Longmont Planning and Zoning – March 16, 2022
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/rvXhA0mpF8PJqiAplscG4waUh1c
Unknown Speaker 0:00
Here. Commissioner thoughts there. Commissioner Saunders Here. Commissioner teta. You’re Chairman you have a quorum.
Unknown Speaker 0:10
Thank you very much. Next is communications from planning director Glenn Bynum Wigan.
Unknown Speaker 0:23
Mr. Chairman, I don’t have anything at this time.
Unknown Speaker 0:25
Okay, thank you very much. Oh, forget to read this one item sorry. Um, Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard which are items four and seven, or during any public hearing items which are either which is item agenda six eight, will need to watch the live stream look meaning for instructions about how to call 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 the address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to meet the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. Instructions for we will now go ahead and open up the public invited to be heard. Instructions for calling in are provided the toll free call in number is 888-788-0099. Watch the live stream and write down the meeting ID when it displayed at the screen for the chairperson to open the public comment and directors callers call in. When the chairperson says to call in dial the toll free number mute the live stream and listen for instructions on the phone. callers will hear that they have entered the meeting called How many others are already participating callers will hear all of the confirmation and will be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted into the meeting. Once admitted to the meeting, college will be called upon by the last three digits of their phone number and allowed to unmute to provide their 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 the candidates. Once done speaking Polish should hang up
Unknown Speaker 7:08
chair and commission we’re approaching the five minute mark currently there are no callers thank you okay once I see our commission back I will drop our slide
Unknown Speaker 7:32
still waiting on a few commissioners but there are still no callers
Unknown Speaker 7:51
yeah she waited for me I apologise
Unknown Speaker 7:57
All right, there are no callers chair polling. Would you like me to close the public invited me here?
Unknown Speaker 8:01
Yes, we will close public invited to be her
Unknown Speaker 8:20
Are we all set? Dallas? Yep, we are good.
Unknown Speaker 8:24
Okay. Next item is item number five approval of the February 16 2022 minutes. Do we have any questions, comments or motions?
Unknown Speaker 8:35
Unknown Speaker 8:37
would move to approve the minutes of February 16.
Unknown Speaker 8:41
We have motion to approve. Do we have a second? Commissioner Saunders.
Unknown Speaker 8:46
I second the motion.
Unknown Speaker 8:48
Thank you. Any questions comments? If not, Jamie, let’s take a vote.
Unknown Speaker 8:54
Chairman Polen. Yes. Commissioner flake? Yes. Commissioner heights. Commissioner Koehler? Abstain. Commissioner monocots? Yes. Commissioner Saunders. Yes. Commissioner teta? Yes. Chairman Polen. Those minutes are approved six approvals, one abstention.
Unknown Speaker 9:21
Thank you very much. Next item is item six, eight. This is the Habitat for Humanity Rogers road preliminary plat site plan and administrative modification from landscaping standards. It looks like planning manager done for Chet is presenting.
Unknown Speaker 9:39
Thank you, Chairman Polen. Dallas, if you could start the slideshow for me, please. I’m Jerome Poland, members of the commission. I’m here tonight on behalf of EVA who couldn’t join us today. And I noticed that cherm Commissioner flake has her hand up I don’t know if we need to take that now.
Unknown Speaker 9:59
Sure. Commissioner flake?
Unknown Speaker 10:01
Yes. I thought I should let you know that I am acquainted with Pam hora, who is presenting this evening. And I don’t believe that will be an undue influence, we belong to the same faith community. Okay, thank you. All right,
Unknown Speaker 10:24
thank you. Um, so again, I’m here on behalf of EVA tonight. So I’ll do my best to answer everything that the questions or things you have and try to give you a good understanding of this project. With me tonight is also Chris Huffer, one of our engineering administrators who is here in case there’s any questions about public works items. And then we also have the applicant and the consultants for the applicant Habitat for Humanity. So with that, Dallas, if we go to the first screen, please. Thank you. The property that you’re looking at tonight, is located on Rogers road, the address is 42 and 50. East Rogers road, it’s compiled prize of two properties that are owned by Habitat for Humanity. The property is located along Third Avenue as you’re coming from the east and you pass Lastly, it would be to the on the South the left hand side of the road. And right before you get to Martin Street, and it’s identified on the screen with the red box with the star in it. It’s also bounded on the south by Rogers road. Third Avenue is an arterial Street in the city’s comprehensive plan. And Rogers road is identified as a collector Street in our comprehensive plan. So the property does have to street frontage is and we’ll talk a little bit more about that as we get into the site plan itself. The property is zoned mixed use corridor. And as you can see to the north across Third Avenue we have the the park and that’s the Kensington Park to the north to the south. As you can see from the aerial we have some outdoor storage uses that, for example to the bottom right are some motorcycle outdoor storage for parts and things like that. And then we have additional outdoor storage areas along Rogers road to the south as you head over towards Martin Street. And then on either side of the property, we do have some single family homes that are within that block that are existing and have been there since roughly the 1930s. And then as you get towards the end towards Lastly, we have a future restaurant that is been going through our process and then we have another commercial building at the end towards Martin Street. Next slide please. As I noted, the zoning is mixed use corridor and envision Longmont has that same designation for the property. The zoning of mixed use corridor is a little unique in that it does not have a maximum density that is allowed in that district, it actually has a minimum zoning district or density that’s required. And that density is typically 18 units to the acre. It’s important to point out that this site if this was not a affordable housing project would have been required to have a minimum of 14 dwelling units on the property. The applicant has proposed nine and that is allowed underneath the land development code under Section 1503 080 B three D as noted on the screen, they are exempt from that minimum density requirement through the land development code so that they have a variety of density that they could try to provide affordable housing on properties that are zoned mixed use commercial or corridor. Next slide please. So on the screen now, you have a copy of kind of a blow up of the site plan itself. To the north is towards the top of the screen to the south is the is Rogers road. And as you can see the applicant is proposing nine units on the property. They’re arranged in three triplexes that are situated in a way that we have three units that face towards east Rogers road towards the bottom of the screen which again is facing south and take their access to their doors and things from East Rogers road. The applicant has proposed to build a public alley that will provide alley access and allow for the garages to have alley access behind the units for the three that face Rogers road. And then the three units or the I’m sorry, the two Bill And the six units that face towards the north towards Third Avenue, they too will take alley access for their garages. But their front doors are located off of the alley itself. And then the backs of their homes on the north are
Unknown Speaker 15:18
would find out towards Third Avenue in the arterial Street. And that’s one of the things we’re going to talk about here in a minute with the administrative modification for the buffer. And so as you can see, the arrangement here is trying to make the best use of the property by situating the units in a way that front onto the streets as much as possible, using the alley access to prevent the garage domination of the the street, and to provide access to the residents, and to also allow for some yards for them as well. So the administrative modification that has been requested deals specifically with those six units that are along the north along Third Avenue. The land development code has a requirement in it that when a buffer is required, any fencing that’s proposed should be located between or I should say behind the landscaping that is required from the use that it’s trying to buffer. And so in this case, the landscaping is required because of the proximity of the property to the arterial street. So there’s a buffer required there of 10 feet that needs to be landscaped. And then the applicant is proposing a fence. And so the fence itself according to code would need to be behind or between the landscaping and the home. To create more of a landscaped frontage along the Third Avenue frontage. The land development code does allow for modification underneath the modification standard. And this is different than a variance standard, the standard itself is different. The evaluation criteria that were included in your PC packet are different than a variance. And it is spelled out in a VA staff report about staff’s review of this and that we believe that moving that fencing and allowing for that landscaping to be in the backyards of these six units. And to help to kind of buffer the uses actual the residential units from Third Avenue, we felt was actually a better use of this area. The applicants presentation will go over and show you some of the visuals of the existing conditions along Third Avenue, and how we also feel that that meets and fits in with the review criteria for talking about some of the existing conditions that are adjacent to the property. So I’ll let the applicant present a little bit more on that here in a minute. Next slide doubts.
Unknown Speaker 18:05
So as required for a major development application, which the preliminary plat is, we did hold a neighbourhood meeting the neighbourhood meeting was back in 2020. And then the application itself was submitted in 2021. And as you can see, during the neighbourhood meetings, we did have five attendees that had raised some concerns with the increasing density in the neighbourhood. They were also concerned with some of the property values and the impacts to their homes, especially on those properties that were adjacent to this, this development site. And then, when we did the notice of application in July and mailed that out to everybody, we did not receive any concerns at that time. But then we have received comments based on our notice for the public hearing. That letter is included in your packet, and expresses the concern with the increased density and some of the compatibility with having multi storey units adjacent to existing single family homes that are one story in that are adjacent to this property. We also included the neighbourhood meeting minutes so that the commission could review those as well and ask any questions about that. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 19:26
So, Ava in the slide has provided a lot of information here, but I think the thing that I just want to try to end on here is that it staffs opinion that based on the review criteria for the plenary plat and for the administrative modifications, we do believe that the review criteria have been that we’ve identified those findings within the staff report. Eva has pointed out a few of the things that we believe that it is in in keeping with Ferguson with Envision Longmont and with the zoning on the property, she also points out that the required surveys that were required from the environmental aspect, as well as looking to try to provide for compatibility with the neighbourhood, looking at the impacts on to the same brain School District, that from our standpoint, we believe that the standards have been met for approval of this, we do recommend approval of the project that can be found in PCR 2022 dash four A. And that is the end of staffs presentation. And Chairman Cole, and I’m happy to answer questions now or after the applicants presentation, however you’d like to go. Let’s wait for after the applicants presentation. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 21:04
Let’s move to the applicants presentation.
Unknown Speaker 21:08
Thank you, Chairman. My name is David Emerson. I’m the Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity of the St. Brain Valley. Commissioners I very much appreciate and thank you for the time tonight to show you this site. It’s a site we’re very excited about. I think we do have a presentation, although I’m not seeing it on my screen. Okay, there we go. So again, we appreciate being able to take some time and talk to you about the Rogers Road site. If you can go to the next slide please. Like I said, I’m the executive director I’ve been in this position since 2006. We have Pam Cora is with us. She is our planning consultant. Gino Cornella. With Rocky Ridge civil engineering is our civil engineer and Steve lane is here as our architect from basis, architecture and design finger Next slide. So, very quickly before I get into the technical details, or we get to the technical details, Habitat for Humanity’s vision is a world where everyone has a decent affordable place to live. We provide permanently affordable homeownership opportunities in Longmont and have been doing that since 1988. Next slide please. Just to be clear on who qualifies for a habitat home, there are four main criterias for individuals to qualify to purchase a habitat home, one that there is a clear housing need that could be overcrowding, unsafe conditions. Temporary or someone’s paying more than 30% of their income to housing, they must demonstrate an ability to repay an affordable mortgage. So when we sell the house, it’s it’s sold to the homeowner they assume a mortgage that’s no profit and affordable. And that gets repaid to habitat that helps build more houses. And we are hitting those making between 35 to 70,000 a year approximately So your basic service providers in the community. They have to demonstrate a willingness to partner so they help build the house and they take training classes to prepare them. For homeownership. We have never had a foreclosure in the state Green Valley. 85% of our homeowners since 1988 are still in their homes, and about a third of paid off, paid off their mortgage and then finally, they have to be a US citizen or a legal permanent resident. Next slide please. So recently, Habitat for Humanity, Colorado completed an impact study where they surveyed over 500 Habitat homeowners around the state of Colorado. And we just want to articulate that. What we see is that homeownership is transformational, so not only does it stabilises their, their finances, the family’s finances and provide a stable house it has a variety of different impacts for that family. So 98% of homeowners indicated that their children were either stable or add positive outcomes since moving to their house on education 91% indicated by improved mental health and over 800,000 $1,000 is estimated as savings on government programmes. So about half the government programmes, Assistant programmes that were being used before they moved into a Habitat house than after so a lot of different impacts than just the housing, go to the next slide. One of the things we like to make sure our supporters know is it’s very important that our houses blend to batch the neighbourhood. These are all examples of houses that we have built in Longmont from single family detached to multifamily condominium ownership townhome ownership, so we’ve built in over 26 different area neighbourhoods. And it’s a really, really important to us. And when someone drives by our homes, they look no different than market rate housing. And so in this particular case, we’re obviously looking to do the same thing is make sure it’s something that if it stands out, it stands out because it looks good. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 26:09
And these are just some quotes some for some, from excuse me, some individuals in regards to our commitment to quality, we are always looking at investing in quality in terms of energy efficiency to make sure that not only is our homes, affordable to buy, but they’re affordable to own. So we spend a lot of time on energy efficiency right now all our homes are going forward are 100% Electric. And so we want to make sure that when it Habitat homeowner moves into their home, it’s a home that is of the highest quality. Next slide, please. And so that’s just a little bit about habitat. And I can answer more questions, if there are any, but for now, I’d like to hand it over to Pam Hora and have her talk about some of the specific technical aspects of what we’re proposing.
Unknown Speaker 27:12
Thanks, David. And good evening, commissioners. My name is Pam hora. I’m a land use planner with Tetra Tech. This map is just a map of the site as Don had talked about. The property is located between Third Avenue and East Rogers road to the east of Martin Street. As you can see, to the west and east of the site, there are a couple of single family homes and then to the north, there is the park and some other single family homes and then to the south are some commercial businesses with the outdoor storage. So next slide, please tell us in 2016, when the Envision Longmont plan was approved, the land use under consideration tonight was identified as being in an area of change. And the land use as well as the zoning at that time became this mixed use corridor area. So that lavender colour area on the map is the mixed use corridor area. As you can see it extends from all along Third Avenue there from about Emory down to an area just east of Lashley. So this new land use and zoning was established in order to encourage a mix of commercial retail employment and medium and high density residential uses. The residential densities are encouraged to be up to 18 units per acre, as Don talked about. Buildings could be up to four storeys tall. And as Don talked about the density when it’s affordable, it can be less than that to 18 units but there’s also language in the code that could potentially allow density to be even greater than 18 units per acre. The other thing that having affordable housing does is allow you to actually go taller than four storeys as well. So there’s a lot of flexibility in that district. Next slide please Dallas Eric goes in 2018 recognising that this piece of property would allow for affordable housing to be built. Habitat for Humanity acquired the property in coordination with the city along months Housing and Community Investment division. So the city granted Habitat for Humanity and affordable housing fund loans that they could purchase the lot at 42 East Rogers road and And then after habitat purchase that the city donated to them 50 East Rogers road. When we set out to come up with a development plan to be able to replant this property to accommodate new affordable homes or Habitat for Humanity, there were some factors that we needed to take into consideration. First of all, we needed to come up with a plan that would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning and yet still be compatible with existing single family homes that were to each side of this piece of property. We also knew that we had to work around the fact that we could not obtain access to this site off of Third Avenue because of the fact that that is an arterial, all of our x had to come off of East Rogers road to the south. And even then we were limited because of the fact that East Rogers is a Collector. And we’re not allowed to have individual Watts take direct access from at East Rogers road. Next slide, please. So this is a copy of the preliminary plat. For the site that we are proposing. We’re proposing a total of nine lots, which are accessed by the public alley that connects to East Rogers road into places. So those two orange arrows they’re showing up on the map are the connection points of the public alley, down to East Rogers road. And then the looped alley goes up and around lots, seven, eight and nine to provide access up to lots one through six that are on the north adjacent to Third Avenue. As with any infill site, we did have our challenges. And so we work very closely with planning Public Works Allama parent communication as well as the fire department to be able to come up with a plan that would work well for habitat as well as all the city departments. And I think they come up with a good way to lay out this piece of property. Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 32:17
So this is a site
Unknown Speaker 32:17
plan for the property. It shows the building footprints for the homes that are proposed in the site. The plan is to have three triplex buildings. One of the buildings will sit on lots one through three, the other building sits on lots four through six. And then the last building is on lot seven through nine. The two triplex buildings that are on the north of the site up adjacent to Third Avenue will have identical footprints they’re just a mirror image of each other. Each of the homes in these two buildings will be two storeys tall. The homes that are on the end of the buildings will have three bedrooms and then each of the centre units and these buildings will have four bedrooms. The triplex building that’s down on the south side adjacent to each East Rogers road is going to be a single storey building. And the reason for that is we wanted to be able to have some of the homes in the building so they could be constructed as accessible units if any of the homeowners need that. To have the homes in this triplex will have two bedrooms and one of the homes will have three bedrooms. All nine of the homes in this project will have a two car garage that will be accessed from that loop alley. And then we also incorporated some guest parking spots off of the alley. There’s two of the spots over to the west side and another two over to the east side along the alley.
Unknown Speaker 34:04
Between the two
Unknown Speaker 34:04
triplex buildings that are up on the north side, there’s a sidewalk that we put into a public access easement. And that’s provided there so that the residents can be able to have access up to Third Avenue without having to walk all the way
Unknown Speaker 34:20
around the block.
Unknown Speaker 34:23
Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 34:26
So these are some 3d colour images of the triplex buildings that are proposed on the north side of the site. As you can see, Steve lane the project’s architect did a nice job of using colour to be able to add some visual interest to the buildings and give each unit its own sense of identity and uniqueness.
Unknown Speaker 34:48
Unknown Speaker 34:51
This is a view of the triplex buildings that are on the south side adjacent to East Rogers road. Again, Steve use colour To be able to distinguish between the different units within the building. In this graphic, you can also see in the back the triplex building that is long Third Avenue. Keep in mind when you’re looking at these images, these are just simply just show you an idea of what the architecture is going to look like. It’s not reflective of what will actually be seen, because you’re not seeing any of the landscaping or the fencing that’s proposed on the site. And all of the homes that are proposed do meet the city’s residential design standards. Next slide, please. As part of our site plan application, we’re requesting an administrative modification. And the purpose of the modification is so that Habitat for Humanity can be able to enclose that 10 foot wide buffer area north of the townhomes with a 10 foot, I’m sorry, excuse me, a six foot tall privacy fence. So doing this will help on give those future homeowners, an enclosed backyard and then also anybody travelling on Third Avenue won’t be able to see directly into those backyards and into those homes. Also, another benefit of that fence is it helps to provide a bit of a noise buffer for those homeowners because of the noises generated by the traffic from vehicles travelling on Third Avenue. Next slide. So these are the images that Don had mentioned that we would have to be able to show you kind of the existing situation. The image on the top just shows kind of the direction that you’re looking on the two views down below. So as you can see, along you’re driving 1/3 Avenue, both of those adjacent property owners already have six foot tall privacy fences that enclose their backyard. So having a another six foot tall privacy fence along these Habitat for Humanity. Lots will be very much consistent with what’s already out there on this block. So it makes sense for us to be able to have that that fence located there. Next slide, please. The privacy fence that habitat is proposing actually goes above and beyond. I think because it’s it’s more decorative than just your standard six foot tall cedar fence. As you can see from this picture, the fence will be a combination of wood and metal to help enhance the aesthetics of the fence that you’ll see as you drive along Third Avenue behind these homes.
