Longmont Planning & Zoning – April 24, 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPjUZ_OYr2I
Video Description:
Longmont Planning & Zoning – April 24, 2024

4:10
Only commission APR 2420 24 meeting. First item is roll call ter

4:16
polling here, Commissioner. Hi. I’m sorry Commissioner teta. Here. Commissioner Boone Commissioner Saunders. Commissioner new couch. Commissioner lane. Chairman, you have a quorum.

4:29
Thank you very much. Next item is communications from planning and development services grant Penland.

4:36
Good evening Chairman, members of commission, nothing from staff. Other than it’s nice to see after a couple months.

4:46
Next item is Approval of the minutes and 2024 amended bylaws. Let’s take these one at a time. Is there any discussion comments or motions for the February 21 2024 Meeting Minutes

5:02
Commissioner height

5:05
would move to approve the February 21 2020. forum meeting minutes as drafted. Thank

5:13
you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Commissioner Boone seconds it. Let’s go ahead and take a vote.

5:22
Commissioner high. Commissioner teta. Commissioner Boone. I chair Polen high. Commissioner Saunders see. commissioners will catch. Commissioner lane. Chairman that passes six to zero to one.

5:36
Thank you very much. Next is the February 28 2024. Meeting Minutes. Do we have any comments? Motions Commissioner hight.

5:48
went early didn’t know if he would die. I would move to approve the February 28.

5:53
We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?

5:57
Second?

5:58
We have a second. Let’s go ahead and take a vote.

6:02
Commissioner height. Can I start at Commissioner Boone? Chair Polen. Yes. Commissioner Saunders. Seeing Commissioner couch. Commissioner Mr. Chairman that passes 601601

6:16
Thank you very much. Next item is the 2024 amended bylaws. Do we have any comments? Commissioner Lukash any comments? Questions? Mr. Cash?

6:35
Thank you chair. I know Commissioner Popkin wanted to bring the bylaws to be amended. So I wonder how the other Commissioners feel to wait until we have Commissioner Popkin sitting. So we can discuss more on his proposals.

6:52
I think we have his These are his are they

6:58
are incorporated into these and he has taken a look at them. He just couldn’t be here. But yeah, they do include all of his changes.

7:07
That I have no other comments. Okay.

7:10
Commissioner height

7:11
actually has comments. I think were informed this morning that last night, City Council passed a code of conduct that’s applicable to elected officials and to those who say am I my dad. So the code of conduct is applicable to elected officials and those who sit in quasi judicial functions, which includes us the Code of Conduct I looked at once, but it wasn’t included in the materials that we saw today. I think the code of conduct is meaningful. And I think it needs to be reviewed, at least referenced if not adopted outright into our bylaws. So I would move to table approval of the bylaws until we can address that issue specifically in

8:04
the bylaws. Okay, we have a motion so we have to see if there’s a second to the motion. Do we have a second?

8:10
I don’t think we have a motion.

8:12
You can move. You moved. You said I moved.

8:18
I commented is what I thought I said did i I said I have a motion. I apologize. Okay, comment, comment. Okay, thank

8:26
you. Okay,

8:27
I misspoke.

8:28
Good. Okay.

8:29
I would say this, that we can go ahead adopt these as written. And then at a later meeting, we can go ahead and talk about adopting the Code of Conduct into the bylaws.

8:47
Therein lies my issue. I want them in the bylaws. I think they need to be in the bylaws because they are so substantive.

8:58
Oh, so you would like ah, so we’re talking about making a amendment to the what’s written here.

9:05
That’s my comment. That’s a that’s what I’m i Those are my thoughts. Yes.

9:13
Okay. How does Does anybody else have any opinions regarding that? Commissioner Saunders

9:24
Thank you, Chairman. I, my comments are that it came out rather quickly. And so my feeling is that if we had a little bit extra time to take in, I think that that is worth the cause. Of of maybe looking at it a little bit later with this new information. Because I agree with Commissioner I hate that it is important and should be rolled in but we did just get it today.

9:57
And I will say that is my feelings. They Add, I would not feel comfortable voting on it today. Voting on it, next meeting, but not today.

10:12
Commissioner height

10:16
and I guess, to put a bow on it, that would be my motion after I raised this comment, which would be to tabled the approval, or the vote even on these meta bylaws to consider whether or not we should, in fact, put the code of conduct directly into them, why and how to prove it.

10:36
And then we can just add it to whatever we approved today.

10:43
Because it puts it down the line that would rather have them included that they need to be included. And I have a document that we have here next month. I don’t know how to get good stuff. But at a certain level, either I’m concerned worried feel that this code of conduct imposes certain obligations and duties upon members that need to that should be, in my humble opinion, adopted into the bylaws.

11:15
I agree. But I don’t think we are in a position to do that today. And since we have exact a update to the bylaws that is ready to be wrote voted on. I think we can prove those. And then next month, approve a second, take a second round out approvals. Okay, it gives us time to review it and make sure that what’s in there that we don’t have any issues or how we want to state it.

11:45
understood

11:47
it because it doesn’t matter if we vote two times or not. I mean, we can vote this week and vote next month. There’s no there’s nothing that says we have to put everything in at once.

12:03
For economic and my reservations or otherwise, I would vote to table it until we can make a full and complete informed decision as opposed to doing it piecemeal. That’s my position. Okay.

12:21
Commissioner teta?

12:27
I don’t have the Thank you Chair upon the communication directly in front of me from staff or wherever it came from today. But it was my understanding that that was not something we could decide about that the Code of Conduct will conduct would be imposed upon all board. I think commission members it implemented in the bylaws. Right? And my question is whether or not that has any maybe it’s question for the city attorney.

13:09
Good evening, Chair and members commission Jeremy Terrell assistant city attorney. The council did adopt the ethics bylaw the ethics change code of ethics last night. It won’t be effective for another seven days per the charter requiring seven days for an ordinance to take effect and it would apply to quasi judicial boards including the Planning and Zoning Commission. So it’ll impact all of the commissioners, regardless of the in the bylaws or not, will have the full of finalized version in a probably about a week or so when the clerk’s office can publish because it was a last minute amendment to it last night.

13:49
Okay. So do you want to make your motion and we can resolve that first and see whether or not we do a vote?

14:03
Okay. My motion is to table voting on the 2024 amended bylaws as drafted until such time as the Commission can obtain a copy of the final version of this code of ethics and determine whether or not it should be referenced explicitly if not included directly into the bylaws.

14:24
Okay, thank you, Sheriff Saunders.

14:26
I’ll second that motion.

14:28
Okay, we have the motion. Any other discussion? If not, let’s go ahead and take a vote. Commissioner high.

14:37
Commissioner teta. Commissioner Boone. Chair Polen. No. Commissioner Saunders. Yes. Commissioner couch. No. Commissioner Lang. Chairman that does pass for three.

14:53
Okay. So, Item five c is postponed till We have to postpone it to a date certain

15:05
I think we can just say it’s postponed to the next available meeting. Okay?

15:08
So be it. Okay, next item is public comment. This is a chance for the public to speak for items that will not be coming in front of the board as quasi judicial. We have one person on the list I will go ahead and open up and invite Jacob Arment down

15:46
a new Have you get five minutes

15:50
Hi everyone, I’m Jacob from online 110 Main and I just wanted to speak to express my excitement for the house pad.

16:01
Jacob if you’re gonna speak about the house pad since that’s on our agenda today. You can speak during the during the time where we have it scheduled for that. For that there will be a public made to be heard for that item actually.

16:13
Okay, my apologies. I misunderstood no problem. Then I will refrain comments until that time. Okay. Thank you.

16:25
At this time, Does anybody else want to come forward for public invited to be heard? If not, I will go ahead and close up the public invite to be heard. Next item was public hearings. The house pad envision law my comprehensive plan use amendment rezoning concept plan amendment, overall development plan and preliminary plat senior planner Kristin co presenting.

16:51
Good evening and thank you Chairman Poland and members of the commission. First I would like to let you know you’ll see some papers in front of you this evening we did make a couple of changes to our resolutions today. Based on a review by our legal counsel, it was affirmed that you are the decision making authority over both the ODP application and the preliminary plat. As a result the resolutions have been revised to reflect that. Thank you. Very welcome.

17:23
And that being said, this evening for your consideration, I will be presenting the five applications in consideration for the house pad affordable and attainable the neighborhood project. The subject property property encompasses roughly 16.4 acres lies to the south of Costco, north of bountiful Avenue and west of Harvest Moon drive. The property is currently zoned RMF, which is residential multifamily, and became part of the city’s to exist jurisdiction in 2017, calling the urban Thomas number one annexation. As per the envisioned longer and comprehensive plan. The property holds the designation of multifamily neighborhood. This slide provides an overview view of the project proposal. The plan involves the development of an all electric for sale residential neighborhood, comprising a maximum of 185 units. Among these approximately 55 units are designated for permanent deed restrictions, while approximately 130 units will be deed restricted, restricted attainable units. The neighborhood design encompasses a blend of attached townhomes and single family houses. The approach is intentionally crafted to align with and support the city’s objectives outlined in the Envision long comprehensive plan. Specifically, it contributes to the city’s goals of expanding housing and employment options by fostering a diverse mix of housing that caters to residents of all ages, income levels and abilities. The project presents an overall density of approximately 11.6 units per acre. To facilitate the development of this project towards construction, there are five applications under consideration this evening. Among these three will proceed to city council for a final decision while the planning commission will decide on the remaining two applications with City Council serving as the appeal body for those applications. The first application I will address pertains to the amendment to the Envision Longmont comprehensive land use plan. This application seeks to modify the land use designated for that portion of Irwin Thomas annexation number one specifically lots five and six, over when Tom was first filing for multifamily neighborhood to mixed neighborhood. This amendment is essential to accommodate the proposal for sale project and allow for a mix of unit types in compliance with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It also facilitates the proposed density of 11.6 dwelling units per acre and is in conformance with the mixed Neighborhood designation directly south of this property The density range specified in the multifamily Neighborhood designation requires 18 to 35 dwelling units per acre, however, on this parcel of land achieving this density density when you associate necessitate apartment type units, which does not align with the goal of presenting a For Sale product. This slide gives you a visual illustration of the current and proposed designation along with the adjacent designated uses. I’ll give you a moment to take a look at that.

20:35
Next I will discuss the rezoning request. The land is currently zoned RMF, which is residential multifamily and oppose. The proposal is to change that to PUD, which is planned unit development with an RNN residential multi mixed neighborhood use allowance. This zoning alteration is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and allows for the desired mix of units as part of the project in alignment with the agenda objectives of Envision Longmont comprehensive plan. So this slide provides a visual representation of the land and consideration for this rezoning which is lots five and six.

21:17
This slide summarizes the proposed amendment to the the amended concept plan which was adopted in 2021. The proposed amendment entails altering the land use designation of lots five and six of Irwin Thomas filing for multifamily neighborhood to mixed neighborhood in order to accommodate these changes. This modification is crucial to facilitate the development of the neighborhood and encompassing a blend of single family detached homes, attached homes and townhomes. With a density set at 11.6 units per acre, the remainder of the property remains unaffected by this adjustment. In this is some provided imagery that represents the concept plan amendment.

22:03
When a property is zoned PUD and necessitates the submission of an overall development plan or ODP this plan ensures is serves to establish customized regulations tailored to facilitate a unique development effectively acting as the governing zoning ordinance concerning use and configuration. This is the same approach that has been utilized within the prospect in Mill Village developments within Longmont. These allowances empower developers to tailor development standards and code specific to the proposed project, offering flexibility within the standards outlined in the Longmont Municipal Code. These project specific codes and standards have been crafted to assist applicants in creating this affordable and attainable project while also upholding high standards and ensuring quality construction. This slide provides a overview of the lat layout that is proposed for this development.

23:02
Next I will discuss the preliminary plat application. The preliminary plat lays out the proposed lots blocks easements, grading and drainage and utilities required to serve the new homes. planning of this property is required for the development of this neighborhood and acts as a visual representation of the utilization of customized development standards to allow for flexibility and design. And here is just a high level overview of the preliminary plat layout which mirrors the rezoning.

23:35
Public outreach was conducted in accordance with municipal code requirements and neighborhood meeting took place on January 24 2024 via zoom notice and site postings were completed on January 10 2024, with notifications sent to a broader distribution area than mandated by code to ensure the inclusion of all property owners in the residential subdivision west of this site. The notice of application was mailed to the same property owners on February 20 2024, with a posting installed on the property and February 21 2024. Subsequently, the notice of public hearing was mailed on April 9, to the same property owner list and the sign was posted on April 10.

24:23
The next two slides provide a summary of received comments in response to the project comments were received from Xcel Energy and individual property owners primarily focusing on concerns about truck traffic during construction and anticipated traffic from the development. Additionally, concerns were voiced regarding the reduction in density and the conceptual landscaping of the property. addressing these concerns it should be noted that a traffic study will be necessary for this development as this development progresses to final Platon site plan stages. This site was previously studied as part of the larger Mustang development regard Adding traffic. The reduction of units resulting from the zone change represents a decrease of 1896 total trips generated per day, reducing from 3440 trips per day to 1544. The decrease in density aligns with a layout of house pad and was intentionally designed to accommodate a mix of housing types in line with the objectives outlined in envision Longmont, specifically, the placement of single family detached properties along South Martin Street serves to create a buffer zone between the existing single family residences and the attached units. Furthermore, it’s crucial to emphasize emphasize adherence to city standards regarding landscaping, particularly section 606 or 2.1 and 6060 2.5. These standards prioritize the design and installation of plant materials, materials for ease of maintenance and safety as well as the incorporation of zero scaping principles in all city owned landscaped areas.

26:04
Development considerations considerations in the development of this property includes the incorporation of 55 permanently deed restricted affordable properties, and 130 designated attainable units. The development is proposed to be fully electric and aligns with several key policies of Envision Longmont policy will point to advocating for a sustainable blend of land uses policy 3.1 dot A, aiming to provide affordable and accessible housing options for residents of diverse ages abilities and income levels, and policy three that one that be striving to achieve a 10% quota of permanently affordable housing units within the overall housing stock.

