Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the May 19, 2021 planning and zoning commission meeting first item on our agenda is roll call, Jane. Chairman Schoenig. Here. Commissioner Flake. Here. Commissioner Goldberg. Here. Commissioner Height. Present. Mr. Honoran. Here. Commissioner Pollan. Here. Commissioner Teda. Here. Chairman, you have a quorum. Great. Thank you, Jane. Good evening, everyone. Before we get started, I want to read this. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard, which is items four and seven. We're during any public hearing items, which are agenda items six a and six B. We'll need to watch the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. Instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen, such as we're doing now. We'll need to watch the live stream of the meeting. We'll need to watch the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. And each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record. Prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you're called upon to speak. Next on our agenda is communications from our planning director. Glenn van den. We're good. Hi, commissioners and chairman Schoenig. I don't have anything at this time. Okay. So we're going to be talking about this agenda item.  So Susan, if we can put that. Picture back up on the screen. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home. So if you want to call in and speak about something that is not on tonight's agenda. 888-0099 when prompted. Enter the meeting ID<PHONE_NUMBER>. When we're ready to hear public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. To do this, we need five minutes of time to do all the behind-the-scenes work, so we will now take a five-minute break. We'll be back at 710. Chair, give me just a minute. We'll drop the screen here. We will wait for our live stream to get caught up, and just want to let you know that our Council Representative Aaron Rodriguez has joined the meeting. It looks like our live stream is now caught up, and we do not have any callers during this first public invited to be heard. All right. Thank you, Susan. So, we will close the public invited to be heard. Next on our agenda is approval of our minutes from the April 21, 2021 meeting. Commissioner Height. I would move to approve with more addition page 5, line 35. There's a typo describing a title for a WCETI attorney, Kate. There's a stutter. So, I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch what the typo was. So, there's a typo that needs to be corrected, which would be to... So, I'd move to approve with the correction of that type of graph care. Okay. So, any discussion? Commissioner Goldberg? Yeah, I'll second that. Okay. So, we have a motion to approve the minutes, and we have a second to approve the minutes. Any further discussion? Seeing none, let's do a vote. Yay or nay, Commissioner Teta? Yay. Commissioner Oneran? I wasn't there, so I do stay. Okay. Commissioner Goldberg? Yay. Commissioner Height? Yay. Commissioner Polin? Yay. Commissioner Flague? Yay. And I will say yay. And so, Jane, that passes unanimously. Six to zero with one is abstention of Commissioner Oneran. So, next on our agenda are our public hearing items. The first one is 6A, which is Village at the Peaks Conditional Use Site Plan Amendment, Steve's Goods Drive-Thru, which is PZR 2021-4, with Senior Planner Hans Friedl. Hans, take it away. All right, commissioners. Well, good evening. My name is Hans Friedl. Relatively new planner here, so nice to meet everybody virtually. For consideration tonight is a conditional use site plan amendment to allow Steve's Goods to resume using an existing drive-thru at the Village at the Peaks Shopping Center. Go to next slide, please. I'm unable to see my slideshow right now. Hans, give me just a second. Sure, sure, sure. Take a pause here. There you go. Perfect. So, in terms of location, the subject property is located at 1264 Southover Street. It's in the southwest corner of Village at the Peaks Shopping Center, just above the kind of Catawapas intersection of Hover Street and Kenpratt Parkway. Access is provided via Clover Basin Drive, which is just on the west side, and that's really the only public street in there to a network of internal private driveways. The Steve's Goods site itself is just under an acre in size and being operated as a CBD retail business that also provides smoothies surrounded by commercial uses, restaurants, retail, service, office, etc. Historically, it was a burger restaurant that was permitted, so the original site plan history goes back to 1984, but permitted, developed in 1985. More recent years, it was a Quiznose, which itself ceased operation in 2019. The mixed-use regional center zoning for the Village at the Peaks Shopping Center allows a whole host of commercial retail restaurant entertainment type uses. Next slide, please. All right, in terms of existing conditions, as you can see, it's an operation. It has a new signage and some customers there when I took the pictures. The drive-through itself wraps around the west side or back of the building, so you're looking at the front or east-ish elevation on the right, and then on the left picture, looking south, you're actually looking down the drive-through, and that's the whole order window for Quiznose or the burger restaurant there on that west side that's now currently boarded up. Next slide, please. So this is a conditional use site plan amended to reuse the existing drive-through. The building itself is just under 3,000 square feet unsized. In terms of some background information, the master site plan for the redevelopment of the Twin Peaks Mall, the Village at the Peaks conditional use site plan, limited the total number of drive-throughs to three. This is what was approved on the plans. If approved, this would allow a fourth drive-through at the Village at the Peaks Shopping Center. Next slide, please. So the graphic on the right shows the sort of orientation of those three existing drive-throughs and then Steve's Goods down at the bottom there. When Quiznose closed, that third drive-through that was, yeah, exactly, Steve's Goods or PATF was reallocated to the Bank of America, which is just above it with the number three or PATE, and then that's up above it's raising canes and culverts. So you kind of see the relationship there. Furthermore, there's a, I want to mention there's a discontinuance provision in the code, so if a conditional use is discontinued for a year or more, that use lapses and becomes void. So a couple of layers there, and I do want to also mention is an FYI that to the lower right, Burger King and Taco Bell, though they both have drive-throughs that are really proximal to this, they're not actually technically part of the Master of Village at the Peaks site conditional use site plan, so they're not part of that total allocation of drive-throughs, if you will. Next slide, please. So let's look at the site plan briefly. Again, this is an re-use of an existing drive-through, an existing building. The drive-through itself has a counterclockwise movement. We did the DRC, we reviewed this against our current standards for stacking, turn radii, again knowing that it was originally permitted back in 84, 85, turn radii, et cetera, and it does meet our standards in most ways in terms of stacking, has 180 feet of stacking, so it's actually more than that. The radii are fine for, you know, modern SUV, et cetera. We did have the applicant add directional arrows on the site plan for our code, so that's the requirement that weren't currently any out there to keep people from going the wrong way and do it. And also, we worked with the applicant to bring their proposed menu sign up to our design standards by adding a base to it so it's more architecturally compatible with the building. So other than that, everything else, you know, meets our standards with it and really the only changes they're making are putting the arrows to the drive-through and adding that sign. Next slide, please. As previously described, general retail is permitted in the mixed-use regional zoning district. Restaurants with the drive-through or similar type uses like the bank are conditional secondary uses in this area. Again, this proposal is still allowed before the drive-through. Next slide, please. In terms of public process and noticing, so there was a virtual neighborhood meeting which was held back in December. There were no callers, so no public feedback on this. Notices of the application, we mailed out in March to all, you know, property orders within a thousand feet. And again, notices of the public hearing were also mailed out as well as signs posted. And we've received no public comments, calls, etc. regarding this application. Next slide, please. Therefore, staff recommends PZ Resolution 2021-4A, recommending approval of conditional use site plan amendment. Next slide, please. So if there are no immediate questions, I'd like to introduce the owner, Steve, to go over his proposal a little more detail to the commission. Great. Thank you, Hans. Yes, let's go ahead with the applicant's presentation, please. One second. Steve, you should have the ability to come on camera and unmute. There you are. Hello, everyone. Thank you, Hans. That was really awesome. That's definitely going to be a better presentation than the one I'm offering. I appreciate all the detail you put into that. All right. So yeah, so thank you, everyone, for coming today. I know this is a late hour, so I'll try to keep this brief. Steve's Goods is a local hemp company that's been working throughout Longmont for the last couple of years. And we're really trying to expand and offer Longmont a good place to go to experience not only local hemp products, but the best smoothies in town. I don't know if you guys are familiar with the smoothie shop, Francis Street, but I did acquire that and I brought that over to this location because I really feel like this area just needs to be livened up. It's been closed for nine years and we're really, really trying to make this a bright space in the village of the peaks. Yeah, you can switch to the next slide. So yeah, so as I just said, Steve's Goods, we're a licensed hemp company that we're growing out of Fort Collins, but we're processing everything. Excuse me, we are manufacturing in our office off Kansas and we are selling things at our retail space off 1264 South Hofer Street. Now the smoothie shop's over there as well and we really want to utilize this building for the smoothie shop primarily. You know, the Steve's Goods is kind of a small little store compared to what the smoothie shop is and if the drive-through is approved then we'll definitely be able to utilize more of that space, especially in the back that's all kind of closed because it used to be a drive-through. Next slide, please. So as you can see, a lot better from Hans's presentation.  You know, we've been receiving a lot of traffic and especially during the pandemic it's good to socially distance and we'd, you know, just a good location and the menu is going to look great and it's just a, you know, it will just really add to the whole location. Whole Foods, they close their juice bar. There isn't a lot of smoothie in this area so I think it's a perfect location for a drive-through. Next slide. Yeah, again, you saw this on Hans's slide. It's just a great directional. We're going to add the arrows. It's just a really good flow for in and out for the drive-through and as well as people that want to dine in or pull up. Next slide, please. Yeah, and I just jotted some down. You know, I've actually never done this before. I appreciate you guys all coming here. This is my first drive-through. Hopefully I can open up some more in the future and deal with you lovely people at City Planning. But I just jotted down some things on why I think we should get a drive-through. You know, good for socially distancing. I'm going to create five jobs. There's no smoothies on Sundays. You know, our competitors are offering pre-made smoothies that are just kind of frozen and we offer fresh smoothies. You know, it's a safe location for drive-throughs. And I also just received a grant to revitalize this beautiful building. And I want to just add more, you know, add more investment to it. And I think that's going to come with a beautiful drive-through menu and, you know, a good flow, flowing drive-through section. Next slide, please. So yeah, you know, this is what the building used to look like. And now it's super beautiful. If you guys live in Langma, I'm sure you guys have seen it and just the changes it's made. And I personally have put a lot of money into this building. And, you know, I really want to see it succeed. And I think it looks a million times better. And we're, you know, people are coming in and they're having really great experiences. And we believe that a drive-through will leave them live in this area up even more. Next slide, please. So I don't know, do you want me to like read this and go through all of this from our architect? You don't have to read it, but you do need to present it. Okay, no problem. So yeah, so this is our lovely architects went over this. And we're, this is for 1254 South Hover Street. You know, the restrictions we have with Village of the Peaks only allowing a couple of drive-throughs has limited us. So we've come to do the conditional use permit. You know, we're not really changing anything at all. There's no changes to the drive-through other than adding a menu. You know, there's really no changes like what Hans went over. I was really with this first page goes over. And then we are open nine to seven. It's the summertime. We're opening up an hour early, especially with the drive-through. We're finding that people are coming there a lot after, you know, your dinner hour and wanting a good nice treat. I'm sorry, does that suffice for you or do you want me to take a stab at it? It's up to you. I can't really advise you. If we have questions, we'll continue to ask questions of you. Okay, no problem. Thank you for understanding. Next slide, please. Cool. Yeah. And this just goes over more details on, you know, the conditional use and how they're limited to the drive-through and how we're asking for a conditional use permit and all that good stuff. Yeah. There's going to be no developments, no changes. We just need a permit for the menu board itself. Yep. Next slide, please. There's one more. Yeah. Yeah, thank you so much. I appreciate everyone's time in hearing us out for our conditional use permit. Thank you, Mr. Schulteis. So we do have this as a public hearing item. So before we go into discussion about this, I'd like to open up the public hearing. If somebody, Susan, if we could put the slide up with the information. If anybody's out there who would like to speak to us about this particular item, now will be the time. So please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 837-8666-6906. When we're ready to hear your public comment, we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. To do this, we need five minutes. So we'll take a five minute break, which according to my clock, will bring us back at 731. Hey, Jamie, are you on? Can you unmute? Let's test your mic. I was not able to do that before the meeting started. Yep, I'm here. Awesome. Thanks. Rocco, I am going to give you permission to unmute yourself. Let's test your mic. Can you hear me? We can. Okay. If you need to come on camera, we'll test your camera, I guess, at that time. I'm sorry, I heard somebody else talking. If you need to come on camera, we'll test your video at that time. Okay. All right, thanks. All right, chair, I'm going to go ahead and drop the slide and then we will give our live stream a few seconds to get caught up. We do have one caller that called in for this public hearing. Great. Thank you, Susan. So with the caller whose number ends in 019, please go ahead and unmute yourself. There you are. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Yeah, my name is Lawrence Beshear. You may want to mute the live You may want to mute the live stream. I think I hear something in the background. I did that already. Sorry. Okay, perfect. You may begin. I may have called in for the wrong section. I was calling in for the Irwin. Yes, that is, we're not on that item yet. So if you want your comments to be included in the public record for that specific item, then we should stop you now and have you call in once we get to that. Chair, we can just leave them in the meeting if he would like. I'll just mute him again and we'll make note. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Beshear. We'll see you in a bit. All right. So Susan, there are no other collars done, correct? That is correct. You may continue. Okay, great. So we'll go back to questions from the commission. Commissioner Pollan. Yeah. Hans, can you tell us why when this was originally set up, why there was a limit for only three drive-thrus? Is there a particular reason for that or was that more just kind of a, I don't want to say a shot in the dark, but just a number that they put out there? Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, I did a little research on that. What I've been able to turn up is it was just relates to the original site plan, conditionally used. They showed that many pad sites where they were the applicant back of the days, like 2015 was proposing that many pad sites for drive-thrus. And so this adding an additional one warrants amending that original conditional approval for the old one. So I think there was some, you know, in terms of why the shopping center doesn't have more or something like that. I think the intent was for it to be kind of a walkable mixed use sort of redevelopment of the old mall. That sort of thing. But I think it just was literally what they proposed. Okay. Thank you. Probably with tenants in mind that they had when they were doing that development. Hans, as a follow-up to Commissioner Pollan's question, is there anything from a traffic point of view that makes it a problem to have more than three? I mean, I know we have Tyler Stanley here too. So if he wanted to chime in. Yeah, we have a, we went through the whole DRC review and this including public works review and natural resources. And, you know, the comments we had from them were related to sort of the turn radii in the parking area with our transportation and the arrows and stuff.  You know, I'd be happy to care of that. But I think my understanding is the volume is just expected to be too low to warrant that sort of review. Okay. Actually, Tyler, if you could chime in on that and just kind of let us know your opinion about a fourth drive-through instead of just three? Sure. I think the nature of the fast food, prior fast food use to a current fast food use, the difference in previous trip generation to what's being proposed is relatively nominal. So from my perspective from new trips, it's, it may not be there. I think the gentleman with the project mentioned it's been closed for about nine years. So those trips have gone away, but they were there at one point. I think that the system, the network that's there is adequate to handle the traffic that this would generate. Okay. Thank you, Tyler. Chair, I just want to let Steve know that we lost Lance from his team. He's not in the meeting anymore for some reason. Okay. So if the applicant needs Lance Keiko to come back to the meeting, he should contact him? Yes. Okay. All right. Actually, so I do have a question for the applicant. I know we just tasked him with contacting his architect. So, yes. Okay. Mr. Schulze, I noticed in your presentation that you had a statement at the bottom of one of your slides saying the building will not survive without a drive-through. Can you explain that more to me? I mean, if there's no drive-through, why would the building not survive? Yeah. Okay.  You know, it's kind of just stuck in the middle. It's behind whole foods. It's kind of like in the back of things and I really feel like it needs the drive-through to bring, I'm sorry, sexing you right now. We'll need to bring the drive-through in to really bring that place to life because I mean, I really want this business to succeed and I know that we need the extra revenue from the drive-through. You know, the rent's expensive and the whole building itself is under utilized and I feel like if it doesn't have a drive-through, we're just never going to be able to bring enough traffic there to really, you know, keep that in business. You know, I have at least three more years on it but I'd like to sign in a five, you know, but it's going to be really hard if I'm just stuck with pickup orders. Okay. So what I hear you saying is that if financially doesn't pencil out for you in the long term, if you can't draw the drive-through traffic. Yeah, that's correct. And that was a big reason why I brought the smoothie shop over and kind of developed this whole idea, you know, to have two businesses in there to obtain two revenues and, you know, it has been picking up a little bit in the summer, but I just, you know, I do worry about that. I mean, I also want to offer long wanted a good fast effective way to get a smoothie, you know, seeing how we're just coming out of COVID and we're also everyone's trying to get in the better shape and all that good stuff.  Sorry. Another question that you just made me think of was, so is the only thing that's being sold out of the drive-through window itself or the smoothies? You mentioned in one of your slides that it's the smoothie shop takes up like two thirds of the building. Can you give me some ideas to what's going on there as well? Yeah, so it's really up to the planning. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm not really sure about, because I've actually talked to Brian Bradley, the mayor, and he said that the CBD shouldn't be an issue through the drive-through, but ideally we want to do the hemp derived CBD as well as smoothies through, but I completely understand if it's only smoothies because, you know, hemp's still new and this and that, but I would hope to be able to do both, but it's mainly going to be focused on smoothies, like people aren't going to drive up and buy CBD. They need to speak to someone, they want to be educated, so it's just not really an easy sell there, but the smoothies will be the main attraction. Okay, thank you. Chair. Yes. Sorry to interrupt, but we do have Lance back in the meeting. Great. Okay. Super. Thank you. Commissioner Flig. Thank you, Chair. I think I have a question for Tyler Stainey. In regards to the intersection there out on Southover at Clover Basin, currently there is no dedicated light for turning left off of Clover onto Clover Basin towards this proposed, well, towards the smoothie shop and all the businesses in that area. So I'm wondering what kind of traffic impact will be felt should we approve this and the smoothie shop does pick up and generate the kind of business that is hoped for and what would it take to have that dedicated left turn arrow? Chair Stainey, Commissioner Flig. I'll introduce myself earlier. Tyler Stainey, City of Hong Kong Public Works Engineering. As I mentioned, this project didn't submit a traffic study just with the prior use and the current use being relatively similar. I can say the City is working on a design project for the Hover Street corridor from Ken Pratt and Hover to the intersection of Nelson and every intersection within that segment would be improved and we are showing left turn improvements or protected turn movements for the left turns with those improvements. It's one that's in our CIP, not a fully funded CIP at this point, but it is something that's under design and moving forward. I'll direct answer to the question, but there are some plans to make some improvements at this intersection through current CIP projects. Thank you. Commissioner Hyatt. I don't think I'll ask Tyler because Tyler didn't look at this that closely, but I want to confirm that the intersection of Clover Basin and I guess the road that accesses this property without going up into the Twin Peaks circular drive on the site plan. I guess I'm looking at page one of six. I just want to confirm the one-way circular pattern to use the drive-through. Is that also just a left-only onto this road that connects to Clover Basin? Do you know what I'm speaking of, the way the property is situated off of Clover Basin? There's an access road that comes off of Clover Basin, but I think that road is only one-way. If we can pull up the power planer map or something, we can kind of just point to that just so I can confirm we're talking about the same thing here. The one on the low-way tilt pulls up. It's on the power point. The second slide I think has the sort of vicinity map. That little one down right, Commissioner, just right at the bottom there south of Steves Goods. That's a one-way drive coming out. Great. And is the roadway the lower right-hand corner there? That's the left-hand corner. Sorry, lower left-hand corner. So below the S, that roadway, as it comes off of Clover Basin Road, is that one-way? Is there any possibility of somebody making, being confused and driving into the exit ramp of this drive-through? And Tyler may want to weigh in on this. When I was out there, the last time I was out there taking pictures, if you're at the southeast corner of the subject property, so like the red polygon in that little intersection of Drab East, the other corner, there you go. If you're over there somewhere in that little area, and I don't know exactly if it's on the south or the north side, that I don't recall, but on those kind of drives, there's a one-way do not, I recall seeing a one-way do not enter sign there. So that would, yeah, so I don't know if people could come in there and go the wrong way. However, they are putting arrows on the drive-through. One of the reasons the arrow, they'll get exit arrow on the drive-through lane there so that people will know they're going against the flow of the arrow. Okay, appreciate that. My next question is, so this is an amendment of a conditional use review, because we originally approved it for three drive-through paths. This is an amendment to four. Is there a different standard at all, or is it the same standard to grant a conditional use review as opposed to amending a conditional use review? And Attorney Tate, that might be a question for you. I didn't look it up myself. Attorney Tate is out sick. This is Jamie Roth, Senior Assistance to the Attorney, and I'm afraid I don't have that answer off the top of my head, and I hope that someone else on the call may know. We might throw that over to Glenn Van Memwegen or to Don Burchett, who are on the call. Yeah, I guess I'm assuming this is just like any new conditional use. We don't have a different standard based on the number in a shopping center, so am I correct, Don? The review criteria for a new or an amended conditional use would be the exact same review criteria, and the design standards that Hans went through with the stacking and the other items that he covered in his presentation would be the same, whether it's for a brand new use, or whether it's a use that we're amending an existing conditional use site plan for. Okay. Don and Glenn, before you go away, I'll want to ask you a question, but I think Commissioner Height has a follow-up to what you just said. No, he's okay. All right. I wanted to ask you both a question. One of our review criteria is compatibility, and Mr. Schulteis said it's mostly going to be smoothies going out the drive-through window. Does the city actually have any care in the world as to what the product is that goes through a drive-through window? Is that even on anywhere on the city council's radar, anybody's radar? Chairman Schurnack, what I can say is that the concern that we would have would be if it was not CBD. So if it was a marijuana product with any THC in it that was above the state requirement, then that would require a retail license of which we only have the four in the city of Longmont, and there are no more licenses. So that would be our concern, that would be the police department's concern, but if it's CBD, then you can pick that up that almost many of the products that have that, even at most of the gas stations in town and various other retail stores. So CBD is not a problem. It is truly the level of THC that qualifies as a marijuana product. Okay. Thank you, Don. Any commissioners, Robert? Yeah, thanks, Chairman. You know, Chairman, I don't have any issues with this project, and I'm feeling slighted by Chairman Pollan for asking me the one question I did come with, which was, which was, why is there a limit, or what is the kind of the backstory on having a limit to the number of drive-throughs on the plot? So maybe before I pivot to emotion, I might just want to give in some recent discussion. Mr. Schultes, would you mind just confirming, based on the recent discussion, that in addition to the smoothies, the products that you're offering and might pass through that drive-through is CBD not breaking that THC threshold to become a marijuana product that Don just referenced? Yes, yes, 100%. So yeah, so we're a registered hemp company. We grow hemp in Fort Collins, like I said, and the Department of Agriculture actually comes out, and they actually clip our plants to make sure that they are below 0.3%. And then when we're formulating our products, we're also getting lab reports. Currently right now, we're working with a lab in Florida that's DEA registered. So yes, we have all that, and anyone that comes into our retail space can get lab reports. But yeah, I would never do that. That's foolish. I would never do that. It's only hemp products, only what we sell on our website. And I honestly don't think we would sell much hemp through it. I think it's mainly going to be smoothies and maybe like they want a boost or something of a hemp oil in their smoothie. But I don't think there's going to be a lot of sales with that, but 100%. It's going to be below 0.3% THC, 100%. Great. Thanks, Mr. Schultes. Yeah, I think with that chairman, and I think given the fact that the application before us has met the review criteria A through F that's been outlined in the packet, given the cooperation from the applicant to update the menu board, drop in the arrows to help with that drive-through direction, given the space was previously a drive-through and a setup for that, I'm really having trouble finding any reason not to approve it. So I guess with that, I go ahead and move that we approve TZR 2021-4A, which is approving the conditional state plan amendment application. Thank you, Commissioner Goldberg. Commissioner Pollan. I'll second that. Okay, so we had a motion to approve 2021-4A by Commissioner Goldberg, and it's been seconded by Commissioner Pollan. Commissioner Pollan, further comments? Yes, I just want to add to that. Like Josh, I do find that it meets the criteria A through F. I also think that for this given area, it is a good fit for the area. That building has been not used for nine years. It's getting a good new fresh start. Where the drive-through is, that it really isn't in by the other pads, given the area that the whole mall area takes up. So it is kind of offset from that. Maybe if it had been up by where tames is, and a couple of the other places there, and we'd have four in that area, in that immediate area, it might give a little bit of a pause. But considering that this is behind whole food, that's kind of distance from those other areas, I have no problems with putting a drive-through in at that part of the mall. So I think it's a great project, and I'm for it. Great. I'll throw on my two cents. I echo what Commissioner Goldberg and Pollan said, but I also appreciate the fact that the applicant is taking a building that's been vacant for nine years, and is bringing it back to life that fits with some of our sustainability goals for the city. And this was an urban renewal area in general. And so bringing this building back to life, so to speak, fits with our goals in that regard too. Any further discussion? Okay, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Commissioner Height? I vote in favor. Commissioner Pollan? In favor. Commissioner Flagg? In favor. Commissioner Goldberg? In favor. Commissioner Oneron? In favor. Commissioner Tedda? In favor. And I will say yes. Okay, so that's- Thank you so much, everyone. I really appreciate it. That's awesome. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time, Mr. Schulteis. I do need to read a statement here before everybody goes. This item now enters a seven-day appeal period. During this time, any aggrieved party may appeal the commission's decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning and zoning commission's decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk's office and the planning office within the seven-day appeal period, which begins Thursday, May 20, at 8 a.m., and ends Wednesday, May 26, at 5 p.m. Hans, thank you for your time and work on this. Again, Mr. Schulteis, thank you for presenting and bringing your team with you. And we will move on to our next item. But before we do, Jane, I just want to state for the record that that vote was seven to zero, seven yes, no opposed. Okay, we'll move on to item 6B, which is the Urban Thomas Comprehensive Plan Use Amendment Re-Zoning Concept Plan Amendment and Preliminary Subdivision Platt, PZR 2021-5 with Principal Planner Brian Schumacher. Brian? Good evening, commissioners. Brian Schumacher here with Planning and Development Services. Susan and Jane, can you start the presentation slides? Brian? Well, thanks again, commissioners. Again, I'm Brian Schumacher of Planning and Development Services. And tonight is the public hearing for the Urban Thomas Comprehensive Plan Amendment Re-Zoning Concept Plan Amendment and Preliminary Subdivision Platt. Next slide, please. For this slide, note staff that are available for questions this evening in addition to the applicant consultants. So for planning related and process questions, that'll be me and Don, if need be. Chris and Jim are available to respond to engineering related questions, including streets, water and sewer utilities, storm drainage and water quality. Tyler again is available for traffic related questions. Rocco is available for electric power communications questions. Captain Goldman is available for emergency services if there's any questions regarding environmental assessments. And then we had planned to have Dan Wilford here from Natural Resources, but I don't think Dan has logged in yet. So we'll see if he's able to join a little bit later. Next slide, please. So this slide just shows a general location for the project. Quick overview of the location of the property in southeast Longmont. Obviously it's included on both the north and south side of Highway 119. East of Marin Street, it's east of the Harvest Junction residential and commercial neighborhood. And then west of 119th Street, North Aquile Road, south of St. Brand Creek, and then east of Left Hand Creek. Next slide, please. So a few notes on this slide. So there's a set of hearing applications and there's also a set of administrative applications. So tonight the commission is reviewing the hearing applications and those include the Conference of Plan Land Use Amendment, the rezoning, concept plan amendment, and the preliminary subdivision plan. And the majority of the changes associated with the hearing applications affect the western 70 acres that includes the land use changes, zoning changes, and shifting the mining to the east to allow for the commercial and residential development. And as part of the applicant's presentation, they'll provide more details regarding the hearing applications as part of their presentation slides. But I just also wanted to note that in addition to the hearing applications this evening, there are also administrative applications that include the final subdivision plan, the PUD plan amendment, the public improvement plans, and the Costco site plan. Next slide, please. So this is just a brief summary of prior planning actions by both Boulder County and the city. And so this property has been part of the Lama area and envisioned Lama Conference of Plan for quite a while. It was originally included in the Conference of Plan in the 1980s and it was anticipated to be developed as part of the city's urban fabric. And then in 2002-2003 a mining plan was approved by Boulder County and it also included a vested right associated with that mining plan. And I believe some of the commission members may recall when this property was annexed in 2018. In conjunction with the annexation of the property there was also a PUD mining plan that was run concurrent with the annexation that the commission reviewed and approved at that time. So the primary changes regarding mining with this proposal is that there's a proposal to remove the western portion of the property from mining. That's intended to accommodate the commercial development and the affordable housing development sooner, as opposed to waiting for the mining to occur on that portion of the property sooner. Another change is to change the mining cell sequence. And I think Barb Brunck is a part of the applicant team will provide a quick overview on that. And then also reduce the buffer from Highway 119. The proposal on the south side of Highway 119 is to reduce the setback buffer for the mining cells from 200 feet to 100 feet. And that's subject to CDOT and state approval. Next slide please. So the city and property owners in Costco entered into an agreement regarding a public private ownership. And as part of the staff report and the communication, I provided some information in the link if the commission was interested in reviewing that materials to the council packet from December when that agreement was approved. So this partnership will invest in the infrastructure required to serve the proposed development, including the proposed Costco warehouse. And as part of the agreement as well, the city will also acquire a nine acre lot on the south side of the Costco lot that will be used for future affordable housing. Next slide please. So as part of the review process for the hearings, obviously there's a requirement for notice of surrounding property owners as well as occupants of rental properties as well. And so when we did the notice for the neighborhood meeting which occurred about last December and then subsequently sent notice also with the notice of application. And then more recently for the notice for the public hearing this evening, the typical notice area is 1000 foot for major development applications. But for this particular application, in addition to the 1000 foot notice, notice is also sent to all the property owners of record and vacant lots in the harvest junction village subdivision to the west. And then also notice was provided to all the occupants of the adjacent water watermark departments that was immediately adjacent to the west of the site. Next slide please. So this slide just outlines instances where there have been or will be opportunities for public input on the project. So obviously, as I mentioned, we had the neighborhood meeting in just past December. We sent out notice of application in January after the application was submitted. The notice for the public hearing for this evening was sent out in early May. Obviously we're having the public hearing this evening to get input from the community. And for a couple of future meetings, there will be a notice for city council meetings upcoming. There'll be two two meetings with city council first reading an introduction of an ordinance and then also a public hearing on the ordinance as well. So again, they'll be we'll send out notice of the public hearing for city council in June. And then the formal public hearing will be in July right now is tentatively scheduled for July 13. Next slide please. And also just before I get on to this next slide, I also just wanted to mention, in addition to the public hearing applications that the commission is reviewing this evening, as I mentioned before, there's also some administrative applications that are being reviewed as well. And there's also we've sent out notices regarding those applications to surrounding property owners and renters as well. So if they have an interest, anybody has an interest in reviewing the plans commenting on those contacting staff, if they have questions, they can certainly reach out to me or any of the other staff on this call to discuss the proposal. So as part of the review process and soliciting input from surrounding property owners and just other members of the public, this slide just identifies and this is included in the staff communication as well. But it just kind of outlines some of the more substantive comments that were provided either through the neighborhood meeting process or when the notice of applications was sent out. And these are emails primarily that were included in the the packet for the commission. They were also part of the neighborhood meeting summary that was included in the packet as well. In addition to this list, also wanted to mention, and I believe the commission received this afternoon, there was one email that staff received from Sarah Hamilton that was forwarded to the commission. And in her email, she expressed concern about the proximity of the regional center land use near the residential neighborhood and potential traffic and noise impacts associated with that proximity. And also I just wanted to let you know that I also chatted this afternoon with Ruby Bowman about the proposal and responded to some of her questions about plans on the city open space parcel north of highway 119. She just wanted to know if there were still plans to mine and reclaim on the city open space parcel north of highway 119. And I provided that information to Miss Bowman. Next slide please. So as part of the DRC review process, we conducted staff conducted three reviews before this item was scheduled before the commission. So this slide just lists some of those primary discussion topics. As part of that review, obviously the first one is street design and highway 119 right away improvements. Obviously we're continuing to coordinate with CDOT, Colorado Department of Transportation regarding highway 119 improvements. Another topic was infrastructure design and emergency services, general site design and layout, and then also environmental assessment and conservation plan review. And I'll provide a little more detail on the following slides. So next slide please. So regarding transportation considerations, so based on the traffic study that was included in the packet, this development of this property is not expected to have an adverse impact on the level of service and the transportation benchmark. So roadway improvements include there will be a full movement signalized intersection at highway 119 and the north-south collector street, which is called Harvest Moon Drive on the east side, Costco lot. There'll also be a right in, right out access from highway 119 on the west side of lot one, which is the lot that'll include the Costco warehouse. And then Harvest Moon Drive will be designed as a collector street. And then as part of that design, there's two traffic circles at the primary intersections along that street segment. And then future transportation improvements east of Harvest Moon Drive will be reviewed with the future subdivision plots and site plans after the mining is completed and reclamation has concurred on that site. Obviously that whole area east of Harvest Moon Drive is designated as there's several land use destinations shown on the proposed land use amendment plan. There's a mixed use corridor land use. There's residential mixed neighborhood and then there's residential single family. Now obviously that that development would occur after mining occurred and reclamation has been completed on that after the mining has been done. So next slide please. So for other infrastructure and services, future development will be required to comply with city code requirements and that includes multimodal and pedestrian connections. So there are plans for as each individual site develops as well as the subdivision develops, there'll be requirements for pedestrian connections internally and then also to the external trail system, both along the public streets as well as connections to the Greenway trails along both left hand creek and St. Brain Creek. So utility improvements will be required meeting city requirements including water sewer, electric communications, storm drainage and water quality design. Utility capacity is anticipated to be adequate for the development and emergency response times will comply with the city's benchmark and obviously there's a lot more details on each of these topics in the communication. Next slide please. So associated with the subdivision and site design, so the Highway 119 fringe will include landscaping consistent with the Highway 118 landscape guidelines and gateway buffer requirements and as each site develops you'll need to comply with site design compliance standards including landscaping and buffering, screening, noise compliance and other design requirements associated with the land development code. And then as I mentioned when mining is a complete east of Harvest Moon Drive, future development will need to comply with applicable residential compatibility standards including appropriate transitioning buffer standards at the time of the property develops. Next slide please. So in terms of environmental protections, there was a habitat and species conservation plan that was included as part of the application which was a requirement for this middle and as part of that our natural resources staff did review the plan as well as other staff and as noted in the staff communication the plan did not identify any threatened or endangered species or habitat or wellings or waters of the U.S. subject to federal regulation. And then natural resources staff reviewed the plan and generally agreed with the findings and recommendations of the report. Next slide please. In addition with the submittal there was also a environmental site assessment included with the packet. Actually there was two. One was the 2015 report that was reviewed with the annexation and then there was a subsequent environmental site assessment that was submitted in 2020 associated with just the Costco site. Based on the information provided in both the original 2015 report as well as the subsequent 2020 Costco site plan there was no evidence of environmental conditions on the property that would require additional investigation. And so staff did not require any additional assessment submittals other than the two reports that were included in the packet. Next slide please. So this slide includes a few procedural notes. The applicant's presentation will address the criteria in more detail. Obviously per code the applicant's response for demonstrating that the application meets the review criteria and visible code standards. The commission is the decision making body on the preliminary subdivision plot. Council's decision making body on the conference of plan amendment rezoning and concept plan amendment. Next slide please. So based on staff's analysis the review criteria as noted in the communication staff found the application to meet the criteria and is recommending approval as noted in PZ resolution 2021 2021 5B. In the one condition in the 5B resolution is that the preliminary subdivision approval by the commission is subject to council approval of the conference of plan land use amendment rezoning and concept plan amendment. Next slide please. So this slide just outlines the next steps in tonight's hearing. Next we'll have the applicant presentation and Barb Brunk will be presenting for the applicant. Then we'll open the public hearing. After the public hearing there'll be questions for the applicant and staff. After that there'll be commission deliberation and then commission vote, motion and a vote. And then the commission's decision will be forwarded to the city council and as I mentioned before the tentative council dates right now are first reading on June 29th and then second reading and the public hearing on July 13th. And I believe that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to respond to any questions or if we'd like to just go on to the applicant's presentation we can do that and then have questions after the public hearing. Thank you, Brian. Actually I need to ask Jamie Roth our city attorney. We've got a little bit of housekeeping to deal with. It appears we've lost Commissioner Flage at some point.  