in

Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting June 24, 2020

For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:

Meeting Transcription Disclaimer:

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

To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:

https://otter.ai/s/ZsyZNxfYTSimMXw8D5Vdmg

0:07
Fourth 2020 planning and zoning commission meeting. First item on our agenda is our Roll Call.

0:15
Chairman chernykh.

0:16
Here Commissioner height

0:23
commercial commercial hope

0:26
you know I said present but I was muted. Present.

0:30
Thank you. Commissioner teta. Here. Commissioner Polan

0:37
Commissioner Goldberg.

0:40
Okay, that’s everybody.

0:42
Oh, no, sorry. Commissioner flag here. Commissioner honor on here.

0:49
Councilmember Rodriguez

0:51
here.

0:52
Okay. Thank you. Um, so we had a change in our agenda, which is allowed by our bylaws. In order to make the meeting more efficient, we move the left hand Brewing Company of your garden extension PCR 2024. up to the next item. I believe one of our commissioners may need to recuse himself if you, Commissioner Goldberg, okay.

1:21
Thanks, Chairman. Oh, yeah, just due to

1:26
financial interest. I have a conflict with this agenda items, so I’ll need to recuse myself from this discussion and vote.

1:32
Okay. Thank you very much for for letting us know that. Jane did Commissioner lukaku make it into the meeting yet?

1:43
No, she did not. Okay.

1:45
So we’ll proceed without seating another Commissioner. We still have a quorum with six commissioners present. So alternate over to principal planner Brian Schumacher to explain what’s going on.

2:03
Thank you, commissioners. I’m Brian Schumacher, with city planning staff. So just to give you some background regarding this item for the left hand, Brewing Company B regarding the expansion.

2:18
We discovered this week that some of the information that was included in the noise Impact Assessment needs to be corrected and updated to assess potential noise impacts associated with this project. That said, from the time that we discovered the need to make some corrections, there wasn’t sufficient time to update the information and allow staff time to review and evaluate this information prior to tonight’s meeting. Since this is an important part of this project evaluation the request has been made to continue this agenda item to the July meeting. We did receive a letter from lefthand brewing companies representative Mary Taylor, who’s also at the meeting this evening, if you if the Commission has questions to request that this item be continued to the July meeting.

3:13
Okay. Miss Taylor, would you mind just verbally confirming that that your your client does want to want the continuance?

3:24
Yes. Thank you. And I apologize if I have some background noise? Yes. Lefthand Brewing Company would like to request that our item be tabled until the July hearing. as Brian explained, we, we just had some data and I want to thank everyone that’s reviewed the information so far and brought it to our attention. So we really, really appreciate that.

3:49
Okay. All right. Thank you. So just be clear. Our next meeting is July 15. According to our schedule, we always have an alternate date available. If necessary, and that would be July 22. But until we get to that point, we assume July 15. So, um to make this official to continue something we need a motion. Mr. Vice Chair Poland

4:17
Yes, I move that we move item. He’s the AR 2024 to the July 15

4:28
meeting. Okay, so we have a motion to continue this item PCR 2024 to the July 15. Meeting Commissioner height

4:41
unmutes himself in seconds.

4:44
Okay, so that’s a second from Commissioner height. On any, any discussion about this from the commission? Seeing none, let’s take a vote. All those in favor say aye. And raise your hand Aye, aye. Okay. Any opposed? Okay, so Jane that is six in favor, zero opposed? No abstentions. So this item is being continued to the July 15. Meeting. And I’m

5:19
back to my agenda here.

5:22
Thank you very much, Miss Taylor. We’ll see you in July.

5:26
Great. Thank you so much, everybody. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime.

5:31
Okay. Thanks, Nick, I think Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, Brian. Thanks for explaining that. And we’ll see you in July as well. Thanks, Brian. Next on our agenda is communications from planning manager, Don burchett.

5:48
Good evening, commissioners. Thank you, everybody for joining us through the virtual meeting. I just wanted to cover a few things for those people that are watching at home. Hopefully this will allow them to Participate from the comfort of their homes instead of here at the Civic Center. Anyone that wishes to speak during public invited to be heard, which is items five and eight on our agenda, or during any public hearing items. Agenda Item Number seven tonight will need to watch the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen. And I think you see an example of that right now on the screen. When it’s time to call and provide your comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are on the call. When you see

7:01
And that is all that I have German.

7:04
Thank you, Don. So next item on our agenda is the public invited to be heard. This is for anything that is not on the agenda tonight. So, if you want to speak about the better annexation, which is a public hearing item, we will have a public hearing section for that item on the agenda. So right now we’re asking people to call in on if they want to be heard on anything that’s not only attended tonight. And if you do, please dial 1699006833. And when you’re prompted, enter the meeting ID of 87348896210 Ready to hear public comment will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record. You will be allowed five minutes to speak. I’ll gently cut you off at the end of your five minutes. Please remember to mute the live stream you are called upon to speak. We’re going to take a five minute break so that our technicians Susan and Heather have a chance to bring you all in anybody who wants to speak well. We’ll be back in five minutes. All the commissioners can mute their video and they’re in their mics.

12:58
Sheriff stopped the slides However, it’s still being streamed. So give me just a minute and I’ll let you know when it stops being displayed. We have no one that is called in at this time.

13:08
Okay, thank you, Susan.

13:20
Okay, looks like no one’s going to join us. So I’m gonna go ahead and lock the meeting and you can continue.

13:29
Okay, so we had nobody join us for the public invited to be heard. We’ll move to agenda item six, which is approval of our minutes from February 19 2020. I’m Commissioner height.

13:48
Sorry, just continuing to mute myself is trolling. I would move to approve the minutes from the February 12. Maybe that’s a commission poll.

14:04
Okay seconded to approve by commission. All in All those in favor say aye. Raise your hand. I right. All those opposed say no. Raise your hand any abstentions? Your Honor. Okay. So Jane that is 123456 and six yeses, zero knows and one attention from Commissioner honor on on the approval of our of our minutes. By the way, just for the record, I want to note that Commissioner Goldberg is basically receipted again after his recusal on the one item. The next item on our agenda is the better annexation zoning and concept plan, PCR 2023 with principal planner Eva para cesky.