26:49
questions have arisen regarding some pivotal project elements in the last couple of days including the rationale behind downsizing property density, potential construction implications of on soil conditions, the minimum two car garages and architectural elevations plans for buried power line and details of deed restriction verbiage and the proposed six foot tree lawn. In summary, progress and decisions made regarding density can be attributed to two main factors acquiring the land below market value and employing an innovative design. These combined with the site configuration and flexibility offered by the PUD ODP application enable the developer to reduce costs. This directly affects the feasibility of creating this development.

27:41
On site soil treatment or importing offsite soils will be required before building construction in regards to the soil quality. LMC section 15 Oh 5.080 requires two parking spaces per single family unit. Garages were added to comply, but some lots may lack space for both a driveway and parking and garage parking. Units without garages offer more flexibility with larger size for Driveway parking. Some of the overhead lines are proposed to be buried LPC will make a final determination regarding the requirement that public Improvement Plan Review. And PUD zoning requires an overall development plan the consideration of a six foot tree lawn instead of a standard eight foot is part of the ODP application. The city environmental planner recommends Canyon maple, golden rain tree and your Syrian pear for appropriate plantings within a reduced size tree lawn. Based on the record in the preceding information staff Staff recommends approval of the house Pat envision Longmont comprehensive land use plan amendment rezoning concept plan amendment and overall overall development plan and preliminary plat are additionally conditional approval is recommended for the preliminary plat and ODP contingent upon final approval of the rezoning. The envision one more comprehensive land use plan amendment or an overall development plan will not will need to proceed to council for final decisions. The Planning Commission holds decision authority over the preliminary plat nor DEP it’s important to note that all of these applications must move forward to allow for the continuation of the development process. That concludes my presentation. Did did commissioners have any questions for me at this time?

29:37
I would say let’s go ahead and move forward with the applicant presentation.

29:41
The applicant does have a presentation and staff is also here to answer questions. Thank you very much

29:57
how do I make it so it’s up operator assistance required here we go Good evening, Chairman Polen members of the commission. I’m Bob Bronco landscape architect with resource conservation partners. When Pio box 1522 Longmont, Colorado. We are really excited to be here this evening to talk to you about this project. Members of our design team included with me here this evening are Walker thrash, who was a managing partner of verticale LLC, Brian Williamson, landscape architect, and Jim Brandt’s professional engineer with TST Consulting Engineers, Mike rota transportation and engineer with SM rota LLC. And they’ll all be here to answer questions at the close of our presentation. As Kristen said, we are here presenting applications for land use map amendment, a concept plan amendment, a rezoning and a preliminary plat. And all of these applications together are necessary to allow this project to go forward as imagined and designed. Okay, location so Kristin show live location of lots five and six of our retirements first filing the concept plan amendment, because it was specific to urban Thomas amputation number one is the concept of an amendment for the entire urban Thomas annexation number one, only one piece of it is being amended. But it includes all of the property between the river and the highway and then the highway and clear road and kind of Martin Street on the west and 100/19 Street on the east. And then all of the specific changes for the land use zoning the preliminary plat and the ODP are on lots five and six of our own Thomas first filing. This application represents a public private partnership with a unique opportunity to facilitate for sale, affordable and attainable homes. First one we’ve seen, we are really excited to move forward it it would not be possible without agreements as approved by City Council at the beginning of this year. And I believe those ordinances are also included in your packet. The vision is to establish a beautiful walkable community of affordable and attainable homes with an integrated open space and pedestrian network. And the things that contribute that to that are alley loaded houses and dream rooms with tree limb for tree lined streets that reinforce the it makes it more pedestrian friendly because we have driveway coming out all along the way. And it makes the street a room so that the street at the room is part of the overall community in the neighborhood. The street cross sections are a little narrower to make that work. The open space network is spread out throughout the neighborhood and there and there’s designed for passive recreation opportunities for the residents. And the trail system was designed connects to within the neighborhood and then it connects to the broader context in the neighborhood surrounding this and the city as a whole. Beautiful interesting architecture will make in different units distributed throughout the neighborhood. You can see the different colors on that map represent different types of units. So there’s single family attached and townhouses. But there are different types of townhouse products, different sizes and different architecture that are distributed around the neighborhood. And front doors face the street. So front doors, because of the alley front doors face the street, the only units that have a garage facing the street are those ones on the very western edge of the project. And that was kind of designed so that the backs of those units will feel more like the residential units across Martin so that it would be that kind of transition from their single family detached into the higher density within this neighborhood. Also the houses along bountiful and Harvest Moon, their front door also faces the street so nobody’s back has gone to the public realm. So it’s all integrated together. This is a picture of the Landis design, and again, we’re changing from multifamily neighborhood to mixed neighborhood and overall that lowers the density. And that’s required to allow us to single family detached units on this site. Multifamily does not allow that to happen. In addition, that multifamily land use designation allows 18 to 35 units per acre primarily multifamily and condominiums that proposed land use. It allows six to 18 units per acre with a mix of single family detached and that to attach. And that’s the underlying issue with changes in land use to accommodate the plan that’s designed. This is the concept plan amendment and it shows the whole thing when the council plan was amended. It was a Government in three phases. And there’s, you’ll know if you’ve been driving around town or active gravel mining out there, Costco is there things are happening. But so that whole concept plan is included. But the only thing that’s changes is that little piece in the blue box. So the only changes are to change the land use on this piece of property from multifamily to mixed. And so you’ll see the table on the plan reflects that change in density, and the notes on the plan reflect that change in density. So the concept plan, the entire concept plan reflects that change. This is a picture of the rezoning change. And I’m just a color picture kind of person there is a there’s a black and white map. But you can see that on the left is the existing zoning, which is the 35 units per acre, which allows and that zone also allows up to three storeys tall within the lands for an additional height of four of a false story for affordable housing. So that would be up to 560 units on 16 acres. Under the proposed PUD zoning and the ODP as presented this evening. The underlying land use allows for 16 to 18 units per acre for house pad, we’re gonna add 185 units, which is 11.6 units per acre of one and two story homes with a maximum building height of 30 feet. So it brings the whole thing down and lowers the density. But it’s still a compact urban form in the neighborhood has been some conversation about trip generation and transportation or transportation image imaginary is here this evening to talk about it with you. But the slide This slide shows the table that’s in the letter, the trip generation letter in your packet. And the significant thing is that the Mustang transportation study envision 3440 units, this as designed will have 1544 units overall, which is a reduction in 18 196 units, trips coming from this neighborhood and that is reflected in both the am peak hour and the PMP Gower. So overall daily trips as a basis for this application are reduced by 55%. And peak hour trips are reduced by 46%. And opinion peak hour trips are reduced by 39%. So overall, traffic generated as a result of this application is significantly less than that was anticipated at the time the Mustang project came through the process. Again, I put that, alright, that’s pretty straightforward. You guys see him all the time. It’s lots blocks, utilities, drainage, all those things that make it so we can build the houses on the lots in the property. What’s different about this preliminary plat is the design, the street cross sections, and the lot sizes reflect the standards and regulations as set forth in the ODP. So as always, those ODP standards, specifically address changes to the lot sizes, changes to the streets, cross sections and those things so that it can account the primary plaque and accommodate the development as envisioned. This is a pretty picture of the RDP and you can kind of see how the open space net was integrated again, as Kristen said, 55 affordable units. So those will be normally deed restricted for families earning up to 80% of area median income. There’ll be 128 attainable units, which is reserved for families earning between 80 and 120% of median income for 10 years. At the end of the 10 years, that deed restriction goes away. So if a person buys that house and moves in it for the full 10 years, then they can sell at the market rate. There’s some things in the agreements council that kind of have a buyout kind of an allowance of somebody has to leave sooner. And then the difference goes back into the affordable housing project. So that the goal is to make it as affordable as possible for as long as possible. The other thing you’ll notice is that the map you’re seeing tonight has 183 units on it, the target density and all the agreements is 185. So as we move forward to final plat, we’re going to try to pick up those two units. So the framework will stay the same. But sunlight in this mix, we’re going to find another unit or another not a two lot so we can get to that target density. And that will happen as we proceed to final development to make sure we get to that 185 units as contemplated.

39:40
Again, the standards and you have the you have the standards. And the tables in the OTB Oh, oh DP show, the latest code and standard as written in the code and the specific modification that forms a framework for the ODP. So, as Kristen said at He’s kind of create our own zoning documents. So those standards create the specific standards relative to the development of this property. So as you look at them, they address street cross sections, they address setbacks, they address, parking, they addressed pocket park system, they all those things, they are the framework for development of the property. So a couple of slides just show that you have a slide and map in your packet that shows a tree stock street cross sections in the alley cross sections, and you’ll notice that the houses are closer to the street, some of the streets have parking, some of the streets don’t have parking, the alleys to alleys are designed to accommodate public safety and public utilities. So those sections are all included. So again, those are the standards that are that are that are outlined on sheet five of the ODP. We had some questions from applicant about our two means of asset access adequate to to serve the property, Senior Policy in the city is to means of access so that if one is is blocked, public safety can get to the other one. The other thing we have that is relative to this property is both Harvest Moon and bountiful art collector streets. So they have specific requirements for spacing of intersections. These two intersections, one goes directly into harvest moon and one that goes directly under bountiful. And they were reviewed through the DRC process and approved by Public Works and public safety and the specific design will move along as final plans developed but the location and the access are there. There was also a question about parking. And the only standard from the standard that was just adopted by city council relative to parking that is changed in the ODP is a one about two off street parking places required for a single family detached? No for multifamily home. So on this site, we’ve amended for one of the unit types, one unit, one off street parking, but those units will have one off street parking will also have nearby on street parking. So there’s plenty of parking. The ratio when you add them all up for both the on street and off street actually goes to 2.3 spaces per home. So we’ll leave that as its design. And as it’s outlined in the ODP, it meets that standard. And when you look at your map, does it have triangles, those are the parking spaces so they show was the off street parking. And then the little bulb outs on the streets show where the on street parking places will be multimodal transportation plan shows the connections both internally and to the larger city. So put the lines show the internal sidewalks, their sidewalks on the streets. And then they also connect out to Martin, which gets you up to the left hand Creek Greenway, which gets to the same brain Greenway. They go down to Bountiful, and out to harvest moon which takes you North onto Highway 119. Those places those connections also allow these residents to access transit and those other multimodal opportunities in our city, they are on the site but during the neighborhood of this site and having that access to the neighborhood network of trails, let somebody get on their bike and get to a transit station and not have to take their car. So we thought about that as well. There will also be all electric just as an aside to houses will be Evie ready, so that people if they want to have an electric vehicle will be able to have a place with their house to have Evie vehicles. We’re also going to look at approximate recreation connectivity. As we look at that colored map. The small circle is one half mile from this site, the larger circle is one mile from the site. So within a one half mile place is the negative electron Greenway which had to do the same thing Creek Greenway which gets you into the whole system in the city. within a mile of this site. We have little sisters, community park, you know Gallo neighborhood park, the Campus Center and the dickens firm nature area. So lots of opportunity for these residents to be connected to the network of recreation opportunities in this portion of the city. This is just a look at the park on site, the ODP does and then the pocket park requirement that requires one pocket park per 100 units, one acre per 100 units. So as 1.83 acres required. The way the site is designed is there’s a central that any ODP provides for a central pocket park that is a half an acre and other products on the site that make up the difference so that the total park park area on the site Is 1.383 acres. But it’s not all in one place. So it spread out, if that makes sense. So we just wanted to show you how that works. So stars shoulder, Central Park. And the other ones are the micro products, different kinds of passive recreation the anticipated, and that specific one will be designed at the time of final plat. So those details will be in the final landscape plans as we move forward through the process. Now I’m going to turn it over Walker, and he’s going to talk about the very cool architecture that is going to be on this site. I’ll drive I’ll drive.

45:37
Chairman Bolin commissioners, I appreciate it. We’re I’m with vertical where the development company which are MMOs, very much a design center development company. The our background is really market rate product. So when we started having conversations with the city about doing a deed restricted a fully deed restricted project, we knew the game plan was to tackle it somewhat in a different angle, rather, I mean, from size, to orientation, to density to scale, all of those things would be critical to try to hit the most efficient numbers that we could, but still create a product that was desirable long term. And I want to say I think it’s important the way I understand it. We’ve got the affordable units, but also the attainable deed restricted units. All of that is really considered permanently affordable under a lot of the ordinances and restrictions dealing with Prop 123. And some of these state funding mechanisms that are happening. So I just wanted to be clear on that the deed restriction is through all of these homes. They’re just different levels of income as they get. So this is just precedent images. This is the way we start with design. We had four different designers on this project. We have an architecture group within our firm. We purposely did not try to design this one. So we brought in some some outside talent. The next side, again, some more precedents just dealing with how do we achieve scale, but also create some design that was desirable within the neighborhood. This is a this is an amenity that we have. We have designed, I think 10 times at this point, and this is patio areas between the single family residential, so the individual homes that constitute seven and a half to eight feet between the homes. How do we make that an amenity. And so even down to where window placements are at the individual residences to create private areas that are all meaningfully stacked on one side, so that an individual homeowner has a private outdoor area. This is an example of some of this. Obviously, it’s just an widescale. But I think it is important to talk about there was the six foot tree line or tree lawn as opposed to eight foot was one of the considerations. Not everything is about just raw cost for the development, some of that really is meaningful scale. Because of the size of the homes, you’re you’re going from 1500 square feet, down to as small as 900 square feet. To have too much frontage can be problematic as well. So the idea was to bring the entire scale of the development down to what’s appropriate for the individual residences. And we thought the treeline was important just for the caliber of the product. This is these are renderings representative have several elevations that we’re working on that we’re fairly advanced in right now for the for the project. And what’s of note. So we’ll start with the first 52 units, which is that bottom l you see on the screen, which is the southeast corner of the site. And out the gate. We don’t want this to feel contrived, where there are 20 residences that look identical painted different colors. And then 10 more and five of this. The other thing that’s important is we wanted to mix the affordable and the attainable. So there’s not just grouped to where as you drive to the development, you have no idea which income bracket that home is in. So that and that’s a challenge because it deals with size. It deals with orientation and parking and what structures we have, but this is not just thumb sketches. These are these are indicative of the elevations we’re working on right now for the homes. This is another single family section. You can see in the highlighting this basically deals with if you see that kind of purplish line. These are the five homes on the far left and on the far north of that L and these are individual single family homes with a two car Garage. This is more the density. So these are attached townhome products, you can see that kind of in the crook of that L. And again, that’s the idea. There’s not 10 or 15 of any individual type as we have a single building, it will have a different personality than the four units next to it. Has anything to say about the architect? No, I know we’ve got plenty to cover. But any questions, I’m happy to build them.