I don't know if you have been in on the last bit of the presentation or not. So Attorney Roth my question to you is if Commissioner Flage has missed part of the presentation and but is able to come back into the meeting can she still be seated? I believe she can. I know there is a quorum at this point. I think we should maybe wait and see what happens with her and if she comes back we can then revisit at that time. Okay and Commissioner Hyte it's kind of the same issue I just want to make sure that you know you feel that you haven't missed much of the meeting. I haven't missed any of the meeting. Okay all right great. So Brian let's go ahead and go with the applicant's presentation. And Chair give us just a minute. Let me see if we need to let Commissioner Hyte back in or Flage back in because our meeting is locked and so she wouldn't have gotten in and I do not see any emails. Jane do you? She is trying to get in. Okay I'm going to unlock the meeting here. Let's give her just a moment Chair. Sure thank you. All right we just let her in give us just a minute to get her renamed. Give us just a minute Commissioner Flage. All right and you should be able to unmute yourself Commissioner Flage. I did thank you. All right perfect. Let me pull up the next presentation if you're ready to continue. Okay sounds good thank you. Good evening Chairman Chernak, Barb Brunk, Resource Conservation Partners, PO Box 1522 Longmont Colorado 80503. I am here this evening with Reggie Golden from Diamond G Concrete Company, Drew Golden from Golden Farm LLLP. A sampling of representatives are of our TST Consulting Engineers design team including Brian Williamson, Don Toronto and James Bruntz and Deanna Salazar too from Costco. So we'll be here throughout the meeting to answer any questions that you have. Next slide. I know Brian kind of went through this but this is where we are in the world. Again Highway 119, Martin Street to the west, Quail Road to the south, 119th Street to the east and St. Rain Creek along the north. The other thing here is the adjacent land uses. So you can see the apartments and the continuing residential development on the west side of the property, the rural residential and agricultural along the southern boundary, the basically farmland across north 119th Street headed to the east and then open space in St. Rain Creek along the north side of the property. Next slide. So this is a big picture. I know Brian went through this but these are the images that help tell that story. So we're looking at an amendment to the comprehensive plan, a rezoning application, an amendment to the concept plan and a preliminary plot. So the top left slide shows the area that is the land use is changing. So that red dash line around the regional center and the multifamily residential and the mixed use corridor shows the land use amendment components. The side below that shows the portion of the property that will be rezoned to accommodate the land use amendment. And so that portion will be removed from the PUD. The remainder of the property will stay in the PUD so that it can be mined and reclaimed. And then the concept plan amendment will remove a portion of the mining from the PUD and from the mining boundary inside the concept plan. So again, that property will be developed first as opposed to waiting until the property is mined and reclaimed. Next slide. So Brian kind of went through a little of this about the history of the land. I think there's been some confusion in the public regarding the ultimate land use for this property. And Brian's memo says 1980, I went back and looked for comp plans and the earliest one I could find a picture of was 2010. And at the time, it was industrial economic development, medium density residential and low density residential. And again, it was contemplated for development within the city of Longmont. Land use changed when Invisant Longmont was adopted so that the portion north of the highway was changed to Parks, Greenway and Open Space and the portion south of the highway, pretty much residential, including mixed neighborhood and rural neighborhood. And then when we annexed the property, we amended it again. The parcel north of the roads remained Parks, Greenway and Open Space. But south of the road, we made a more diverse mix of uses to include some mixed use employment along the highway, mixed neighborhood and single family neighborhood. Again, there's been some misinformation out in the public that this property was going to be mined or claimed and converted to a park. And it's unfortunate that that was shared with the public, but that has never been true and has never shown up on any maps or things that I am aware of. Next slide. So this is the land use amendment on the top is the existing land use. So it's the mixed use employment, mixed neighborhood and single family neighborhood. And then the slide below shows the conversion to regional center, multifamily neighborhood, mixed neighborhood, the mixed use corridor along the highway and then the residential to the east. And you can see on the map that the single family residential really didn't change. The parts that changed were along the highway. And then the mix of uses to add additional diversity to the housing stock. And you'll see that the land use amendment map does not include the portion of the property north of the road. That property is owned by the city of Longmont. So we are not changing the land use on that portion of the property. It will remain as parks, greenways and open space. Next slide. So this is the summary of that of how that land use works out where we will end up with 26, six acres of regional center, 16 acres of multifamily neighborhood. Again, a portion of that is where the nine acres the city is going to purchase is located. We'll have 22 acres of mixed use corridor and 16 acres total 38 acres of mixed neighborhood and then 102 acres of single family. Next slide. So this is kind of the images that demonstrate the proposal for the concept plan amendment. So the row of pictures along the top is the existing approved concept plan. The row of pictures along the bottom is the proposal before you. So you can see for phase one, the mining is removed. About that 70 acres on the western edge of the property will be removed from the PUD, no longer mined, and it will become regional commercial, a place for multifamily and a place for mixed neighborhood. So the mining is moved in that instance to the east away from the existing residential development on the western side of the property. Then phase two, you can see above is the reclamation plan. And you'll see that if you look below, the pond is missing and that's because that's not going to be mined. So again, during phase two, we'll have the regional center, multifamily and mixed neighborhood. And what this amendment does is allow that western 72 acres to develop while the property is being mined and reclaimed. Then you can see at the end, the existing land use and the proposed, again, north of the highway, no change. It's still parks, greenways and open space along the highway. It's a combination of regional center and mixed use corridor. And then the residential uses we've added multifamily to the mix and reconfigured the mixed neighborhood. And again, the single family matches on both slides. Next slide, please. Again, this is just the numbers of those things. What's interesting to me is we've rearranged the parks and phase one, phase two, phase three, when you get to the end, the total number of, if we use the average units is 886 units of residential and about 476,000 square feet of commercial and mixed use. And that is concentrated in the regional center and the mixed use along the corridor. Next slide. So this is the story about the rezoning. So again, the property was zoned planned unit development at the time it was annexed to allow for mining and reclamation. If this is approved this evening, we will take a portion of that out of the PUD and rezone it to regional center, multifamily neighborhood and mixed neighborhood. The remainder of the property, including the city's ground, which is zoned PUD as well, will stay within the PUD until the property is mined and reclaimed because under the city code, that's the only place we can mine. So that's why that was done at the time the property was annexed. Next slide. This is the summary of the rezoning. So up adjacent to the highway is the regional center. It's a little more than 27 acres. We have the multifamily, which is about 18. And the western nine acres of that residential multifamily is where the cities will own for the affordable housing and then mixed residential about 24 acres to the south. That is also the area that will be included in the preliminary plat. Next slide. So what you have before you this evening, this is the fourth application is an 11 lot preliminary plat. And as Brian said, it's the framework and it includes in the application materials, utility design, landscape design, grading and drainage, all of the circulation things, all of those things necessary to understand that the property can be developed within the code. The important thing there, I think for people listening is to know that this is a preliminary plat and all of these parcels will go through an additional review as Brian said in his presentation that will have final plats, final public improvement plans and final site plans for each of the uses within the proposed preliminary plat area. Next slide. This is a multimodal kind of big picture connection plan. So this site is really well located for the people who will live and work here to be able to use their bikes and their feet to get around in the world. We have underpasses at St. Brink Greenway under Highway 119 at the left hand creek Greenway under Highway 119 and one under North 119th Street. So as this property develops, there will be a bike path along the north on the south side of Highway 119 along the north side of the property. And then we'll also have internal along the collector streets and in each individual parcel pedestrian friendly street. So the collector has a detached sidewalk and on-site bike lanes. And then as each one of those site plans develops, there'll be additional connections and Brian kind of referenced that in his presentation as well. Next slide. This is how we fit into the overall city of Longmont multimodal plan. So the black star is the property. So you'll see under the proposed improvements that the site is adjacent to Highway 119. And part of these applications includes turn lanes and a traffic signal on the Highway 119 corridor adjacent to the property. For plan transit, there's a planned regional transit center to the northeast of this site. And again, those underpasses and the trail system that we will build and that will be developed in the future make this a really great place for people to be able to use their feet or their bikes to get to a transit center. So maybe in the future we'll have less cars in this part of the city. Then those two to the south are really the connections to the pedestrian network and the vehicular network, the bike path network. And again, those show the existing things as this site develops, we'll add more of those. And those details will come through the final plans. Next slide. As Brian said, it's our job to demonstrate that we meet the criteria for approval. So both the staff memorandum and the letter from the applicant to the commissioners specifically list and outline in detail how this project meets the criteria. I would like to make sure that those, both the staff report and the letter from the applicant are included as part of the public record for this hearing so that that analysis of the review criteria is included as we move forward this evening. I'm not going to read each one, but I am going to go through and hit the highlights about how this project complies with the criteria. And then if there's anything that the commission wants to go back and look at specifically, we're happy to do that or to answer questions as we go forward through the application. So the really the first thing when you look at review criteria is are we compatible and do we comply with the Envision-Longmont? If the land use amendment is approved, this site is consistent with the Envision-Longmont plan. It fits into the Envision-Longmont growth framework and it further specific goals and policies regarding growth of the community, diversity of housing opportunities, provision of affordable housing, economic development to create jobs and jobs and diversify our economy and protection of natural resources. Next slide. I think affordable housing is on everyone's mind as in this type of the world as everything keeps getting more expensive. And the unique thing about this public-private partnership is that between the city and the landowner, we're going to provide the infrastructure for future affordable housing. So a piece is set aside, the city will buy nine acres and a cooperative agreement between the landowner and the city will build the infrastructure. So all of the streets and utilities and drainage improvements, all those things required to serve the commercial development will also serve the affordable housing. So at the time the city is ready to go forward with that project, streets, water, sewer, utilities will all be in place. It will be positioned for that development to move forward. Next slide. This is really about business recruitment. And again, this is the city and the retailer and the landowner have entered into an agreement to bring commercial development to town so that it will help grow our economy, provide jobs, provide infrastructure for other development in the neighborhood, and a collaborative effort to be able to provide a more diverse kind of housing in this part of the community. Next slide. So this is again about the public-private partnership. So again, in the big picture, it's to accommodate the Costco and additional commercial development, prepare for the affordable housing, and then increase the setback between the existing residences and the gravel mining. Next slide. This is the big picture drainage plan from the preliminary plot. So the preliminary plot is submitted, meets the criteria and the standards as outlined in the code. You'll see the details of that in the preliminary public improvement plans that were submitted with the application and the staff review of the criteria. So we are not needing exceptions. We are meeting the standards for utilities, streets, drainage, water quality, landscaping, all of those things relative to the infrastructure and the improvements required as part of preliminary plot are included in your packet and have been reviewed by staff. There are adequate utilities to serve the property and this applicant will extend services to connect to the infrastructure on the perimeter of the site to loop the water line and make that connection between Highway 119 and Quail Road. And you can see those traffic circles on this map where the first one is for the entry into the regional commercial and then the next one makes the connection on Bountiful that will connect east-west to Martin Street into the existing roundabout at Martin and eventually it will connect down to Quail Road. So this is a, there's more than one way in and out to disperse the traffic and make sure that it works in the neighborhood. Next slide. The other big thing about review criteria is compatibility and if you look at this application there are kind of two sets of compatibility issues. One is about the gravel mining and all of those things were reviewed at the time of annexation but I just wanted to point out that a couple of things. So the development of the western 70 acres pushes the gravel mining away from the existing residences to the west so it increases the setback between the mining and those homes and departments. In addition as part of the perimeter screening on the gravel mining the berms that were supposed to be located along the western property line have now been relocated so that they run along the harvest moon parkway so that again as this property develops there's a screening berm so that the gravel mining is there and then all of the provisions about the screening and berms and setbacks between the gravel mining and the existing rural residential homes on Quail Road are still in place. Those have not changed as a result of this application and all of the mining and reclamation and setback things relative to the portion of the property north of the highway have not changed so really the changes are to the south of the highway. The other thing that Brian talked about was two of those cells so the mining will now start adjacent to harvest moon and work from west to east so that larger one is cell one cell two down to cell three to cell four and then it crosses the highway to five and six and then cell seven is the eastern most cell and that's last because the access as part of that IGA between Boulder County and the city of Longmont the mining access will cross 119th street and run down Quicksilver Road now so it's not planned to turn there's no mining access onto highway 119 and there's the only access onto north 119th street is that cross traffic that will happen and that's the primary access so that's about mining compatibility. The other compatibility is with land development and adjacent land uses and I think a couple of things along the western edge of the regional center the bonus stitch runs there in the north south so between the apartments in the regional center there's a bonus stitch corridor and then there'll be on-site buffering required as part of the land development that'll show up in the site plan review when we do the Costco. The rest of these the multifamily the mixed residential all the rest of those properties will provide appropriate buffers at the time they're developed. I know there's been some conversation between the neighbors along Quail Road and the buffer between the Quail Road residents and the single family residents the bonus stitch runs along the back side of those lots and will continue to be there for the foreseeable future so at the time that single family neighborhood develops there'll be a preliminary plot we'll be back in front of planning commission and we'll be figuring out how to indicate that ditch corridor into a buffer between and connectivity between those rural residential properties to the south and the single family development that will happen to the north of them and again all of those perimeter buffers will come through final development plans and final site plans. Next slide which just kind of talks through adjacent properties and the natural environment. Brian went through in his site plan we did submit an environmental review on the site and staff recommended some specific things about nesting birds and so all those things that were provided you saw them in your staff report those notes have been added to both the concept plan and the improvement plans so that we're following the protocol as outlined by natural resources as far as nesting birds as a property develops. As far as the evaluation sustainability system setbacks adjacent to the river did not change and so no additional sustainability evaluation was completed as part of this project. Next slide. So there's a few extra things that are specific to land use amendments and rezonings I think the first one the basic thing for a land use amendment is that it really benefits this community as a whole not just the landowner so while this does benefit the owners of the property the addition of the regional center the mixed use corridor and the diversity of the housing in this neighborhood and the provision for additional affordable housing really does benefit the community as a whole in addition to the landowner so I think that that intention that when you're amending the comp plan you're looking at all of us instead of just the small of us is met through this application. Next slide. Primarily subdivision plots have to meet the standard and again all of the criteria is outlined in the code this the primary plot as submitted meets those standards it provides for integrated transportation network connections to existing and future development exception of utilities and infrastructure and delineates lots that meet the standard. Next slide. Resonings also have a little bit of special criteria and I think the one that specifically applies to this application is that the rezoning presents the city with a unique opportunity and again the the partnership between a major retailer and a landowner and the city of Longmont to create revenue jobs affordable housing and diversity in the neighborhood meet that unique standard as far as that criteria grows. Next slide. We have an appropriate transportation network and we've kind of gone through the multimodal plan and how this fits into the context. Again additional details will come as the property is developed but the connections are shown the pedestrian access is shown the bike access is shown and we meet that standard more detail as the property moves forward through the process. Next slide. These applications represent an opportunity to facilitate a unique public-private partnership to expand the city's tax base and install infrastructure to provide locations for a mix of development to expand the mix of uses in this part of the city. The applications as presented meet the proposed purpose and intent of the city's stated goals for development and the specific review criteria as outlined in the code. We respectfully request that you approve the preliminary plat as presented and forward the concept plan amendment envision Longmont land use amendment and rezoning to city council with your recommendation for approval. We want to thank staff and the commission for your time and attention and where our team is here to answer your questions. Thank you Ms. Brunk. So this is a public hearing item. I would like to move forward with opening up our public hearing section. So Susan if we could get our slide on the screen for everybody. So now's the time if you want to comment on this project. Now's the time to call in and do that dial 1-888-788-0099 when prompted enter the meeting ID<PHONE_NUMBER> and when we're ready to hear public comment we will call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. To do this we need five minutes so it's 838 right now we'll be back at 843. All right chair I'm going to go ahead and drop the slide. Let's have a few seconds as the live stream catches up with us. All right now looks like the live stream is caught up. We do have two callers. I'll go ahead and ask the first caller to unmute. Caller 019. I'm going to ask you to unmute. Are you there? I'm unmuted. Great go ahead and state your name again in your address and you have five minutes. This is Lawrence Beshear. I live at Two Western Skies Circle. We're very close to the development on the eastern edge of the harvest junction development. And you may continue. Okay yeah I was going to say I disagree with some of the information that Barb just provided there. I was given copy of a planned use development document approved Erwin Thomas final PUD plan back in August of 2019. And it was approved apparently you know back in 2016 and went through modifications several times. There's a whole string of notes and so forth on the side that shows that it was uh still under amendment and so forth through 2018 I think. And this did show the the ponds and parks area that a lot of the residents mentioned whenever we call in. So this is something completely different you know in terms of we're talking the use development for the for the new property. The other concern that a lot of the residents have over here is if you if you look at the where we have a roundabout a couple roundabouts actually on Martin as it comes in to the development.  All that is on the the north and west side of the standard of the harvest junction development. But if you look at where it they're going to plan the new one it's actually going to go much deeper it's going to go much farther away from the highway. So that stays pretty much north of that second roundabout left hand creek obviously kind of cuts in between there so it stays north of left hand creek all the stuff that's there right now Lowe's and Ross stress for less so forth. But if you look at you know the second roundabout then is farther south and then of course this development goes even farther than the than the second roundabout. So my complaint was if you look at the way Costco plan there they're set up there was they're going to turn their building to face east essentially and rather than turn it toward the highway like everybody else says Ken Pratt everyone's had you know every development along this doesn't matter if it's Walmart way you know outside our county or if it's Lowe's and all this stuff all the big stores you know face the road. But this is the only one that's going to go sideways and then of course because of that then they put a lot of their parking on that north edge and they slide their development farther south. That's going to put it a lot closer to the houses and I think that's one of the points of contention here. I don't think anybody has a problem with you know some extra housing and so forth being built here obviously we're in the middle of the construction zone right now and we'll be that way probably for another year or two. But I think the real issue is like how big when they talk about the mixed use and multifamily you know how tall are we talking about building this we can never get a number from anybody but it's going to be three stories four stories. We know that there's some bigger developments apartment complexes just down the road if you continue on Ken Pratt as you go out east toward the Walmart there's a couple of three story and four story apartment complexes being built out there very large developments and of course then we have you know the wee homes and the water market you know a harvest junction right now. So our complaint I guess from the from the residents here a lot of times is is that we already have a lot of apartment dwellings and so forth already in our area and I'm not sure we need more nor do we need it to be you know continue to be surrounding by you know our area and of course these folks that live on Quill Road I know they've had a lot of complaints for a lot of years apparently on earth movement. That whole development area where Costco's planning on coming in is all sunken land right now it's it's way down below grade essentially so there need to be a lot of of earth movement to bring it up up higher and I think that was one of the concerns if it were going to be a gravel mine it'd be fine they're already much lower in the ground and then of course the berm would be easy to to generate for them and be able to hide the development and the noise behind the berm. So that's just a concerns from the the neighborhood I don't know who else is called in but hopefully a few other residents will we'll call and talk to you today. Okay thank you Mr. Vishir I really appreciate it. Susan our next caller seems to have the last three digits of 290. Chair that's correct caller 290 I'm going to ask you to unmute are you there caller 290 try hitting star six on your phone that will also unmute if you're listening to the live stream you'll probably hear this in about 20 or 30 seconds caller 290 there you are hi hello hi I I think I hear myself or it's have you muted the live stream yes I did okay perfect you may begin if you could state your name and address for the record you have five minutes okay I'm Stephanie Ryan I love at 1263 A hummingbird circle in Blovista south of Clare road I just want to remind people that in the 2013 flood quick silver road was completely underwater I was biking down it and it completely flooded and horses were being evacuated Missouri Ave was flooded right almost to the rec center we were on alert that if the button rock dam had breached five feet of water would have been in Bovista south of Clare a water engineer of a friend of a friend said that the mitigation for the flooding along the set frame greenway I needed to be three miles wide if not there needed to be constructions that were up well 14 feet tall through the center of town this area that you're proposing is a floodplain that's why the mining of the rocks so the rocks are there because it's a floodplain and so I just wanted to remind people of that and that the more asphalt you put in and the more parking lots that you put in and the more housing that you put in I think that the city needs to rethink the flooding that that could occur again in the air of climate change that we need to that needs to be considered in this area and that's all I have to say thank you thank you very much miss Ryan um so Susan I don't see anybody else listed so we have no further collars correct you are correct chair you may continue okay we will close the uh the public hearing on this and we will go to discussion and questions amongst their commission um commission flake uh I guess this is for Brian and I'm wondering um I don't have the language of the PUD in front of me unfortunately but there must be something that relates to the standards of how buildings need to front um in terms of maintaining the character along that area so I'm wondering what are the criteria that would allow Costco to sort of tend to turn its back on the highway there um unlike as was pointed out all the other buildings are facing and Pratt so related to that we've had conversations with Costco and their design team and as part I think one of the earlier iterations of the architectural elevations that were shown at the neighborhood meeting perhaps showed the primary customer entrance facing east but through subsequent