14:55
Chair Sure, Nick and commissioners Eva Jeff ski Planning and Development Services.

15:01
Tonight, this first item is the better analytics station and if as well I can pull up my PowerPoint slide. Thank you.

15:13
Next slide please.

15:16
So I’ll start with giving you some background on the property. Again, this is about a 10 acre property on the west side of Hoover. It’s south of Third Avenue and immediately south of the st ring Creek. It’s just west of Rogers Grove Park and it is east of golden ponds, Park in likens Gulch. And at the bottom there, you’ll see Rogers road, I’m sorry, I don’t have the screen so I can’t use my arrow. So at the bottom is at the south of it is Rogers road as you can see there. Those are golden pawns there. This parcel in the red rectangle, it’s up there we go. This parcel is in there. red rectangle is zoned agricultural and Boulder County currently, and these properties just south of it are also in the county. In envision Longmont we designate this parcel as mixed use employment in this general area, to the property to properties again to the south and west of this property are also unincorporated properties in Boulder County are all zoned agricultural. But all of these properties are designated as mixed use employment or mixed use neighborhood just to the west on the Envision long month plan. And then just to the north of this red rectangle, it by the st rain creek that is annexed that is city property in his own public. Next slide please. So this is the applicants concept plan is very generalized at this point. They do not know Have a site specific development in mind currently. And so they’re asking for use employment zoning, which is consistent with the Envision Longmont plan. You allow there’s many allowable uses, but generally, it’s for sort of manufacturing office, flex office, you can have some commercial, you can have some live work secondary. You can have apartments as a secondary use or hotels as a secondary use. And at this time, there’s no specific site development plan if the property were annex Dude, that would have to come back through our system. But as you can see, on the very on the left side, which is the west side of the property, where I have the circle there with the arrow, the concept plan does show that at time of development, they’ll provide a pedestrian access to the st ring green Greenway where that red circle is with the arrow And then if you look down to the south, you’ll see two red circles. These would be future vehicular access points. Again, we we don’t recommend we don’t we don’t allow vehicular access from an arterial road and Overstreet is an arterial road. Now granted, these are old properties in the county, so they do have driveways there right now. As you can see, on the south, the very bottom there’s a road that runs East West, that’s a planted road to Boulder County with a previous plat and the county, and that’s planted right of way. So we anticipate if they were ever to develop in the future, they would have to lose all their driveways from over and come in to this road here. And then that’s where they would take they would actually have to improve it into a public street and then take their access there. Um, so the concept plan does have the access points, the pedestrian access, and then in the general notes and And then at the bottom left with the red arrow, I apologize, but I know you do have it in your packet where you could blow it up on your screen, but in the general notes, it does talk about how any future development would need to meet city standards, including any utility design. And so they put that in there. Next slide, please.

19:24
And so I’m just gonna put in a couple slides about the background of the property and then Barb Bronk from resource conservation partners is representing the property owner and she will discuss more detail about the review criteria. I’m just sort of giving you the background. The one big thing about this property is It is located within the 100 year floodplain. The city has the resilient st brain project, as you know, along the st ring Creek, but it’s only funded up to Isaac Walton pond, which is off sunset stream, which is if you’re looking at this Aerial map its way to the right, because this is over here on the right side. And so we do have plans prepared up to Airport Road, but right now we’re only funded two sons to Isaac Walton pond essentially. And so if this property were annexed, the property owner would be responsible to take care of this floodplain situation and fill the site to get it above the 100 year elevation. And so I do have with us tonight if you do have questions about the floodplain issues, we have Monica bertolini. She’s our floodplain manager from public works. She’s here with us tonight. We also have Chris huffer. from public works. He’s the engineering administrator also can answer questions about utilities and roads. And so, you know, this property does have some development challenges and that’s why they don’t have a site specific plan. But again, you know, in terms of the review criteria itself municipal service area is surrounded by other areas that have been annexed up and downstream part of a larger area along the creek corridor that has not been annex but somewhat kind of in the middle of a bigger area of properties that have been. And so it’s sort of in our interest to be able to responsibly regulate development in the floodplain along Creek. It’s critical to the goal of the city’s floodplain management regulations. Next slide. And so a couple other background notes again this because of the adjacency to St. Rain Creek, as you can see here in this slide, you know, if they were to develop and this yellow rectangle sort of delineate the property line boundaries, the property owner would be required to provide 100 foot building and parking setback from the edge of the riparian area. This area in green here sort of denotes where that 150 foot setback would lie We did a GIS map there. And so that’s something they’re going to have to work through and consider if they do decide to develop the property. Um, species and habitat they did submit a species and habitat report was, it was stated that there was no federal or state protected habitat or plants there. The Creek might provide habitat for the rebels jumping mouse. There are some Eagles to the west, but they have no habitat at this location. There’s no nest here that the report could find in our natural resources staff noted, wasn’t in that report, but they identified in active red tailed Hawk nest here. And so you know, at time of development, and again, we didn’t add this as a recommended condition to council because this is all something that would be required anyway. If a development application were to come in, we would ask them Do a fully fresh species and habitat report. And so at that time, they would have to coordinate with Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Parks and Wildlife and those agencies and and address the red tailed Hawk ness. But, again, that appears to be probably a few years down the next slide, please. On the environmental background, it’s in your packet, there was a phase one environmental site assessment. They found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions on this property has historically been used for agricultural use, they did note in the report, because I know that we did get a public comment in yesterday about it. Um, they said that there was a vehicle maintenance garage in there. And if you look on the report, it was essentially full of tractors. So when they say that it doesn’t mean it was a commercial garage. It just meant it was you know, for the occasional use of fixing tractors. The report did say that there were some, I don’t think were empty, they were there were some drums of oil, things of that nature. But it’s, it’s said that they were empty

24:13
in the report.

24:15
And so the only other items that were of note were, you know, gas cans and oil cans that you would use when you’re changing oil for the tractors, as in terms of traffic, a traffic study was done for this, just at, you know, just imagining the worst case scenario they put out a potential of 100,000 square feet of warehouse light industrial and flex office on this property. And then that led them to feel that there was be approximately 664 weekday trips if it were fully built out. The report said that the traffic would not change traffic from this property wouldn’t change the level of service at the intersection of hover and Rogers Roger Boston is currently at a B in the A m and c in the pm level of service. And it over in third is currently at B in the morning and he in the evening and level of service that is and so the report says traffic and overrun third is expected to be level of service F in the in the pm peak hours by 2040. But it said it was with or without this development. So regardless of whether this went through or not, that that was going to be the level of service. Traffic mitigation. If this property were to be developed may include a northbound left turn lane from over into the property. And then if you’re coming out of the site on that road on the south installation of a stop sign, as you’re approaching over, but again, we would we would require a detailed traffic study when there’s a specific development application So that they can evaluate a specific project and then we can look at what traffic mitigation alternatives they’ll need to do.

26:09
Next slide, please.

26:12
And so in terms of community input, we did a neighborhood meeting in October 2018. There were questions about the size and the location of the future utility connections, or there was some discussion about the lycans Gulch capital improvement project that’s just west of this property. And the related planted road west of this property. There is a I apologize on the concept plan on there’s a planet north south road on the western boundary of this property, in addition to the east west road. And then there were questions regarding the status of the resilient st rain project, and how that has improved impacts from the 2013 flood. in your packet I provided I only received one letter During the review process, and that was from an adjacent property owner, who stated they were opposed to this annexation, because there was a lack of a detailed site development plan. I know we I and the applicants representative had some conversations with that individual about why they weren’t doing a site project right now in the floodplain challenges. And then we got a letter last night from a concerned member and I believe Jane forwarded that to you. And I think she essentially also was opposed it also because of a lack of the detailed site plan and some concerns about the phase one and thought maybe there needed to be soils samples. I’m not sure if they fully understood that this wasn’t a commercial garage, and a question about whether you could prohibit them from Getting a variance to the hundred and 50 foot riparian setback and I would defer that to the city attorney stuff.

28:07
Next slide.

28:10
And so as far as recommendation staffs recommending PC resolution 2023, a, there were no conditions that we could think of to recommend to you that would mitigate anything here. Other than, you know, it’s in a floodplain and that the need to be conditioned, that’s just something that needs to be dealt with. And so our next steps, we’re working through an annexation agreement draft among our staff. And we’ll have it to the city attorney’s office soon and then it would go to the property owner. And once we work through the agreements, we’ll schedule some city council dates, those are still to be determined. And with that, I will turn it over to Barb Bronk from resource conservation partners. Who’s a representative for the property owner? And then if you have questions for myself or for Monica bertolini, our floodplain manager or for Christopher and engineering, we’re welcome. You’re welcome to ask any questions. Thank you.

29:16
Thank you, Eva. So let’s go to the applicants presentation.

29:21
Good morning. Good afternoon Chair Barb Bronk, resource conservation partners. peal box 1522, Longmont, Colorado, I’m here I’m about half the applicant. I also have a presentation if Susan could put up the slides.

29:35
Sure. Just wanted to make sure we saw your camera first.

29:39
Yeah, I’m here. Thank you. Thank you for being here, everybody. And thank you for facilitating this kind of a conversation. It’s appreciated. So, you know, he kind of talked about this. This is a annexation of about 10 acres. It’s right there on the concept plan. You can see where it’s located in the context of hope. And Rogers road and Third Avenue adjacent to the creek. The property owners are built better up and down a Staver corporate rally and tool, one South over LLC, which is a group of the better family and same as the applicant. And the applicants goal for this property is to annex the property and petitioning for future development within the city. There’s been a couple of kind of questions about why isn’t there any detail. These guys are not land developers, someone else is going to be the land developer and they think it’s in the best interest of both them and the city. This property is within the city’s jurisdiction and that it gets developed some other time in inside the city limits. Next slide. Okay, again, our requested zoning is mixed use employment. That red line on the map shows the continuity to the existing city limits, we meet the standard the total perimeter is 30 to 85 points. 62 feet, one six required is 57 sorry, 54 7.6 and the perimeter contiguous is 163 3.56. About nine of these acres belong to the applicants and there’s 1.5 acres of planted right of way. And really the concept plan is to make a basic framework as it makes use employment in compliance with all the city standards, including floodplain and riparian protection. Next slide. This property is kind of an enclave and Eva kind of talked about that on this is the city’s annexation map and you can see pretty much all around it is annexed. And this is really one of the last pieces along the creek through this reach, that is not inside the city’s jurisdiction. So annexation of this property will give the city control of this piece of the river cord or as they move forward with resiliency brain And allow the applicants to develop someday in the future. Next slide. This is just an aerial of what’s happening on the property and you can kind of see the farm buildings and the isn’t one existing house and then as a bunch of loafing sheds that shop that they were contractors in a little bit of farm storage stuff. And it’s, it’s currently used as a house and agricultural. There are cattle out there that sometimes are beehives out there. It’s that kind of a almost craft kind of agriculture that applicants do on the property, and they would continue that use until it develops in the future. Next slide. This is how it fits into individual online and you can see that little red rectangle is the property. It’s designated as mixed use employment and the requested zoning is mixed use employment which is consistent with the comp plan. Next slide. Okay, again, this is kind of why it’s a vague concept plan. If you look at where this property is in context of that part of the city, it’s in a great location for some kind of mixed use. It is close to parks, it is on the Greenway. It is close to shopping and entertainment and the employment base in that part of the city. And designating this as kind of a bubble diagram for future mixed use employment, lets it meet that standard. And it lets the next person design it, but we believe that it will provide opportunities for light a mix of uses including office light industrial retail and services, strengthen Longmont economic base and expand employment designed to minimize the impacts on the non residential uses on the adjacent or nearby residential districts and allow and encourage the development of workforce for affordable housing. Again, until the floodplain is fixed, we really don’t know what’s gonna happen to this property and how to design it creatively to take advantage of that right Perry and setback and the context that it is. So the goal is to make it flexible for the next person and to pigeonhole it and make sure all the notes and the annexation agreement and all those things require any future development of the property to meet the standards in place at that time, because as you know, code changes standards change. By the time this develops, there could be another code update. And so the goal is to have it inside the city and ready to develop when a user comes along. And it’s time. Next slide.

34:43
Okay, Ava, in your staff recommendation, abid listed all of the review criteria, it’s our job to demonstrate that we meet the criteria. So we believe that the application is submitted is consistent with the comp plan and envision Longmont and many Excuse employment zoning. annexation will further the following goals as outlined in the plan. Next slide.

35:12
So, goal 1.1 policies 1.1 A and 1.1 B are really about compact and efficient growth. This site is located within the municipal service area is surrounded by existing and future development and in close proximity to significant existing and future city improvements and amenities. Existing city services including water, sanitary and sewer and electricity are adjacent to the property and it’s readily accessed by pedestrians, vehicles and transit. It’s essentially an infill kind of site located adjacent to a major arterial goal 1.2 policy 1.28 is really about creating a sustainable mix of land uses within the city. And mixed use employment is the poster child for that it has an opportunity For a mix of higher density, and office and live work, these residents have really good access to Longmont and the region. Overstreet as a principal arterial future improvements provide pedestrian and bicycle connections, you know, this piece will build some of those connections along the eastern property boundary. There’s existing transit on hover, and gets them to local services. It also be a way for people who live in the city to come to this property to participate in whatever happens here. It’s a great link to the future trail system. And at the time the property is developed. It’ll be evaluated in the context of the city’s sustainability plan in effect, at the time the property develops, goals 1.8 policy 1.8 C is about connectivity greenways habitat corridors and Community Services again, annexation of this property and make sure that the city Has goals and has control over preservation was a Korean Creek corridor, enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity along Homer street, and future streets and pedestrian connections will provide future employees and residents. So it’s an integrated system. And it gets connected to the rest of the city and within the site. Next slide, please. Goal 6.1 is about attracting and retaining businesses. This will be a site that’s ready for some come and put in a business at the time they develop. It’s ready to be developed. And it’s got good access and good visibility. Policy 6.3 6.3 B is about prioritizing employment uses and diversity of secondary uses. Again, the mixed use employment as opposed to child for that it allows for a really interesting mix of businesses and some secondary uses for residential and commercial uses. So You’ll need to be creative and someone will have to do a really good site design to make this work in this location. But I think there’s an opportunity to make a really cool project here. In addition to the goals and policies outlined in the staff report, the way we think about it furthers the integrated land use and transportation planning about the multimodal connections. And new This is just a piece out of the city Longmont page. Next slide. This shows the key multimodal transportation elements associated with this property. So the existing Greenway is along the north side of the site will have internal circulation both on the road and on the trails that connect to that Greenway. trail system on over, there’s transit, there’s RTD transit in over road, and there’ll be future access on a planet Street. Those cross sections are typical cross section so it really is connected and it’ll provide a really good opportunity. For people use alternative transportation when they come and go from this site. Next slide. The other piece is to maintain a quality water supply. And I think that the Cushman ditch, which is a water rights associated with this property is number two on the river and so the applicants give their shares of water to the river is a very senior right, and that contributes to the overall water portfolio for the city. The application, as proposed complies with the purpose and the code of the zoning district and will comply with all applicable statute codes and ordinances and regulations at the time it’s developed provisions in the application assure that that happens at the time is developed. There’s no previous approved concept plan preliminary plat beauty or overall development plan for the property. The application is consistent with the utility standards. Concept plan, as presented shows flexibility for a spice specific user, but it does show how That property will be served and how it will be accessed. And the staff has determined that has capacity in the system to serve the property for future development. Next slide.

40:15
Application provides development compatible with.

40:19
Again, the content plan is consistent with the comp plan and that looked at that surrounding property. Most of the property around here has been annexed and is positioned for future development. Just that little bit that wasn’t included when we were looking at that blue map. And it’s also designated for compatible land uses. So, when when this applicant paves the street access will be provided. So it’ll make those pieces also come into the system and any compatibility between the property and the creek will be taken care of at the time the property is developed. That kind of goes to the next one about not adversely surrounding, affecting surrounding properties and natural environment, city transportation or utilities. Again, this site is in the hundred year floodplain. It is unlikely that it will develop until we zillion St. Brain improvements for this reach of the quarter are completed. It’s that it’s not funded and the applicant understands that annexation of the property will assure that the state has land authority to property as a planned improvements or implemented any future development will be viewed in the context of the floodplain, the riparian corridor, and the rest of the natural environment. And if you look at that habitat, assessment, two things it recommended consult with US Fish and Wildlife and us counterparts and wildlife because of the eagle roost and potential for pebbles meadow, jumping mouse. Also you’ll see in the staff report that the staff require an updated habitat study at a time the property is developed. Same thing with transportation a transportation impacts that he was provided. And it will also have to be updated to make sure that anything that needs to be done is consistent with the uses at the time the property comes through the system. The other thing about the red tail Hawk, this is the first summer that the red tailed Hawk has been there, the applicants know that it’s there. It used to be on a neighboring property and the trees that it was nesting got cut down so it relocated onto this piece of property, so it’s happily here, and they’ll have to comply with anything that’s there at the time they develop. Next slide. This is a Brazilian same brain piece. I’m sure you guys have seen this many times. But this is reached three and it’s the unfunded reach of the creek. And you can see the site is that red rectangle and the green is where the floodplain would be if that those improvements are made. And there are two different alternatives for that beach of the creek one is upsizing the bridge and holder road. And the other is a bypass channel. So those two maps are there. Last time I talked to somebody and staff can confirm this, the preferred alternative was the bypass channel. But again, this is unfunded. And so until it wouldn’t be funded, the burden of bringing the property out of the floodplain would be on the applicant. As it moves forward, they would have to comply with any regulations both in the city at the federal level level for the FEMA.

43:29
Next slide.

43:34
Okay, this is about compliance with the sustainability evaluation system. And we don’t know yet what’s going to be on this property and so that valuation is going to change at the time the property developed. We do know that it’s next to the creek and there’ll be a setback. And that setback could be different at the time it developed because as everyone knows, a river moves around. So that wiggly line is about the distance. But at the time it develops, we’ll look at that, again. sustainability practices are changing by the minute, updates in electricity, water conservation, all kinds of things are moving are moving targets. And so as this property develops, there’s an opportunity to meet innovative, integrated sustainability goals. And that would be evaluated. Come back to you guys with the preliminary plat at the time it develops. Next slide. We already looked at this, so I’m gonna skip over this this is that this actually says that it includes an appropriate transportation plan. And so this is really about adjacent streets and terminal streets connections to the Greenway. And that’s the same slide we looked at before. So it’s about a multimodal integrated, multimodal approach to connection and I think we meet that standard even with the basic framework as shown. Next slide. This is the annexation review criteria. The big picture is it does meet the municipal act of 1965. The key components of that are that it meets the continuity requirements. Total perimeter 30 to 85.6 to one six required 547 point six oh, and 163 3.56 are contiguous. This right is surrounded by annex undeveloped undeveloped land and adjacent to existing transportation utility infrastructure. The entire width the adjacent land right away is included with the annexation. The property is within the municipal service area and the Longmont landing area. Next slide. The proposed zoning is consistent with the mixed use employment and the designation on the Envision Longmont as a mixed use employment. The annexation will not limit the ability to integrate the spawning land into the city. I think that if anything this will help integrate the surrounding land into the city. Because we have that planted right away and it’s time this develops, they’ll have access through that way. And unless otherwise agreed to by the city’s landowner has waived any pre existing vested property rights, the only thing applicants want there are no vested property rights, but they just plan to continue to use the property as it is until it’s developed sometime in the future.

46:21
Next slide. One up

46:30
this is about the phase one and then next slide. This is

46:37
back up. Sorry about that. Give me one minute. my mouse slipped and we went too far.

46:47
Yes, we did.

47:00
I can talk while Susan is looking for the slide. The phase one environmental site assessment was prepared for this property. And the staff reviewed it and agreed with the findings that there were no significant environmental concerns on this property. The we had a question from a landowner about the stuff inside the shop which aid kind of spoke to I mean, it’s a tractor maintenance place and empty barrels. And that shop has a concrete floor and no drain. So there’s no even if somebody spills oil, when they’re changing the oil on a tractor, they have kitty litter and cardboard there to pick it up. And then they throw that stuff away off site.

47:43
You helped me get to Okay.

47:47
Next slide.

47:49
This is where we want to be. Thank you. So

47:53
I would just like to in the big picture goes through those comments and those questions that Julie submitted to the board. Again, her first one was really about why the concept plan doesn’t have detail. And I think we’ve talked that through already. Her concern was about the car maintenance and as Eva said, this is a place where they come and work on the tractor. So it’s not a car maintenance shop, and that the finding of the report was that there are no environmental conditions. The other piece is about the wildlife habitat study having been done in the winter. I think that the, the professionals that did this analysis looked at the site for habitat and things and actually brought up the fact of adjacent habitat, didn’t find any wetlands didn’t find any endangered species, but recommended that we consult with US Fish and Wildlife and see pw at the time property is developed. And also the staff has indicated that we’ll have to do an updated habitat conservation plan at the time the property develops. So I think those things I think answer the questions of the of the person who wrote the letter. I won’t speak for her. But that would be the way I would answer those questions. We believe this request meets the criteria for approval as outlined in code and respectfully request that you forward to city council with a recommendation for approval, as outlined in PCR 2022 a, and I’m here to answer your questions.

49:24
Thank you, Miss Bronk. Um, do we have any questions from the commission right now before we go to the public hearing part of this item?

49:35
Seeing none, let’s, um, let’s get to the public.

49:41
Let me find my right script here. Okay. For any public wishing to speak on this public hearing item, please call in now. The information I’m about to read is displayed on your screen. Dial 166990068 Three Three. When you’re prompted, enter the meeting id 87348896210. When we are ready to hear the public comment on this item we will call you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. We’re going to take a five minute break to allow this process to occur. We can new our sound and video until then

54:51
Chairman we’re at about four minutes

55:00
We’ll give it just a few more until it clears the screen which it is just done. You may continue. We have no

55:07
one. So no one joined us for the public hearing part of this item. So we will go to discussion amongst the commission in questions. Let me get to my gallery view so I can see you all raising your hands with questions and discussion.

55:33
Commercial policy

55:37
questions Um,

55:41
I don’t know if this is going to be for the city for the applicant, but

55:45
this is the current building that is on the property is that actually within the repairing setback?

55:53
Yes.

55:55
And is that going to, we don’t know if that’s gonna stay there or if they’re going to remove it. You don’t know that? Yeah, correct.

56:01
It’s gonna stay there for the foreseeable future. Anything that happened at the time it would develop would have to comply with the regulations and time at the time development, but it’s been, they’ve been farming that ground. It’s been like that for a long time. So it’s not new to the corridor.

56:19
What is the zoning to the property to the west? Eva,

56:24
Boulder County agriculture.

56:27
For a long, sorry,

56:29
yeah, it’s it’s

56:30
in Boulder County.

56:32
It is but what’s in the vision with the

56:36
Oh, what’s its envision Longmont designation?

56:41
Look Dorian, without words. Pardon? I’m sorry. It looks orange without lines.

56:47
Yes. So the orange is mixed neighborhood believe it

57:04
Please mix neighborhood. Okay.

57:23
Do we have any time limits for the public meetings for these? Notice that the public meeting was approximately two years ago? Do we have any kind of time limits for that?

57:35
There are no stated time limits in the end the code. Yeah, I think the application came in in 2019. And BB can speak to that more. The way our process works is after the neighborhood meeting, you turn in the formal application. Our development review team reviews, what’s submitted and they send back comments. These things are vetted several times before they ever approved approach you all. And there may be so I think there was some lag time on the applicants and once we turned comments back to them in terms of resubmitting

58:12
resubmitting a revised plan, if you will.

58:16
And all ARB. Oh, why annex now? Why do they want to annex it now and sit on the property? I mean, what’s what’s what’s the benefit for them? I think I understand the benefits of density and being able to control some of the work being done along the creek. But what’s the benefit for the applicant getting it annex now?

58:39
I think there’s a couple benefits. One is they they have a affirm future so they know that if something is going to happen to the property, it’s going to happen inside the city limits. I also think that they are now their local people and their local business people and in the context of the resilient same brain, it’s just makes sense for to be inside the city as that moves forward. Again, these guys are not developers. It’s probably their kids or their grandkids that are going to be the person who’s going to be, you know, the beneficiary of a development project on this, but they’re local people and corporate citizens. They’ve been here a long time and they feel like it’s better for them and for the city if they’re inside the city, and we went to Council and they referred us through the process and we’ve been chipping away at it ever since. So I don’t think it’s an urgency but they believe they are better off inside the city limits than in Boulder County.

59:35
Thank you.

59:36
That’s all I have.

59:39
Anybody else? Commissioner Hi.

59:48
Apologies for my unhappiness. This Broncos question for you to looking at the outsiders. Can you hear me?

59:58
Yes.

59:59
Thanks. And looking at the environmental starting assessment, I think it’s page 11. There’s a picture of a former chicken coop and three barrels of, I guess, lubricant and oil, as well as apparently a water drum. And Mr. batcher, when asked, said, Hey, Saturday, those drums were never used on our site, begging the question, somebody dumped them there. How did those drums get there? You’re the owners rap, you know?

1:00:32
I don’t know for sure. But I do know that.

1:00:38
It’s a foreign piece of property. And sometimes something that somebody who is also farming another piece of property uses someplace else. It ends up in the storage on the farm on the other farm that they own. They were empty barrels. And so the when they did the phase one, there was no issue that no concern that they were a contamination issue. They’ll be disposed of properly, whatever that is determined to be serving somebody. I don’t think somebody just took them and dumped them there. I think they appeared as part of someone else’s someone in the group’s agricultural comings and goings on the property.

1:01:27
Commissioner Goldberg?

1:01:32
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Thank you Miss Bronk for a thorough presentation. I think my question will be for a vo Ramy be able to chime in as well and maybe even Monica. It’s really simple and it just speaks to my naivete in the in this topic of is it common place to fill? To fill asides to what I take to raise it up? above the 100 year floodplain? Is this practical? Does this happen? The time or, you know, do we have any examples of places where that’s been done? I do recognize that a thorough concept plan isn’t required at this time but just curious about the logistics of doing that.

1:02:13
I will defer that question to our floodplain manager Monica bertolini. Monica, you want to start your video and unmute yourself.

1:02:28
You see me There we go.

1:02:31
Hello.

1:02:34
Um

1:02:37
you Yes, this is a we have tried, we are trying to fill some sites

1:02:45
and remove them from the floodplain that way.

1:02:49
Let’s see the project that is in review right now to the south. That’s called

1:02:57
the so called m

1:03:01
Help me guys.

1:03:03
What is the project to the south? We don’t have a project to the south you were talking about the adjacent neighbor with a FEMA appeal, but that’s not a project. No,

1:03:14
no, no, no, not that

1:03:16
fairgrounds mark. I sorry, fairgrounds marketplace,

1:03:20
I’m sorry, I couldn’t think of that there for a second. They are trying to sell their site to remove it from the floodplain. And, um, you know, there’s complications because you can fill a site in Longmont allows that, but you can’t impact anybody, any other property owner or any other building that’s in the floodplain, um, with what you do with filling your site so you couldn’t raise any

1:03:51
water elsewhere.

1:03:52
Right. So you fill up a site the water has to go somewhere else, and if it goes somewhere else on to someone else’s property and puts them in the floodplain or raises the floodplain on their property even higher than it already is. That’s not allowed. So that’s been a little hard for them. But this particular site doesn’t have anything around it really. And if the if the, if there is an increase, let’s say on that house that’s there already, well, that’s going to be gone. So that’s allowable if it’s on your own property. So I added an ao zone, which means that it’s not a convenience zone, which means the water isn’t really going through there. It’s kind of a shallow flooding area, and it’s only about a foot deep. So I think that actually with some of the projects looked at recently, for filling the entire site. This seems more applicable than some of The other ones that we’ve looked at to be perfectly honest.

1:05:05
Thanks, Monica. I appreciate that perspective.

1:05:07
Good, but quite a bit.

1:05:12
Any other questions? Comments? motions?

1:05:20
Commissioner.

1:05:23
I think I think

1:05:26
Commissioner Poland brought up a really good point about the

1:05:28
existing structure being in the riparian setback.

1:05:33
As it stands. I think if we’re considering annexation,

1:05:38
not to require that those riparian setbacks be respected would be remissed. at best. What do you think?

1:05:52
Is that? I don’t know. I guess I’m posing that to the commission.

1:06:04
Actually, before we get to you, let’s go to commercial like

1:06:12
I realize they have to mute it at the bottom. Sorry. I’m Eva. I have a question regarding

1:06:20
the process for putting together a site plan. When if the annexation would be approved, and how then the riparian setback is addressed. My reasoning for posing the question is because if they’re not submitting a site plan to change anything, then they can still use the structure in place. And for the time being.

1:06:55
I cherish Arnica Commissioner flake, we would so the mixed use Employment get only allows residential type or ag. I don’t even know if it allows ag only allows residential uses as a secondary use. So, we would have to examine that and see if we need to incorporate a grandfather right, if you will, for a certain period of time in the annexation agreement.

1:07:29
This bronc

1:07:31
let me have you make a comment?

1:07:34
No, I just

1:07:36
there are existing structures in the hundred and 50 foot riparian setback all over our city. And I have not seen and I might have missed it an effort to require people who own those properties, to remove them from the riparian setback when they have historically been located there. And then, in that context, I could pletely understand that when you develop the property you have to meet those standards but this property has looked like this for a long time and I can tell you that the applicants I don’t have them in the room with me but requiring them to remove the existing structures on the property

1:08:16
seems a little

1:08:20
over that would just be my request that you that you know there if you go down go down the corridor toward mean look through Boston and and through where the old golden site is. Lots of big buildings in the right period setback that have coexisted with the setback for a long time. So I get that you might have to take it away later. But the applicants really want to be able to you continue to use the property as they have historically used it until a site plan that goes through the process and for development. That would be my two cents.

1:08:54
Thank you, Commissioner Floyd.

1:08:58
So if you property is not an extension of the city, then it’s the way that it is. And we in the city has no control over enforcement, enforcement of the right period setback should there be some development for boats. Whereas if we do annex property into the city when the property is redeveloped, then we would have the tools for the road period setback. Is that a correct statement?

1:09:34
That’s a question for staff that can be correct.

1:09:38
Okay, so, Commissioner teletoon. to your question and, and the discussion here.

1:09:46
I think we have further bites of the apple in terms of the right parents setback and enforcing it. I see even nodding her head that is probably factually correct but We also with variance process, we are never obligated to approve a variance.

1:10:11
And

1:10:13
does it make sense to lock ourselves in right now to saying absolutely no, no variance ever? Or should we let future decision makers decide once a site plan review or a plat comes along to determine what happens in relation to the right parents setback? I don’t know if I’m a little mixed up myself. But those are some things to consider. Commissioner onra.

1:10:51
believe the answer to your question depends on the specificities of the proposal that is going to be on the table. I don’t I don’t think we should make a blanket decision right now without really seeing what the proposal is going to be. Again, you know, like I said in the past, I questioned the right period, setback in spatial conditions. To me, it shouldn’t be a blanket rule that should be applied all the waterways, no matter what the proposal is going to be. That’s my personal opinion.

1:11:33
So here’s, here’s another idea all just popped in my head, given our conditioner on set. And we saw the one drawing where where you see that the riparian setback is basically halfway across this property along its length. So you’re really only going to be able to build along this bottom half. But what if somebody came up with with some idea where They could put little jetties out, over, you know, with minimal footprint, like just just you know, with with concrete posts into into the ground to hold up like viewing platforms. And it would still allow water still allow wildlife to flow through still allow everything to be as natural as possible except for like a dozen concrete posts. Is that cool enough to for the city to allow a variance for I mean, you know, I’m just thinking out loud here. This is a lot of hot but maybe it does say that that we should allow this decision to be made in the future rather than that.

1:12:51
Other thoughts?

1:12:58
Yeah, I’m all for leaving at first The future commission to haggle over has been stated here. We don’t know really what the floodplain is going to look like, when this is developed. We don’t know exactly what’s going to be developed there. You know, there’s also the big, this could be a historical building, and we don’t know what that may do with whatever happens with that part of the property. So I’m all for letting this go the way it is. Don’t put any kind of conditions on it for you know, preventing future variances or anything, but just let it ride and then the future commission can handle it when it comes to them. Okay.

1:13:42
Mr. Goldberg?

1:13:46
Thanks, Chairman. Yeah, I like similar sentiments. It’s gonna share around and yourself chairman and Commissioner Poland and if you don’t mind, slide the topic a different direction. If this question is for you Jamie CMOS use me while I read and says that all two of the folks who turned in concerns about the project both echoed similar sentiments about reflecting the lack of detail on the project, you know, in, in who can, under you know, relate to that and then wanting to know more when, when you when you see a neighbor moving in, can you clarify, if and when, perhaps closer to the time of development, when the neighbors might be brought into have opportunities to provide feedback on the project? Is it definitely have an opportunity to do that, and do they only have an opportunity? If the future projects requires a conditional approval or a variance? Could you just touch on maybe to help give them comfort as to when they might be able to provide more feedback as it comes to life?

1:14:55
Currently, certainly cherisher Nick Commissioner Goldberg. So in terms of public process, And again, you know, they’ll have another opportunity at City Council, but you know, as far as development, when and if this develops, again down the line after the floodplain issues are resolved, um, it depends on what type of development they’re asking for. But like, for example, if it’s a preliminary subdivision plat that would require a neighborhood meeting. So certain what we call major development applications would require a neighborhood meeting prior to. So if it’s something administrative and small, it wouldn’t, but in the absence of knowing we just don’t know. But there is opportunity for input whether or not there’s a neighborhood meeting because even if it’s an administrative review, we send out notices to a certain radius of property ownership, thousand feet, 300 feet, we signpost, the property, things of that nature. So There are opportunities in the future if development were to present itself for the public to engage with us, give us input.

1:16:10
Thanks, Dave. I think that’s really helpful to just to recognize not only on council but perhaps down the line on any major development, you are definitely going to have plenty of notice to come to a neighborhood meeting and provide feedback. If it’s only a, you know, a minor change or a minor development, well, then it’s, you know, probably not a very unusual project anyways, but even then there might be opportunity to provide their feedback so that gives me comfort. Thanks.

1:16:48
Okay, any other thoughts or comments?

1:16:52
I’m gonna go ahead and make a motion to approve PCR 2020 dash three, a two Okay to approve the annexation of this property without conditions. Commissioner Poland. I will second that motion seconded by Commissioner Poland on any further discussion.

1:17:20
Let’s go ahead, Commissioner Robert.

1:17:24
Thanks, Chairman. Yeah, I’ll be supporting the motion as well. But just wanted to lay out why. The just wanted to thank the city again the staff again for providing the material in the packet which identified and summarized why this application met the review criteria and the additional criteria requirements tied to the annexation, and then also, the applicant did a thorough job on her presentation, highlighting how this project is meeting all the criteria and get in the feedback from the public. There’s opportunity to offer your offer their feedback in the future. And any concerns about the habitat, the riparian setback and concerns about when studies were were handled, will all be revisited again in the future as the project develops. So with that, all the support

1:18:28
Okay, and let me just add to that, that and I think Commissioner flag referred to this that bringing this under the control of the city is better than leaving it under the control of the county. Commissioner height. You had a comment?

1:18:44
I did. I was gonna add in my two or three cents as well, too, as we had discussed back in February with a different annexation, as Commissioner pointed pointed out, the public meetings for this particular annexation were held some time ago. And we discussed back in in February that there is no time limitation. When the public meetings are first out too windy, the project actually gets in front of us. That might be something we want to address at some time in the future, but nonetheless, starry decisis it comports with our past practices. Secondly, I’ve been looking at the city’s code in the resilience ain’t brain project and development in the floodplain. All is prospective looking. So to answer I think, Commissioner Ted, his question about whether or not we should be addressing the fact that one building right now is located in this riparian setback zone. I think as Miss Brown points out, there’s a lot of other buildings along the corridor that sit in that same position. And I don’t think that the city is regulating those structures out of existence yet. If any future development takes place then it does.

1:19:59
The property has To be brought into compliance.

1:20:02
And then lastly, offers discussed in February,

1:20:07
the lack of

1:20:09
specificity in the annexation plan is just the nature of the beast, the public is concerned it, they’d like to see more of what the neighbors bringing to the table is something that just isn’t addressed at this issue. With that, I’m going to be in support of this project as well. Thanks.

1:20:30
And Commissioner heights last comment reminds me to remind all of our viewers, all of the members of the public, be neighborly with each other, talk to each other. Find out what’s going on. Um, you know, communicating with with your neighbors is a really good thing. Um, Any further comments? Let’s take a vote. Those in favor of passing 2023 A say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. passes unanimous. Oh, any, any not in favor? Any nose? Any abstentions? Okay, Jane that passes unanimously seven to zero. Miss Bronk, thank you for your time and presenting the project and walking us through that. Thank you too, Monica bertolini and Chris Hoffer for being here to help us out with any issues that might have come up with that. appreciate all your help with that. We have more than agenda. Oh, wait, I have a process notice I need to read. Hang on. I gotta find that I’m a little thrown off my game, because I don’t have things laid out on my desk.

1:21:45
Okay, you couldn’t tell Chairman you couldn’t tell?

1:21:48
Oh. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you’re unfamiliar with counsel procedures, and intend to appear appear before counsel, please contact the Planning division for further information at 303-651-8330 are ready. Um, next up on our agenda is the final call for the public invited to be heard. And so you’ll see this information on your screen. I’ll read it again. If you want to talk about anything that was not on tonight’s agenda, we’d love to hear from you. So please call us at 1-669-900-6833. And when you’re prompted, enter our meeting ID which is 87348896210. When we’re ready to hear public comment on this item, or just hear your public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last time three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you’re called upon to speak. takes us about five minutes to allow everybody to call in. So we’ll take a five minute break

1:26:34
Share read it just about four minutes and I’m going to stop the screen share. There are no callers at this moment.

1:26:44
Okay, thank you, Susan

1:26:45
will let it stop displaying here in a second. Okay.

1:26:52
I think there are small members of the public behind Commissioner Goldberg, occasionally running back and forth

1:27:05
I’d take myself off mute, but then you hear the bedtime routine at the Goldberg household.

1:27:13
Chair, you’re ready to begin. There are no callers. Okay, thank you very much,

1:27:17
Susan. Okay, so we had nobody join us for the public invited to be heard. So we move on to item nine, which is items from the commission. I actually have something I wanted to mention to you all. Having gone to the RM l UI conference in the past, due to the generosity of the city, down at the University of Denver. I’m on their mailing list and some of you probably got an email from them. They’re holding a hour and a half ideas roundup is what they call it. And it is about

1:28:00
You find the email here. I thought I had it.

1:28:06
Here it is. It’s conversations on urban planning and land use pandemic and race on. So it’s race equity and land use on I wanted to bring that to your attention to an hour and a half. It’s free. It’s open to the public. You do need their email in order to have the the registration button. So I’m going to forward this to Jane, and she can send it out to everybody. In case you’re interested on anything from anybody else.

1:28:38
When is the chairman? When is that meeting?

1:28:40
Oh, I’m sorry. Um,

1:28:44
it’s on Tuesday, June 30, from 10am to 11:30am. And it’s, it’s being held on zoom. And they’ll they’ll send you the link. So, great. Thanks for sharing.

1:28:56
Sure. Um, okay.

1:28:59
Any other items from council representative Aaron Rodriguez.

1:29:04
It’s good to see you guys all look pretty well in your offices, or whichever room of our house.

1:29:13
And thanks for all that you guys do.

1:29:15
Thank you appreciate it.

1:29:18
Any items from our planning and development services? Director now, Don, manager,

1:29:25
this manager. Okay. All right.

1:29:28
Well, first, I just wanted to thank everybody for the great work you did tonight. Really appreciate all the help from Susan, and also from Heather, everybody, you know, made this happen and we appreciate that everyone was willing to help work with us to make this a reality. So again, thank you so much.

1:29:47
Just to reminder, then, as everybody’s aware of we are looking at a July 15 Planning Commission meeting for the item that was continued. Right now. We do not expect any other items to be on that agenda. We expect it to be virtual as well again. And so we will work with you to make sure that everyone’s able to participate and provide comment on the application. So that is all that I have for tonight. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Don. And also want to reiterate thanks to to Susan Wallach and Heather McIntyre for their technical help and also to Jane, our executive secretary on this and recording secretary, everything she does for us in Jane Just so you know, I will I will get you a scan of the signed peasy are not tomorrow going to the Art Museum. But on Friday on. So I move that we adjourn if unless there’s anybody opposed. Have a good time. See See in a month. Thanks, everybody.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai