll work for each one. I know, as we lay out that the duplexes we need to offset them. So they can’t be all in a row. We need some depth and changes. So for some lots will be harder than others, because the houses going to be more in front are closer to the right away. So that might be a challenge for those lots. So But no, we haven’t run those concepts yet on on a hammer.

Unknown Speaker 1:16:25
Okay, and but back to one of your review criteria, which is, which is that you need to meet our sustainability goals. Adding more paving would actually move you in the wrong direction from that correct?

Unknown Speaker 1:16:39
It would, I do know that. In the as built, the pond was oversized. So there is some capacity, but I just like to keep it at that as a safety factor. In case there’s additional patio or whatever that’s built in the back, you know, again, it’s something that we can’t control, just like I like your comment about TVs in the kitchen. But yeah, that’s just something we can’t control.

Unknown Speaker 1:17:05
Okay, one more question for just to clarify, there was another letter in our packet from another member of the public, who I think misunderstood exactly how many units are going on, but I just want to get this into the record. I think in the in the letter, the person said, oh, there’s going to be 16 duplexes, and then they were counting that as 32 units. So just for the record, we’ve got eight watts, that you’re amending the concept plan to split those into two, so there’ll be 16 Watts and 16 units. Right. But two lots, get one building that’s called the duplex

Unknown Speaker 1:18:02
is exactly right.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:04
Okay, so we really got 16 families, not 32 families.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:13
I think the confusion might have been that we might have called it 16 Duplex units or 16 Duplex slots, which it’s, it gets confusing because I totally see how she or he would would jump to that conclusion. So but yeah, it is 16 units total, outside of the village Co Op.

Unknown Speaker 1:18:35
Great. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. It’s like semi annual and biannual. Other questions? Commissioner? Hey,

Unknown Speaker 1:18:46
Aubrey, um, Joel in our staff report. There was a reference to public works had noted that the public improvement plan needs to be amended because the sewer water electricity was only sized for single family residences. I think you had indicated in your presentation that all the sewer and water was appropriate. Is there anything that needs to be changed eventually

Unknown Speaker 1:19:11
the only thing that needs to be changed the mains are okay as is they just need to add services. So what that means is we need to do additional cuts into the street to make those connections so each slot has their own sanitary and water not shared at all. So right now there’s eight pairs of utilities sanitary water sanitary water, and and also the the LPC is sized to generate electricity for all these units as well but we would in the PIP amendment, proposed location specific locations. So all the each slot will get its own sanitary and water service but the mains are adequately sized Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:00
Okay, so the service is adequate. It’s just the number of connections needs to be correct. Okay, thank you that was it.

Unknown Speaker 1:20:09
Mr. Pola?

Unknown Speaker 1:20:11
I don’t know if this is gonna be forever for Joel. But, um, can you talk a little bit about the affordable housing if there’s going to be a component for that? I believe there was. There was a note in there, I think in the staff report about it. Can you speak about regarding the affordable housing?

Unknown Speaker 1:20:32
Well, that’s a requirement, as you know, 12% on they can either deed restrict, or they can do a cash in lieu. So I’ll turn it over to Joel or if Jim wants to do it on behalf of the developer, I don’t know, at this juncture, what they’re going to do with that we would sort that out. Usually, we do that through preliminary plat. Once we get through the concept plan stage, Joel or Ken or J. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:20:57
I was just talking to Ken. We haven’t decided which way we’re gonna go whether we’re gonna specifically designate lots or or do.

Unknown Speaker 1:21:09
Okay. One comment that, though, the previous concept plan, which had the eight residential single family detached, and permitted on these lots did not include affordable housing. So by doing this subdivision, it does trigger the affordable housing requirement. The developer has no objection to that. It’s really just a question as we get into what the what the costs and trade offs are for doing the cash in lieu versus doing deed restrictions there, that’s certainly going to be accommodated. But that is one of the advantages of the this in in terms of the affordable affordability housing goal is that we do end up meeting that requirement where it’s not as it’s currently entitled require.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:02

Unknown Speaker 1:22:03
thank you. Other questions? comments, discussion? motions. Almost called on you Commissioner teta?

Unknown Speaker 1:22:20

Unknown Speaker 1:22:21
Commissioner Polen.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:22
I’ll give my two cents. I think you know, as talked about the the traffic increases somewhere maybe in the 2% range, kind of really minimal. We get to get the benefit of some affordable housing or at least a cash in lieu for that. I don’t see a big issue with the parking as you said, we can’t control what people do with the garages. But there appears to be plenty of spaces that will be available for them. It’s over what the minimum requirements are. And one of the things I know that we’d like to do is when we have something like an apartment building, we’d like to have a down step before you hit the single residential family with a single residential family to the east even though they are going to be up against the duplex. But it’s basically almost like more of a buffers what we how we look at it. So for me, this kind of checks most of boxes. I’m okay with this. And I’ll be for the amendment.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:27
Thank you, Commissioner polling other discussion, comments, Commissioner? Hey,

Unknown Speaker 1:23:33
we’re gonna unmute myself. Um, yeah, I likewise, believe that it has demonstrated that it complies with the design review with the review criteria to amend this concept plan. And I’d like to move approval of PCR 2110 Sorry, PCR 2021 10. A, finding that it meets all the conditions in improving the application.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:01
We have a motion to approve PCR 2021 Dash 10. A to metropolit our second app. That’s been seconded by Commissioner Poland. Further discussion before we take a vote Okay, let’s take a vote all do it by roll call. Commissioner flaig? Yes. Commissioner Lukash high. Commissioner

Unknown Speaker 1:24:29
teta high.

Unknown Speaker 1:24:32
Commissioner honor on high. Commissioner Polen. Yay. Commissioner height. Yay. And I will also vote yes. So that does pass unanimously Seven to zero. And I need to find there it is. My statement. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with counsel procedures and intend to appear before counsel, please contact the Planning Division for further information at 303-651-8330. Mr. Siemens, Mr. Morris and Mr. Voss and Mr. DELIC, thank you for coming tonight and presenting the project. Eva, thank you for stepping us through this. And your help on it. We have more of an agenda to go through. So we’re going to move forward. Next, thank you, everybody. Next on our agenda is Item seven, which is secondary uses. This is a discussion amongst the commission and city staff about the concept of secondary uses and its application to projects in the city of Longmont. Is this, Brian leading this or Glen? Or are you kicking us off? Okay.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:09
Mr. Chairman, and commissioners? Yeah, I think this came up at our last planning commission. But it’s come up a few times the concept of secondary uses. And one thing I appreciate about our code is, it’s very flexible. And it’s also very closely tied to our comprehensive plan. But that makes decisions a little bit flex are a little bit complicated. So thanks for this opportunity. And as you know, this didn’t we didn’t arrive here overnight. It’s been an evolution. So in fact, I think about 20 years, this concept has been coming up. So we’ve got some of our best minds from our planning department here. I hope Brian made it. But we have Brian Schumacher, Eva, Don Burchette, and Aaron Fosdick. And they’re going to kind of present kind of the evolution of how we got to where we are, and then also give you some examples, and then open it up for discussion. So that’s my kickoff. And it’s hopefully a bit of a free flowing discussion. So if you have a burning question, go ahead and shoot it out. And we’ll, we’ll wrestle with it.

Unknown Speaker 1:27:29

Unknown Speaker 1:27:30
Thank you. It’ll be great. Thank you, Glen, Dallas, could you start the slide presentation, please? Next slide. So tonight, planning commissioners, again, Don Burchett, Planning Division. I’m going to start this off. And then Eva, Brian, and Aaron will take it from here. Again, tonight, we’re going to quickly go through some of these topics. I’m going to kick it off with the previous discussion about our previous code that we had the original land development code, if you want to call land development code 1.0. We’re now on version two. And then from there, we will talk about the vision Longmont and the process that we went through to talk about our current land development code, and some of the restrictions and how that works. And then get into some examples to show the commission how this has been working, and then open it up for discussion and direction. If that’s what the commission would like to do, or, you know, just have a conversation about the topic itself. So next slide. So I’m going to begin tonight, talking about the past code restrictions. And to give everybody just a little bit of history back in the 90s, we did a major update to the land, the Loma Eric comprehensive plan. And as a result of that, and the changes in the policy and the land use map that was adopted at that time, we needed to update our land development code. And so in 2001, we actually created the land development code I should say, which was a compilation of the existing subdivision regulations, the landscape regulations, and the zoning code that we had at that time. They were all in different areas of the Municipal Code, which was not very user friendly. And we wanted to get this combined into one document where people could find the regulations and hopefully make it much more simpler for people to go through our process. As a result of the Comprehensive Plan and the changing of the land uses we also had to adopt our new zoning map so that was also adopted in 2001. One of the results of that was a consolidation of many zoning district types that we had in the community. We have a number of have similar zoning districts that were very similar to each other, and that we did a combination of those and reduce those down. One of those zoning districts that we ended up creating was the mixed industrial zoning district. And it was a transitional district and they mostly covered areas that had been previously developed back in what I would say would be like the 50s 60s, and even some of the 70s some of our manufacturing older manufacturing areas, some commercial, some industrial areas in the town. And those were identified as areas where we wanted to see some change taking place. And as a result of the, the new zoning code, the land development code, what we ended up with was, we were allowing and encouraging some development to occur that typically you would not have found in some of these manufacturing industrial areas like housing. And we also then created the business light industrial zoning district which was probably the the major industrial development areas in the city of Longmont at that time. And that covered properties, for example, like the Amgen development, Xilinx Seagate and and properties that were basically west of the old Twin Peaks Mall. And another change that was occurred was that in that VLA, we allowed for some types of housing to occur as well mixed use was the the focus, usually residential over some other kind of a commercial development. And that was also encouraged in the mixed industrial districts.

Unknown Speaker 1:31:46
What was also allowed during that time, was the ability for what would be termed consumer goods and services. So if you think about how that area at the northeast corner of hoever and Ken Pratt or highway 119 has developed, where you have some of the older Business Park, in the back on the west side, over by South Fordham Street, for example. And then as you cook cane towards hoever, you saw uses that actually helped to serve some of those businesses like restaurants to go to at lunchtime. Some of the hotels for those people who were flying in from out of town that needed a place to stay while they were working there. Even daycares places for people to take their kids that was close to work where they could drop them off on the way in. This was really without us calling a secondary use is kind of the kickoff of the secondary types of uses that we were allowing in the zoning districts. And it is at that original time, they weren’t really limited, other than just the uses themselves were specific in what was allowed. So let’s go to the next slide. So as we started to see some of that development specifically, in the area that I talked about west of the old Twin Peaks Mall. What we what happened is that we were approached by the law, my area Economic Council, which is today known as the LDP, the Longmont Economic Development Partnership group. And they’re really the group that was trying to look out for primary employment opportunities for the city, trying to attract businesses to the city. And what they noted was, as they were seeing the referrals from us for these development applications, some of the concern was expressed that, you know, we’re starting to lose some of these areas that they were trying to save and protect for new primary businesses to come into the city. And so what we did is we talked to them about how could we still allow and encourage some of these other areas to redevelop like in the mixed industrial area, and still allow some of these ancillary uses some of these secondary uses to help service these business areas, but protect some of these subdivisions, where they expected to see primary employment. And so what we looked at was started to look at limiting housing, and the maximum percentage of the property that can be developed, we restricted the types of housing that was allowed. And then we also established limitations for those service uses that we talked about. Now unfortunately, what we came up with was, I’ll be honest with you is very convoluted. What it was based on his it was based on the subdivision. So we had to figure out what lat your subdivision was originally in, figure out how much area was in that subdivision, figure out how much of it was already built with principal uses of some kind of an industrial or business type of use, and then figure out a percentage of the square footage of that use that could then be used on another lot in that subdivision for commercial development. It was a nightmare for staff, it was a nightmare for the development community, it there was no easy way to figure it out. And so we tried to look at that, knowing that we needed to provide these uses, we needed to protect some of these areas. But we also needed to make sure that, you know, we were trying to figure out a way that we could let this development happened. And it could be something we can explain and something that we can help our customers to understand. And so when we started looking at is Aaron and Brian will get into next. That was some of the reasoning why when we were looking at these secondary uses, we were looking at how we had done it before and the troubles that we ran into and trying to figure that out, and trying to figure out a better way. Is it perfect, it might not be and that’s why we’re here today. But it’s good for you to understand that this concept really kind of started back in about 2001 and has progressed up to today. And so with that, I’m going to let I believe Aaron, go to the next slide and let her kick us off on envision Loma.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:15
Thanks, Don. Good evening Planning and Zoning Commission. It’s nice to see you. I’m Aaron Fosdick principal planner. I’m not going to spend a ton of time on envision Longmont because we’ve spent a lot of time on it. But we’re we’re essentially fast forwarding a decade plus from where Don just left off. And we think it is important to talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan because it does really set the stage and sort of provides that next iteration for providing the foundation for our code updates, which Brian will go into a lot more detail on. I know many of you were involved in the Envision Longmont multimodal and comprehensive plan update. And so you know, we spent a lot of time talking about policies talking about growth. And that’s really where I want to focus tonight. So obviously, the plan is made up of four different sections. We’re not going to talk through those but just important to remember that as we as we talk through this, the particularly the policy framework and the growth framework, provide some good background and context as we think about the secondary use conversation. And so we’re going to go there next so Dallas, if I could get you to go to the next slide, we’ll go ahead and start talking about the fault policy framework your you will recall that there are six guiding principles in the plan, when taken together really aim to make Longmont more sustainable and more resilient. You saw that graphic on the previous slide. When we think about secondary uses, that kind of discussion comes up primarily in the first guiding principle, which is liveable centers, corridors and neighborhoods. It also comes up in the transportation system guiding principle. There’s a few goals that really directly relate to secondary uses. And so I’ve pulled those here, I do want to mention that there. There are other goals and policies within the plan that sort of speak more indirectly. And if you have questions on those, we can talk through them. But what I really want to focus on are a couple goals that are in those two guiding principles I just mentioned. So first and foremost, probably the most related goal and policy language that we see in the plan is goal 1.2. And that’s really centered on promoting a sustainable mix of uses. There are several policies under this goal that provide guidance specifically on secondary uses. So within this section of the plan, the plan suggests that we strive for a balance mix of residential employment, retail, commercial, recreational and other uses that allow residents to live work, play, learn and conduct much of their daily business and increase self sufficiency within the community. As you might recall, and we’ll talk a little bit more about this, this plan was really focused more on infill and redevelopment as well as placemaking. Mixed uses are much more important and much more prevalent in this plan than they were in our previous luminary comprehensive plan. Under the same goal, the plan also recommends supporting the incorporation of higher density housing types, particularly in centers, corridors, downtown and mixed use employment areas where transit and a range of services employment opportunities and amenities are accessible not only today but are also planned for the future. And then finally, the other policy that I have up here is encouraging the integration of complementary uses within the same building. Again, that vertical mixed use or on the same site, horizontal mixed use as a way of revitalizing centers, corridors employment areas, again, improving access to services and amenities. So moving on to integrating land use and transportation. That was a big focus. Obviously, we integrated our land use and transportation plan with this most recent research an iteration of our comp plan. And this goal clearly articulates that the policies that are most supportive here and most directly related to our discussion tonight are really those that relate to transit supportive and transit oriented development. The emphasis here is really on pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and the broader mix of land uses at higher densities and centers and corridors, again, to enhance community livability and expanding transportation options. And so you see the importance of, again, mixing uses, including secondary uses here. And as I mentioned, there’s a few other places where this concept comes up, maybe a little bit more indirectly, but it is woven throughout the plan under the various guiding principles. As we shift to the growth framework, Dallas asked you to go to the next slide. So this is the third section of the plan. And one that you you are all intimately familiar with. The growth framework is a tool for helping helping the city helping you all city council the community at large, anticipate, evaluate and make decisions regarding local location, intensity and design for future development. And so for those of you that participated in our planning process, which I think was probably almost everyone with us tonight,

Unknown Speaker 1:41:14
you might recall that there was several different objectives that are really aimed at balancing our future growth and the need to protect character and quality of life. So these objectives that you see here, are guiding our growth framework. And that’s really promoting infill and redevelopment, creating places for people expanding housing and employment options, promoting healthy active lifestyles, as well as a healthy environment. And again, expanding multimodal options. So these are also really important for us, again, setting the stage for our later code updates, and discussing the role of secondary uses in thinking about creating those active places that provide places for people to live, work, play, connect and meet their daily needs. So the plan, the plan spends quite a bit of time talking about centers and corridors, and we saw that within the policy framework. And these centers and corridors are really envisioned as places where housing, employment and transportation options are expanded and work together to create the places that we heard from the community are so important. Next slide, please Dallas. So out of these objectives, and one major item that comes up and you see in the growth framework is this concept of centers and corridors. And this is a newer concept in envision Longmont, it’s not as prevalent in the previous comp plan, although many of these centers and corridors obviously existed. So you can see the major and minor corridors that were identified through the planning effort, and they’re represented on the graphic here. These centers and corridors were really identified as an opportunity to better align land use and transportation objectives with those quality of life considerations by concentrating growth and reinvestment making these really livable places mixed use centers and corridors. You can see the descriptions, this is straight out of the plan. Again, these centers and corridors are really intended to support that mixed use development. And a lot of that is redevelopment and support a variety of uses and mixed use. I always I also want to point out and you’ll see this when we talk about the code is that these centers and corridors obviously this graphic is conceptual, but these really do correspond to land use designations on our future land use and transportation map, and then zoning districts on our zoning map, which again, we can talk more about in a second. I’ll ask Dallas to go to the the next slide. So obviously, on the heels of adopting envision Longmont, we set out to implement that plan. And one of our main implementation items was updating our land development code. Don talked about the big update that we did in 2001, that that changed the way that we looked at things. This was another really big update. And again, you all are intimately familiar with this, you participated in this right alongside us and the community. But as a reminder, we identified a number of high level goals at the onset of our code update project as well. First and foremost, we wanted to implement the recently adopted comp plan and other plans. So for example, the sustainability plan the advanced Longmont plan, other supporting plans, we also wanted to create more opportunity for innovative quality development that aligned with this plan. And that included taking a look at current trends and best practices, obviously, our previous code was, you know, 15 years old at the time, and a lot had changed in terms of development and opportunities. And so this was a time for us to really reflect that. We heard throughout the comp plan process and then the subsequent code update process that we needed to really support development, redevelopment and revitalization that encouraged mixed use and resulted in creative placemaking. One of the key pieces of that that we heard and that we really tried to think about throughout the code Update was flexibility. And so this is this was a pretty big theme throughout the entire update process. And I think you’ll hear that when Brian talks more specifically about some of the code updates. And this is really important as we thought about staff ways that we could include things like secondary uses, and not be so strict and bound, like some of the issues that Don mentioned with our previous code. So with that, I’m going to turn it over to Brian to talk more specifically about the code update.

Unknown Speaker 1:45:32
Hey, everybody, good evening. Can you hear me? Okay? Sorry, I was having a few audio issues. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. I’m Brian Chu, Miko city planning staff, as Erin mentioned, and as noted, you know, one of the overarching goals is to allow more flexibility and create more predictability as part of this code update to, you know, enhance opportunities for quality development in the community. And I know a lot of you on the commission sat through a number of meetings, as we discussed the code update in 2017 and 2018. I think, as I recall, we had a total of 13 meetings with the Commission on various topics related to the code updates. So again, I appreciate all your efforts in the past and continued efforts on this topic. And specifically related to the topic this evening, regarding secondary uses. I know both the commission and the council, spent some time discussing this topic specifically, and provided some general direction regarding secondary uses. So Dallas, if you could go to the next slide, that’d be great. And so as part of the the general direction that was discussed and provided by the Commission and the council, you know, as Don mentioned, about some of the issues experienced under the prior code regarding tracking support uses and housing in the industrial zoning districts. You know, we wanted to have that discussion with Commissioner, the Council on whether it made sense to continue to track percentages of secondary uses in each of the zoning districts. And I think the the general thought was that not it probably doesn’t make sense. It’s a it’s a hassle. And it creates a lot of issues and challenges for both staff and applicants. So as we go through the update process, the general consensus from both the commission the council was that it was preferred to create secondary use criteria, and a review process rather than tracking those percentages. And so the commission and council also recommended that most of the secondary uses be allowed through an Administrative Review process, particularly in the mixed use zoning district. And that gets back to one of the update goals stated in the previous slide about creating flexibility, predictability, and in the with the code update. Although there were a few instances where the commission or council thought that conditional use review of secondary uses was appropriate. And I think we heard from some of the commissioners at the time that they had some concerns about the introduction of small scale commercial uses in the residential zoning districts. And the intent of that was to you know, over time, try to create more walkable neighborhoods, through the introduction of a mix of different types of uses in in residential districts, while acknowledging that there potentially could be some compatibility issues with introducing those uses in some of the residential use and residential districts. So as part of that process, those were updated as in the code as conditional uses rather than permitted uses. And that would intent was to, you know, have a review process that would include the Commission’s input to ensure compatibility of those uses. And one of the other secondary uses that was recommended to be a conditional use of some of the support uses in the primary employment district. And again, that gets back to ensuring adequate land availability regarding primary employment uses, sets the you know, the amount of primary employment, zoning is is somewhat limited in the community. Obviously, you want to just be adequate land availability for for primary employment in the community. So next slide, please. So, I think this was included in the council communication, sorry, commission communication. Just a brief definition. This is a definition for secondary uses. His definition describes the use not intended to be a primary predominant use in the zoning district. And I think it’s fairly intuitive but it’s specifically mentions the zoning district is supposed to basis. Next slide, please. And so I think this wasn’t include this information was included as a an attachment to the communication as well.

Unknown Speaker 1:50:08
And counsel recommendation to create secondary use criteria and review process. We added in secondary use criteria that were added to the code in addition to the review criteria that apply to all applications. So the first review additional review criteria addresses compatibility of the secondary uses with surrounding uses. And that’s how that example of I gave were introducing smaller scale commercial uses in the residential district want to make sure that, that the location and the size and scale of those uses being introduced into a residential area are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The second C with the Envision plan and the intent of the land use code and the purpose of the underlying zoning district. And then the third additional criteria addresses that land develop land availability within the zoning district just to make sure that, you know, secondary uses aren’t creating a situation where we don’t have adequate land supply for primary uses. Next slide, please. So these next few slides, and I think some of this information was included, I think in the communication, there was an attachment that showed the various secondary uses in all the different zoning districts. This is just kind of a brief summary of that. This notes, you know, the highlight some of the secondary uses allowed in residential, residential districts both permitted and conditional review. And most of these are secondary uses are allowed in the residential mixed neighborhood and the residential multifamily zoning districts. I don’t think there’s many, if any secondary uses that are allowed in the residential single family district, I think the main intent was introduced these secondary uses and allow them in a little bit higher density areas that may not have as much potential impact on some of the lower density residential neighborhoods. And as I mentioned before, obviously, you know, some of these uses such as the commercial uses, we wanted to introduce certain size and locational restrictions and criteria to again help with that compat compatibility with the surrounding residential areas. And just to note, I know that they you know, when we first introduced this concept of introducing saw smaller scale commercial uses in some of the residential districts, again, to try to over time create more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Today, we haven’t had any requests yet for any applicants to to propose a smaller scale commercial uses, but we’re hoping that sometime in the not too distant future that we’ll see some of that and obviously, if it continues to be a conditional use, then the commission would have an opportunity to review those and, and weigh in on those proposals. Next slide, please. This slide just highlights some of the secondary uses allowed in the mixed use zoning districts both permitted and conditional review. Although as noted previously, and per direction from the commissioning Council, many of the secondary uses in the mixed use districts are allowed as permitted uses to allow for administrative review. And more predictability, again, consistent was one of the goals of the code update. Next slide, please. And then this slide just highlights some of the secondary support uses allowed in the non residential uses, particularly in the primary employment district that I mentioned before. You know, and again, there’s few instances where the commission that the council thought that conditional use review of secondary uses was appropriate, particularly in the primary employment district just to ensure that there’s adequate land availability for the primary employment uses. Again, this is somewhat related to the previous code, and some of the information that Don provided regarding kind of the industrial districts that we had under the prior code. But the goal with not necessarily tracking percentages or square footages in a particular subdivision or a geographic area was to create a more

Unknown Speaker 1:54:48
user friendly and flexible process in terms of these secondary use reviews under current code. And that concludes my brief remarks, and I’m happy to respond any questions after we wrap up the presentation but with that, I think Ava is going to take over from here and go through a few examples where the secondary uses have been introduced a few areas to date and our community.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:14
Thank you.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:16
Thanks, Brian. Again, thank you, commissioners, Eva, Jeff, ski principal planner, I’ve just got a couple of examples, if you will, of where we have zoning districts with different types of uses. And so this first slide is an example on this is the northwest corner of highway 119. And County Line Road. You may be familiar with the UC How long’s peak hospital there the corner, that property is 25 acres. But that part this whole area in the red, not that not the orange, that’s residential mixed neighborhood with the parcels in the red are zoned mixed use regional center on the allowable primary uses in that zone include large format, retail restaurant, entertainment uses those types of land uses that attract your regional audience, if you will. And then secondary uses of Office medical facilities and high density apartments are allowed. And so we have this parcel here at the corner that’s kind of owned halfway by you see how and half by the highlands development group. The total aggregates of the mixed use regional center zoning in this area in this zoning district is approximately 74 acres of that 25 Acres is hospital and an ambulatory care center along County Line Road that’s under construction. 12 acres are going to be an apartment complex, as you see sort of northwest of the hospital. And then there’s a three acre piece just north of the hospital parcel, that’s going to be a memory care facility, that project is still under review. And so at the bottom of your screen, or there’s of course, the hospital on your left is the apartments that I believe are under construction, if not in the final stages of review. And so that leaves several parcels still available for development. We haven’t been contacted by anyone for development on them yet, but that would leave, you know, nine acres up on the north, seven acres south of that. And then 13 acres and five acres over on the west of the hospital. So currently there are there are some secondary uses that are out there. But again, there is the potential for some primary users in the future. Next slide. And then the other example we wanted to show you is some good development is the Creekside neighborhood that’s along the south side of pike Road, roughly between hoever and sunset. This area is all zoned mixed use employment as you’ll see by the gray and orange hatch marks. And so those are meant to be employment related uses, such as you know, primary employers, manufacturing, processing, storage, office flex and that sort of thing. Secondary uses include hotels, civic, cultural, apartments, and so forth. And so in the Creekside development Hold on one sec, I have to Oh, there we go. Sorry, that slide was too big. So in the Creekside developments again, that area just west of over and east of sunset on the south side of pike is all zoned mixed use employments. It’s approximately 73 acres in this zoning district, of which only two acres remains undeveloped. The remaining land seems to have been either under construction or was already built out. There there’s 37 acres of Office light industrial storage, those all fall into the primary use category. Again, there’s west of sunset as a nine acre office.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:27
Excuse me east of sunset as a nine acre office west of it is also light manufacturing office and so on. We do have 14 and a half acres of high density residential and senior living a little toward the west. As you’ll see there’s the apartment complex and the Balfour senior home that is constructed on the east side of hoever. And then we do have I believe it’s a 19 acre mixed use project currently in plan review and So again, this is a situation where we have 73 acres, the vast majority of it will be primary uses, but we do allow those secondary uses, or to provide some flexibility. And, you know, with some residential units that would potentially be from employer employees who work in these offices and buildings. Next slide. And then I believe that wraps up our presentation. And all of us are available for questions. And if the commission would like to have a discussion, at this point, we’re happy to discuss and answer questions. Thank you for your time.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:41
Thank you, Ava. Thank you, Don. And, and Brian and Aaron. It’s always great to learn from all of you. We definitely need the lessons. I actually, Dallas, can you I for some reason, do not have gallery view. Hang on. Gotta see everybody. Okay. Sorry. My fault. Um, I’d like to kick off with with one question. And then Commissioner height, this might tie in, I think with some of your concerns from our previous meeting. Eva, you gave us an example of the hospital area. And the total acreage was 70 acres, but 40 acres has already been developed as a secondary use. And if I understand Commissioner heights concerns at our previous meetings, it’s that we’re starting to to give over more to secondary use than to primary use. Now, Commissioner height, do you want to jump in on that? And and correct me if I’m misrepresenting your concerns?