Unknown Speaker 37:52
Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 37:56
We know that it’s important as we go through this process with the preliminary plat and site plan entitlement process to come up with a plan that will be compatible with an existing neighbourhood. And we also need to make sure that we’re responsive to the neighbours. At the same time, we need to develop a plan that’s going to be consistent with Envision Longmont and the land development code. So back in November of 2020, we did have a neighbourhood meeting via zoom. All the neighbours within 1000 feet of this site were invited. There were five people who logged in to be able to listen to the neighbourhood meeting and listen to our presentation. One of those people did call in and that was Mr. Mark Brown, who lives just directly to the west of the habitat property. And when he called in his, he expressed concerns about the density bid development. And he did share about having concerns about having a two story home next to a single family home and how that would infringe on his privacy. And then an email that he also just sent to Eva earlier this month. He reiterated that same concern and he also asked to see landscaping plans to be able to help address his privacy concerns.
Unknown Speaker 39:21
Next slide please.
Unknown Speaker 39:26
So habitat has taken Mr. Brown’s concerns into consideration and has worked on addressing those. Also David Emerson has been in contact with Mr. Brown because habitat really values and wants to be a good neighbour. What I have on this graphic is just a copy of our landscape plan that is laid on top of the aerial photo. So the it’ll just help me kind of explain some of the steps we’re taking to help address Mr. Brown’s concerns. So firstly, of all, Mr. Brown is concerned about the project being too dense. As we’ve talked about at the beginning of the presentation, per the zoning habitat has the legal right to propose at least 14 units and even more, because the fact that these are affordable units, however, out of respect for the neighbours and the neighbourhood, we are just proposing a total of nine units on this site, so it’s less dense than the code allows. Also, when we laid out the buildings on the habitat site, we intentionally oriented those buildings so that the side of the building that is shortest in length, would be adjacent to the single family homes. So by doing this, when Mr. Brown takes a look toward the Habitat homes, the structures that he will see, we’ll look comparable in size to just a single family home. Also, when it comes to buffering, and landscaping habitat is going above and beyond, per the code, we’re required to have a 10 foot wide landscape buffer between the Habitat homes and the single family homes and habitats proposing a 15 foot wide buffer. So it’s five feet wider than they needed to provide for the code. And then as you can see on the plan, that’s the landscape plan. So the circles on there are the trees and shrubs that are proposed within the landscape buffer. And then finally, when it comes to building height, habitats being very respectful the neighbours as we talked about, based on the zoning, they could have had four storey buildings on this piece of property. But what we’re proposing is just one and two storey triplex buildings. And while Mr. Brown has a concern about the fact that the two storey building next to his home, I think it’s also important to recognise the fact that single story and two story homes next to each other are common in neighbourhoods throughout Longmont that’s that’s not an unusual situation. So because of all these design considerations, I really is evident that haven’t habitat has been a considerate neighbour, and that they’ve been responsive to the concerns that Mr. Brown has had about this project. And the project that we’re proposing really is compatible within the neighbourhood.
Unknown Speaker 42:48
Next slide, please.
Unknown Speaker 42:51
So just to wrap things up, it’s important for planning commission to know that habitat has appropriately addressed all of the required review criteria. The project is consistent with Envision Longmont and the land development code designs compatible within the existing neighbourhood there will be no damage to the natural environment as a result of the project. By working with city staff, we found a way to integrate integrate the project into the existing transportation and utility service systems and the project will comply with building and fire codes. Next slide.
Unknown Speaker 43:35
So for these reasons, we would
Unknown Speaker 43:36
ask that you approve the preliminary plat and site plan with the administrative modification for the landscape buffer as outlined in PCR 2022 dash four a, because Habitat for Humanity is complying with all the review criteria.
Unknown Speaker 43:54
Unknown Speaker 43:57
We just want to first of all thank staff for working with us to come up with a great plan for developing this site to accommodate nine permanently affordable well designed new homes for families here in our community. And we’d like to thank you planning commissioners for your time and consideration this evening and we’d be happy to help answer any questions that you may have.
Unknown Speaker 44:24
Very much Pam. This is a public hearing item and unless anybody has any burning questions that they would like to ask right now what I would like to do next is go ahead and open this up for public comment. Okay, the information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home. Please call 188878880099 When prompted enter the meeting ID 83648218164 When we are ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number each speaker must state their name and address for the record and they will be allowed five minutes to speak Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak we will now take a five minute break to allow people to call in.
Unknown Speaker 49:38
Chairman commission we’re about 30 seconds out from the five minute mark. Currently we have no callers. Once I see you all back online and we get to that five minute mark I will drop the slide
Unknown Speaker 50:11
All right we are at the five minute mark we did get a colour in that last second there
Unknown Speaker 50:41
looks like I think we might be missing commission chair Polen yes it looks like he got kicked out of the meeting there so give me just a second while I try and chat with him to get him back in his computer had a quick reboot there so he will be back in just
Unknown Speaker 52:12
Unknown Speaker 52:46
he’s in the lobby just waiting to see a mic on him hey Chairman Poland Can you hear us we can see you but not here and your right now
Unknown Speaker 53:36
still can’t hear you if you’re on a phone let me think here should there should be an option well no I’m not even seeing a mic option on your when your name here now unfortunately can’t hear you. If you have like the the bar at either the top or the bottom of your screen. It should give you an option for microphones. Right now I’m not even seeing one available based on my side. I don’t know if that’s the case on yours. If it doesn’t work, there should be an option to call in as well. Okay, just so we got the connected audio on mute for me.
Unknown Speaker 54:29
There we go. Sorry about that. Hey, there
Unknown Speaker 54:31
we go. No problem. So while that was going on, we did get one caller in if you were ready to go.
Unknown Speaker 54:37
Okay. caller please state your name and address for the record and then you have five minutes to comment.
Unknown Speaker 54:45
Sure thing so colour with the last three digits 396 colour 396 Please make sure your live stream is muted and hit star six on your device to unmute Hey there, caller 396 I can see you’re unmuted. Can you hear us?
Unknown Speaker 55:07
I can hear you. Can you hear me?
Unknown Speaker 55:08
Yes, we can.
Unknown Speaker 55:09
Thanks. Let me mute my computer okay. So I am I able to ask questions about something that you did not just cover?
Unknown Speaker 55:29
No, this is for the items that this is for the item regarding the Habitat for Humanity Rajat wrote preliminary plat, you can comment, you’re not, we will not be taking questions from the public, but you’re allowed to comment.
Unknown Speaker 55:50
Okay, well, where are when can I ask questions about something that I’m concerned about?
Unknown Speaker 55:58
After this item, we will have another public invited to be heard at the end after this item. And at that point, you can go ahead and address and state comments and items that are not covered specifically in this particular meeting. So anything let’s either the humanity Habitat for Humanity, Rogers road plan.
Unknown Speaker 56:23
Okay, well, then I guess I’ll call it in a few. Okay, thank you.
Unknown Speaker 56:31
Alright, and that is our only caller.
Unknown Speaker 56:33
Okay. I will then go ahead and close the public invited to be heard and open this up for comments or questions from the Commission.
Unknown Speaker 56:52
And we have a try to see who that is we have to a commissioner Kohler.
Unknown Speaker 57:03
Yeah, my question was probably for PAM or the applicant, um, with the landscape buffer that’s going to be developed, who’s going to be responsible for maintaining that? Is that the the homeowner that’s closest to it? Or is there like an association?
Unknown Speaker 57:20
Yeah, all the landscaping is on the individual lots and so the owner of the lot will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping.
Unknown Speaker 57:28
Okay, so the buffers that are on the western and eastern edges, those are the owners of each side of this. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 57:35
Yes. Yeah. So that’s lots one and six that have the landscaping on them. So those lot owners will be responsible for maintaining that.
Unknown Speaker 57:43
And they’ll have irrigation established and all that already.
Unknown Speaker 57:47
Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner height.
Unknown Speaker 57:59
Thank you watch my cursor. MUSIC UP contrary, to confirm exactly, why is the 10 foot
Unknown Speaker 58:05
Unknown Speaker 58:07
Because I look at this as multifamily. Maybe done as for you, maybe Pam, you can answer
Unknown Speaker 58:13
that 10 foot buffer all along the Third Avenue? Yep. Because of the fact I had to pull the code to make sure but I think that that one is based on the building setback. Don, do you know off the top of your head?
Unknown Speaker 58:33
Yeah, I’m gonna have to get the exact
Unknown Speaker 58:35
exactly that the buffer type is Category A and the minimum width is the building setback. Which to me, that’s the building setback is 10 feet. Yeah. So you’re actually 20 feet setback, as is with your design.
Unknown Speaker 58:50
No, the the the setback and the buffer are the same. So it’s 10 feet total. So that’s what we’re required to have. So it’s not both Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 59:01
Okay. And then to go further down this line, because I’m looking at the administrative modification standards. You were explaining that Mr. Brown concerns and other neighbours concerns are making you squeeze in a little tight. You’re not expanding out to the eastern West boundaries as far as you possibly could. Again, you’re set back would have been 10 feet there and you’re going to have 15 foot setback is that correct?