conversations that staff has had with the applicant and the Costco representatives and their architects they have revised their plan to also include a an element that looks at that is an entrance element that faces towards highway 119 as well in addition to the entrance that faces to the east so we'll have actually entrances both on the north side facing towards the highway 119 then also an entrance facing towards the east I'm wondering how much how many windows how much of fenestration do you have in there on that north side how much will it look like an entryway well I don't have the details with me but we're reviewing that and making sure that it complies with our standards obviously the site plan is an administrative application and it's not part of this review tonight but we are reviewing that as part of the final subdivision plat and the site plan for Costco to make sure that it complies with city standards for building designs for non-residential and and mixed use developments thank you so Brian I I'd like to follow up on commissioner flake's question but slightly differently why is the building rotated 90 degrees so its longitudinal axis is north south whereas along Ken Pratt all of the large box stores longitudinal axis is east west what's the reasoning I mean okay so they're putting an entrance on the north side but that is the short side of the building why is the building the majority of its length going north south to mr. Bashir's point if that weren't the case then less of the building would be close to the houses that are on the east side of the residences to the west so what's the rationale to have rotated the building 90 degrees well I'm not sure I mean I'd have to defer perhaps to you know representative I don't know if Deanna is available to talk about that in terms of the orientation of the well yeah I could add some comments okay yes please okay well first of all good evening mr chair and city council members again my name is Diana Salazar I reside in my address is nine corporate park in Irvine California a couple of things in relation to the building orientation that I think is worth pointing out first of all the back of the building it's always the quietest the quietest side of the building we have several residential developments in you know one of the things that we look for is putting the quiet side of the building against residential you basically have no noise on the on the backside of the building specifically on this building we made sure that the that the track route for for our receiving trucks do not circulate behind the building so you're basically going to have a very quiet side against residential there's also going to be at least 200 feet of separation between the building wall and the residential the first residential building to the west I'm not sure on you know the other projects that were point point out in terms of the area obviously the area they have if we were to turn this building around we would practically take a lot of the development that the developer is trying to provide as part of the large development I'm not quite sure even that the project will be even feasible for him from a financial standpoint if we take if we were to take that much land there's a minimum amount a minimum amount of parking that we require to to make you know to operate and I also think the the gas station in relationship to the building is probably at the right location so there were several things that we had to take into consideration as well in terms of the general layout and how we uh fit in with the rest of the development to orient the way we did thank you miss Ellazar appreciate that um I and I'm not sure if this is going to be a question for you or Brian or maybe our traffic engineer but um since you did mention the the back of the building being the quietest and the trucks are delivering you know on the other side which I appreciate you explaining but I am wondering how delivery trucks large semis are to get through that first roundabout and how are they supposed to win their way through the parking lot and to the delivery doors maybe it's miss bronc will explain that or you know somebody can help me understand better how the delivery trucks actually make it in and out especially past that first roundabout explain or should I you know big picture the roundabout is designed for trucks and everybody you mean everybody knew there were going to be trucks there the roundabout is designed for trucks so basically they come off of 119 to the gas station they circulate through the gas station then they go back out through the right out along the highway so those cars circulate through the roundabout along the kind of northern side of the Costco property and then circle back out and go out the right out here we go thank you so again the red line is how the trucks work for the gas station deliveries the blue line is how the trucks work for the warehouse delivery so so that they go through the roundabout and then they enter the deliveries for the warehouse enter through this a southern access into the property again the goal was to keep all of that delivery traffic away from this residential development to this side so it really was thoughtful and again this is a concept that we that is not the final site plan but it does show the intent and the idea that is still the circulation pattern so okay thank you miss bronc that answered my question other questions from the commission commissioner poland brian um mr vassir was had a comment about the development and the what sounded like he was uh indicating that his indication is that there would be commercial going further south than where things currently are um when i look at this plan um the bottom half to two-thirds is multifamily neighborhood and mixed neighborhood i'm wondering if you can go over what is basically a multifamily neighborhood and what a mixed neighborhood so that we can anticipate what's going to go into that bottom half correct mission of poland so as you mentioned the uh there's two lots that are just south of the lot one on the preliminary plat that are that lot one is for the casco warehouse and so the two lots immediately to the south of that are proposed to be zoned residential multifamily and so that uh 16 acres roughly of multifamily neighborhood um you know it could be a combination of of a single family attached housing so for example it could be townhomes uh could be condominiums could be apartments um any of those are a potential option under that particular zoning and then to the south of bountiful between bountiful and quail is an area that's proposed to be zoned residential mixed neighborhood and so residential mixed neighborhood has a pretty flexible density range anywhere from six to 18 units per acre so that could be a mix of single family detached it could be single family attached could be some smaller apartments potentially as well um so the residential just for example in terms of the question about height compatibility the residential mixed neighborhood zoning which is the southern portion between bountiful and quail has a height limit that's the same as what's allowed under the residential single family zoning to the west which is 35 feet maximum now the multifamily zoning also allows uh for additional building height for potential multifamily apartment projects and as I mentioned in the presentation and as noted in the communication the westerly of those two multifamily neighborhood lots of that area south of cosco is the parcel that the city will be acquiring it's nine acres in size uh we're still a ways off from coming up with a design for that uh that'll probably you know I don't know exactly when that's going to happen but and we don't know exactly yet what type of housing will occur on that city-owned property in terms of whether that will be for sale town homes or rentals we just haven't decided that yet um one quick so in the mixed neighborhood is there any chance for retail or is that just all residential so uh as the commission may recall when we did the code update in 2018 uh and obviously we incorporate a lot of mixed use districts but we also with the update and it's related to implementation of the Envision Laumat Conference of Plan as well so as part of that update the residential mixed neighborhood and residential multifamily uh zoning districts do have allowances and this is to encourage more walkability and incorporation of a mix of uses in neighborhoods but there is the ability to propose smaller scale uh commercial uses that are intended to be more walkable uh in those residential zoning districts now from the standpoint of process if somebody wanted to propose a small commercial building for example in that residential mixed neighborhood area uh it would have to go through a conditional use review and so that would have to be reviewed and approved for compatibility and obviously approved by uh plan zoning commission subject to appeal to city council thank you very much brian sure commissioner height thanks um there's a lot of big picture items here that um i think i take a while to get our heads and hands wrapped around um comp plan review rezoning and then concept plan with a preliminary subdivision plan um i'm thinking i'm following them but i also got lost in the weeds so i have a couple of weed questions to talk about and not that was just a bad pun um brian in your materials um you raise the issue that um the school district has looked at the potential development um and sees that there's probably no impact right now though you note that the the mining of the property is going to extend the potential residential development for five years my question is at building permit do we relook or does the city relook at um school capacity and our exact events made at that point in time or is this the one and only time when we look at whether or not subdivision is going to overburden our school system so commissioner height there's multiple opportunities for referral to the school district and actually by our code and i ga that we have with the school district for any any app development application that goes through a site plan review or subdivision review we refer those applications to the school district to update their assessment and analysis regarding school capacity compliance and so uh any site plan associated with this initial uh preliminary subdivision plats that's a has a residential component would be referred to the school district for comment those future preliminary subdivision plats and final subdivision plats on the east side of harvest moon drive that's that will be submitted after mining and reclamation yeah down the road obviously that's maybe 10 years down the road uh or more uh those will also be referred to us to the school district for comment and assessment in terms of compliance with the school capacity benchmark okay but that'd be clear um on the 70 acres on the east side that we're looking at tonight the the residential components of the two southern lots so to speak um the school district is signing off on those knowing well we're anticipating this this will be built within five years because there's no mining going on here is that correct yes that's accurate commissioner height you know I know their assessment took into consideration all of the residential and as you'll note in most of the student generation is associated with the single family uh zoning area that's going to be mined over the next 10 plus years and so obviously whenever that subdivision application comes in for that area after the mining and reclamation has occurred the school district will need to reassess that before in the interim while the uh you know for the uh residential multifamily and the residential mixed neighborhood that's part of the preliminary subdivision plat the school district did not have a concern regarding school capacity for that portion okay appreciate that next question is with respect to the environmental report um is it lieutenant is it captain goldman um I apologize that I don't know your full captain golden captain goldman um you know there's a 2015 report which is some seven years old that identified at least possibly one area of environmental concern and I can't fathom in my mind exactly where this small engine repair shop is um but the seven-year-old report um captain golden are you satisfied that we don't need something more current and casco did perform their own on their particular spot we did ask them to do that before they moved dirt just because we weren't sure and the like there was nothing in the 15 report that would have warranted it we did request that and casco and the applicant did comply so that's a good question commissioner nothing else we've had no uh recent incidents since that 2015 report came out or notices of spills from any other uh incident so you so to speak so no hazards material calls no releases and no spills of note since that 15 esa came out but casco did at our request provide another environmental site assessment for for their site specifically right before they moved dirt to the casco esa was only for the the casco property correct okay um and do you know where this small engine repair shop noted in the 2015 report where is that is that on the casco site it is not it's on the if i'm right it's on the north side is that right barb it's over i'll let barb address some of that it's not there now that that site was given a clean bill of health by the phase we did a phase one and a phase two on it actually and so um michelle asked us to go through and list the things it talked about some things in the general neighborhood that were of note as part of the environmental assessment but there was nothing on this property that caused concern as part of that review so we looked at it again uh the staff reviewed it again to make sure that it was still relevant and then we also looked at casco so casco site is absolutely clean it's been farmed the only thing that's out there is the pump the little tiny pump house for the ditch so and existing utilities the rest of that stuff the only kind of hair on this site ever was at the sugar mill and the portion of the site that was that is included in the gravel mining was reviewed at that time so all of the ground south of the river was given a clean bill of health does that make sense it does um okay then i think i'm going to switch gears and talk back to the commissioners um the bigger issues i think that we need to look at you know amending the comp plan you know this is a review of kind of what we did before with you know envision long line the rezoning you know i'm i'm looking forward to having more discussion and hearing from more of my uh my colleagues here on what their thoughts are on these these other big issues thanks i have a question that i would like to touch on and i think it's going to be tyler staming will answer this for me because it's about the traffic report uh traffic study um tyler if i correct me if i'm wrong but i think i've learned over the years that the city of long months uh traffic standard is that intersections operate at level of service level d or better um that's our standard but when i was looking through the traffic study it looks like they did a short term study and a long term view and in the long term view 2039 some intersections that are studied hit level e so why is it that brian's reporting to us that the city staff is okay with us if our standard is level d if i'm correct about that and by 2039 this project would hit level e on some intersections um how do you explain that how do you reconcile that together share sure that great question and you're correct our current benchmark level services is d or better um and then d for any individual