Unknown Speaker 2:02:03
Well, first of all, I want to thank staff very much for this presentation and taking the time to address what I kind of think are my issues, which is what is secondary. I appreciate God’s perspective on the history of looking at things that are subdivision level. And how it’s morphed into for excuse me, for being blunt, we’ve changed subdivisions to zoning districts. You don’t want to use percentages. But by default, you have to go back to percentages, in particular, in August, and in July, we looked at two, and I’m really concerned about the mixed use districts, specifically, Emily and meu our primary employment primary regional center activities. And if we could go and see if we can pull this up, but the zoning map for the UC hospital actually is within a zoning district that goes kitty corner across this across Ken Pratt Boulevard and and kind of Line Road to the to the Walmart facility. And I don’t know if you look at that as the entire district. But in a nutshell, that looks like it’s maybe going primarily residential? Maybe not. But when new plans come into us, how are we to measure if somebody is proposing to do the entire quarter of Ken Pratt, the south east corner of Ken Pratt and and county line, if that’s all going to go residential? And I kind of thought that there was a concept plan that showed that corner going residential? How do we how do we evaluate whether or not it’s no longer secondary? I appreciate that. We want to be flexible, and I think the plan is flexible. And I think in the residential districts, we’ve created the opportunity for secondary uses of more employment or commercial related activities take place on a smaller scale. But I looking at some of our bigger and I think that’s what is it their urban development partnership? Oh, you DP. What they’re concerned about is that the areas for primary employment the areas for primary commercial activities are limited. The red areas on our zoning map, the brown cross hatched areas under zoning map are limited for purposes of creating primary employment related activities, and we’re allowing residential to creep in there to an extensive amount in my opinion. We looked at something that you know, in in August Is that was 90%, residential 10% commercial that flips secondary on its head to me. But we were just looking at one lot within a within a zoning district. And I was told that, you know, well, we’ll look at it at the zoning district wide level. To me, we’re punting down the road, the percentage analysis to a later date and time by allowing some residential to creep into these issues, or creep into these areas. Those, that’s my concern. commissure. Shark.

Unknown Speaker 2:05:41
So, let me just kind of jump back in on on something the hospital example that the EVA showed us. So the primary use is, you know, regional center and and for, for employment purposes. And and we have in mind that the primary uses would be these large employers. And the hospitals not that I mean, I mean, like, what a great employer, right. So, you know, here, we’ve got technically a secondary use using a 25 acres, and then, you know, and then you’ve got ancillary medical things like the ambulatory development and the in the Memory Care Development next, in my mind, that’s a whole lot better than then, you know, putting in a strip mall, you know, which falls under the primary use. So, you know, we’ve, we can turn this into a counting problem, like, like Don was referring to that in the past, you know, they had to go by subdivision and count how many acres of this and how many, how many items of that. I mean, that’s, that’s a mathematical counting problem. But we could also look at it qualitatively, in terms of, you know, how good are the proposals how I mean, the hospital was a damn good proposal. Pardon my French, but

Unknown Speaker 2:07:29
what if I could interrupt? Sure, yeah. The hospital that’s a primary employer in my mind, the

Unknown Speaker 2:07:36
fact that it’s not primary by definition?

Unknown Speaker 2:07:39
I natural. Sure. I agree with that. But well, yeah, it could be educated. It is. Why is it?

Unknown Speaker 2:07:47
It’s a secondary is, isn’t it ever?

Unknown Speaker 2:07:52
Yeah. I mean, I think technically, technically, it is, obviously, it’s it was identified as secondary use in the Envision plan. It’s identified as a secondary use in, in the land development code, because obviously, we’re trying to mirror the Envision plan. You know, as profession raises a good point, whether or not you know, we should consider obviously, some potential changes, you know, things change over in the, and the Envision planner, Dynamic Documents, and, you know, and can change over time as the community needs change. And, and, you know, one thing that’s interesting about the hospital, obviously, that was approved and constructed prior to the code update, so it was a secondary use before, it was labeled as a secondary use of the code. So

Unknown Speaker 2:08:47
my specific concerns are more related to residential creeping into these areas. So for instance, in the hospital ply, for lack of better term, the 10 acre parcel to the north, if somebody comes in with an apartment complex proposal there. It’s a secondary use. When do we say it’s too much secondary, we got a 12 acre apartment complex already going in, and a memory care unit, which, you know, in my mind, is a little bit of both employment as well as residential, but it’s the level of secondary use and in you bring up a good point, commercial Chernick. If hospital is indeed a secondary use, well, have we blown it there and there’s no longer any secondary uses to be permitted in that area. We need guidance, maybe a little bit or we need to adopt some kind of guardrails as to how we’re going to implement these secondary uses, so they don’t become the primary use In these areas where we want to encourage primary employment.

Unknown Speaker 2:10:04
So Commissioner honor on, I just want to pop one more thing, and then we’ll get to you. If if the goal is to never have this turn into a counting problem, then there is the issue. And I think Commissioner height just just touched on this. Of out what point do we do we stop permitting secondary uses, but many secondaries are allowed by right, according to the chart, which was in our packet. And so do we actually have any sort of mechanism to say, this district has achieved more than enough secondary uses, and we need to stop now and wait for the primary uses to come in. But as Eva pointed out, there’s been nobody proposing any primary use for the hospital district commissioner honor.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:13
Thank you, this was a really good presentation done Aaron Bryan and ever really appreciate. I’m just gonna make some conclusions. And correct me if I’m wrong in these, because this is how I read your presentation.

Unknown Speaker 2:11:32
You see,

Unknown Speaker 2:11:35
we developed a zoning system and 50s and 60s that really separated us from each other. And now we’re coming back and realizing that we need to mix more than all the mixed use zones, you created the employment zones, trying to really redo some of the things we did in the past, we created areas of single use on the commercial, the whole whole coal corridor has a lot of commercial, nothing else. We created residential zones that have residential, nothing else, and we’re realizing that it doesn’t work really well. It doesn’t create a lively neighborhood, it doesn’t create users that support each other. And it doesn’t create a not even a good commercial. It is car dependent. And it’s problematic. Now we’re trying to with the comp plan, come back and introduce some of the missing points. So my first assumption is that I see a lot of problems with the way the secondary uses defined in the code especially. Because from all your presentation, what I’m realizing that it’s more like a conditional use, it’s not ancillary to anything else, it’s a use need to be reviewed. And if we say it is, okay, it is the primary use, the only difference between the primary use, and the way the comp plan wants to include the secondary use is that secondary use needs to be reviewed

Unknown Speaker 2:13:21
by us.