50:37
I’m gonna talk about the criteria. The fun part. Gave you Walker, these applications represent an opportunity to facilitate a unique public private partnership to provide affordable and attainable for sale homes in Longmont. We believe the applications as presented meet the purpose and intent of the city stated goals providing more housing opportunities and long months and the specific view criteria as set forth in alignment municipal code. And bear with me, I want to make sure these all get on the record. I’m not going to read them all out, but I want to reference the specific code criteria that may meet section 15 Oh 502055 review criteria for all application types. Section 15 oh six all review standards and procedures for specific major development applications. Section 15 Oh, B three, comprehensive plan amendments. Section of rule 502060 II preliminary subdivision plats. Section 15 Oh, F five rezoning section 15 Oh 2060 G. Planning the development overall development plan at section 15 Oh 306 our planning and development. The specific details of how this applications meet those specific criteria are outlined in the letter from resource conservation partners LLC to the Commission dated April 12 2024, as included in your packet. We want to thank the staff and the Commission for your time. This unique opportunity would not be possible with the exceptional cooperation and support of the city of Longmont. City staff provided insight, direction and ongoing coordination to assure that the application is as presented with the letter of intent of the law and municipal code. We respectfully request that you approve the preliminary plat and overall development plan as presented and forwards the Envision amount land use map amendment rezoning and concept amendment plan amendment to city council was your recommendation for approval. Our design team is here to answer your questions. Thank you.

53:04
Thank you, Barb. This is a public hearing items. So we will go ahead and open this up for public comment. And Jacob I’m going to put you to the login I’m going to add you to the list. So I haven’t forgotten about you. All I’ll go ahead and open up and the first person on the list is Mark Papst. And when you come up here please state your name and address for the record and you will have five minutes

53:35
presentation is there a pointer? Not Not really. You can call attention there’s no pointer for the screen and this is up and

54:06
expats okay. Hey, I’m Mark Papst. Live at 46 sugarbeet circle in harvest comes in over by Lowe’s.

54:22
Okay, so others have talked about this already. The only addition I have here is there’s an existing three story apartment complex up to the left there. So the current zoning would be three blocks of apartments coming to about half a mile in length. So that is a lot of apartments. proposal is to in the middle of that put in affordable single family housing, lower density. So I’m here to state my support for that. However, included in the proposal is a preliminary landscape design. So I see that as for Every game for this meeting, the proposal overlays what I termed a Mayberry design on to extremely small lots not saying that there’s anything wrong with the small lots but should have appropriate landscape design. Why bring this up? Now, there’s a lot of inertia to overcome to achieve practical landscape design in the city of Longmont. I’ve provided lengthly, if not copious comments to the staff already, Kristen has is there as we’ve seen before, this is a cross section of the street level. These trees probably I don’t believe these are shown to scale they would actually larger than this, but you can see the competition that they have with existing structures. Also, infrastructure tends to cut off precipitation and irrigation water from getting to the root system, leading to trees looking for sewer lines, water lines, irrigation lines, which will damage other infrastructure. I’ll see some example of that. So here, this is prospect, there’s an overlay of the video on top of it, but this is the prospect neighborhood. This is a 25 year old street trees. You can see pologize for the quality of the photo is pretty dark here. But the tree closest to us that’s the trunk is almost as large as the width of the tree long there at only 25 years old. Then homeowners and their two storey tall houses don’t like the branches coming into their houses. So these trees have been very limbed up as it were. After I put this slide in, I thought I might be shooting myself in the foot that folks would look at this. And yes, that’s what we’re looking for. That’s exactly what we want. But there’s quite a bit of abuse going on here for these trees of evidence as evidence with these slides here. So even at 25 years old, one of the trees hasn’t made it it’s been removed, we can see some replaced concrete here, difficult to see in the slide in the foreground as a replacement tree. So someone has been sent into continue carrying the sword, I guess we’re just gonna grow these trees in small places, regardless of what the natural conditions are. And then next to that sapling that’s planted, that’s a water meter there. So what I’ve proposed and offered some conceptual designs to staff is to go with more collimator designs for trees to get them away from the building. So smaller scale, get the landscape and scale with the available space. It’s been mentioned already there’s tree lawn proposed for this development. The highlighted in green here, the shortcomings for tree lawn is long and I don’t have time here to go into that. Again, details have been supplied to the staff. I have proposed that a lot of the turf be eliminated and move to the beneficial turf concept. So the grass areas are green and then a more native landscape are shown in the brown here. concludes my comments.

58:50
Thank you, Mr. Papist. Next person on the list is Jordan Hill.

59:03
Once again, please state your name and address for the record. We will have five minutes.

59:07
Absolutely thank you. Jordan Hill 11531 quail road basically mostly came here. I’m a professor of public history and public history and urban planning and end of the semester, so I didn’t really have a lot of time to get prepared for today. That was an amazing presentation. By the way. I wish I had the time to make one of those. I’m

59:34
really just here because in the public hearing notice that we got I’m representing the agricultural community on East quail. We’ve been coming to these meetings for about a decade now, as the Irwin Thomas continues to approach us. And then the notice there was the note here that there was going to consider the expansion of the change of Owen Thomas and I saw in this in the In the slides that I believe it was the blue dashed area. So insofar as the change in concept for walls five and six, I don’t think anybody in in agricultural Eastern Quayle neighborhood has any problem with that whatsoever, as far as I know. But I didn’t notice it was really hard to try and keep up with the slides. But if the blue does the Blue Cross bountiful does the rezoning Crosstown to forests stays completely to the west amount fall? Okay. To the new Aukey to the is bountiful, the East West or is okay, harvest? How does mean is north south? Okay, does it cost harvest movement? No, it stays. Okay. Cool. That’s probably the primary reason we’re here. I just want to we’ve been coming for a decade and will continue to come because this is approaching our community, which has been there for about three quarters of a century, traditional agricultural community. And so at every single chance that we get to come and talk, we have submitted, I believe almost a dozen now times now the quail community Greenway proposal, I brought copies of it, it’s it’s been in pretty much every single time this comes up, they come and we’re told each time, it’s not to you yet, so we can put them in the record. But you know, when it gets to you, but I hope that you understand by the time it gets to us, as long as we don’t keep coming, we just want to keep being on record that we exist. And currently. But another big problem that we’ve had is that we’re unincorporated Boulder County, we know we’re eventually going to be annexed in and at that time will will be represented by Longmont. But in past meetings, we’ve also had the issue of, well, you’re not technically one of my residents running home. So it’s this weird situation where we’re going to be about long my residence, but by the time we are, we will you know, if the plan moves ahead before that, we won’t have a voice and what happens to our by that time, probably century old community. And so if I can put it to you as simply as possible, and I brought seven copies that I’d be happy to hand out to you in person. It’s in all the documents from every one of these meetings we’ve had so far. Our goal is that when it gets to us that we have some kind of agricultural puffer of sorts that we incorporate the grain planning of the big what’s the gravel lot right now, and all the way up to the west side of these houses that we are taking into consideration. And we had proposed because Quicksilver has the little bike path along it right now cuero road itself because of the size of the road, even if you expand it a little bit, there’s not enough room for sidewalks, I mean, unless we do some serious eminent domain work, but then also trails off. So you’d have to bring, I don’t know how you would do that. You know, part of the Greenway plan was that potentially, we could have that be a path and a greenway around the north and west sides of the agricultural community. Again, now that I know that it’s not going to be extending past these things we are in support. It’s cool, what they’re doing. Our community is all for that. But we want to continue to give voice and will continue to give voice to the existence of our community. So that by the time the Irwin Thomas annexation is bordered a border with our properties we are hopefully taken into account for the planning process of this meeting. We are good. So thank you so much for your time. Thank

1:03:42
you Mr. Hill. Next is Lawrence de barrier beshear.

1:04:02
I had this

1:04:13
individual lots I have individual different colors for the homes and the different

1:04:30
lives per share I live at to Western Sky circle also in harvest junction like light Mark I did have some reservations about the way the design is right now the unit and of course the what they’re calling this as pocket parks. One of the pocket parks he can if he has already put this back up on the on the screen there but yeah, one of the target price obviously got the large center part is kind of shaped in a Transamerica Pyramid sort of deal. And then the left of that there’s a park with a large green structure on it and that’s One of the major pocket parks that they’ve got allocating up to supposedly 1.83 acres, which most of which is incurred, and contained along that side strip over there, which is right next to a drainage ditch. So but the small park they have here on the inside just outside the blue gray things in the middle is bounded on three sides by by driveways. And obviously we’re gonna have cars circling in and out there to get people in and out their their homes. The other ones here at the corner at the bottom right hand corner is one of the more larger okay pocket parks he also is right on the outdoor walkway or the sidewalk that goes around the units and is right across the street from the roundabout. A lot of traffic there right now for for going to Costco. The other larger pocket park on the bottom left hand, this is the southwest corner is also right by the Martin roundabout area. Almost all three of those are pretty non ideal for anyone to do what you would call Park activities. Someone lives in this area, they’re not gonna have much workspace at all. My proposal, if I could say is to take out all the blue gray ones in the middle make that Central Park and actual Central Park and then you get back to very close and I’m not gonna say it’s even at the at the rate limit, we get very close to the amount of park space that’s required right now by the city of Longmont is, you know, one one acre per 100 units. It’s only about 22 units, I think in the middle, and then you could put parking around the outsides of that right now that’s a street, it’s fairly narrow, I think it’s only I want to say 32 feet across or so I and they’ve got parking along the sides of it. So this is parallel parking all along the sides of it. So I have a little bit of a great exception to how much extra parking space there is in this neighborhood. But if you didn’t take that and make that a park, you could put parks around the outside of it. Right now the G lights in the middle there, which of those blue gray ones, their driveways actually exit and take up what would be parking space on either left or the right hand side of that central area. Let’s see the also mentioned I see here. A trail system, there’s almost no connection to a trail system here. I mean, you’re essentially bounded by streets and all sides of this area, you can probably get off the unit and into the Costco parking lot, if you want to call that a trail. And then on the on the far west side, again, large drainage area just right after that street bends, there’s a big divot there. That is all for runoff. And goes all the way out to to Ken Pratt. We already have affordable homes, you know, I’m not against a smart home community. I think it’s a good idea, but I think they just need to make a few modifications to it. Only two entrances is very difficult, you know, right to get in and out. And especially for this many cars, even 15 144 I think it was you said trips in and out per day, I think it’s probably going to be more than that. You’ve got parking spaces for 356 cars. And even if you put electric cars in there, I mean, we’re talking probably about homes that are maybe in the 400k range. Any idea? Okay, so about about 400? Okay, then you’re talking about if these people do get electric cars in there, I mean, we’re talking about a 30% Add or on top of their homes. So I’m not sure that you know, that puts it back in the affordable category again, so not not going to see a huge, huge probably, what do you got the electric vehicles in this area. So my just concerns I think are really about the parking space that’s included in the unit and the park itself. I mean, just because people are in kind of a dense community doesn’t mean they don’t need some open space. And a lot of the open space that they’ve added up here to equal, you know, over an acre so is really fragmented and really not usable. It’s good green space. I mean, I like think the idea it’s good to base for trees, right, maybe put some more substantial trees, like Mark talked about in some of these larger green areas, but but they’re not really parks, you know, and that strip all along the west side is going to be almost completely unusable due to being right by the drainage area. You know, and outside those people’s front doors already. So that’s all I have to say.

1:09:02
Thank you Mr. Bashir. Next, Jacob, amen.

1:09:15
Hello, I’m Jake apartment. I live 110 mean, just by the railroad tracks. I apologize for the confusion. I appreciate you guys accommodating me. Thanks for that. So I just wanted to say first of all, that I’m I think this is a great development. I think it’s a lovely idea. I think Longmont needs more housing, and especially more attainable housing. And this development pattern is great. The one thing I will say about this development, it reminds me almost a prospect in some way. Because well the internal of the development I think is great. I love the street layout, the reduced streets add to great walkability. I think this is going to be a lovely streetscape and a lovely place to live. I do have concerns about the connections to the rest of the street grid. I believe there’s two road connections and one trail connection from what I can see on the plat. And I think that this could create other problems similar to prospect where within prospect, you have a very walkable, lovely community. But no one outside the prospect walks the prospect to live there or to go shopping there anything. So I think that that could potentially limit future development around this area to provide walkability not just within their communities, but between communities. So while I do realize that there is a trade off between the amount of units because I know that they are targeting 135, and they’re not quite there yet. I do think that adding more pedestrian connections outside of this development would greatly benefit the ability to add future developments to this area. But other than that, I think this is a great idea. I even if it’s adopted as proposed, I think that will be positive for the city. We need more attainable housing and I’m excited to see the city pursuing it. Thank you.

1:11:02
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are through our list I will open up in case anybody in the audience would like to come forward. See no become four. I will go ahead and close the public invited to be heard. Commission are we okay to go forward or do we need a five minute break? Let’s take a five minute break. We’ll come back at 815

1:18:06
Chris Jed, Jed, he just just killed it those two it’s the lawyer.

1:19:07
Okay, let’s go ahead and get the meeting started back up. Let’s go ahead and open up to the Commission for comments, questions, motions, whatever they would like to do at this point. Who’d like to kick us off? Commissioner height?

1:19:28
Thank you. Is this an attorney trial? I have a question for you.

1:19:37
There are five different proposals in front of us three of which have to be approved by city council, two of which are delegated to us. Ours are though, the tail of the dog. So I guess our approval, I don’t know how to deal with this. It’s conditioned upon City Council approving the zoning or the rezoning in the consequent amendments. I’m assuming I understood that the the PCRs the approval documents or I guess the call approval documents were redrafted to address that. But practically Can you just explain for me for the record how that works, how we approve something that possibly is moot if it doesn’t get approved by the city council.