movements that are five percent of the new entering volume but you know when we look at the long term projections i'd say you know 2039 what's happening in transportation right now and i think we're seeing a major shift in transportation and how transportation works right now and i think that projections you know right right now projections are best estimates we've based that on current growth rates current planned known developments based on any existing modeling we have what do we think is going to happen in montan where the houses where the job's going to go and that also comes from a regional model with dr cox so it's not looking at just just long mod in a vacuum we're also looking at what's happening east of long mod what's happening west of long mod north and and doing our best guests and putting all that together um and say it's a hundred percent perfect and we can project with them perfect accuracy that we know exactly what those numbers are going to be in 2039 i i don't think we're quite there it's a it's a planning tool at this point i think you know for the short term we're showing that or anticipate that the system will work with the improvements proposed and i think that further evaluation as future phases of the development come in those projections may change and maybe to adjust in the future with with additional development in the future but for the short short term the the stuff that we know or we think we know is coming in we've got a good level of comfort with what the results are showing us in terms of level of service at the intersections with the improvements proposed okay and yeah thank you for that um just to clarify for everybody um the report did show that in the short term none of the intersections go uh lower than level d so you know that would be okay by our standard um i have another big picture question maybe it's from miss brunk thank you tyler um um seems to me that i'm a little confused as to uh in the in the long run um you've got the phases you showed us um and the mining results in ponds and people seem to have in our in the neighborhood uh feedback we got people were like it's going to stay ponds we're going to have ponds next to our houses um but then you show phase three which is reclamation and the ponds go away and then it's it's turned into a housing development how do you achieve the ponds going away and to miss ryan's uh comments when she called in about the flooding which seems to be more prevalent on that east end of of the overall property now you've got ponds from mining and flooding to deal with so what how do you do all that how do you deal with all that it's complicated big picture the ponds don't go away the the ponds will be integrated into the land development but they will be on private property and function as part of the integrated open space network as part of the land development so i think the the conversation was we're going to have a public park there it has never been anticipated to do that you'll see the difference between the mining and reclamation part portions of the mining are backfilled so the ponds get smaller uh the floodplain is an ever-moving target as we all know and prior to any development the floodplain does not impact the cosco property prior to any development on anything that's in the floodplain we'd have to go through a floodplain development permit a full analysis and and make sure that anything we did would not have a negative impact on the floodplain on our site and on the adjacent property so that i know it sounds like i'm pushing it down the road because i am but again ponds are integrated it i mean think of lakefront public gathering spaces in a residential community and those ponds will be integrated into the overall drainage improvements and low impact development standard so as as we put the drainage through the site it'll come through the middle of that site and end up through those ponds and then go back to the river so it could be part of the water quality control system it could also provide irrigation waters for some kind of open space thing so lots of sustainability opportunities with those reclaimed ponds they're not going away they just have to get shaped and integrated in the long-term land use that makes sense yes it does yes you know it looks like it was more of a misunderstanding on my part than anybody else's so thank you for that explanation commissioner flake um along those same lines following up on uh michael's question um what's kind of a slope are you dealing with across the property a lot of the pancake okay so right now you have ponds in some areas does that then require that as you develop specific areas there will be half there will have to be some fill brought in to raise the land up so that you can create dry areas on which to build structures how will that work with a flat of the pancake and you have to drain off the land again it's complicated so average slope is five percent across the property so it does drain i mean it's been irrigated you know it's been flood irrigated for years so it does drain um there will be some fill required as part of the development on the casco site but the the dirt that we pull out of the detention pond will be used to fill the site so we're not going to be importing fill to do that in the future as that residential subdivision to the east is developed it is likely that there could be fill but as part of a gravel the gift of a gravel mining application is or moving dirt around so it is possible that as we go forward with the mining and reclamation it could work with the city on a floodplain development permit and create that higher ground as part of the reclamation of the site so yes it will have to come out of the floodplain but will there be one overall drainage kind of channel throughout the property that you will then move i don't know which site it drains to does it drain from northeast excuse me northwest to southeast the low point is at the north as the site is developed there's actually a significant drainage improvement existing improvement along the north side of the property that's carrying some drainage from harvest junction and that we will also put some drainage in there um the way it's designed it's designed so that the detention that's working now for the preliminary plat may be relocated at the time the rest of that site is developed but again it can drain it can be very interesting because the the the ability to put a like a really nice channel through the middle of that residential development to get the water back to the river will have both open space qualities wildlife corridor properties um water quality properties so but it's not designed yet so that piece of it will come when the preliminary plat comes through on the on the single family residential and we'll be back in front of you to talk about it so just one more question sure so you're not going to design that channel or whatever you're going to do all at the same time you're going to build it in pieces the master drainage plan for the subdivision has been completed to accommodate the improvements on the preliminary plat as presented so that drainage is all accounted for detention is accounted for uh water quality is accounted for all those things are accounted for and i you know one of you engineers hit me if i'm wrong but that's my understanding as the rest of the property develops the drainage plan will be amended to accommodate the remainder of the property but the property is does fall from west to east at about five percent and the low point is in the corner so whatever happens in the future that's the way the drainage will leave the site okay thank you not a very technical question but it's a i'm a landscape architect commissioner goldberg thanks chairman hey brian i wonder if i could ask you a couple questions around some public feedback neither uh so what i think i think we buttoned it up but i wonder if you could just help me address mr bashear's concern he sure seemed confident that he was looking at i think he did an approved pod with ponds and parks and and we're saying that's not the case would you mind just helping clarify or can you shed any light as to why there's been some confusion about what looked like was going to be ponds and parks and now we're looking at a big old development if you go back to my power point presentation you can have a picture brian yeah susan can you put that back up please so um you know what i can say is you know when the when the property was annexed in 2018 there was several components to that application at the time obviously there was annexation there was also an amendment to the uh envision law mount plan there was also a concept plan as part of the annexation which is required and then there was also which the commission reviewed at that time concurrent with the annexation there was also a puny plan that was for the mining plan for the site and so the one component of the mining plan and barb feel free to jump in whenever you want the uh the mining plan of the puny plan that showed the mining obviously it showed the mining cells it showed the reclamation plan and it referenced in some of the notes um you know future development on the property uh it obviously that was just one part of the picture was this mining plan the other component of that was the envision law month uh conference of plan amendment and then also the concept plan that was approved as part of the annexation which both reflected future land uses for the property long term um which obviously those weren't necessarily reflected on the mining and reclamation plan but they were also approved as part of the annexation and concept plan at the same time if you go through uh to slide eight of my presentation it shows the compare uh keep going i'm on two of four i can't tell which slide i'm oh okay you're on slide keep going next no up sorry back up keep going back back get there eventually back back there back again back again back again keep going keep going next keep going it's almost it's very beginning there it is there this is it okay so this is a good example of of of the before and after so the initial concept plan which is in the public record and the fdp showed the mining as phase one showed the reclamation as phase two and showed development of the property as phase three so i think the same question that chairman surenac had about how do you integrate ponds into a land development is pretty clear the other thing that was very clear in the notes as we went through this process was depending on what happened on the site as you see the difference between the mining and the reclamation that's because there's backfills and so what happens is as the property is mined sometimes there's more dirt and sometimes there's less dirt so the ponds can get smaller and the ponds can get bigger and the ponds can get reconfigured and that is always contemplated and was actually accounted for in those notes that brine was talking about so i think if what happened is people saw this phase two map and didn't understand that at some point it would be developed and it may or may not include filling back in of some of those ponds and i think therein lies the confusion because we never did like a real site plan that showed where the buildings were going to be relative to the ponds in the future we wanted to make sure that the land use covered the entire site so that if the ponds are reconfigured we would have the ability to develop consistent with the land use within the code and the zoning at the time does that help yeah i think that helps a lot thank you for clarifying that you know i think it may be obvious to yourself and others who've been working on this for a long time but as a concerned neighbor who's quickly looking at a map trying to interpret it and see blue pond looking uh you know spaces on a map and oh you know maybe they can feel relieved but it's really a multi-phase approach and you know there hasn't been any trickery going on here it's just being able to recognize step one step two and step three so thank you for that clarification brown i wonder if i can put it get you back on again another you know whenever folks are you know living in their apartments or homes and really digging the views it's easy to become frustrated with the proposal and seeing proposals of more apartments or higher buildings and you know these regional centers as well but i wonder if you could just share what is the perspective from the city on placing higher density housing near regional centers is that generally desirable and something that we shoot for when we're kind of building out our city or do we frown upon that mean i think commissioner goldberg i mean there's a couple of perspectives obviously one is in terms of land use for trying to transition for more intensive land uses to less intensive land uses and so obviously the highest intensive land use on this proposed site is the regional commercial center and then probably next in the level of intensity is the residential multifamily although there will be a future mixed use corridor parcel after the mining is completed on the east side of harvest moving drive just south of highway 119 but again from a kind of a transition of development intensity and then also having multifamily housing that's nearby areas where people can shop and access other services yeah i mean i think that's consistent with the envision lawnmower plan i think it's consistent with some of the goals and strategies regarding transition of zones between more intensive and less intensive zone yeah thanks brian i think that's just important to recognize there's that intention of going from highest density or busiest retail centers and regional centers and then kind of working your way back eventually getting towards those single family homes maybe on that same topic can you can you just speak you don't have to cite percentages or numbers but how are we looking you know in long mon as far as inventory of affordable housing or apartments and kind of this what is our what's available now for folks who are trying to live in long mon would these would this kind of mixed density affordable units be desirable or do we already have a bunch of i would certainly say we do not have a bunch obviously it's a goal and obviously as you probably a lot of you have gotten your recent property assessment valuation in the mail obviously that valuation has gone up substantially over the last couple of years and affordability continues to be an ongoing issue and a priority for city council i will say that you know i help coordinate our pre-application meetings and so we have seen quite a few multifamily projects come through the pipeline and are going through the pre-simile kind of planning stages but seems to be that there's still a significant demand for multifamily housing both for sale and rental and in particular i think based on some conversations with our housing staff i think there's there's also obviously a demand for affordable for sale housing in particular and you know who knows on that that once nine acre parcel that the city is will be acquiring as part of this project that that may be an opportunity to look at for some for sale affordable housing on that location i don't know if that completely answers your question to mr gold yeah yeah i think it does you know brand i think every time erin five big joins us in a commission meeting we learn about the limited opportunities for housing in our town i think even on a recent commission communication we discussed how inventory is less than 10 percent maybe even less than five percent and it's much desirable to have a higher rate of the you know vacant or available properties or available units and we just don't have