Unknown Speaker 2:13:24
And we need to decide if it is appropriate or not, that doesn’t mean that it needs to be ancillary to anything else. Because that’s where the problem is, we all of us have to say, wait a minute, you know, this is a regional center, it’s all retail and office. And somebody comes with 100% residential, and we have a problem because it’s called secondaries as if it’s an ancillary to anything else. But what you’re really asking us is that if that particular use 100% is appropriate in that particular context. So, maybe code needs to be very clear about it. So that we are not really troubled. And then the criteria is of course, should be does that particular use, create a synergy or mutual support between other uses in that particular context? In most of the time residential use does in regional retail, or employment area because it’s so much needed there, it creates, you know, 24/7 live, eyes on the street and you create all those services away from the residential and putting residential on top of that really provides good amenities, etc, so forth. That’s all in the comprehensive plans. Conference comprehensive plan. So the reverse is the same, you know, introducing some limited amount of non residential interests natural really creates a good neighborhood. So You know, my gut feeling, you know, all these other assumptions, correct me if I’m wrong, but my gut feeling tells me that we need to change the way the secondary use is defined in the code. Because that’s very confusing if my assumption is right, that is to say secondary use, in certain cases, actually the primary use, if we review and say appropriate, then it should be stated that way.

Unknown Speaker 2:15:28
The only thing I would not necessarily correct, but maybe just clarify, Commissioner on around is that not all secondary uses are conditional. So not all secondary uses would come to the commission, some certainly do. And in those cases, you know, you all are the decision making body some are administrative. I think you’re right. And, you know, Brian, and Eva touched on this in their presentation. We intentionally didn’t include a numeric standard. But I think staff and obviously now the commission is sort of questioning what predominant and secondary mean in terms of numbers. And so we intentionally did not include a number and you’re right. In the example that Ava showed, it’s possible that secondary uses when taken together, could be primary in terms of land area or building area, but no one secondary use is predominant. But I think that is creating some some discomfort for people. I think your other assertions around the comp plan and moving more towards mixed use and really creating these vibrant pedestrian oriented places that mix residential, non residential employment. That’s exactly true. And what the intent was, you know, maybe maybe we didn’t get it exactly right into your point could could refine slightly, but some secondary uses are conditional, some are permitted. And so the review process is different depending on the use and the zoning district.

Unknown Speaker 2:17:06

Unknown Speaker 2:17:07
Commissioner, honor on this point, I mean, it’s, you know, there’s definitely I mean, it’s not just playing semantics with words. I mean, we, you know, maybe, maybe some of the, the wording could be changed. I know that there are standards within the planning community nationwide, as to certain words, like secondary, but, um, but I see the point that at a certain level, the hospital area being one I mean, just the fact that that we right here right now are like, Wait, hospitals primary? No, it’s not. It’s secondary. Wait, but But it’s, it’s a good secondary. So and was a conditional was it? Well, I mean, it came in front of us, partly because of a height exception, which was conditional, but so the language, perhaps is getting in our way a bit. That doesn’t mean that the codes wrong, but maybe there could be better explanations of the language. Done.

Unknown Speaker 2:18:30
Thank you, Chairman Schoeneck. You know, I’d like to maybe go off of Commissioner on Ron’s explanation, and that, I think he points out an interesting thing, which is that we do have a specific set of review criteria for secondary uses. There. There are three that are unique to those uses, whether staff is reviewing them, or whether the commission is and I think one of them specifically, it gets to the point that commissioner on Ron talked about about the ability for the commission or staff to make the decision that the zoning district itself with the approval of a secondary use could potentially basically lose the ability to meet its original intent or purpose. And so that I’m going to read that that criteria to you and that says, the secondary use, as proposed will not substantially diminish the availability of land within the underlying zoning district for primary uses. So, Commissioner height to your point, at what point can we say no, it is when this criteria Yeah, that’s specific to making sure that the intent of that original that if it’s the last piece, and there are no primary uses have been built, I think it’s hard to argue that this has been that this criteria has been met, you know that you have gone past the tipping point, you have lost the ability to provide any commercial in a property or if it was in the mixed use employment center to provide an employment opportunity in this area, which again, was supposed to work in concert with the retail, the other ancillary uses that are met and in housing and things so that to the description of Commissioner Enron’s example of a mixed use community where I don’t have to get in my car and drive to the restaurant, I can, I can walk to work, I could walk down to a restaurant, I could take my kid down to the daycare, those those uses could all work together. But I think to your point, there has to be a decision and it’s not a number, it is a criteria where the commission or staff is looking at a proposal and going you can’t meet this review criteria, you have just changed it to where there is no employment, or there is no retail or there is no residential, you know it at some point, you’re going to have to make a finding that you cannot meet that standard. And so that, in my mind, is what we weigh it against. And that allows then for flexibility for this group, or our staff to really look at the whole picture and say, You know what, this medical here is okay, because right now, we still have a large chunk right next to Walmart, on the on the other side of the street here, where you could do the commercial, and provide those other ancillary services that, you know, we’re primary for the zone but ancillary to provide services to those other uses that are being built like the apartments like the the employment center with the hospital. So so that is my explanation of where does the tipping point come? It comes in this review criteria itself.

Unknown Speaker 2:22:29
Thanks done Commissioner teta.

Unknown Speaker 2:22:34
So I think one of the things I was worried about maybe Commissioner hight brought up and we had talked about was, if we allow a developer to do too much secondarily, as a percentage, then what happens with the next parcel? And the next development? Opportunity? Do they? Are they automatically refused their primary secondary mix? Because we don’t have any left? How does that work?

Unknown Speaker 2:23:11
Well, I, I would say, I don’t know that I have a clean answer for you on that. But But let me give you an example of if we look at that corner, again, where the hospital is, you know, we’ve had that commercial area next to Walmart sitting out there for a long time, since before the recession, so probably 2003 ish would be my guess, based on my memory. And it sat there. And I would have thought originally, when that store went in with the number of people that would go there, that we would have seen that area developed similar to what we saw up on 287, with the Walmart on the north end of town. And it didn’t, we have services out there, we have 1000s of trips, more trips on highway 119 than we do 287. And yet, we were not getting anybody building any commercial out there. But now we have apartments going in some residential homes and some area that’s zoned residential, we have employers who are out there have people that are out there 24 hours a day and need services. Now we’re getting the developer who owns that piece coming in with their plan to develop that, because the rooftops are there and the people are there and the people are there 24 hours a day and can support some of these other uses. And sometimes it takes other development contributing people and and to be able to go and use those before the development community identifies and says, yeah, we can now build it. Oh, and we’ve also got 18,000 trips a day going by where people might come in there and actually get a coffee. Or, you know, I can’t think some of the other uses but but but I would say that yeah, you may not get up apartments, but at some point with all those other uses, they’re they’re meant to serve the primary use. And so sometimes those primary uses may not come until some of those secondary have been there. And that’s what I think we’re seeing right now.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:17
Sure, Onra.

Unknown Speaker 2:25:20
Well, thank you for the explanation. I’m looking at that Terje condition. And when I read that, you know, the Walmart site, we had this discussion. It was 100%. Residential. Yes, it’s next to Walmart. And, you know, my gut feeling told me that that’s the right thing to do their apartment, but actually, when you read the line, we’ve actually rezoning that land. I mean, we’re changing the zoning category, from retail to completely essential. And the court is not really making it clear that we have that authority. We’ve made it, you know, I voted for it. Because in the big picture, I thought it was the right thing to do. But really, I mean, I completely understand how its objection. That is, the language doesn’t give us that authority. When I read that third condition, it really tells us to do the otherwise. Because, again, it’s secondary, and it tells me that, you know, it doesn’t give us a boundary in within which we should consider this. And obviously, you know, there are the primary users, and this takes the land away from the primary users and then puts apartments there, not retail. So that’s why I am saying that, you know, the authority or authority should be clear in the code, so that we’re not really floundering.