1:20:27
Of course Commissioner height and that’s really the nail on the head right there is it’d be moot. So if Council were to deny any one of the three that planning and zoning is the recommending body on that automatically moves the ODP approval, some in the council or something the Commission approves it tonight, along with permanently plat. We can have an ODP without the PUD zoning from City Council, which requires both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment along with the rezoning and the concept plan amendment to some respect to accommodate the density as addressing the ODP. And then the same with preliminary plat. It’s based off of everything kind of coming into place. So if Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the three items a comprehensive plan, the rezone and the concept plan amendment and grants approval, ODP and the planning preliminary plat and council denies any one of the three that are recommended from Planning and Zoning the approvals of the ODP and a permanent plat go away. That answers your question.

1:21:34
I think we still up or down, approve and then become subject to the the pleasure of city council.

1:21:44
Correct. And then both of those, both of those approvers is also subject to appeal to city council as well. So it could be that someone appeals the NRP approval or preliminary plat approval and council would also take that up when they take the recommendations as well. Okay,

1:22:01
I just want to understand that. Thank you

1:22:10
Do we have any other questions?

1:22:15
Believe Oh,

1:22:19
Commissioner Boone.

1:22:21
Thank you, Chair. Very nice presentation by everyone involved tonight. Really appreciate that. And I would like to address specifically Mr. paps tree line while on presentation. I’m really glad that you showed up. Because I found it to be one of the most interesting things in our packet and your name was never attached to it in the packet. It’s like I wonder, I wonder whose information that is. Speaking as someone who lives in prospect, I would attest to the fact that when trees are too big, it’s a big problem. Now our tree lawns are only I think far, four to five feet wide. They’re not eight feet wide. They’re not six feet wide. And most of those problematic trees have cottonwoods which are huge trees. But yes, it’s a real problem and I really think that the recommendations of Mr. paps perhaps should be considered by the applicant because I think he had a lot of good points to make

1:23:37
I’d also like to say and this is in reference to Mr. I’m gonna best shot Mr. Fish shires. This year’s comments that again, speaking from someone who lives in prospect, and we have two really big community parks and a bunch of little small community parks, and I think the little small park, pocket parks work really well. They’re used a lot as well. One of them is a play park and that might want to be considered. And then Mr. R Arnett arents concerns about pedestrian access, again, speaking from someone who lives in prospect, a lot of people walk into prospects, they walk in from the neighborhood from the north and the neighbor, several neighborhoods from the west walk into prospect because it’s a really nice place to walk. We have a lot of dogs that get walked in our neighborhood. So I just wanted to address and appreciate the comments that the public has made with respect to those things. I’m really excited about this. My proposal and I will be supporting it in every way. Thank you.

1:25:13
Sorry, Mr. Saunders.

1:25:15
I hit that right. You get it? There you go. Oh, thank you Chair polling. Sorry for that misfire of my button. So I have a question for the developer probably in LA would be. There’s several LA’s representing there. So that’s probably going to be one for you all. On your slide deck. Oh, wait, let me start with this. I had a couple of comments first. This, this is a huge project. It’s really great. That you can see the amount of work that’s been put in over the many months and the people hours devoted to this. I think it’s balanced and affords the city a great project. So well done. I think the of the five things the comp plan, land use management, my vote supports that. The rezoning my vote supports that the concept plan amendment, my vote supports that. The conditional approval of the preliminary plat subject to final approval of the rezoning my vote supports that. However, my vote does not yet hopefully support or will see the ODP, the overall development plan. So I just had some questions about that on your slide deck from the developer. I don’t they’re not listed on what number it’s this one,

1:26:46
if you will.

1:26:50
House pad affordable and attainable neighborhood project is a cooperative effort between the City of Long lines and the original landowner to establish beautiful walkable, sustainable neighborhood of approximately 185. affordable and attainable sell homes. Do you guys see that? Wait a second. Yeah, that’s fine.

1:27:13
I need some assistance. This

1:27:14
old school. This is why we teach hand rendering, just in case people. can’t all be digital. See, he gets me. This one. I just wanted to have

1:27:28
a nice dinner. Yeah.

1:27:30
There’ll be another thing. Don’t worry. Thanks, Jane.

1:27:48
There it is. Make some Oh, yeah, they’re a little bit behind. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, it was. Yeah. So I’m really I’m really trying to get it that sustainability part in in this being a hearing. I’m wondering if you have especially as LA’s, I’m hoping that you have some sort of matrix or you guys have run some calculations to support that sustainability claim. As far as the landscaping goes, I’m going off of the the trees stripped since that’s been an issue.

1:28:20
I’m going to ask, we actually have two landscape architects, but Yeah, lucky decks. That’s great. Ryan is the landscape architect of record. So I’m gonna have him talk about the sustainability of the design of the landscaping on the Sanku. Perfect, thank you.

1:28:36
Thank you, Chair, commissioners. My name is Brian Williamson. I’m a landscape architect for TSD Consulting Engineers. First, I would like to thank Mr. Past for his very thorough review of the plans, I think that there’s a lot of good pieces of information there that we’re going to incorporate. I would like to point out that we do have five additional tree species of the culinary variety that we’re asking to be included as part of the ODP, just so we can kind of make those smaller spaces more functional. The intent is to in the in the smaller Park strips, smaller tree lines, where there’s adjacent parking, we would use the Columbia trees and then we have a bump outs at the intersections in the corners where we would have more space, there’s our six plus eight there. So we’d have a 12 foot tree lawn that would accommodate those larger canopy trees there. So just to kind of how we’re approaching that issue. I think the larger comment about sustainability and the landscape design, again, referencing his slides is removing some of those turf areas. We were quite thoughtful as we were putting those turf areas in. As we’ve refined the landscape design, especially in those corners, where we’re adjacent to the roundabouts at Martin and at Harvest Moon and bountiful we’ve actually moved the kind of perimeter planting out towards the roundabout with some evergreen trees. So that those, those areas of turf are protected from kind of that traffic side, like, we’re not going to be having anybody chase a ball out into the roundabout. So those turf areas were more internal to the development and kind of facing into there. We did look at a couple of concepts where we were reducing the amount of turf in other ways. But what we, we thought that even the smaller spaces at the end of the rows of houses are really ended up being functional for small children playing throwing balls, I think, you know, we were very thoughtful about the spaces, we looked at a little bit of a study where, you know, how wide are these spaces? How long are these spaces? Do they get to be functional cannon? Can you throw a football or toss a Frisbee there? So we really were thoughtful about that? I don’t, I think that it is intensive use to have that turf there. But I think that they are in development with this many units, we’re really trying to make sure that there’s accessible open space as close to the units as possible.

1:31:09
Okay, Brian, yes, yes, that is alright, if I call you, right. So thank you for that context. I’m really trying to get to the data that’s supporting the sustainability. So when I’m looking at sustainability, I’m looking at the matrix of the baseline. And then how are we showing that we’re being sustainable? Right. And so we’re using that baseline, a lot along the lines of using historical water rates, right. So like, I’m looking for something like using I tree, the climate Pathfinder out at usla, the stormwater EPA calculator, it did use apply any of those calculators when you are doing these assessments for sustainability.

1:31:51
We have not, I mean, thank you. Yes. But we did, there’s two other things that we wanted to make sure that we were including, like, we have a the seed mix that we’re using in some of those more perimeter areas where we’re buffering to, specifically the dog park that is part of the apartment complex to the west, and then the Costco area to the north. We don’t see those as functional areas. So we’ve got a very low water use. Mix there. And then we’re also in some of the smaller areas, we’re using a native prairie sod, which is a longer growing less water use side. So we’re trying to incorporate those as much as possible. Great.

1:32:26
And so during thank you for that. So during your research and into this project in the sustainability, I’m sure you looked at the long line sustainability plan, yes. Okay, perfect. And so they use that burnt report of the sustainability that you know, not using resources of the future and keeping it as minimal as possible. One of the guiding principles of, of the sustainability plan is measuring for sustainability. So we can prove that we’re doing it and we’re hitting those matrix, or those those targets. One of the biggest targets that I’m going to hone in on if you will, is the 18% tree canopy increase for 2025. And I’m not seeing that here. And like I said, you know, all those other four spot on and this is a huge project, the biggest thing that sticks out for me is the strip’s being decreased from eight to six effectually and I’ve had this project you know, for a weekend so I haven’t been able to run any any calculations but decreasing is essentially a 25% decrease if you’ll allow me that for now. Thank you. And then but we’ve looked at parking and the bump outs right where most of those six foot strips are those are increasing the parking load and if we go to if you don’t mind, Christiane pulling up the second page of the ODP so we can look at the that might be somewhere it might be in this slide deck to actually I’m just looking at that table of parking.

1:33:58
I don’t think that’s actually in our slide deck.

1:34:01
I saw it originally. So sorry. I have to pull it up on the

1:34:05
Oh, yeah. We lost it again.

1:34:08
Yes, thank you, Tom for the when you have found all the pages Tom has it. That’s one that’s fine to show everybody. Yes. People behind them. No, that’s okay. little triangles. represents the car. Excellent. So we’re trying to get that 18% tree canopy right. stainability goal. So that’s the golden ticket, if you will. So looking at the it’s a oops, sorry, the parking lot is fine line today. The the overall parking is increased for the whole site almost 37% above minimum standard. Just the site just to site properties. 11%. So it reads to me that we’re swapping out tree and vegetation. Question with that rough number in unite, we know that’s for swapping that out for parking, for 37% parking dropping veg for 25%. So to me that doesn’t track towards sustainability goals, you know, urban heat island effect is all about canopy in shade and decreasing all the, you know, impervious surfaces, the buildings. So this is the sticking point for me is that having an increase available on these parking spaces 37% above what the minimum standard is 11% just for the on street parking, I would like to see that reduced, and the vegetation the planting beds increased.

1:35:52
I’ll tell you that we as a design team have had discussions about this and you don’t try to balance the need for the parkways and the larger green areas with making sure that this is a functional development. I think that as part of the planning process. Because there’s no, essentially aside from those units that are on the very west, nobody has a driveway that you can park in. So if you have a visitor coming to your unit, they need street parking. So I think that we’re we’re really trying to make sure that there is an available amount of street parking there. I know that that’s not it’s not the one here

1:36:41
do you want to be I would add one more thing to that truck paid for conversation about pavement? Sure, we knew all the streets significantly. So when you look at sustainability, there is less pavement, so there is less runoff, so there is less heat sink. And those parking spaces are strategically placed in some you know, this bump outs and as we can, and I am you’ll hear city staff, I was on my high horse about making sure we had street trees. And one of the things we also did in this subdivision is LPC, which usually has their their lines out in the tree line, which precludes street trees because you can’t get too close to them have put the power lines under the sidewalk. So all of those things we did to make it the best tree lined street we can have. And I understand your reservation about not enough parking. But personally, I lived in a subdivision on 35 foot wide lots with one car garages. And it was a study in poor site design. There was never I had a driveway in a garage. And there was still never any parking because many of the people had two cars. And so it’s really about it has to function. And I understand your reservation, and I’m all for more green. But if it doesn’t function as a neighborhood, it doesn’t do us any good to have it there. So just I think we agree to disagree in that instance, but I understand your concern about overall sustainability. Well, I

1:38:10
think that if it’s not meeting sustainable targets out of this sustainability plan, it can’t be marketed as being sustainable. Decreasing the tree canopy by using columnar trees is cutting this the shade and half in half. And those columnar trees are susceptible to snow load and breakage and maintenance and having the powerlines underneath the sidewalk is fairly standard. So I’m not I’m not seeing how this is running into being more functional when it’s not hitting the sustainability markers that’s being branded for the project. So for me, I’m not I’m a no for the project for you know, this reason that we’re not here to make more parking. We’re here to make more sustainability. We’re here to make sure that we have clean water and clean air. It’s 37% above the minimum standards while cutting in to the standards of canopy and decreasing their urban heat island. And I’m surprised to because those chi canopies also decrease the energy use on the buildings. And again, I can’t point to any any matrix any numbers coming out from the development there’s none to point to to give those trade offs in that threshold which I think is happening. I think the tree canopy and the vegetation are being shortchanged for more parking which is way above minimum standards. So I’m I’m going to be a no without any conditional, you know, bringing down the parking and bringing up the vegetation in the canopy because during the Columbian hours is not a good match. And I’m disappointed that city forester wasn’t brought on board I’m disappointed that natural resources wasn’t brought on board, these tree species that are outlined in the plan from the city staff, they are not even columnar. They’re huge. They’re 30 feet wide. You know, a columnar tree has to be 15 to 20 feet wide, these can get up to 3040 feet wide on some of these recommendations, they’re not going to look very good or be very healthy in the smaller trees, street or street lines apologize. So I appreciate I think that the project is great. I just think that it’s missing sustainability. And it irks me when we use sustainability as a greenwash, and we’re not proving it. So this is the proof and evidence that I have that we’re increasing on this project that parking spaces by 37% of standard. Well, the the canopies, the vegetation that stormwater that decrease in the urban heat island. They’re taking the hit. And I just, that’s my vote. Thank you. Thank you.

1:40:57
I have a couple of questions. Barb,

1:40:59
don’t get to sit down. I got to sit down. No problem.

1:41:05
multimodal transportation,

1:41:08
you want to see the slide so we can talk about it together? Yes. That that may come back up. Slide three isn’t going to catch up to it. Okay, if you give just a minute. So the image there it is. So the purple lines on that map are internal sidewalks. There are sidewalks on all the streets, the purple lines, so the the ensuite sidewalks get you to bountiful. And to harvest moon. The other purple line gets you over to Martin, which has all of the adjacent streets have sidewalks and provision for bicycles. And then there will be a connection. staff is working with the people that are developing the property in the Costco site to the north. So we made a place for to cross into Costco to get people into that. So they could walk to the grocery store if they wanted to walk to the grocery store. But in the bigger picture of connectivity. Those on St. Trey bike lanes and sidewalks connect to the larger system for the Greenway at left hand Creek, the Greenway at St. Vrain Creek. And then that also gets you into the overall system in the city of Longmont and then there’s transit. Over on Main Street, I’m pretty sure that RTD gets to harvest junction, there’s an opportunity for people to be able to pick up a bus there. But it’s pretty small place here. So there’s not a lot of opportunity to get em. It’s bounded by things that are kind of fixed. So not a lot of opportunity to get other connections out.