them so i think this project might be filling some of those needs and then i guess my last question brian speaks to mrs ryan's concern is ryan's concern around flooding i guess my question to you is do we feel comfortable with barb pushing them down the line you know she admitted to having some some of the answers now but not you know if you can't really clear answer all the questions for us around flooding as we look into the future why why are you and the rest of the team comfortable moving forward and not feeling like we're putting this everyone at risk for flooding well commissioner goldberg it'd be pretty scary if i responded to your question so i may just defer see if uh either chris or jim might be able to get on the thanks chris sure no problem brian thanks for joining i wonder if you could just provide a little comfort or insight as to why how are we managing potential flooding down the line what are we doing to mitigate any flooding especially given how our city has been impacted by flooding in the past certainly commissioner goldberg and chairman surenac as you're probably aware there's a much larger cip project going on right now which is the resilient same frame project and in association with that after the 2013 floods with the colorado water conservation board our counties and the state are updating all of the fema firm maps they redid the hydrology so we have updated information and modeling that's going through the fema process at the moment and so those updated maps the city council has adopted as best available information on the 2019 preliminary i think is the latest and that's showing that even without any of our cip improvements that water is backing up at the bridge at ken pratt boulevard it's flooding that area to the north as it comes across that hits another area at 119th street there's another bridge which backs it up and so the modeling so far based upon what we have shows that the cosco area and the area that we're developing has not impacted by the floodplain other than a small portion that the preliminary firms are showing over tops 119 at the drive intersection of the main street that's coming more south from quail up to 119th street that the the city looked at in greater depth and we actually filed an appeal with fema for that the modeling that we were looking at showed that it does not overtop the highway at that location and that appeal has gone through the fema firm or fema review process we've received confirmation that yes the information we've provided does appear to be correct and we expect approval of that appeal in the coming months and so that will be reflected on the updated firms that will be adopted in the next year or year and a half so we are fairly confident with the modeling that's been done that this property is out of the floodplain that does not have an impact on flooding in this area and as we I think Barb correctly pointed out that there is flooding to the east to the current farm property but that will need to be addressed it will need to be taken out of the floodplain before any residential development can happen out there. Thanks Chris that was really helpful appreciate it you know no more questions for me thanks hey um I've been thinking about uh commissioner heights uh kind of big question of okay we've got four things in front of us um a comp plan amendment rezoning a concept plan amendment in a preliminary subdivision plat and if I'm correct Brian we are the deciding body only on the preliminary subdivision plat we are recommending on all the other three that is correct okay um Brian quick question for you I mean these all came to us together I assume for a reason um what happens if if you take one of these pieces out and and I mean if if you were to approve three but not four um or approve two but not all four is it is this an all or nothing sort of thing that that we're looking at I would say pretty much yes yes I mean I think one without the others uh or three without you know the other one it creates a problem in terms of overall design and land use and zoning for the for the overall site development okay commissioner height forget I had to raise my hand electronically um following up on on this discussion um and and looking at the big picture um this is bronc I'm going to put it right back to you um you have cited for an envision along my land use revision under 1502060B3 ask me the best interests of the city tell us why this is absolutely so a couple of things um large commercial retailer brings significant revenue to the community and jobs affordable housing which is a serious issue we really need to have more of the the compliant amendment provides additional opportunities for affordable housing the compliant amendment also moves the gravel mining away from the adjacent neighborhood so again in the big picture of the community it allows a portion of the property that is inside the city and can be served by utilities in an efficient manner to be developed before the property is mined and reclaimed so in the context of compact urban form and utilization of existing infrastructure and building on what we have all of these things in that amendment serve to move that forward make sense I like your answer um the next issue I think I can get comfortable with myself but I'm going to read out what the standard is or so preliminary plat 1502060E um has to be integrated has to not leave undevelopable lots um and it has to have rational phasing I think I can see that in these plans the last issue however though with respect to rezoning 1502060F5 you have to meet one of three standards a consistent with the rezoning is consistent with events trends or facts occurring after adoption of the original zoning or b and you have to demonstrate one of these three or b the rezoning corrects a technical error I think we're there um or c the rezoning presents a city with a unique opportunity or an appropriate site at an appropriate location the particular type of land user development that will help the city achieve a balance of land use tax base or housing types which one do we meet which one which one do you think is triggered here with this rezoning I believe it's c this is an absolutely unique opportunity to do those things as outlined in the code okay I'll let Brian chime in yeah I mean I think that's consistent with the staff analysis as well in this in the communication is that the the justification c is the appropriate justification for this rezoning okay um Brian in that regard so the concept plan amendment what standards am I looking at there are we looking at so the concept plan amendment it was it falls back to the review criteria for all application types that and all three of these also have to fit into that too that that is correct all four applications fit under that as well okay I appreciate um miss bronke running through that analysis with me that it's helpful I'm done measure on around thank you when I look at the the comp plan rezoning and the subdivision I think there's a hierarchy there I'm looking at the uh the page that compares the existing land use proposed plan uh in terms of what is already approved for the land users mix use employment mix neighborhood single family neighborhood we're adding the regional center and multifamily neighborhood that is the question in front of us not the whole plan not the whole land use are we okay with adding regional center and multi family neighborhood and part of that not multi family neighborhood piece is owned by the city and will be used for affordable housing that's given so the big question in front of us is this compatible with the comprehensive plan if the answer yes it automatically tells us that rezoning is okay and we should look at the the subdivision plan I agree with the evaluation so far that subdivision plan is pretty sensitive already the orientation the location of the big box and the way the transition is happening from the big box to the neighborhood it's pretty sensitive so all of a sudden I feel a little bit relaxed about the question in front of us it's not a big question actually it is already mixed use employment mixed use neighborhood and single family is already in front of us and it's already approved the big question is do we want casco here that is the regional center it's a something bigger than your typical mix use employment so with that the explanation I hear from barb makes me much happier because it's not my responsibility to all over accept this package but just one simple question that is do we want a regional center here and comes with you know there's a private public partnership component of this that also justifies and makes me more comfortable about saying okay to this proposal all three of the levels that is to say if we say yes to regional center then it's kind of hierarchically we're saying yes to the others as well but you know the subdivision plan itself is a different component and you know the transition and the location and the servicing I think it's done pretty successfully and I'm satisfied with the explanation thanks I'm not sure Paul so so barb and brian is is the opportunity really the fact that casco came and wanted to put their warehouse here and that is what basically caused the need for the rezoning and the constant plan and the changes is basically because of casco being a coming forward and saying we would like to put a warehouse here I think it's a little more complicated than that again if there was no casco we wouldn't be here but casco was going to go somewhere else in longmont and it didn't work out and so our city worked together with casco to find an appropriate location for them to stay inside our city limits so we would keep the tax revenue and this site was the site and so in order to do that we have to do all these land use applications to make it work so yes that is the heart of it okay I agree i'm not sure go over yeah thanks chairman man I think that's the right place for a casco you know when I look at that retail district and entering into harvest junction off of 119 I just think it it just fits and if that's why we're here and that's what triggered this discussion today I think I'm okay with it as I look at our review criteria you know as it relates to the comprehensive plan land use amendment yeah the addition of mixed use the affordable housing opportunity the multi-family neighborhood the increase in um in housing diversity in our city it makes a ton of sense and I see that as favorable and in line with Envision long line if I scroll down to the preliminary subdivision plan it's will not limit the ability to integrate into the surrounding land that subdivision will not create lots that are undevelopable and there's a clear phasing opportunity phasing process here that admittedly took me a few times to fully grasp but there's a logical phasing approach here as it relates to rezoning I think option C the rezoning presents the city with a unique opportunity and in here is the balance of land use tax base and housing types and I just feel like we spent the better part of an hour talking as a commission very recently about the lack of housing opportunities in our city certainly affordable housing opportunities and I just think again this is checking the boxes so I guess you know I would encourage the rest of the commission and look forward to hearing additional feedback from the commission but all in all I think this is checking the boxes and I'm not sure it's that big of a burden to lift this evening I'm I'm in agreement with commissioner owner on Poland and Goldberg but I do I'm only like 92.6 percent there yet I have another question for Brian so can you explain again to me what our concept is with mixed use corridor because part of what we're we're I believe it's a change is that we're putting mixed use corridor up against Ken Pratt Boulevard on the north end of this plan yeah so you know mixed use corridor zoning well obviously that's obviously that area is not being rezoned that's part of the the conference of plan amendment at this time because that area is going to be mine so we need to keep the beauty zoning on that portion until after it's mine and then it could come back in for a rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan so the the amendment obviously the current comprehensive plan shows mixed use employment in that area east of where harvest moon drive would be and so the proposed change would allow a little bit more flexibility in terms of different types of commercial office and employment uses in that mixed use corridor zoning district but I think it's generally consistent with the intent of what we're trying to achieve along the highway 119 frontage okay thanks Brian and and so would mixed use corridor potentially also include like live workspaces I I seem to remember that it does yeah I mean it's pretty flexible and also I mean it could allow some multifamily as a kind of a secondary use as part of that live work is a is a potential as well so yeah it's it's fairly flexible obviously the intent and the primary area that we have currently with that zoning is the main street corridor and then the corridor along highway 119 or Ken Pratt boulevard as you had west of main street where most of the mixed use corridor zoning is so having it along highway 119 frontage is not inconsistent with those other areas okay great thank you commission yeah I do have one question concerning the concept plan amendment and that's I'm going to read here from the last part of it and reconfigure the mining and reclamation on the property to exclude the western 70 acres from the mining area which is good and I understand that and it's but it says then and to reduce the mining setback on to the cells located south of highway 119 from 200 feet to 100 feet can you explain where that reduction is and why it has to be reduced from 200 to 100 feet Susan could you put back up the mining slide please give me just a minute yeah and I'll show you on the map so you'll see it part mean in the up uh go to the beginning very yeah actually this shows next that'll show it this this one will show it so you can see that if you run along the highway 119 frontage along the north edge of that mining those mining cells see how it there's two that are a little closer to the highway and one that stays further away so that the setback the 200 foot setback as you get closer to the river has been retained the the reduction is along these though two cells to the the western most cells of the mining and the reason we did that was to help get back a little of the material that was lost to the gravel miner we were trying to recover because as part of this the resource underneath we had to kind of work to help the operator not lose the resource that we were taking out from under the casco so that setback was intended to help bring back some of that gravel into their resource does that make sense but that it has to be approved by c dot and the drms before we can change it okay so basically when i'm looking at this if i go over to the eastern side i see where it's a little bit wider that's the 200 feet right if the the original plan basically had that buffer basically chopping off a little bit of the top half of the of those two western most pieces right the 200 foot setback was all the way along that edge between the highway and the mining so just the two western pieces we've requested to bring the setback closer to the highway okay and and brian is that is is that was that an arbitrary setback or is that a setback from our code no i think that was uh as part of the this probably relates back to the original mining approval through bolder county that that setback was established and obviously uh i think when the remind me again barb when th