Unknown Speaker 59:32
Right. We have 15 feet on each side, right adjacent to the single family homes on either side. Correct. But you
Unknown Speaker 59:38
but you could go to 10 feet. We could,
Unknown Speaker 59:42
but we didn’t need the additional width. We could fit the the houses within the space where we were more constrained was north
Unknown Speaker 59:51
south. But when I was looking at your plan, and I was looking at ways that possibly you could you know, get around your problem with me This administrative modification because of the buffer setback from Third Avenue, I thought possibly you could go wider, bring your footprint a little back to the south, and possibly get around that issue. But what I think I heard you say was, yeah, you didn’t do that, because you’re actually being more considerate of the neighbours, which I find to be somewhat of a unique design trick, which meets the standard to grant this administrative modification. So I appreciate that. And again, two with respect to density. You’ve said this four times, I’m just going to say, as well, you could have gone four stories, you’ve gone one story in two stories, which is not uncommon in the area, though, possibly uncommon, in this neighbourhood, which appears to have one storey buildings on either side, is that correct? Correct. And I was looking at the width of those lots to the east and to the west, and they look to be approximately half the size of the lots, the two flats that you are combining, is that correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay, so I collect design, uniqueness, which is one of the qualifications about which we can grant you this administrative modification. Last question, the Jim Morrison garage, was that part of what you had to take down?
Unknown Speaker 1:01:38
I believe that’s on the adjacent property, and it’s still up, but that’s still
Unknown Speaker 1:01:42
there. Great. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:47
Any Commissioner Saunders? Well,
Unknown Speaker 1:01:51
thank you for the presentations. I like this project. I like this partnership. I like that the creative way of working with the lots in the alley in the driveway and the accessibility and the way they’ll put it together. And I was reading through the definitions and criteria, and it was all going really well until I got to the landscape modification request, I have some struggles with that. And so maybe I can get some clarification and overcome those hurdles. So if Pam or David, can you tell me why in in the documents we got from Eva that they you all, I guess desire for the property not to have an HOA? Is that correct? And can you tell me why? Sure, Commissioner
Unknown Speaker 1:02:44
Saunders, I can address that on. So these are townhouse home ownership. So there is a very simple legal instrument that’s used in that case, a third party wall agreement, it is our observation. And this would be true of both market rate and affordable, not just affordable. But it is very difficult to get professional management and have an HOA when it is only a nine unit subdivision. There are little to no agencies that we’re aware of that would service and do professional management with small subdivisions like that. So what we’re seeking to do here is create lines of responsibility that are very, very obvious. When you have an HOA, you you tend to need at least one if not three officers that have to run it. And in an HOA. There’s a governance structure in an HOA that’s required in order to make that work. And it’s our observation that in smaller subdivisions, a townhome ownership style simply works better. We’re very appreciative that the city worked with us on the public alley, oftentimes, private streets, that’s where anytime you get a common element, it means you have to have an organisation, an HOA, someone’s got to be an officer of that HOA to write checks. And so therefore, there needs to be voting for that officer. So there’s not difficult things but smaller things that you have to have someone serve and in that governance structure, and I think that’s easier, obviously, market rate or otherwise when you have you know, 50 or 100 units. So, that was our thought process at least
Unknown Speaker 1:05:00
and that sort of thank you for that answer. It sort of aligns. Yeah, what my thinking was to as far as this property. And so my, my expectations of the landscape plan had a set standard for that. And I don’t feel that these landscape plans are meeting that for the low maintenance, low cost for the homeowners to be responsible, especially for every lot, except lot, two, and three, seems like all the other lots have are carrying an extra burden for water, you know, the watering and replacement costs and maintenance costs. And so I have a couple other questions. But on that thread I’m wondering, in this question might be for Dawn, what happens if these landscape buffers become sticks and stones like past that initial phase? Well, for the, you know, for the buffer on third in the buffer for the properties next door.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:03
Mr. Saunders, members of the commission, you know, this is something that I think is a common problem with some of our landscaping requirements in general is that even if there’s an HOA, you know, the enforcement and of the site plan requirements, ultimately falls back on the city, through complaints, typically, to force the landscaping to be re installed, and to be brought back up to code. And we react to that on a complaint basis. And so when we are notified that there’s an issue, we try to reach out to the HOA or to the business or, you know, the owner, depending on the type of development application that it is, and inform them that, you know, they are not in conformance. And then ultimately, it becomes really an enforcement issue at that point. You know, we would have to if there’s not the willingness to comply, then, you know, we could look at trying to do some kind of a lien and force the work that we would have to pay to get done, and then try to get reimbursed through taxes, which we’ve done in one case, since I’ve been here. But, you know, typically, it would be a notice of violation, giving a person a certain amount of time to correct the violation, and then expecting them to make the, the improvement if they don’t, then that takes it to the next level, which would be enforcement through our prosecuting attorney, who would have to make a determination whether or not to prosecute, and to go to the judge to request the we have help in getting that taken care of. And I can tell you that that is something that I’ve never seen happen. So, and again, that’s not with an affordable project that’s not with a market rate that is with every development, whether it be a King Soopers development, whether it be a large apartment home complex, whether it be a large major employer in the city of Longmont. We just don’t we do our best to try to gain compliance from them in an amicable way.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:32
Excellent, good, good. Okay. That’s what I was hoping to hear. And then one more question for you, Don, is this the final approved Plant, plant the plant list, the actual plants that are going to be going in this is that okay,
Unknown Speaker 1:08:45
that is that is my understanding, based on my rundown of this with Eva. Pam, I think could confirm that this is the site plan that is subject to being signed off and approved. And if so, then this plant list is the final plantlets kernel.
Unknown Speaker 1:08:59
Okay, and that’s a thank you time. That’s a great segue to Pam So Pam, when it sees backlash because I’m really just that modification is really just about the ones on third right and that 10 foot buffer and so um, wouldn’t they have landscape already in the backyard? And so isn’t it sort of double dipping where the backyards are just acting as like? Well, I think it’s a creative solution. I have some some issues with the the planting plan but I’m just wondering, would they have already had landscaping in their backyards on the south side of the fence?
Unknown Speaker 1:09:45
The the requirement to provide the landscaping is because the buffer requirement there’s not a city requirement for rear yard landscaping like to put landscaping in somebody’s backyard. Is that what you’re asking?
Unknown Speaker 1:09:59
Well it because it’s Sounds like well, we’re putting the landscape in the backyard to satisfy the landscape buffer along surd. But I’m guessing the landscaping would have already been there. First of all, in the backyard.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:14
I mean, the the the way that the code is written, the buffer is measured from the structure to the property line. So that 10 foot area, it functions as both a backyard and as a buffer. And it’s the buffer requirement that requires landscaping, the code doesn’t have a requirement that we have to provide any landscaping in a backyard.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:37
So if you didn’t have if, if you had to go ahead and do the buffer, you would take the landscaping out of the backyard and put it on the other side of the fence.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:47
If if we can’t, the landscaping is going there, no matter what what we’re requesting is to be able to put a fence basically along the property line so that we can enclose the backyards. So what we’re requesting has really nothing to do with the landscaping. It’s about can we put the fence there,
Unknown Speaker 1:11:08
right in and I feel it goes along with the design continuing to have that space in the hardscaping can be a part of the landscape buffer. Definitely. So you wouldn’t have had a fence if you didn’t need the buffer. I’m just trying to find out why we even need this modification, because it feels like I because I have some struggles with it and even needing it I guess if all these elements were already going to be in there.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:45
So the standard itself, is is really trying to do it’s a general standard and apply for any type of development, whether it be single family, multifamily, townhome, commercial, industrial, that the standard itself says if you’re required to have a buffer, based on the type of use your adjacent to like a street, for example, in arterial Street, and then the type of residential or type of development that you’re doing, the code specifies the width and the type of buffer that’s required. The fencing is not a requirement for this development, the applicant is asking to instal a fence and their proposed location is on the property line. And that is between the landscaping that’s part of the buffer and the Street to the north. So code says it’s not supposed to be on the inside of the fence, it’s supposed to be on the outside. And so the again, the request here under the modification, because this is a non numeric standard, the administrative modification allows for this deviation, as long as the commission finds that it’s, as Commissioner High was talking about an alternative that you know, there’s benefit or you know, there’s in their criteria, and I’m don’t have those right tip of my tongue, but you don’t have memory. That’s the that’s the specific section then that we’re looking at. And so if this was, for example, a larger development, maybe a single family project or a large townhome project, and there was an HOA, often this buffer would have been put into an outlaw, and would have been owned and maintained by that HOA. But in this case, because of trying to make sure that everybody understands what their maintenance responsibilities are, they’re included with in the yard, they would like the fence inside the yard. And I can say from what we have seen in other developments where we have fences that basically block access or can restrict access to improvements on the other side, those often get overlooked and neglected more than if they’re in the backyard. And in this area. We believe this is a good alternative.
Unknown Speaker 1:14:18
Right. And I applaud your efforts for making that work for this property. So my problem is as the as a commissioner looking through the criteria, I do not think that it meets one part of the criteria if the landscaping is part of that buffer, because the way that the the the plan reads so it’s the middle of the administrative modification request and my specific problem is with D of part two, under a save the requested a minute meant administrative modification for that subsection two, and then all the way to D represents a creative and quality design without detriment just surrounding properties or neighbourhoods, natural environment, or to the city’s ability to provide services and maintain public facilities. Looking at this landscape plan, there are some problems that I’m having being on the north side of this property and on the south side of the fence. So if it’s just the fence, I seen, I don’t have a problem with that, except for that the model, the buffer has to have a combination of fence and landscaping. The problem with them seeing with the landscaping, some of the sizes are in propriate. Like the Pinyon pines are like half the size that they’re going to be in, it’s an evergreen, so I have concerns about shading on that side of the sidewalk, which it’s not an intersection, so it’s probably okay. And they’re full sun plants in the irrigated turf will not see any sun, especially if it’s under trees. So I have concerns about the maintenance of it, and homeowners over watering it and the water getting to the sidewalk, and then it being shaded by the two storeys of buildings and the trees, which you can see at the cannery which is just down the street, and they have two trees on the south side with the same setback. Okay, so maybe we can move around with that maybe remove the trees, a bigger problem that I have with the sitting of the plants are in that drainage easement with the that concrete pan five trees are planted on it, or it so I’m not sure that’s going to meet a drainage requirement, having them planted in that concrete pan because it will obviously not doing the drainage job and or near it, it will also uplift it and then it starts to become this problem of maintenance. And and I just I feel for these homeowners incurring this huge cost. And going back to the HOA, which is not part of what we’re supposed to, to create, to look at as far as the criteria. My problem is with the accuracy of the plan. And I don’t feel that it meets that representing the quality design component. As I’m looking at it right now. Unfortunately, because I’d like this, I like this property in this project. But I don’t feel that it meets that modification. And I have concerns about it being put in like this. So I don’t I don’t know how to fix it. And the only thing I could call was maybe take out the trees, but then you lose the the attenuation buffer for the homeowners with the sound. But you can’t put it in that drainage pan and the shade Enos of it, I just I don’t feel that it rises to the approval criteria for me for the landscape modification. Unfortunately, I think the fence? Yeah, we can find a way to do that. But otherwise, it doesn’t meet the criteria for the modification that I see there’s other hands. Right. So maybe I can let that sit for a minute.
Unknown Speaker 1:18:19
Well, commission. Commissioner Saunders, do you have a question then regarding that layout to the applicant?
Unknown Speaker 1:18:30
Yeah, I don’t I don’t know how because I mean, because it’s tricky. And I know that everybody’s been working really hard to satisfy all these requirements. It just, I can’t, I can’t approve it, seeing it with the trees in the dream pan. And being part of that landscape buffer. So I don’t I don’t know how I cuz I’m not. I’m not in it as much as you guys are. So I don’t know how to satisfy a landscape buffer without trees, especially since I mean, a big part of it is to buffer the sound from the street to the homeowners. But at the same time, this isn’t it’s not. It’s not a quote, I horticulturally. There’s some challenges here for this landscape plan to go in. So I don’t feel it rises to the standard that I would expect for homeowners to be able to maintain it on their own. But again, that goes off to an area that it’s not part of the criteria. So I don’t have a solution. I’m sorry, I wish I did. Maybe someone will come up with one in a in this conversation. Well,
Unknown Speaker 1:19:37
I mean, I think the landscaping that’s proposed on here is the landscaping that the code requires as far as the types and numbers of trees and shrubs. So I mean, based on the feedback that you’re providing, we could potentially try to to work on a different plan and have the landscape architect look at different, you know trees or shrubs or that sort of thing to address some of your concerns related to making sure that we make modifications to the landscaping to address the long term maintenance, kind of concerns and shading and some of those things that you’re bringing up that are specific to the plants.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:29
Yeah, and where they’re sitting, because they’re sitting in the drain pan, it’s a concrete drain pan. So it’s not going to drain if there’s a tree planted right in the middle of it, which is pretty outstanding to see. And I like what you’re saying. But I just want to draw your attention to the alternative buffer requirements, where the director may approve an administrative modification under subsection 15 Oh B for alternative buffer requirements based on the consideration of the scope and scale of the proposed development, and mix of uses the proposed building placement design, the quality of the proposed landscape design and decorative squirt screen wall, as applicable. The width of the buffer is site perimeter conditions in there, I don’t see anything where it says one tree per 750 square feet. So it seems like that may be where the glitches where you’re trying to put it in those one tree, seven shrubs for per square footage of the volume of that 2000 square feet. And maybe it’s just if it’s just the the fence, maybe the director can approve in administrative modification under subsection for just the fence and then you guys take the plants because I can’t say yes to these plants as I’m looking at it. So that’s just me, though. So I mean, and maybe that’s more for John, and maybe it can be rolled into it that way. I don’t, I don’t really know.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:05
So because this, this application as a part of a major development application, the Planning Commission has purview on whether or not to grant the modification or not. My recommendation, unless we’re going to continue with this discussion would be to make a motion that would represent what you believe either is a fair way to address the issue as a condition or deny it and see if you have four other votes in favour of it. Or look for something else. The applicant could also at this point, withdraw the request for the modification. And then we would deal with that, if and when they ever come in for a fence permit. And then it would be at the director’s discretion. So that’s kind of where we’re at at this point. I really don’t know what else to add. Looks like there’s others with their hands up. So
Unknown Speaker 1:22:57
that’s, that’s just one quick follow up. Can we take that modification out and just approved the other components? The Oh, shoot, I
Unknown Speaker 1:23:07
forgot what they were. The Commission can make any motion vote to do whatever you would like to plant
Unknown Speaker 1:23:14
in this site. Okay. Okay. Thank you, I think. And the modification, yeah, I mean, I think let’s see where this is going. Thank you, John. Yep.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:25
Unknown Speaker 1:23:27
Commissioner. Did you call
Unknown Speaker 1:23:41
Unknown Speaker 1:23:46
I heard flake My apologies, Janelle. And you were beauty. But you
Unknown Speaker 1:23:49
weren’t? I would just assume go now. Because what my question was, can we see this map that we’re talking about?
Unknown Speaker 1:23:56
Well, I’m going to follow up anyhow, because I’m looking at the landscape plan, I think. PAGE 18 of 20. Looks to be in our packet. It’s item number six.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:11
I couldn’t pull it up just now. So if this pot
Unknown Speaker 1:24:18
Well, you’re in and out for me. Commission for now, you’re unmuted in
Unknown Speaker 1:24:27
that okay, well,
Unknown Speaker 1:24:28
I’ll let you go. I’ll stay muted.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:31
If we could see the map to which Commissioner Saunders is referring, that would be helpful. And I do have a question. So we’re allowing the landscaping that otherwise would be visible to the public, behind a solid fence at six feet tall, because it’s required. What if gives way the Commission can say we will simply accommodate it by not requiring that land 10 foot landscaping. Is that the way out of this? Don, can we do stuff like that?
Unknown Speaker 1:25:18
So, off the cuff, I would say you could not waive the landscaping requirement. Again, the fence is the issue here, the location of it, the fence is not required by code to be there. Okay, the applicant is choosing to instal a fence and choose an asking to put it between the landscaping and the right of way. So that’s the issue is the fence I think you need to look at the landscaping, and understand the request for why the fence in the place that they’re proposing. It either does or does not make sense with the criteria. But I just want to make sure we understand the request is based on the request for the fence.
Unknown Speaker 1:26:16
Okay, so if I were looking at I would say they have to have the fence, it’s against an arterial. And it maintains the sight line for the whole entire block. That’s already there. To me that makes sense to have that. So we’re discussing a drain pan somewhere. And I’d like to see the the landscape plan so I can see what that is. But I have other questions that are a little different from that. We talked about the pedestrian access through that said fence? And how is the access going to be secured? Is there a gate? Will the gates have a key won’t be locked from the inside? What are we doing? And I think maybe this is a question for PAM.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:08
I think at this point, we have it the fence shown so it would just enclose the backyard. So it will be open that pedestrian connection out to the street. I don’t know that anything has been planned at this point. As far as a gauge or anything like that I know Habitat for Humanity did have some concerns about having it just be open for anybody to be able to come and go from there. But we did not propose any kind of a gate to close it off. So at this point, that’s it just it’s open.
Unknown Speaker 1:27:45
I have noticed just to comment in other neighbourhoods, they bring that kind of a fence, they do a perpendicular attachment and bring it down the length of sidewalk enough that people can’t see into the backyards of the adjacent buildings. And that creates sort of a security channel there. The next question I have is in regards to the lighting on the site, one of the things that can happen with new builds is that there’s going to be a light, of course by the entrance. And then people are going to want the lights over the garage. And my concern always is that when these lights go in there, the modified colonial version of a candle kind of a thing goes in, which spreads the lights all over the place. And with the adjacent neighbour being concerned about having an invasion of his property. That’s one of the big concerns. Will you put in lights that will do adequate lighting, but not then also share the light beyond the lot line, which I understand is a requirement that lights come to zero at the lot line? And how do you make sure that going forth? The residents of the new builds realise that they are not allowed to put in spotlights to light up the world. So those are my concerns on that part of it. And I guess you were in the process of pulling up landscape plans so we can take a look at that.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:19
So if I could just jump in it was page 18 of that.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:23
If I could find it, I would do that.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:26
Yes. Of the applicant presentation. Correct.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:32
They are all updates, Section six or attachment six of our meeting packet.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:38
I do not have access to the packet. I just have the applicant presentation and the staff presentation. If it’s on one of those two. I can pull it up for you guys.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:47
I have a version of it in our presentation.
Unknown Speaker 1:29:50
Sure. I think I found it you can confirm if this is it or not. Give me just a second Does this look correct? Was there a different one? Okay, that shows
Unknown Speaker 1:30:09
Unknown Speaker 1:30:10
on now that it’s not showing the plants because it’s right underneath that plant 10 foot wide landscape buffer.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:17
So slide 19, I think might, oh, thank
Unknown Speaker 1:30:20
Unknown Speaker 1:30:24
And I know that you’re concerned about those trees being in the concrete pan. And actually they’re not, it looks like it there, but they’re not the they’re planted off to the side, I can see what you’re saying as far as, as they grow, they could, you know, the vegetation grow into that area where the concrete pan is, but I know that they’re not physically planted right in the pan.
Unknown Speaker 1:30:51
And this is Dave Emerson, if I may just interject, one thing to keep in mind is what is different from a market rate development is keeping lion habitat has a lengthy period, in which our homeowners are being educated on the community in which they’re going to live. So in a market rate community, if this was built, person would have a house sold, they move in, there’s really no education period with the developer, or the builder. So if we put it I’m reacting to the comments about, you know, you put in these lights and, and being sensitive to flood lights and things like that we have the benefit of being being able to specifically educate those homeowners, as we’re building the houses, they have to put in sweat equity. Part of that sweat equity is not just building the houses, but learning about the neighbourhood in which they’re, they’re going to be buying a house. So while that does not guarantee, excuse me, a homeowner from making a poor decision, I think it raises the odds that they will be much more educated and sensitive to some of the issues that are idiosyncratic with that specific site different from a traditional market rate product.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:19
And the lights that we’re proposing on these homes are included on the architecture sheets, that are part of the site plan that we show some light sconces that would be on the side that directly you know, make sure the light stays down and isn’t shining out on the other properties. So thank you. Commissioner. Hi.
Unknown Speaker 1:32:48
My ground has been covered. Button is where I want to confirm to you in response to Commissioner Saunders observations, I just wanted to clarify the centre point of those trees is somewhat of an approximation, or as you just said, That’s not exactly where the trees
Unknown Speaker 1:33:06
are. I’m looking at a copy of the landscape plan. And I could see it better on my screen than what you’re seeing in your packets probably. And I can see where they’re planted that it’s not in the the concrete pan. So I mean, they would they couldn’t be planted in the concrete pan. They’re they’re shown off to the sides, but they’re done.
Unknown Speaker 1:33:30
Then, just to stay with you bam. I think the observation Miss Saunders was commissioner Saunders was was making was that the trees creating a north face. snow ice patch on the Third Avenue sidewalk. Right wait. Another further? Mr. Saunders in a second. You find that to be a problem. Um, what’s your opinion of that observation?
Unknown Speaker 1:34:02
Yeah, definitely. I need to I’m just gonna look and see what the tree species are. That are I see that there is it looks like one pinyon pine, I think most of them are several of them are deciduous trees. And so we could look at switching out. I know the reason specifically why the evergreen trees were on there is because there’s a county or main city requirement that 25% of the trees on there have to be the coniferous trees. And that’s what’s kind of driving what’s being proposed. But on this particular site. Perhaps there’s a way to modify that to not have those on the north side there where it could cause that problem on the sidewalk and swap out For a deciduous tree to address that particular concern with the landscaping there.
Unknown Speaker 1:35:09
The other comment I had Mr. Flag hit, which was that this pedestrian walkway, is it public? It’s not meant to be public, is it?
Unknown Speaker 1:35:21
It is in a public access easement. It is yes. So that, but any of these homeowners could be able to use that to be able to walk up to Third Avenue and they don’t have to go all the way around the block to be able to get to Third Avenue,
Unknown Speaker 1:35:36
or more interested in me being able to walk into that alleyway off Oxford Avenue. Is is that the intent? That it is truly public?
Unknown Speaker 1:35:46
I mean, it there’s is truly public or legal for you to do that. But
Unknown Speaker 1:35:53
so you so you wouldn’t want to gate it? No. Yeah. All right. And then Dave, Mr. Emerson, the only other coming with a three unit. triplex Natalie, a common law group, you’re going to have to have a rough agreement to write. I mean, there are some common elements that you can’t get around with this type of ownership regardless. I was just going to point that out. Why why. Okay, no, that’s
Unknown Speaker 1:36:28
right. And that’s, that’s covered in the legal agreement, that third party wall agreement that’s common with with townhomes. Again, what we’re doing it a couple things to again, keep in mind, that period of time, as we’re building the homes, that education period, is really a time we’re using to prepare homeowners for the product that they’re going into. Second is, remember that habitat is not just the builder, where the lender, we’re ensuring that the mortgage is at 27% of their income. And because these are permanently affordable, the property taxes are going up in a more graduated. Constrained way. So that doesn’t get out of whack. And that’s important, not only for the mortgage, but it’s important for those other ownership costs that every homeowner has. So, again, that doesn’t, um, that does not guarantee 100% success. But that educational component, and the fact that we control the mortgage and the cost for their housing puts our homeowners in an excellent position. We have done condo ownership of both where it was pretty much 100% habitat and part of a condo situation where that association is covering those costs. But again, though, that that association is still the homeowners. So no matter how you govern those things, it will come back to the relationship of those homeowners and how they work together, whether it be through a condo vehicle, an HOA vehicle, or a third party wall vehicle. So it’s it’s really critical. And I think we do a really good job of educating those homeowners that they really need to be working together when it comes to things like you know, the roof and so forth. So.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:49
Okay, thank you, Mr. leukoc.
Unknown Speaker 1:38:54
Thank you, Chairman Colin. But I would chime in with some clarifying questions on on the fence. It looks like currently that there is a fence there, it’s not a six foot fence and all the other neighbours around have a fence Have they all applied for an administrative modification or how come now there is a fence and you know, in the future, we require a modification for the development.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:26
Their existing fences would not need any kind of variance or modification of the height. Because they’ve existed they were legally allowed previously to the land development code changes that occurred in 2018 19, when we adopted the new their most recent version of land development code. So this is a new standard.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:50
I gotcha. So it’s the new code and then so that the new fence with that Would it be in alignment with with the neighbouring fences? Where the line? Is that the property line where it’s currently is and? And continuous contiguous with the with the neighbouring fences? Would we kind of maintain the status quo of where the fences now?
Unknown Speaker 1:40:20
Yeah, so the this fence would be located in the same alignment as those neighbouring fences? Yes, because they have it sitting on their property line outside of the right away there. So this one would be in the same location. Okay. Thank you,
Unknown Speaker 1:40:36
Unknown Speaker 1:40:44
I did not have my hand up. Look,
Unknown Speaker 1:40:46
you did a few minutes ago, sorry. At least it showed sorry. Commissioner Saunders.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:54
Um, thank you, Chairman. So I’m gonna try and see if I can resolve this. So I agree that, you know, landscape, plants, they get too close. But still, for the accuracy of this commission, I’m still struggling with accepting it based on the size and the plant list that is going to be put in on the north side of these two foot buildings, or sorry, two storey buildings, I just don’t think that they are appropriate. And that’s the only thing that I can look at for this landscape part because it’s part of the design criteria. So my suggestion, and I think we might be ready, since I’ve seen hands go down is to it. Let me ask this, Don, real quick. If you don’t mind planning manager, if we just approve the modification for the fence, only, if I can make that amendment to that, then everything can still go about it. We’re just not approving the landscape plan for that northern buffer. So it just I just don’t see it reaches the criteria, that the landscaped portion, aside from I think the fence is fine, I think it meets that continuous design. I think it adds that sound buffer, I think that based on the modification, you can the indirect you’re can just approve just the hardscape for the fence to be that buffer Mall. For that I’m just not for that landscape strip, is that appropriate.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:37
You have the ability to apply a condition to your approval, you would need to decide what the condition is. Yeah, if the condition is that you want the applicants to reduce the amount of planting in that area, if you want them to look at alternative species and types that would better work on the north side of the house and in a more narrow area, you could apply that as a condition of approval for the modification for the location of fence.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:15
And if it’s not in our buffer, it shouldn’t matter, right, because it’s not going to be considered part of law months criteria for the landscape buffer for third, and just the fences, then they can do what they want through. Because it’s their private property, they can do what they feel is necessary and goes through development review. If they don’t harp on it for them, but I just I can’t I go ahead, sorry.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:44
So I’m really having a hard time following you. So I mean, no disrespect in that, but I’m really having a hard time understanding the concern. So again, code requires them to have a 10 foot buffer that has a certain number of trees and shrubs and by code. The the code does not specifically say the types of plants or trees other than we have a list of approved materials for trees in the city. And it requires a certain percentage of those trees to be coniferous species. So the fence itself, the only thing that we’re looking at on this modification is the location of the fence. If you have concerns with the types of species and you believe that those are should not be used, if you think there should be other things looked at in that buffer or removed, you could make that as a condition. You would just need to adopt the V resolution which is a conditional approval versus VA and you would need to spell out what those conditions of approval would be. And then I would also recommend that you make a file Dean for the record as to why you believe what you are requesting as the condition. Right How that meets the standards for approval. So that that’s entered into the record in case this is appealed to City Council.