1:42:46
Yet to get to the green room. I’m trying to understand make sure I understand this. So basically, from inside the subdivision, you would have to probably take the

1:42:58
data mountain you get to trail you need to get on bountiful ball down the sidewalk. Right, right, I get I get off to internal trail on to Martin

1:43:06
and then Martin. So Martin would be the one that is to the west, and does that curve around that curves around.

1:43:16
And that’s already there. And that gets you to the left hand Greenway takes you to the Greenway. And then there’s the green, the left hand Greenway get to south into the Rec Center. Yeah, it gets you north into the Greenway. It gets you over to Dickens farm. It gets you into harvest junction on the other side of compact Boulevard. So it really it gets into shopping, it gets you to recreation, and it gets you to the regional trail system, and then trains it. I don’t know enough about the transit system, but there’s an RTD there’s an RTD dinner bus station, we’ll be down at a known Street, which gets you there and then there’s no bus stops along harvest highway 19 I think that gets you into the transit system

1:44:06
and basically Harvest Moon and bumped full already have on street sidewalks and bike and bike lanes. Right. Okay.

1:44:13
Yep. So that that’s the connection. And those were already built. They were built with retirements first final, final plat and when that connectivity was pretty seriously contemplated at the time plat at that property to make sure everything would be connected. Thank you.

1:44:30
Question for the city. And this is going back to the ODP, the proposed design standards. I have a couple of questions about some of the street widths and Le widths. I don’t know who would be the proper person.

1:44:51
I will I would defer that question to Josh Sherman. Thank you

1:45:02
Good evening, commissioners, Josh Sherman, civil engineer with public works.

1:45:05
Hi, Josh. A couple of questions because I noticed that we’re shrinking a lot of the streets a lot of the alleys and I just want to make sure that the city and public safety is okay with the stricken of these, and we’re not going to have any kind of issues for cars passing by and are for emergency vehicles.

1:45:28
Okay, I’m going to answer the cars passing by, and I’m going to try to answer for public safety who’s here also, and if I mess it up, Chief golden will come down and let me know. But they are asking for a reduction in the minimum street width from 10 feet down to nine feet. So that gets you total width of 18 feet for travel lanes. I believe that’s adequate for typical passenger cars, it is less than the standard for minimum for fire apparatus in terms of the larger fire ladder apparatus. The provision that they are providing in lieu of that is that all the homes in this subdivision will be sprinkled. So fire suppression and all those units, as I get this correct alternative means of protection from emergency services perspective in that way. Okay, I’m getting that’s the correct from the back. So, similar for the alleys, alleys are actually still 20 feet wide, but narrowed down to, I think, still the nine foot drive within each direction, but still a 20 foot wide ride away on that will allow for that access, both, you know, for municipal service, if that’s Waste Services, or emergency access, okay.

1:46:45
So we’re just getting a good a thumbs up from the emergency services that because of the addition of the sprinkler systems, that helps mitigate the fact that the streets aren’t as wide as would normally be a Fire

1:47:00
Commissioner and commission, that would be correct. So that was a concession compromise, if you will. So all those housing products are being fire suppressed. So residential sprinkler systems, and all of those code only requires duplexes, anything above a single family or duplex to be sprinkled and suppressed. We’re getting all the products pressed. So the the other concession that you look at when you look at narrowing some of these roadways is the height of these buildings. So and the presentation by the developer mentioned 30 foot and below, if you go over that 30 foot, we the fire code requires aerial apparatus access, in addition to just ordinary fire emergency access. So two different two different types of fire engines, right, the fire engine, the one with the big ladder on the top is the Aerial. And that is what we use to perform rescue and fire attack in those buildings that are larger in excess of 30 feet. So their products are staying below that threshold. So we do look at maybe the alternative means and methods that judgment mentioned we’re giving up two feet. But we do have the ability to move through that development and make turns and things like that. So we’ve we’ve worked pretty hard with the developer and push them to get us around their neighborhood. So Josh was correct.

1:48:19
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Lukash.

1:48:25
Thank you chair. It just occurred to me that we’re building all these electric homes and then we have water inside before the water suppression. So what happens if the water goes off because of a sensor that detects I don’t know, smoke or fire? I don’t know how that works. So maybe you can explain a little bit

1:48:52
Sure, so you’re asking about the fire suppression system inside residents is a man with a fire and Evie charging is that is that kind of your question combining all those. So that is the newest until they put it in their last set of code adoptions was the electrification in new Lee built single family residential homes. So they are coming with that. When you look at an electrical fire, what we’re going to do is try to protect you and get you out. So evacuation in single family residential is the priority. And what those residential sprinklers do is protect lots of egress so you and your family can get out and then we will be there and we will affect the extinguishment of whatever other fire there might be. So garages typically is where you’re going to see these Evie charging. So what we’re going to do is protect your egress route to get out and that gives us that 510 minutes or response time to get there and then we’ll see what we can do for your Eevee charging if that’s what caused the fire right sometimes that’s not it. But as far as Water and Electric, the only thing you can do is prevent that runaway which is what happens in these Evie, lithium, all those sorts of charging things. So water is the answer water, sand blankets, we got to compress it or suppress it somehow. And that’s what we ended up doing. So it’s copious amounts of water, blankets, and maybe some sand if it’s already outside. But we’ll be there. And we’ll do what we can, right? If a fire starts at one of the stations, so we wanted you out in at a safe distance away, so that does protect you.

1:50:28
And then the water will kill all the electric system too.

1:50:34
And that would be that would be in any structure fire. Right. So whether it’s whether it’s Eevee lithium related, you’re gonna look at damage to those utility systems to in a, whether it be multifamily or single family. So yeah.

1:50:47
Thank you. You bet. And I had a question on the multimodal plan. So bar. Yes. So I know you’re making the claim that this is going to be a very walkable and bikable neighborhood and will have connection with already existing network. So you’re only creating a network here in the division that you’re creating. Can you help me understand the difference between the the green lines and the purple lines are the three

1:51:26
lines are on the street, that sidewalk on the street, the purple lines are sidewalks internal internal, so they’re among the front’s of the homes in between. So we can get from through the neighborhood off, you know, midblock kind of idea. But there will be paved and concrete sidewalks.

1:51:47
And then I don’t see a good connection to Costco, you know, you’re trying to build here, a neighborhood that is diverse in age abilities and income levels. So, you know, I can see people that live here and work at Costco, or I can see senior residents, or even millennials that only have one car and they walk and bike everywhere. And you can just buy one item at Costco as well, you don’t have to go with your trunk full. So

1:52:21
Northeastern north eastern edge of the subdivision, there’s a sidewalk to go between those north from the internal street up to the property line, and then turns north again into Costco. So talk to staff about this and what we’re doing the multimodal plan that Costco has developed, so there’s not a pedestrian connection there. But the site on the lower side of that between Costco and Harvest Moon is under development. And so we’re getting to the edge of our property. And that application is our understanding will include some kind of pedestrian connection into the rest of Costco. The other way that you can get to Costco is walk right up Harvest Moon drive. And there’s a sidewalk on the street, a bike lane on the street, and we’re going to first exit the first entrance into Costco. And the second entrance into Costco will have pedestrian connections into the Costco parking lot.

1:53:19
Right. But I know folks that live around there they use on the west side. I think there’s like a ditch and there’s like a desired path already created by people that sometimes walk to Costco, but obviously, it’s not my continued official or legal,

1:53:38
that’s a bonus stitch. Right? The property is in an outlot on the Costco property that was dedicated to the city of Longmont. But the ditch company operates within that outlet and there’s a ditch access road moving through and the public is allowed depends on how you look at it either trespassing or walking on city property. But it is not a formal connection. And it’s meant to be a ditch access, not a pedestrian connection. So we actually talked about it. And the connection was turns in those salts and lightning instead of going north along the ditch on this property that most of the ditches pipe so that so it has to be accessed, but it won’t be there won’t be a Detroit accessing the pipe. They’ll be there’ll be access at the places where the manholes are so that they can get to the manholes as a city maintains the ditch because in agreement with the Bostitch company, the city agreed to take maintenance at the ditch all the way from 19 toward Ames and comes back out on the east side of Harvest Moon goes back into an open ditch so city maintenance staff or take care of it but it is the bonus ditch of which the city of Longmont is a majority shareholder talk It’s an informal pass. Yeah,

1:55:02
but you can’t make a connection, a bridge. It’s

1:55:08
not our ground in the ground walls of the city city.

1:55:10
So city

1:55:14
just I’m gonna look at City staff, but we did talk about it and staff asked us to put the pedestrian traffic onto Martin instead of onto the, onto the bonus ditch right of way. Right? It’s an informal, people walk it just because they do like every other day in town,

1:55:34
you know, the shortest distance between two points is gonna be a straight line. So for a lot of people, that’s a straight line

1:55:40
there is but there are also designated platted connections that are established with both of the subdivisions to that area. Does that answer your question?

1:55:53
Why does but it now it’s up to some city staff, if they could follow up on that. And you know, that

1:56:00
that part, this site’s gonna be developed in phases. And so the we’re going to start at the east and move toward the west. So some of this stuff will be more refined at final development plan and final plat. And so that’s one of those things that we could look at when we do that. And city staff is here to understand that they need to look at that when we do that.

1:56:22
So can the city staff or respond to that or take that in consideration? Or is it in the works? Is it even possible?

1:56:31
I will let Josh comment on that. But I wanted to, you know, indicate as you as commissioners are all aware, just make sure that the public is also aware that these are conceptual plans at this point. So landscaping, connectivity, all of those things will will go through additional review and are subject to change based on concerns expressed here at this level. I did note the bonus ditch desire, and I will let Mr. Sherman address that more fully.

1:57:02
Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. I think I would first think about what the multimodal plan that was approved for Costco with that site plan approval and what that looks like, which is really if we think about Costco and the way it’s orientated, with its front door, at the north and east of that site, there was a sidewalk, planned through through their parking lot out that front door immediately east to those commercial lots that were described previously, that are that are north of this development. And so really, when we think about that pedestrian movement, and where we want to put those pedestrian safely, is not into the middle of a parking lot where they’re not. There’s not adequate facilities for them in terms of crossing those areas. And specifically also for Costco, and that warehouse, on the west, and on the south, is really where they’re bringing in their large trucks, for their loading and unloading of that facility. And those things, which is again, back on that backside of the west side. So recognizing there may be some informal paths that are taken, promoting those or facilitating those may not be something we want to consider if it’s not the safest route to get there, even if it’s the shortest route to get there.

1:58:21
Right. So are you considering to make it safe? Or are you gonna say it’s just not going to ever be a safe route?

1:58:30
Again? Yeah, I mean, I think when you look at how to get to the main entrance, the public entrance to Costco, that is on the east side, which is what from this proposed development is bringing from the northeast of planned access without having to go out to the street once those commercial properties are developed further north.

1:58:52
Okay, well, I mean, it might add more minutes to walk to get to the east side. Where’s the employee entrance for Costco?

1:59:02
That’s a great question. I don’t know. The employee on the front door on the

1:59:14
front door, okay. Thank you for answering my questions. You’re welcome.

1:59:21
Commissioner height.

1:59:24
Thank you. Dan. Overall, this is a project that I have wanted to see forever. It’s affordable and it’s audible. That’s the gold standard. As I look at this, though, it is horizontally dense. It the DUIs are lower than multifamily but multifamily just drives me crazy. stacks on debts but I look at this and I hear what Commissioner Saunders raised. In terms of the tree canopies with Mark paps was discussing about how these roads in the small tree lawns make it difficult to grow trees. I hate to I hate to do this on the on this project because this project is, is what I would love to see. That said, the open space green space pocket park requirements, the deviation in the ODP, I wasn’t clear as to exactly how that how that mapped out. So Kristin, can you lead us through? Or maybe Barb?

2:00:50
I’m gonna ask Brian to do it. But I’m gonna get you to the slide that shows it. Okay.

2:00:58
Because as I read the standard, I think it’s, there’s 185 D use here, you need a half acre per 100 D use. So in my rough calculation, it’s 1.85 acres. Table G was only point five acres, and I don’t know what else. You’ve got pocket parks, and he got micro parks. In my question, if you can explain what a micro Park is, in terms of what the code requirement is, for pocket parts and how they differ, I’d like to understand that.

2:01:36
So there’s no code requirement for micro parks. That’s a concept that we’re introducing in the ODP. So it’s new. I think what we’re trying to do is designate we have the kind of triangular central pocket park and then we have smaller gathering spaces that kind of don’t meet that pocket park intent,

2:01:55
what is the definition of a pocket park?

2:02:05
A pocket park is defined as an area to provide either active or record or passive recreation and some of the allowances within a pocket park are plain playgrounds, community gardens, tot lots picnic areas, swimming pools, clubhouses, rooftop areas, etc. standardly with a pocket park, when you your, your pocket park size is based on your densities calculation. So standardly, you would provide a pocket park of that size, as per your density calculation in one area, and it’d be all contiguous to each other. In this instance, what they’re asking to do is provide one larger centralized pocket park and then make up the remainder of the required acreage for that pocket park with the smaller micro pocket parks.

2:02:53
And is there a minimum size for pocket park? I mean, it I’m assuming is permissible to divide your pocket parks up so that your total is 1.85 acres if that’s your de you require

2:03:06
that is what is requested in ODP typically would have all your acreage in one centralized contiguous area.

2:03:13
So you say typically, is that required? It is okay. That’s what I needed to know. So the standard would be a 1.85 acre pocket park.

2:03:25
I have not done that density calculation, but that sounds appropriate. Okay.

2:03:32
All right. Do tell me more as to how scattering them works. Sure.