Unknown Speaker 2:26:57
So, I guess I’m just like to respond. If the zoning code allows for the use, whether it’s a primary use or secondary use, you’re not rezoning. It is a it is a use that is allowed under some condition, as long as it meets the criteria that are in the code. And, Brian, you might have to help me on this, but I believe the definition for I’m sorry, it’s getting late. For the the secondary boundary, I thought it talked about the district in the definition. Does somebody know what I’m talking about? I’m sorry, I’ve lost my train of thought here.

Unknown Speaker 2:27:44
And he talked about just the definition for secondary use.

Unknown Speaker 2:27:47
I think So doesn’t it talk about mentioned that you you use the the zoning district itself?

Unknown Speaker 2:27:53
Right, it talks about not being the primary predominant use in the underlying zoning district or the zoning district?

Unknown Speaker 2:27:59
Correct. And so it’s again, it’s not it was never meant to be parcel specific. It was meant to look at the zoning district as a whole. So I understand what you’re saying it feels like it could be a rezoning. But again, if the use is allowed in the district, it’s allowed, whether it’s secondary or or principal use, it’s it’s truly not a rezoning.

Unknown Speaker 2:28:28
Mr. Pohlman.

Unknown Speaker 2:28:30
Yeah, thank you. So Dan, I guess one of the things I know that I think that this is one of the issues that Commissioner height had. And it’s one of the things that we struggled with both, you know, when we did the one over there by the Walmart. And then when we did this last one over off of what was at sunset, and Rogers, or wherever that was, it’s not clear on what we use as a definition for the area we are to judge us against. So you brought up a good point, when you look at the regional center, where they are, where the hospital is, I can think of that as being it has to be north of 119. It has to be west of county line. But then you brought up the fact that the Walmart, which is the same zoning, zoning, but is that really the same district as the hospital? I mean, for us, I think that’s where we have some of the confusion or some of the the tension is the fact where do we draw a boundary of what a district is, where does it start? What do we consider and it to me, it’s, that’s one thing that may not be very clear in the regulations.

Unknown Speaker 2:29:49
And I totally agree with you. But I can tell you what we have looked at and that gets back into Aaron’s portion of the presentation, where we have those nodes, those centers those activity areas that were shown on the Comprehensive Plan map. And I don’t know if Dallas if if you could bring up the presentation, and I think it is on a page. The next one PJ. So we have these centers and corridors, and you can see out below union reservoir to the bottom left there, the large center that’s identified, and that covers both that north west corner where the hospital is, and the southeast corner down where the Walmart site is. And so if you look at it from this standpoint of what is identified as a center, that whole zoning is for the regional commercial in that area is within that within that center. So even though we have other portions of it further north up at Walmart north, for example, or out at the mall, this is a is one area that was identified on the comprehensive plan as a senator, something that’s meant to work together that’s meant to have, you know, some kind of synergy. And so my look at it is this area is what we should focus on when we’re looking at development in this area to see, have we exceeded, do we still have area available for that principle use? It doesn’t mean that to the Commission’s point, we shouldn’t clarify, we shouldn’t better define this, to make sure that it is very clear, not only for yourself, but for staff and the developers that that we can do. But I hope we’re understanding that, you know, again, this, this is not an easy thing for us a little bit to explain in which is kind of hard. But they’re there. If you have ideas of ways to clarify and make this better, obviously, I think you’re understanding at least what we’re looking at when we’re trying to give information to the development community on how they can develop and what limitations they face.

Unknown Speaker 2:32:18
You know, I what I would suggest, then is that when a presentation is being made, if this map or even maybe a subsection of it, where you zoom in a little bit more, and you highlight the area that this is the total area that we’re looking at for this development. And this is where we’re judging it against. I think if you said if your building is the last parcel and and you don’t have a lot of what you consider the primary use in it. Yeah, that’s pretty easy call. Yeah, we know we have too many, you know, too many houses we need, we do need. We do need to save this for commercial. That’s pretty easy. When it’s the last the last parcel when it was really tough is when it’s the first couple parcels that are going in and trying to understand the exact area that you’re looking at. So that’s what I would suggest is is maybe including this in the presentation, so we have a better idea of what we’re looking at. And what we’re judging it against for the for the area.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:28
Thank you. Sure. Hi.

Unknown Speaker 2:33:35
Mr. Terry, it I’m not dead teta. Excuse me, Commissioner polling hit right on the head of what I was going to suggest, which is that when we’re studying mixed use development proposals that have a secondary use component to it that we probably should, as part of that review process, look at the entire zoning district that this project scored into I, at the same time thinking about that and reflecting back on done shets discussion of how the subdivision analysis from 2001 got to be unwieldy. We’re going to come to that same problem I predict. Because if we wait until the last parcel is going to be developed and say, you know, sorry, folks, you can’t put anything other than the primary use in there. It seems a little unfair, and possibly it’s going to leave us with some orphan lives, that people aren’t going to be able to develop because it’s too residential or we’ve allowed to become something other than what its primary use is supposed to be. And so I come back to my continual batch over these last two projects that came up which is that the proposed sort of itself, I think should be a mixed use proposal, it should have a secondary use as secondary. I want to look at project by project, which is going to be how I continue to look at this. For the time being, I understand. Yes, at the district, we want to allow these secondary uses, but I don’t know how to be fair about it to other developers that come later down the line without imposing the requirement upon every project that gets developed within the zoning district, I understand and enter in truly appreciate that we’re trying to be flexible, but we’re gonna flex ourselves into into a problem, a big problem, unless we get in front of it now. And I think, you know, as, as Michael proposed, we have to look at every one of these projects that come to us, I look at the entire district a very, at the very least.

Unknown Speaker 2:36:03
I’ll just add in there that what you just said Commissioner high also taps into what Commissioner Teto was pointing out that that eventually the last developer in his left holding the short end of the stick somehow, or we are we are denying them development rights, that we shouldn’t deny them. And it’s simply because of their timing. It’s simply because of of the sequence in which they they approached us, Commissioner Anna?

Unknown Speaker 2:36:41
Well, I mean, providing a proportion is not going to, in my opinion, solve much because there are certain special circumstances where in a, let’s say, the, the zone is the sorry, regional center. And a lot of the regional center cases, we have predominantly commercial uses. Any developer who wants to come in there and fully provide 100%, residential, is doing something really good for the community. And that was the case with the Walmart. That is, that was the right response to that particular context, because residential was really needed. And so requiring something like that is makes their perform harder, and, you know, discourages introduction of that particular use my understanding of that flexibility, and all that argument is that we should make it easier. If it’s adding something that is needed, that is missing in that particular area. That’s where the difficulty comes in. You know, it’s, it would be much easier if we had it on 25%, residential, 25%, commercial, and 20 75% residential. So those kinds of criterias are easy to follow, but it misses some opportunity. So that’s why it’s kind of at the end of the day, it’s a judgment we need to make. And, you know, the shorter stick argument, well, it’s the market, you know, what is market? What market misses, the developers should follow that opportunity and fill it in.

Unknown Speaker 2:38:44

Unknown Speaker 2:38:45
our regulations and review process should enable that kind of flexibility. So, you know, I’m going back and forth. But at the end of the day, my argument is that we should be able to have that authority to make the judgment, that is to say, in this particular case, in this particular location, this particular proposal is right or wrong. That’s our function. That’s our expertise. That’s why we’re here.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:21
Sure thing.

Unknown Speaker 2:39:25
One of the things that I think that commissioner on Iran referred to as market forces, we can’t predict what the market will do. For example, when the UC Health Hospital went in, we didn’t anticipate that it would be in effect, employment, which is now going to be an employment center because of the office buildings. It’s built. It’s putting in so it’s morphed from being sort of a secondary to almost being a primary use. And over time, things may do that anyway. So it is sort of an employment center. There’s other retail for example, south of 119. Presently, in that area, there is their restaurants to the east, beyond where Walmart in the Parker. Now, that’s not a real good walking distance from the apartments. But on a nice day, you might do that, understand the restaurant, there’s quite good. So the other point is that one of the things that we looked at, when we put the zoning code together based on envision was that there were areas of stability that we needed to remember, in the city of Longmont. That we want to make sure that we’re not overwhelming an area when there are other kinds of uses that are pronounced in that area that people want to maintain for their quality of life. So I know it’s a balancing act. But again, I get back, when I come all the way back round to the market forces, you just really, you can’t determine that such and such well located in an area. Like I always hear PRDs referencing dry cleaners. I don’t think I use dry cleaners on a regular basis. I imagine there are other people that don’t as well. Other people use them all the time. So you can’t determine that while there’s going to be these uses. It just doesn’t always happen that way.

Unknown Speaker 2:41:48
So we haven’t solved anything. But I’m Glenn, Dawn, does this help you kind of get some some ideas going? I mean, does this?

Unknown Speaker 2:42:04
I think so. I think the concept of it’s it’s really a continuum between art and science as far as how we make that decision, and it’s probably leaning more towards art. So what we have to do for the commission is kind of build that story of why these uses are appropriate where they are. And you could say the same about quality versus quantity. Now, one of the things we did talk about is we do intend kind of in the middle of next year, to bring the comp plan back up and make some revisions. And maybe we can strengthen some of those qualities statements to to further bolster your decisions of what land uses are appropriate. I know commissioners heights, concern about the employment areas, and I know that oh is kind of a, an area you don’t want to lose. And we do have a land use that is primary employment, that is very limited as far as secondary uses. So we still have those opportunities to land a corporate headquarters or a major manufacturer. And then when I kind of look at the land use plan where those mixed use employment areas are I think a lot of them probably had some existing industrial uses, and then also neighborhoods. So I think part of it was how do you how do you buffer those uses from what’s around it? And that’s what we wanted that flexibility. But all I think I would add is yeah, when we look at the comp plan, perhaps we can do a better job of kind of creating what those districts should be

Unknown Speaker 2:43:57
so Oh, Commissioner Lukash.

Unknown Speaker 2:44:03
Thank you Chairman. Sure. Like to, to what Glenn was saying just now. You know, bringing more art into the presentations of, of new developments. Do we do we bring in I know LLDP is involved in a lot of decisions, but maybe they can, you know, in the future bring you know, some statements with with these new developments because they know that they research a lot on these regional centers. So maybe their opinion could you know, help us make an informed decision in the future?

Unknown Speaker 2:44:45
Yeah, I believe they actually are reviewers of anything that goes to the planning commission. Yeah, Don or somebody step in if I’m if I’m wrong, but I, I think we send everything through le DP. Now I do believe that They would like to come to the planning commission and kind of present their economic development plan. Yeah. So you’re aware of that. So we can schedule that at some point.

Unknown Speaker 2:45:11
Yeah, that’d be great.

Unknown Speaker 2:45:13
Great. Super. So, I don’t have anything brilliant to, like, summarize this to a third or anything, but, um, but it appears to me that this will be an ongoing discussion. It’s probably going to be a discussion next year with counsel as well. Right. You know, just watching the news as to how the city council races is going and some of the issues that have come up, I wouldn’t be surprised if Aaron, Dawn, Glen, Avon, Brian, you’re all talking to those folks next year, too. So thank you so much. In the interest of time for all of us and the folks at home. Maybe we will move on with our agenda. And next item on the agenda is the final call for public invited to be heard. And Dallas if we could put our instructions back up. So if if you want to make any comments to the commission, now’s the time to call 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 87162873678. 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 we’ll be allowed five minutes to speak. Please do remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. We’ll take a five minute break which takes us up to 9:50pm and we will return them

Unknown Speaker 2:51:15
Okay, Chairman, we have one person in the chat. We’re going to wait a moment just for the stream to catch up with us.

Unknown Speaker 2:51:24
Thank you Dallas

Unknown Speaker 2:52:03
All right, our stream is back up and running. May I present our first caller?

Unknown Speaker 2:52:09
Sure. Let’s go. All right,

Unknown Speaker 2:52:12
caller with the last three digits 323 And your number. Would you please unmute yourself.

Unknown Speaker 2:52:24
Hello, my name is Jamie female and I live at 1020 Venice Street. I was just calling to piggyback on really Bowman’s comment earlier during the meeting about a policy for dealing with conflicts of interest. I think it’s really rather odd that Longmont doesn’t have a policy in place to deal with conflicts of interest with regard to its commissions and boards. It really shouldn’t be up to each commissioner or board member to decide whether or not they have a conflict of interest. And I ask that the creation of such a policy be prioritized for the immediate future.

Unknown Speaker 2:53:00
Thank you. Great, thank you Miss SEMA. Dallas, do we have anybody else

Unknown Speaker 2:53:08
that was our only caller? Okay.

Unknown Speaker 2:53:11
We will close the public invited to be heard. And item nine on on the agenda is items from the Commission. And Dallas. First off, I want to say congratulations, you’ve almost made it through your first major meeting like this. Great job. Good work. And of course, Jane and and Susan, thank you for everything you’ve been doing behind the scenes too. Do we have anything else from the Commission?

Unknown Speaker 2:53:44
Oh, um,

Unknown Speaker 2:53:46
yes, actually, while we’re in this on to the point by the CMO and Miss Bowman, Glen. You’ve heard both of their comments on Can I ask you to do whatever it is the city would do in order to answer their questions for them.

Unknown Speaker 2:54:11
Yeah, I certainly will. In fact, Jane has been working on that and I think she has found said policy so we will certainly get it out. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 2:54:23
thank you very much for that. Um, anything else from any other commissioners?

Unknown Speaker 2:54:31

Unknown Speaker 2:54:32
we will move on to our council representative is not here tonight. Glen, any items from you?

Unknown Speaker 2:54:42
Well, the only thing I was going to add was You have one week left of community planning month and you’ve certainly flex your muscles tonight. So we certainly appreciate that. As always, and thanks to Vice Chair Polen and Commissioner Lucas who came out with With the council and helped us celebrate that proclamation. All right, great.

Unknown Speaker 2:55:06
Oh, super. Again. Thank you. Looks like Ava and Erin and who else is still here? Boy, you’re the diehards. Brian’s still here to thank you again for all of all of your help and presentations and helping us understand these these subjects in these issues. So, with no further ado, the last item on our agenda is a German. Have a good night, everybody