Unknown Speaker 1:45:14
Thank you. And so my problem is that it as a private owner, they should be able to choose whatever plants whether or not I think they’re fine or not. But if because it’s part of the landscape buffer requirement for the city of long line, which it would normally be on the outside of the fence, where we would see it, and we were would access it as a community, it’s now on the inside. And so now it seems like it crosses over into a different space. And I don’t want to be responsible for that I, I think the fence in that landscape modification is fine. But I’m not as comfortable of owning that landscaping part, the soft scape part of it when I don’t feel that it meets the quality and standards of the landscape buffer requirement. So all I’m saying is, it’s fine to just accept it and amend it without the plant. I mean, and that’s just me. So I’m maybe I’m just brass tacks, and it doesn’t matter. Because you know, one vote is one vote. So it seems like everybody else is on board with it.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:19
So Commissioner Saunders, you keep saying like, our buffers are the city’s buffer? It’s not a just to just be clear. The buffer is a requirement of code, but it’s not owned by the city.
Unknown Speaker 1:46:34
Correct? Yeah. And I don’t mean to say that we own it, but we’re proving it right. We’re proving it as far as a modification to go in with just city code. And then why even why does it matter? You know, so and maybe, maybe I’m just not understanding? Well, I don’t want to hold this whole thing up based on on this is it? I do think overall, it’s a great project. I just, I’m stuck on it. It just not meeting the standard said I would think it would with the modification. So I’m just gonna end it there. Thank you for your patience.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:09
Unknown Speaker 1:47:13
done, I have a question for you. Was that I understand there is someone on staff who does redo landscape plants? And did that happen in this situation?
Unknown Speaker 1:47:29
So do the budget cuts? We do not know what we have no longer have a licenced landscape architect able to review those for us. Ah,
Unknown Speaker 1:47:38
okay, so basically, what has been planned there? And I guess, Pam, you can answer this better than anyone. So you’ve met the requirements, that would be for that 10 foot strip, regardless of the fence plan, and you’ve managed all the plants and whatever that’s in there. And so basically, it’s not the landscaping, we’re really moving on here. It is the location of the fence. Correct. And, and so if we are fine with the location and existence of that fence, then we don’t need to amend this. We simply, if we approve it, then we move to approve. Is that my understanding? Would that be a correct statement?
Unknown Speaker 1:48:31
That’s my understanding. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:37
Okay, Dan, I have a question. Just kind of give me a little bit of historical information. Um, was there anything ever on this on these lights before? Because right now it looks like it’s just a lot of dirt.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:55
Um, so I can’t speak to the lat along the, the West, the one that excuse me, is on the east that was actually owned by the city. And it was a commercial type of building that we used to have a clothing drop off site, excuse me.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:27
Sorry, I’ve been talking too much. And so I can’t remember if that was our centre that was in there previously. It’s been a long time. It was okay. And it was a clothing drop off and I think almost like you know, you would go in and you could get clothing. I think they had some other services in there too. But it was a community facility and then after the our centre ended up, moving into their most current building, across from Georgia boys and remodelling. that closing and selling their building to Georgia boys that was on the north side of third. The city went in and we we shut down as I recall or didn’t continue with the lease of that building. And then ultimately we demoed that it was getting pre blighted in that area. And that was part of the reason why we tried to clean that up and remove some of the old structures that were out there.
Unknown Speaker 1:50:30
And can you give any kind of brief history of what the zoning was in that area before this? Because it sounds like in 2018, that’s when we went ahead and made it mixed use quarter. Do you know what it was before that? I’m just trying to get a background of, it seems like a kind of an odd neighbourhood you have those single family houses yet? When we went ahead and zoned it, it’s requiring a 18 units per per acre. So I’m just kind of trying to figure out what was it before what you know, is this a drastic change? Or, you know, that kind of
Unknown Speaker 1:51:02
stuff? I can try to see if I can find a map real quick while we’re talking. But I don’t remember for sure. Let me look. And then also, Mr. Huffer, had said that the there was a house that was on the other lock that was demoed, and so on, Pam, and, Dave, I think that’s correct, I
Unknown Speaker 1:51:28
think. Yes, that’s correct.
Unknown Speaker 1:51:33
And I know on the Envision Longmont plan, this was identified as an area of change, I think, because of a lot of the, you know, like you mentioned like that when the our centre quit using that building, and that buildings, maybe a little bit blighted, and it was removed. And so just a lot of changes going on. And I think the it seems like the thought was that this area is undergoing some redevelopment and change. And so the plan was to see that as the land started to redevelop, that it would begin to have more density is my understanding, just based on the review of the Envision Longmont plan
Unknown Speaker 1:52:15
and I have the zoning map from 2011 Let me just zoom in here real quick and I can answer your question chairman.
Unknown Speaker 1:52:38
So it was our two so it was residential medium density, before the zoning change and the update with the Envision Longmont code. So that would have allowed for some multifamily development on the property as well as some single family the commercial uses that would have been there previously and in that those areas would have been non conforming uses.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:09
And then what are other uses in mixed use corridor outside of residential.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:15
So it’s probably one of our largest uses medical office retail daycare services. It’s, it’s a it’s a broad category actually that it really allows for a large variety of mixed of uses including assembly uses, like churches trying to think of some of the other ones but but in general it is when you when you look at that you’d probably think more of like our North Main north of say Mountain View. Okay the North
Unknown Speaker 1:53:56
Okay, thank you very much. I’m just going to add my two cents in here. Um, I really like this project is I just want to confirm what could have gone in here um, I think would have been harder for to be next to single family homes. I think it’s a good project for that area. When looking at this issue with the landscaping and stuff, I believe that in the past we’ve not really gone too much into trying to nitpick over what goes into certain areas I think we take the landscape landscaping as an overall effect. And I from what I see from the landscaping plan here that overall it meets the needs for this area. And so I don’t have a issue with it and as was pointed out once these houses go in place and we have the fence up there really what happens behind the fence happens behind the fence and in the zoo really doesn’t have a say in it anyways. The thing We just have certain trees going in there in the beginning, I’m not going to worry about nitpicking about what type of trees whether or not I, we feel that they would be survivable or not. I’m going to trust that the applicant has done their research and is putting in suitable landscaping for the area. So, next we have Commissioner hype.
Unknown Speaker 1:55:29
Thank you, I’m gonna take a five step folks on a move approval of bzr 224. A, which is finding that the project meets the ethical standards and want to say for the record, and I think it’s clear that they have been as identified that 15 Oh, 2055, the general review criteria have been met for this project. That section 15 Oh, that he preliminary plat review standards have also been that. And then I’m going to add in specifically that the standards for approval administrative modification 15 Oh, 20807 with respect to the landscape buffer issues, and where a fence can be located in landscape buffer under Section 15. Oh, that f dot one dot c, moving the fence to be contiguous with the right of way on Third Avenue is an appropriate alternative design presentation under 15. Oh, it meets the code and Comp Plan purposes and goals is a creative design, and it doesn’t impact the neighbouring properties. So I find that the record is established, and it meets the criteria for approval pursuant to the languages set forth the DCR, PCR 2220 Oh, geez, PCR 20224 egg. That’s my motion.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:16
It. Thank you. Before we go to commissure Saunders, I’m wondering if anybody if we have a second for the motion?
Unknown Speaker 1:57:32
If not, I will, I will go ahead and second the motion. And I guess we can continue on some discussion here, Commissioner Saunders.
Unknown Speaker 1:57:42
So you jumped the gun on me a little bit. And Chairman, thank you, I was going to actually Commissioner height jumped the gun on me too, because I was going to motion after I walked back some of the landscaping criteria and I’m sorry to go down that path and maybe get myopic about it. That is my professional field. And we do have certain standards. And I am sorry to hear that there’s not a professional at the City of Long light. So I do think if I probably took it to a little bit more of a place that was over bearing to the rest of the project. And I apologise for that it just seeing how this plays out and seeing and seeing the the functionality of these plants, which you know, playing manager Burchette makes the great point that the only thing for species for landscape materials that they be compatible with local climate and intended purpose and other trees and plants on the approved materials list are addressed in the city standards. And I believe all of these are on the city standards, I just have trouble with the location in the problem, it’s going to be on that area of North of the property on that public area with the the sidewalk but it by no means is a reason to have the whole project come to a standstill or be denied. So I don’t want it to come off is that. And I really do want the homeowners to be able to to like you say take that ownership and investment in the property. And I just don’t know if this is at that level of where it’s going to be this success that I hoped for. I mean, I hope I’m wrong. I totally hope I’m wrong. So I appreciate the conversation. And I appreciate the feedback and the patience for me on that. And so now I can’t make the motion and I cannot second it. But I’m really happy that you guys are putting this project together. And I’m sorry to give you a hard, hard time about it. But again, we all have those criteria and standards that we’re trying to trying to meet and so I do wish everyone the best on this project in with that I will Leave any other discussion to the rest of the esteemed commissioners?
Unknown Speaker 2:00:04
Thank you, Mr. Saunders. It and this is the forum where we all can question and put our, our own comments and thoughts out. So it was appropriate for you to do that. So we have a motion we have a second. Um, if there’s no other questions or comments, let’s take a vote.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:25
Chairman Polen for Commissioner flag, or Commissioner height, high listener polar High Commissioner who cuts aye. Commissioner Saunders for Commissioner teta. Chairman That passes unanimously Seven to zero. Thank you very
Unknown Speaker 2:00:47
much. This item now ensures a seven day appeal period. During this time any aggrieved party may appeal the Commission’s decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning zoning Commission’s decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk’s office and the planning office within the seven day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, March 17 at 8am and it ends Wednesday March 23. At 5pm Thank you to the applicant. And let’s move on to the next item The next item is public to public to be heard final call. 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 83648218164. When we are ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state 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. We will now take a five minute break to allow people to call in
Unknown Speaker 2:06:38
chair in commission, we are about 30 seconds out from the five minute mark, currently no colours in the chant.
Unknown Speaker 2:06:47
Thank you give it a few more seconds just because I know we had that one person called in during.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:08
Exactly, yes, yep, you let me know when you’d like me to drop it
Unknown Speaker 2:07:16
you can go ahead and drop it. Sure. And close the public invited to be heard.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:23
It is closed.
Unknown Speaker 2:07:25
Thank you very much. We’ll move to the next item item eight, which is items from the Commission. And first of all, I would like to apologise for the little computer mishap I had earlier. Those things that sometimes it’s beyond your control, so hope it didn’t cost too much about disturbance. Anything else from any of the other members? Mr. Koch?
Unknown Speaker 2:07:49
Thank you, Chairman Paul. And I’m just like we have you know, sometimes opportunities to go to conferences and opportunities for the commissioners and staff for professional development and networking. I want to bring an item to everyone’s attention, including the public that is watching this meeting tonight. There is happening in Colorado, there’s going to be a state walking college programme. And it’s open to community advocates and also professionals from all sorts of walks of life that are interested in getting a deeper dive into livable communities. And that is something that America walks it’s a national organisation is putting on a yearly at the national level. And I’ve been a past fellow years ago, and I’m currently a mentor. And I’ve been a mentor for the last couple of years for those fellows. And now through a partnership with AARP. They’re bringing this specially to folks in Colorado. So there’s this opportunity out there. If anyone is interesting to you know, take a look at what this is. They could go on the America walks page or the Colorado AARP page and find out more and apply it. It can be competitive sometimes some of the years have been really competitive at the national level. And I’m really happy to see it here in Colorado. Thank you.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:19
Anything else? The commissioners Okay, a council representative Rodriguez is not here today. Items from planning director Glenn Venom Wigan.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:38
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of things I wanted to go over. Number one, I think it was back in August we talked about voting of whether we’re going to be in person going forward or are we going to try and return to the council chambers or our stay virtual I should say And then you saw a survey go out by the clerk’s office. So they are gathering data on that. I don’t know that we need to really decide what our preference is at this point. But we’re just kind of waiting on what they’re learn from surveying all the boards and commissions. And perhaps there’s going to be some direction from that. So I just wanted to mention that. If you have any questions about that the council is going back in person starting March 29. And that’s, that’s what I wanted to give you a little bit of background on, number one. Number two, but go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:47
Make sure Lukaku exists in regards to that item.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:51
Yes, I had a question. If I can ask the planning director. Like you mentioned the August meeting. And I don’t know if I was at that meeting, or I just watched later. But I remember there was a concern about the ventilation in the chambers. And when I was in October, in the chambers at a city council meeting, you know, it was an audience and it didn’t feel it didn’t I didn’t feel the ventilation. So I don’t know if that was something that was fixed or will be fixed, or how, what’s the change on that side?
Unknown Speaker 2:11:29
Yeah, and nor do I know, if it’s an issue? I do know, Chairman Chernykh brought that up. And I don’t know, if the amount of volume is been increased from then I, I, I don’t have an answer for you on that. But I can check into it. See, if if there’s been a change in the federal ventilation or turning over the, the amount of air that’s in there, I think, yeah. I
Unknown Speaker 2:11:54
mean, the CDC is, you know, recommending all buildings, you know, businesses and organisation to increase their ventilation. So I don’t know if this was something that was, was done. And I can see, you know, as commissioners, I think we we might have enough space between us and other people, the audience, but the audience, you know, depending how big it could get, and we’ve seen, you know, our chat rooms here, you know, plenty of boxes. So that means a lot of people might be in, in the chambers in the public area, so I’m more concerned about them. Okay,
Unknown Speaker 2:12:34
we can certainly ask question, it’s good point. And number two, Mr. Chairman, I think we propose to you or the council is asked that the planning commission get a little bit more involved in interviewing new applicants. So that process is proceeding and I wanted to go over a couple of dates, and how from staff standpoint, we think it’ll work. So they’re in recruitment right now, which includes at least one of our full time positions on the planning commission. It started the beginning of this week, it’ll end on April 22, the clerk goes through and sees who’s a valid candidate, and then they will send it forward to staff at basically the end of April on April 30. So that gives us basically a month of May to interview and the council change things up a little bit. They want the whole board to be involved, versus a sub board or a, you know, an interview committee. So they want everybody to kind of do be part of the interviews, and be part of the recommendation of who moves forward for council interviews. So the way staff sees it is, we could do it a couple of different ways. If we don’t if we we could do it on May 4 Actually all have a special meeting where we only do interviews, and then we can think about it and then actually vote on it at your regular meeting on that would be May 18. That seems to me is maybe the lowest pressure and then but maybe we could do it all on May 18. If we don’t have a big heavy agenda, so there’s that possibility and not require a special meeting. But those are kind of the things we’re thinking through. I don’t know if you have any other input. Like we do have Commissioner flag.
Unknown Speaker 2:14:45
My input would be I know I won’t be around that weekend and that previous week. Not necessarily we couldn’t go ahead and do it for me, but I just won’t be here i i will be in Alaska.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:00
Make the May 4 Their time period. Right?
Unknown Speaker 2:15:03
Yes. After the six they should be back.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:13
Okay. Well, I don’t know what is scheduled for May 18. So maybe we have a light agenda and we could do. We could do both.
Unknown Speaker 2:15:24
Unknown Speaker 2:15:27
Yeah, I had a couple questions. One, I guess is do you want the alternates at the interviews? And then my other question is, so when we’re interviewing applicants, is that all going to be open to the public?
Unknown Speaker 2:15:40
Yeah, we would advertise it as public meeting, because technically, we’d have a quorum there. I think we could do it as a study session if we’re not going to take action on the interview night. Whereas, you know, it wouldn’t be a public hearing, for instance. So that would be a possibility. I don’t know, as far as alternates. I think Council is really focused on the voting, the voting members, you could certainly participate, I would think, but ultimately, the vote would be by the regular members, and any alternates that had to be called upon.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:20
And there are votes, I guess, for the applicant is that’s also public.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:28
Well, what was that I’m sorry.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:30
So our votes, the votes that the applicants that we vote on, that’s also open to the public? Yes.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:45
Any other thoughts? Questions? You know, I guess for me, the fourth is open. And I really, I would probably prefer probably to do it on the fourth. I mean, is there any anticipation for how many candidates there’s going to be?
Unknown Speaker 2:17:13
We won’t know till the 23rd. But you’re right. If we just have a couple of candidates, we could probably do that on the 18th. That wouldn’t take a whole lot of time.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:25
And yet, but if you’re getting upwards of even five, that’s gonna be you know, I think if I remember, right, there’s like five to eight minutes or even longer on the interview process with the city council. So you’re talking like 3040 minutes worth.
Unknown Speaker 2:17:40
Unknown Speaker 2:17:42
Do I was thinking of,
Unknown Speaker 2:17:45
yeah. Do we want to revisit this at the next meeting, put it down as an item and then revisit it at the next meeting to decide on a date for this? Does that sound good to everybody? Sure. In our April meeting, yeah. Absolutely. So I think people start planning ahead, see if may 4, which is a Saturday if that will work for you. And if not just keep open may 18, I guess is the second one.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:15
Actually, May 4 would be a Wednesday. Yeah, we’re going on a Wednesday.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:23
Okay. Crew pack?
Unknown Speaker 2:18:32
Um, yeah. My question was, so are we making the final decision? Or is this a recommendation to the council and, and they’ll have the final approval.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:45
Right, you’d be making a recommendation to council and then they would go forward with their interview based on with with your input.
Unknown Speaker 2:18:54
So don’t be a second interview for the applicants.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:00
Right, right. In fact, they even left the door open. If there’s one slot and you’d think you have two really good candidates. They want to hear, you can certainly recommend two candidates for one slot.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:14
And this this slot, what’s the term? When does this term end? Doesn’t it end at the end of this year? So this person will that’s
Unknown Speaker 2:19:25
like six months?
Unknown Speaker 2:19:28
No, that was that was commissioner Sure. Next?
Unknown Speaker 2:19:36
This year I took Commissioner sure next slot and I think this is Commissioner owner on slot.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:41
It is but I thought it was commissioner sure next slot ended this year. I believe he only had the one year left on his. So unless they both expire at the same time.
Unknown Speaker 2:19:56
They do. Yes, that’s correct. Chairman Paul and this is a vacant position that expires this December 31. So we’ll be filling this or it’ll, it’ll be up again for recruitment at the end of the year. Okay, so Commissioner Locata you’re correct. You took Chairman Sherman sure next position and then Commissioner honour on turned in his resignation and we have that position open
Unknown Speaker 2:20:36
that’s it for me Mr. Chair.
Unknown Speaker 2:20:38
Okay. Then with nothing else I move I will go ahead and call this meeting in a German
Unknown Speaker 2:20:49
thanks a bunch
Transcribed by https://otter.ai