2:03:38
Well, so, you know, I think there’s there’s two sides to this right. One is that the layout of the of the subdivision really doesn’t lend itself to having a 1.85 acre space contiguous. And I think, you know, we’re trying to meet the intent of the standard by providing that amount of space, there’s a table do I need to do to share or is it gonna? Okay, there’s a table in the presentation. And it’s in the ODP that shows kind of which which tracks are used to make that requirement, and then the percentage is used. So most of them are used at 100%. But the larger tract Oh, that kind of wraps around the outside is only used at 40%. There we go. That’s the tables that are shown in the ones that we’re using for the pocket parks are highlighted in green. So as you can see, there’s 126 of them that are kind of dispersed out through around the development that show and it’s not this rendering does not match those tracks, but the letters on the on the map show those tracks. So really what we’re trying to do is provide some dispersed area so rather than have a 1.85 acres centralised and everybody’s got to go there, we’re trying to get some green space adjacent to as many units as possible. So you can see like the track w, that is up in the northwest quadrant, we’ve pushed those units to the back to kind of create a larger space in the front yards of those units. Tracked you I think we talked, some of the public comment was about that how it is wrapped with some of those alleys, there was a discussion or a comment about parking, there’s no on street parking in the alleys. So those are really just three ways. There wouldn’t be parked cars adjacent to two u. Q is obviously the larger triangular green space, R, G and O those three, we’ve kind of talked about that a little bit where we’ve kind of pushed in O and G, we’ve pushed that landscaping out to the perimeter to create an active space that’s engaging with the with the development. And then our, I think is adjacent to the street, right at people’s front doors, but it is a larger space where I think you can have some of those more active unstructured kind of spaces. Does that answer your question?

2:06:15
A little bit. Oh, oh, is in the southwest. But that’s a that’s an acre and a half ish. That’s really ringing

2:06:25
correct. It does wrap all the way up

2:06:29
the west side

2:06:30
it’s the west side and then I think it includes some of the the peace on the north side as well. Okay. But that’s why so we you know, where we transition the landscape in Oh, from more, I would say developed to more passive is where we change that accounting for the pocket park.

2:06:54
And his Oh, I don’t know if it was Mr. Bashir or Mr. paps reference that that oh is on the ditch near the ditch that necessarily usable as pocket park.

2:07:07
So the the ditch as part of the original Irwin Thomas improvements, the ditch was piped from, if you start on the north and the northwest corner there and come down, there’s a group of two shade trees and then a group of three shade trees, right about where those three shade trees are the transitions from an open pitch open ditch to a piped ditch. So we need to leave that easement open. However, we are allowed to surface treat that with with grass and seating and trees as long as they’re maintaining a separate a certain separation from both the pipe and then the utilities that are on the western edge there.

2:07:49
How many street parking places do you have in these bump outs

2:07:54
at one?

2:07:55
And they are in the shape of the? Yeah, we’re all in kind of the major loop circulator looping going straight back. Yes. Okay. And everything else is kind of an alleyway with no surface street parking

2:08:12
that’s currently in the alleyways. Yep. And then there’s, you know, most of these, there’s a few sets of units that will have a maybe a 10 foot driveway where you could probably I’m hesitant to even say that you could get a parallel parking in there. But there’s not any of these units, except for the orange ones that are on the West that where you’d be able to get a parking space in that driveway.

2:08:37
And this is a threat Thrash. You can’t take any lesser number of units, can you you’re looking to get to more, what’s that you’re looking to get to more, you don’t want to take less? Well, I do want to define it

2:08:51
because it is important. There’s a lot of different goals are trying to hit here. And one of them was the max number of affordable, the capital A affordable, so 80% and below AMI with utilizing the funding sources that the city could and to make the development work. So that 185 is based on a pro forma total, to make the math work financially. I know that’s not, you know, it’s a total aside, but it does play into design. No, because it does create some,

2:09:23
if you could, that’s

2:09:26
fundamentally the capital A affordable the sub 80%. If you want to think about it, it’s a little nuanced, but it’s a negative number to the pro forma, it’s some extent, right. So you’re subsidizing those units with the attainable housing. And so the more attainable units in a percentage that you have to the affordable the better the performer will operate, the less public incentive is necessary. So what we’re trying to do is balance all of those things, get the max number of you know, I think We’re What 55. So we were trying to get to the max number of capital A affordable units that we could bounce the site, and we were literally talking about adding two units to this to make the math work. And those will be attainable units.

2:10:15
What are the other units?

2:10:17
So you’ve got 55 affordable and when I say attainable, I mean, there’s so many monitors right now. But so attainable is 80 to 120%. So that the 130 units is in that 80 to 120%. And we’re also trying to hit not just 120%, right, because that’s a cheat. So we have pricing at 90 100 and 110. We technically don’t have anything that’s max at 120%. Ami. Part of that is just to allow for any kind of inflationary pressure that happens from now then.

2:10:52
So 55 at 80% Ami, and the

2:10:55
other one below. Yeah.

2:10:59
And and the mix of funding. City obtains, but it’s a state federal pie that you’re accessing. That’s correct. Okay.

2:11:11
So we kind of laid this math out on day one and said, How do we try to tackle this from both ends? And so the goal became pretty apparent. How do we have the max number of 80% and below units and the development?

2:11:25
So density is an answer. And the other two you’re finding are the 80s. They’re

2:11:30
the attainable. So we know, we were held to the standard of 55 within the development agreement. So really, right now we’re too short on the 80 to 120s. Okay, that’s where we feel like in the rest of the phase design, we’ll pick up the two units. It may be that we have two more attached products than single family. So it’s not just it’s not capturing more real estate. That’s common area. Thank you. Sure.

2:12:01
I like it. It’s just been shut up.

2:12:07
Commissioner.

2:12:10
I hate to make you stand back up again. But I had a couple more questions for Mr. Thrasher. When we got into the esthetics portion of the presentation, and there’s a picture of these two people Patea are they neighbors or they live in the same house?

2:12:34
There’s some psych howdy neighbor samovar, there isn’t that so? In the single family? Detached homes that so you have seven and a half to eight feet, I think separation between those units. One side of every residence has no windows. So you have a sliding door out your kitchen area. That’s your private patio. They have their private patio homes. It’s

2:12:58
okay. Okay, that’s what I was thinking. And then what’s the average? I think you said the houses range between is it 915 100 square feet each or something like that?

2:13:10
That’s correct. Right now, in the first phase there between 915 100 and a

2:13:14
lot size? What’s the range on the last sizes?

2:13:20
Roof square footage? I think it’d be. It’s the small lots. Right. So it’s enough to create all of our offsets or setbacks around it. I think it’s in the 1700 1800 square foot a lot. Okay. I mean, true with a two story house. Okay, it’s gonna be close.

2:13:35
And like Kristen alluded to this a lot. It’s very rough. Right. Now, obviously, this all gets flushed out as it goes along. Sure. Well, I love that. I love the concept. I mean, it’s great. So that was all I had for you. Thank you. Thanks.

2:13:56
I’m just going to I understand the tension here with the landscaping versus lot size and try to get the density we need to get to to get the affordable housing we want. And the you know, we had Mr. Pepsi come up and recommend the fact that they should use more coal in our trees because that’s more appropriate for the smaller lot sizes that we’re looking in for the smaller grass areas that we have. But that reduces the canopy. Its attention here. I’m looking to see if anybody has any other thoughts. I understand it to me getting to the affordable at the expense of maybe some canopy I understand that I understand the fact that we have taken away some of the street and that does. I mean, it’s it does it. Yeah. Well, I know I know. But it’s what the concrete so As of right now, I am leaning towards supporting this because I understand the tension, it’s never going to be for something like this, you’re never going to have the best of both worlds. And I understand the fact and I appreciate the fact that we may have to look at more comb columnar trees Koebner. That’s good trees to be able to get the density that we need to get for this. So looking forward to hear some more thoughts. Commissioner Saunders

2:15:35
Thank you Chair polling.

2:15:42
On the question of penciling out for the units, who was who was answering that I’m so sorry, I forgot your names. Can you come back up? When you’re penciling out for the units, which, and I don’t mean for my one sticking point to overshadow the greatness of this project as I lead off the other four things that we’re voting on, I’m definitely a fan of when you pencil out the units. Where does parking play a part in that?

2:16:24
So it’s a tough one to answer. So when you’re penciled out individually in it as just as a standalone, forget, forget on street parking, right. So as a standalone, we’re trying to create two parking spaces. And it’s not this again, when you do the density, there’s no driveway to speak of. So your two car parking spaces it right, there’s not a visitors not making it into your driveway. There’s no actual real estate there. So the on street parking is really the only pressure relief valve you have for visitors coming. And there’s obviously outside the development, there’s not a great expanse of parking. So I don’t know that it necessarily plays directly into the pro forma. Right, right. Right. But not having the on street parking becomes problematic just functionally, because you can’t park your incoming traffic in your driveway. And typically there is that relief of you have 20 feet of drive or something you ought you always have cars, we just don’t have that next development.

2:17:26
Right. And so there’s different give and take, right. And that’s where I’m seeing it I’m seeing that the give is the launch strips for the take of more parking, and more parking is above and beyond the street parking, because the was the odd properties 11% over just on the property. So on the property already for the units, it’s 11% over the minimum standards. And then so is there a world? In the vein of chair polling? Is there a world where we can decrease the on street parking to allow for an increase of this the treelines?

2:18:11
I’ll say this traffic wise and parking, like I’m out of my depth to say how many do we technically need? You know, over what?

2:18:20
Well, the minimum standards would be the need? Correct? Potentially. So the want is the overage those are a percentage, but we’re taking from a minimum standard on the tree lines. So do you see where we’re taking a little from one standard to pay for another standard? Absolutely.

2:18:39
And look, I’m very open to that conversation. One thing, there’s not that that relief of the driveway, if it’s not a designated parking space, which oftentimes it’s not, yeah, we really don’t have that ability. And

2:18:54
I’m not talking about the units. I’m just talking about the on street because that’s where I see the detriment to the tree lines into the vegetation in the canopy and the sustainability markers that we all have worked on at the city along for some time and we put those standards in place and I it the tension is that that’s where I feel sustainability. Oh, well. It’s just sustainability. It’s kicking the can down the road. When does it stop? We’re above the standards on one if it was the opposite. And we had way too much on the standard for veg in in tree canopy and street or tree lines and we didn’t have enough parking. That swap would make sense to me too. But going over 33 37% for parking at the loss of 25% for canopy and vegetation. Again, I don’t have those exact matrix because I haven’t put them together. But overall That’s what I’m asking Can there be a place where we can decrease the street parking and increase This tree lines

2:20:03
off, look up off the top of my head. Are we talking? I’m doing math. This is 15 or 20 spaces of on street parking.

2:20:12
Well. I would love No, I’m kidding. I would love to do percentages and exact numbers for an ODP. But I don’t want to prohibit the design process. Sure. Because you truly have done a great job. And it really my issue is with so much on street parking. And so little treeline. Sure,

2:20:43
this may come this may be a question, but I don’t think this was the ask questions. We have, we’ve tried to be very open minded about how we tackle all these different ideals, right. So I think where we are right now is at the concept level, where these kind of adjustments can be made to the formal ODP, but this is getting out of my depth of understanding, to be honest. But yeah, of course we can take in consideration like, what’s the right parking matrix here? Maybe we ought, yeah, parked and it’s just a tree lawn? Yeah. A real when you talk about just to answer that. Yeah. Purely the total unit mix intensity of homes is really where their performance dependent is not the individual parking spaces. Correct. That’s

2:21:27
what I’m trying to get at because I agree, you know, the density and affordable housing. And that’s a tricky, that’s a tricky balance. It really is. And like I said, You guys have done a fantastic job with this project. My, it seems small, but it really makes a difference down the line. And this is the ODP, this is where we’re making these standards for this particular PUD project, we have to make those standards because they’re not being they’re not using the same standards that another city projects would use. But they would because they would have to use that eight foot standard. Sure. So that’s what I’m asking for. I’m asking for the eight foot standard. But without asking for the eight foot standard. I’m asking for the decrease, if that works for you all, a decrease in on street parking and an increase in the treeline. And

2:22:13
I would assume that would mean in some specific areas. That the entire loop.

2:22:18
That is a design decision that is for you’re sure, yeah.

2:22:24
Oh, perfect.

2:22:25
Thank you happened at final, final final development plan. Again, this is the outline and the basic standard.

2:22:32
But these are the standards. And that’s what I’m trying to get out because the standards that the city would have in place will be the eight foot tree line. And that’s what we’re asking for in the ODP with the PUD is to set those standards. And so I’m just trying to make sure that those standards are following through throughout this project because it’s huge. And you know, there’s a lot of moving parts for it. So

2:22:51
we there are two things that are relative to the street. One is we made the whole street narrower. So a pretty significant difference in the amount of pavement by making the street narrower. Some places on the ODP, there’s more than an eight foot tree lawn someplace. Some places there is a minimum of a six foot tree lawn, but it’s dispersed and different. At the bump outs. It’s bigger. So it’s a place for more street trees there. So it could be that at final, we make more bump outs and we listened. We listened parking by adding more bump out so we have a room for bigger canopies and more places along the street. But if we wholesale take away the opportunity to have a six foot tree line. It’ll impact the design. I’m not

2:23:38
sure how we’re taking away the opportunity to have a six foot lawn.

2:23:44
So this standard in the OTB allows for the option of having a six foot tree lawn. Yeah,

2:23:49
that’s what I’m not okay with. Okay, because that then just allow us to have six foot everywhere.

2:23:56
But it ain’t right as a design is now it’s not six, whatever. Yeah,

2:24:01
I would like it to be increased. I don’t feel comfortable setting those standards for the design. But I think that it’s appropriate to decrease the on street parking. I mean, especially on street see right up the middle there where those bump outs are and where the the tree lines are more narrow, when there’s so much surplus of spawn street parking already. It looks like somebody else wants to have some words. Don, did you have something that you wanted to say?

2:24:33
Members that commissioned opera chat Planning and Development Services. So you know, there’s been a lot of discussion about things and we may we may not agree, and that’s okay. But I do want to point out a couple of things that I think are important one is that, you know, the site currently has no trees on it at all. When it is developed, we’re going to be adding tree canopy to the development. Our standards allow for on street parking on every street, that’s our standard design is to allow parking. And there are many streets where it is not used. It is not. And as part of the discussion with public safety with public works with our folks that do trash and other services here, within the city, we agreed to reduce the streets down as Barb talked about to a narrower cross section. But part of that was also knowing that some of these parking spaces may not be used at all times, so that there is additional places for the vehicles to be able to get through for trash pickup and things like that. So I think it’s important to understand that this has been a compromise in a work that is been trying to come up to meet the goals of this development was to provide fordable housing. One last thing that I wanted to point out, and I’m going to forget it now was related to the tree lawns, if we would have done an urban section, if we would have concreted everything from the property line out to the streets, our design standards allow for Tree Island islands to be six foot wide by eight foot deep, and there is no restriction on the type of tree that would be put in there. So we’re at a six foot, not a five foot in width. And we have larger than eight foot areas and all these tree Lawns by length, for the absorption of water and for the provision for them to grow into. So if this was an urban development, we would have had less than what we have right now for tree islands, and no restrictions on the type of of landscaping that’s going in them. So I think it’s important to look at that standard, as well and understand that a different design, this wouldn’t even be a discussion and yet we’re in between we’re between the five, and we’re an eight with a six foot. So that may not be enough to answer that for you. But I would just say that there’s been a lot of compromise and a lot of discussion and a lot of thought that’s gone into this. And the other thing that I like to point out is that the sustainability plan that you talked about, there’s no review criteria for the planning commission to consider when you’re looking at this, to base it on a percentage of the landscaping, that is called out in that sustainability plan. So that’s the last thing that I’m gonna say. So thank you

2:28:04
so, thank you for those comments on I appreciate it. And

2:28:14
I’m trying to remember what the design standards are for other city developments. Because in all fairness, I did bring that up and as far as I understand the code is eight foot depth or width for those and

2:28:39
try to compose my thought here. I’m disappointed to hear that while we put time and energy into sustainability targets, that there are more requirements for them. I’m disappointed to hear that parking spaces are taking over well, they’re not penciling out and they’re not part of the affordability piece. I mean, what’s even the point of having a sustainability plan then so go ahead put a ton of parking in and not put any trees or tree lines. You know, it’s just like putting lipstick on a pig to say let’s just greet it up as little as possible. So we can have as many cars come as possible. There’s going to be a time for everyone to decide where we’re uncomfortable walking around and not having an extra spot for our guests to come and visit our houses. There’s going to be a point where we do have to say you know climate change is important. It’s it’s a piece that does need a pencil out and be an important part and target of these projects. Yeah, the David and Goliath here with it plain zoning trying to give out my piece unsustainability, but it’s important you guys in in, in my mind giving up parking spaces for plants and canopy when you’re bringing in buildings. It’s not just the impervious materials, it’s the heat island effect of bringing in the buildings. It’s the running of the air conditioning without the canopy trees. You have the small columnar trees, it’s not going to do the same thing as the larger canopy tree. So yeah, you’ve heard my piece and I’m not trying to be a dead horse, I really am just trying to speak up for the sustainability. And the work that we’ve done with past councils and past committees in the volunteer time that we did to put those targets in place because they’re important, and they should be a part of the conversation. So I was hoping that, you know, a condition on a motion would be to decrease the on street parking while increasing the width of the tree lines, but I just tried to sneak that in there. Did you hear that? My little motion I tried to sneak in there.

2:31:04
You have not made a formal motion.

2:31:06
I’m making my formal motion now.

2:31:07
Okay.

2:31:08
I would like to formally do a conditional approval of the house pad envision Longmont comprehensive plan use amendment rezoning concept plan amendment overall development plan and conditionally approved the preliminary plot subject to final approval of the rezoning pz R to 124. To be with the condition of decreasing the amount of on street parking spaces and increase the width of the treelines. Thank you.

2:31:35
Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

2:31:46
We do have a second. Commissioner height has second it. Is there any other comments? I would I would just say this, as I as I mentioned before, with affordable housing, it comes down to density. And it’s a tension. It’s a give and take. I feel that as they’ve pointed out, it’s not going to be a six foot barrier everywhere. It’s going to be somewhere from six feet to somewhere maybe even more than eight feet. They’re just asking for the ability to go down to six feet in some areas. Now could they do in an all yes. But they are saying that they their plans currently show that they don’t aren’t going to use six feet everywhere. And given the small lot sizes, it does make sense to have smaller trees. That’s what sometimes we have to give up to get to the affordable housing. They’ve done things like electrification that sustainable. They didn’t have to do there. It’s a give and take. I think they’ve done some giving. And they’re doing some taking. And I’m perfectly fine with the balance that they’re trying to reach to be able to get the affordable housing and the attainable housing in this. That’s my personal viewpoint Commissioner height.

2:33:17
Oh, add more. Because my second aim was around about but in any event, reviewing the five different applications that are in front of us the modification of the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan. The modification proposed does meet one of the goals which is to create a diversity and mix of housing types that meet the a variety of socio economic groups needs. I think this proposal does so the rezoning application presenting the city with the unique opportunity to help it achieve a proper balance of land use tax and housing types. This application meets that standard. The concept concept plan amendment quote unquote, is in the best interest of the city. I think when mirrored with the rezoning and the comp plan modifications it’s a necessary component thereof and meets that standard. The ODP plan and the preliminary plat which is really items that we are approving I think the ODP, I have a little bit of a misgiving regarding the amount of quote unquote open space but the pocket part requirement in particular. I think I agree with the way that the applicant has is has tried to meet the one point a five acre requirement through its dispersal of these pocket parts with micro parts, micro parks, and other greenways my Second thing of Commissioner Saunders proposal makes the greenways even bigger, which is what I kind of think this project lacks is it’s dense. And if it had a little bit more Greenway, and if it didn’t really need all the parking that is being proposed, then let’s try to try to encourage them to do that. So overall, I find that the proposal meets the five standards. And I’m going to vote in favor of that, with the modification proposed by Mr. Sanders. Thank you.

2:35:38
Do we have any other comments? Commissioner lane,

2:35:45
I just want to say on the table, we’re talking about the parking and the units per and you know, you’ve got 311 spots required, which, when you do the maths, like 1.7 cars per unit, which is pretty small. I appreciate wanting more canopy wanting more green and not diminishing that in lieu or in the advantage of adding more parking. But I think, based on the amount of units are looking at I 2.33 spots per unit seems a lot more reasonable to me than 1.7. And also, I was just looking at the Google Maps, in terms of accessibility to mass transit, it’s not great. I mean, you got to pretty much walk a mile to get a bus. So I don’t know how many people are going to be doing that. I think it’s gonna be a lot of driving. So I think there’ll be a lot of cars in this neighborhood. And that’s just kind of where we’re at, because it’s not really a dense urban environment out there. So I would kind of keep it the way it is. And I think it’s reasonable, as proposed.

2:36:57
Thank you. Any other comments?

2:36:59
If not, Jane, let’s go take a vote. Commissioner. Hi.

2:37:03
Sorry, members of the commission. Can you give me two minutes? Sure. Before you take a vote.

2:37:09
Okay. You have, I’ll give you three minutes Next. Excuse

2:37:13
me, Chairman pullin. I did have a couple of comments that I would like to make in regards to the discussion if that’s okay. Sure.

2:37:19
Perfect. I do

2:37:21
have a slide that illustrates some tree date detail which is city approved. And it shows the within the five foot area and is specifically tailored tailored for urban environments with us significant proportion of impervious coverage in relation to the tree lawn conversation. So that is the detail that I would like to bring forward for your reference. Also, I wanted to make a clarification in regards to the required contiguous pocket park area, that is one half acre of your required areas to be contiguous for each pocket park. And that would be the reason for the ODP request, do also have We do also have Phil Greenwald here who could discuss micro transit, if you would like to hear more information in regards to that.

2:38:23
In our housing, our affordable housing department is also present. So if you have any information or questions for them, they would be more than happy to address those for you. Okay, thank

2:38:33
you. I think Jeremy is ready.

2:38:34
Yes, thank you. Chair polling. I just wanted to make a couple comments and suggestions for the commission. I think in this circumstances, we’re looking at five different applications, it might make sense for the commission to break up the motion and consider each application and then also to consider and the reason why Commissioner Saunders is because of the condition, the condition right now it appears the condition would apply to all of them versus a separate motion just on the ODP. And then also on the issue of that condition. When we’re looking at approval, the ODP, we have specific standards in there. And I would recommend supposing if you’re gonna, if conditions me imposed or recommend specific conditions as opposed to nebulous idea, just we’re not an issue of oh, well, they have six foot one inch which is now bigger than the six foot noted. So that’s my kind of recommendations to the commission I would separate it out for each application and then also to provide specific conditions as a concern so the ODP issued identified,

2:39:38
well then let me ask a question. When it comes to if, if we break this out, do we need a resolution for each one then?

2:39:55
I don’t think so. Chair pull on I think we can keep our current resolution assuming condition on the ODP passes we will keep our current resolution of PCR 2024 to be and just note the condition as it concerns the ODP. So we’ll we’ll redraft the resolution to identify that as a condition concerning the ODP with recommended approval of the three and approval of the preliminary plat. Okay.

2:40:23
Commissioner Saunders

2:40:28
Thank you Chair Paul and Jeremy thank you for catching that I am very sorry I meant to put that ODP specific on that condition I am sorry, I don’t know how to modify that. So with a condition of decreasing the amount without any numbers on there just decreasing the amount of parking spaces and increase the width of treelines is specific to the ODP, not any of the other pieces that we’re considering. Does that fix it to not break it up?

2:40:57
So the tree lawn with is a condition of the ODP so that would be under residential design standard Yes. 600 Something six the minimum parking though is not I believe someone correct me if I’m wrong.

2:41:19
The on street parking Leon street Yeah,

2:41:21
I’m not sure either.

2:41:23
Are off street parking. No on street parking, which I say streets on sorry. You’re right.

2:41:30
So I think the on street parking reduction I think that’s still be a condition of the ODP.

2:41:39
I think so. Okay, so we’re just going to enter ODP into that condition, if that works for everybody. Yep. Okay. Thank you for catching that. Jeremy.

2:41:51
Jeremy, you want to vote on each one of these brands, though?

2:41:56
That’d be my recommend datian. Commissioner height?

2:42:14
Discussion? Yeah, we’re still in the discussion periods. Oh, oh, can assure first commissioner boom.

2:42:24
Thank you, Chair, I just want to be perfectly clear in what Amy is asking, Are you asking for the tree? Blonde, minimum to be changed from six feet to eight feet? Or are you just asking for more tree lawn? In general, in lieu of some of the parking.

2:42:49
I’m purposefully not putting numbers on it to not tie the hands of the design team.

2:43:00
So because I could vote for one and I could not vote for the other,

2:43:06
the increase of the tree line with the decrease

2:43:10
party know if the condition were that the minimum tree line needed to be eight feet across the board. I have a problem with that. Yeah, that’s what I’m

2:43:21
saying. It’s not across the board. Okay.

2:43:26
So simultaneous, the minimum tree line would remain at six feet with reduced parking, that would give more tree line space.

2:43:40
So let me see if I understand. So yeah, it would still increase the tree line while decreasing the parking spaces. Simultaneously, is together. You just want decreased parking. You’re okay with just decreased parking. Is what is I’m just trying to clarify. I’m just trying to understand what you’re saying.

2:43:59
Yeah, I see there being a problem with having the minimum be eight feet instead of six feet based on the scale of everything here. Right.

2:44:09
Right. And that’s why I’m trying to not tie their hands. So the decrease were they’re going to get bigger streets. So that’s what I’m saying the decrease in parking should go to the increase of the treeline.

2:44:25
Okay, but Does that clarify it but not the minimum width of it?

2:44:29
Yes. I don’t want it. I’m trying to. Okay. Personally. I can’t Okay. Yes. Did that help? Jerry? Thank you, I’m sure.

2:44:37
I think so.

2:44:40
But I still think that, as Jeremy mentioned, having a nebulous without criteria of resolution. Putting something there that’s nebulous that doesn’t have actual numbers. is hard. is hard to achieve hard To keep track of. And I know in the past we’ve had this discussion before. Like you’re not trying to, but they’re, but they’re looking for some kind of numbers that they can tie to and hold them to because to say, reduce parking, but I’m not going to tell you how many spaces to reduce it to. They could say we’ve reduced it by two. And that’s not meeting your Yeah.

2:45:44
Commissioner boom.

2:45:45
Okay. It seems to me like the applicant has heard the concerns about parking and the concerns about wanting a little more green space. And we are going to have another opportunity to look at the final plans. No, no. Only Council does. No, staff, only staff does. Okay, thank you.

2:46:17
Yeah, and I guess, my my concern is, if we try to say, reduce parking, but it’s not consistent across the whole board, it’s going to be hard to do because you are dealing with a narrow street to begin with now. And you can take away five lots here, but it’s going to make for a street that has a bend in it. And it just to me is going to be I just have a problem with that. Let’s say we take away 1010 parking spaces, but we’re going to have cutouts then all over the place, you’re going to have street curb that

2:47:04
this is I’m trying not to get into their design. I know but

2:47:08
but with the fact that we’re talking anywhere from six to eight feet, just because you may increase.

2:47:16
Like they’re saying they already have a mix of them. Right,

2:47:19
exactly.

2:47:20
What if I put the eight foot in there? It helps decide, except

2:47:26
there that would really do a lot. I don’t think that given their design. If you take away two feet, you can’t take away from the street, the streets already shorter. So that two feet has to move somewhere. And they already have the front lawn at a reduced. So that means the building has to be reduced by two feet. Right, but

2:47:52
right that on street parking, but

2:47:53
that’s not considered but you can’t do that consistent across the whole development. You can’t do a consistent two feet across.

2:48:02
I don’t know maybe this is an applicant. Feedback.

2:48:09
Or just Oh, Mark.

2:48:14
Oh, sorry. I didn’t

2:48:18
cheer Poland. Yes. If I could just add one additional comment that just came in to me. So on the on street parking issue, the off street parking is a dress there’s no questions about off street parking as I understand it’s mostly in the on street parking and reducing the tree width to accommodate the on street parking. We don’t have an on street parking requirement. The only requirement would come in is that they’re using on street parking to satisfy off street parking minimum which they’re not doing here based on our the current standards which may be in change anyways. To your point, though, Commissioner Saunders, I think if you make a condition concerning the tree lawn with to increase it beyond the six foot, they necessarily would have to take it from the parking. I think that would achieve the goal as opposed to having a separate condition concerning parking. It’s just a suggestion I make if that makes sense. I mean, the alternative is they have to change the design of the homes as well. So either Yeah, the homes or the

2:49:24
so I appreciate that Jeremy so it’s it. Get the treeline or keep the parking. Okay. I really am not trying to make this painful for you guys, I promise. What I’m hearing is that if it has a minimum eight foot tree line, then that helps. Everyone decide. I just don’t know how to handle the parking spaces.

2:50:00
because it’s so I don’t I don’t want it to impact the housing.

2:50:08
I’m okay the impacts the parking. Yeah, I think come up and say something 100% Thank you so much.

2:50:18
Possibly a solution

2:50:23
possibly a solution is just to decrease the on street parking by a percentage. Is that direct enough? Or a number of spaces?

2:50:35
I like where you’re going with this.

2:50:37
I think that would be a condition on the preliminary plat then. Because the ODP doesn’t address on street parking. Okay. Where’s it designed us? Where’s it at BB?

2:50:51
Cuz I, I can appreciate what you’re trying not to do? Which is pension it down? Yes. Trying to work out to be a solution. But

2:51:08
we’re changing

2:51:13
what we can we can modify the design, though, does that note?

2:51:24
Is there a percent reduction that we could come to so that would make sure that it’s not, we don’t change the width of the tree line everywhere. But we we require a reduction in the number of on street parking places that would allow for more green space?

2:51:39
Yeah, how do we how do we word this where we’re decreasing the parking and increasing the green space. So a percentage or a parking number,

2:51:49
I think by default, if we decrease the on street parking, we’re gonna need to increase the green.

2:51:56
So you’re gonna give me a verbal on that and that you’re gonna do?

2:52:04
Well, we can get through the steps as

2:52:06
the where the on street parking is removed, it will be replaced with green space. Nice.

2:52:13
I like where we’re going with this. Jeremy had doing a percentage and numbers on this. He faces. He loves this. So

2:52:23
maybe, you know, maybe 25% reduction on the number of on street parking spaces that would result in a 25% increase in

2:52:30
the number you’re the winner? Yep, I’ll take it. I will take it for Brian’s like 10. I like I like the original 25 and 25. Yeah, well,

2:52:43
except they’re different sizes. So you can’t say a decreased

2:52:51
percentage of you. Yeah, it’s the percentage of degree and a percentage of square footage, right? Well,

2:52:56
no, it’s not percentage of square footage. It’s, you basically want to take a percentage of the parking and give it to green space. Because we don’t know what that percentage of green space is. Yeah,

2:53:07
that’s a winner. I like it. So decrease the 25% amount of parking. I’m sorry, I wrote it in there. decreasing the amount of on street parking by 25%. By 25%, and increase

2:53:30
the and that will increase that will be given to green space. And

2:53:35
that 25% increases the amount of green space.

2:53:41
That’s 20 spots. That’s a lot of spots.

2:53:52
2020 is a lot of spots to take. Well,

2:53:55
we have 37% 20 25%

2:54:00
of ad spots is 20 just 20 spots is 20 spots. That’s a lot of spots. Because looking at Yeah.

2:54:20
25

2:54:24
Or do we want to Well, 25.

2:54:28
going once going twice. Yep. 25. I feel like that’s the golden number here

2:54:36
maybe you need to call it number of spots because you prefer that. Well we’ve got the spots count. Yeah. I mean, Jeremy.

2:54:47
When he spots is a lot of spots they show I mean, here’s my question. They show what they’re thinking about for parking. But I don’t know if that’s an actual number or Yeah,

2:55:01
it would be per the unit’s I think the percentage is better than doing actual basis. They already told us what the actual was. What’s our design team thinking? Spaces percentage?

2:55:31
Yeah, I don’t think it’s that many there. Yeah, yep. Yep.

2:55:38
May I? Yes, please. Thanks. Fine.

2:55:42
So I do have a little concern about that number, just because we’re then at 6061, which is basically one visitor space for every three units. Um, I mean, I’ve been racking my brain for the last two hours trying to come to a great solution here. I do think that there’s places here especially along the North Street, where we could add more bump outs get more green space in I am a little concerned about the functionality of losing 20 spaces, though. So I would maybe can we propose that we would. The other the other concern that we have is that this is the ODP, which is a conceptual plan. And if we say 25% of this number, it’s hard to trick juggle that through so.

2:56:38
So what how do you guys feel about putting a cap on the number of on street parking spaces in the overall development? So rather than having a reduction from a number that we’re think is right, but we’re not sure about? We would just say it’s 70 on street parking spaces throughout dispersed throughout the development, which gives us

2:56:59
that’s hard for me to visualize, especially like moving all those parts around? Is it more comfortable for you? If it’s 20% 20 and 20 20%? On the parking give a little 20%? On the I like this swap out? The then it’s less than 20 spaces? And

2:57:18
yeah, I think. So. The standard that we cannot actually change is the six foot because in the street section, if we make that six feet bigger, there’s just physically not enough space without making the right away larger. Not.

2:57:33
That’s why I’m trying to not limit that because I appreciate a bunch of tiny little spots in there trying to make everything work. And that’s why I want to do percentages at all. But percentages feels like that gives you a lot of room. And we’re we’re essentially swapping we’re similar in how cool and sustainable is that we’re swapping some parking space for some more green stuff, right? So if 20 per se is like really killing you, I love this wording that I’m happy to just modify it to 20%. And then we can vote and see how it turns out. We can do a whole Yes. Thanks, Brian. You’re amazing.

2:58:05
Which is about 16 spots. Yes.

2:58:08
Thank you. So 20 and 20. Is that right? You know, just 20 20% of the parking for 20% of increase on the amount of bullets but

2:58:19
it doesn’t increase a green space by 20%.

2:58:23
That amount of parking is

2:58:25
growing into so

2:58:27
those 20 spaces is going to be green space. It’s

2:58:31
616 Spaces Spaces, right? Just say 20% Less parking 20%

2:58:35
Less parking to be green space.

2:58:40
So I’m putting in

2:58:41
the amount of honest free parking by 16

2:58:44
spaces 16

2:58:46
spaces and increase

2:58:52
don’t put any numbers. It’s going to go to

2:58:56
basic space. It’s going to the green space or green space toward Oh, thank you. I like that. Did you get that? Do you guys did you write it down? Alright, I’m gonna say it in the mic. So condition of the modification on my motion is condition is conditional to decreasing the amount of on street parking by six team spaces. That will we’ll be replaced by green space. Takes A Village People. And

2:59:41
Commissioner Saunders just one additional aspect to your condition that proposing I would suggest is that the reduction on parking comes off the parking listed on the overall development plan page two of 18 which shows their on street parking table

3:00:06
What Jeremy said.

3:00:09
But again, Commissioner chair poll and I do recommend that we address each application separately. Okay, so perhaps finishers Saunders is willing to withdraw her current pending motion. We’re gonna address the recommendations first, a promoted plat and then ODP. Last.

3:00:29
Yeah, let’s put ODP last. So I can rewrite this for the 18,000 times. Thank you so much Jeremy.

3:00:36
Okay, so I am going to remove it. Yes, yes. Oh,

3:00:45
I’m removing my motion.

3:00:50
Do you need you don’t need me to repeat at the end of it and we don’t need a second.

3:00:54
Okay, so now we’re ready to take some votes.

3:01:01
We’re ready for some motions, I

3:01:03
think Oh, some motions. So we need them. Is it easier if I make the motion?

3:01:13
Any commissioner may make a motion at this point. Okay, go ahead.

3:01:18
That’s great. Yeah, okay.

3:01:26
Jeremy, can we do four at a time and then one with condition?

3:01:37
How about a compromise of three. Can we do that my recommendation to address a motion recommending approval of the ones that go to council so the Comprehensive Plan land use amendment the rezoning the concept plan amendment. And then a separate motion approving the preliminary plat subject to final approval, the rezoning and then a motion to conditionally approve the overall development plan subject to final approval of the rezoning and addition to any conditions that may otherwise be imposed.

3:02:12
Okay, that’s too confusing for me too.

3:02:15
So Commissioner Brad recommend a motion to approve a motion to recommend approval of the Envision law among comprehensive planning land use amendment rezoning

3:02:28
application. Okay.

3:02:30
I am concept plan amendments to council so

3:02:33
number one we went through Yes. Okay.

3:02:41
Okay, is it am I yeah, you’re on Commissioner height.

3:02:45
You care if I do. I would move. It’s a different tzr.

3:02:54
I don’t know. It’s it’s not easy our

3:02:59
move to approve the following three portions of this application. The amendment envision Montclair comprehensive land use plan. The amendment of the rezoning application and the amendment of the concept plan amendment and sorry. Amendments of amendments. I move to approve the application to one amend the vision Longmont comprehensive land use plan. I moved to approve the application seeking rezoning and I move to approve the application seeking amendment of the concept plan. All as recommendations to City Council. Mr.

3:03:44
Tetteh.

3:03:45
Second,

3:03:46
we have motion we have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none let’s go ahead for the vote. Commissioner

3:03:53
high. Commissioner teta. Commissioner boom. Jared Polin, Commissioner Saunders. Commissioner new couch. Commissioner Lang. Chairman that passes Seven to zero.

3:04:04
Thank you very much. Are we coming on the condition? Okay. And don’t forget you have to do both the preliminary preliminary plat and the we want to do the preliminary plat and the ODP

3:04:20
ODP is separate with no

3:04:22
separate. Okay. All right. So wait, let’s do the preliminary plat first because I move that we approve the preliminary plat as proposed. Second, we have a second. Any discussion? No. Let’s take a vote.

3:04:42
Commissioner high. Commissioner teta. Commissioner Boone, Chair Polen High Commissioner Saunders. Commission Commissioner lukkage. Commissioner Ling. Chairman that passes Seven to zero.

3:04:54
Thank you. Commissioner Saunders.

3:05:00
All right, fingers crossed I move conditional approval of the overall development plan with the condition of decreasing the amount of 16 on street parking spaces within the ODP and replacing the 16 spots with greenspace

3:05:21
as reflected on page two of 18 of the ODP as reflected

3:05:25
on page two of the ODP.

3:05:35
Commissioner Tetteh Okay, we have a motion we have a second is there any discussion? Let’s take a vote.

3:05:49
Commissioner height

3:05:55
Commissioner teta. Commissioner Boone, Chair Polen. High. Commissioner Saunders. Yes. Commissioner, the cat. Commissioner lane. Chairman that passes five to thank you.

3:06:15
Now chair, Poland before you make your announcement, can I suggest one additional motion for the commission? I would recommend that the Commission consider a motion granting chair Poland permission directing staff to draft a resolution consistent with the Commission’s finding and giving authority chair Poland to sign said resolution directing staff to draft the resolution consistent with the past findings and share poll and assign

3:06:45
Commissioner height we have a motion. That was so moved. Do we have a second? I’ll second it. Any discussion? Let’s take a vote.

3:07:01
Commissioner high. Commissioner teta. Commissioner boo. Chair polar aye. Commissioner Saunders. Commissioner to catch Commissioner Lang. Chairman that passes Seven to zero.

3:07:12
Thank you very much. I have two notices here to read. Agenda Item six A the house pad and vision Longmont comprehensive plan land use amendment, the rezoning and the concept plan amendment. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with council procedures and attempt to appear before city council, please contact the Planning Division for further information at 303-651-8330. Agenda Item six aid the house ped preliminary plat and overall development plan appeal process announcement this I have now entered a seven day appeal period. During this time any aggrieved party may appeal the Commission’s decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning and zoning Commission’s decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk’s office and the planning office within the seven day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, April 25 at 8am and ends Wednesday, May 1 at 5pm.

3:08:27
We’ll move to other business. Next is phone call public invited to be heard this is for anybody who is in the audience who would like to talk about something that is not coming before the planning Zoning Commission as a quasi judicial item. Seeing nobody step forward, I will go ahead and close the final call public invited to be heard. Next is items from the Commission. Okay, Commissioner

3:08:57
and he’s not here Commissioner Popkin in last month’s February 28 discussion regarding no it was when we were sitting as the board of adjustment and we were reviewing the fence issue which got overturned he had a discussion point with me that I I had been riding on my high horse on for a long time regarding the applicability of when a variance is appropriate in this specific language and I got into regarding the physical characteristics of the property had to control whether or not a variance would be even considered. The theatrical language was a special circumstances exist in any special circumstances include, but are not limited to the following Popkin and I got into an argument as to whether or not that list meant it was inclusive of these physical characteristics or if it was just, it meant otherwise. I think the way He read it and was in was encouraging me to think about it was that if the language were special circumstances include without limitation. These other things, his argument would have worked. But when I now studied the words include, but are not limited to, I think I might have to possibly get off my high horse and consider that special circumstances aren’t just limited to the physical characteristics of property. I thought I’d share that with all

3:10:36
in does that apply for variances that come before planning zoning or just

3:10:41
for the there is both plan? Right both? Okay, so

3:10:45
it’s written the same for both the language it’s the

3:10:47
both language variances applies in both circumstance. Okay, whether we sit as a board of adjustment, or is the Planning and Zoning Commission? Thank you.

3:11:00
Do we have any other items from the Commission? Items from planning and development services grant Penland.

3:11:13
Just quickly, maybe we can touch base on upcoming meetings. Next meetings will be May 15, as well as June 26. Only one in May. Due to the basically end of school week and going to the holiday on the 20th. And then moving into June. We did cancel the June 19 Due to that holiday. So it looks like Dawn ran out. But as of I think yesterday morning, we actually did not have anything scheduled for May. I think we may have to wait until next Tuesday to make that final determination. But what that likely means is we’ll have at least a couple for the June meeting.

3:12:00
Yeah, but only one meeting in June, which is going to be the 26th and then in May as well, tentatively. Most

3:12:07
likely none, but we’ll have confirmation within the next few days.

3:12:15
Oh, sorry. Oh, Commissioner teta grant

3:12:17
you said two agenda items in June not to meetings right.

3:12:23
Yes that is correct.

3:12:27
Seeing no other items we are in adjournment.

3:12:47
Bars Oh, okay. All right.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai