and call to order the November 16th 2022 Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission next item is roll call chairman Poland here commissioner height commissioner Teta here vice chairman Goldberg commissioner flag commissioner Lukach commissioner Kohler chairman you have a quorum thank you very much next item is communications from planning director Glenn Van Nimmewigan mr. chairman and planning commissioners I just want to remind you that at the last meeting on October 19th you appointed your chair Michael Poland and commissioner Chris Teta to interview candidates for a recommendation to City Council for to fill your vacancies on the board so we've done that on Monday and at the items from Commission they will bring that forward and make a recommendation for your hopefully approval and to move on to council so that is all I have mr. chair okay thank you very much I will go ahead then and I will open up the public comment to be heard everybody has five minutes we have a list of people here the first person and when you come up to the microphone please state your name and address for the record the first person is John Pilman and once again just as a reminder this is not for the item that we'll be hearing later on this is for items that are not on the agenda for today you hear me okay okay my name is John Pilman I'm a resident at 1303 spruce Avenue appreciate your time by the way I'm here as a representative on behalf of the bond farm neighborhood and we're trying to understand why and how zoning changes occurred between 2016 and 2018 that essentially rezone the name the portion of bond farm south of spruce Avenue from a single family to a multifamily mixed-use zoning this has changed a little bit because I've talked to Jennifer through email and in person now and I'm going to be working with Jennifer on trying to ascertain kind of the process on how that rezoning took place I have some questions or we have some questions as well that I'll work with Jennifer on but but there's something else here I want to read because I think it's important that you all might want to keep in mind as these zonings and rezonings continue to take place they're you know and doing a lot of research there seem to be like four guiding principles that zoning experts or zoning specialists kind of say govern the rezoning process probably not telling anything you don't know but one of those is that zone change is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan for the area and we have a comprehensive plan right and and zoning to a place as a result of that comprehensive plan the thing that we find a little bizarre and concerning is that in the Envision-Longmont comprehensive plan it specifically states that to work with the residents to define and preserve the var desirable characteristics of neighborhoods and another thing you'll find in there is that ensure that infill infill development and redevelopment is designed to be sensitive to incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods we believe and there are quite a few of us represented here tonight even in the bond farm neighborhood that that development proposal is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood okay and so and and I think this is concerning because I think there's a lot of other things happening within Longmont in established neighborhoods in our case a lot of the homes are a hundred years old so there are some questions that we have as a result of that I won't go through right now that but there's a second principle now is there a demonstrated need for a zoning change and so we're trying to understand why is this zoning change why did the zoning change occur in the bond farm neighborhood around 2016-2018 what was the driving force and the driving need for that okay and and Jennifer and I'll I think we'll go through that and try to ascertain that the zoning change be consistent with the character of the surrounding community and current uses so in our case right the developer proposes 70 townhomes on roughly six acres point five eight point eight five acres is a park so it's six acres minus point eight five it comes out to a density about 13.5 units per acre we're going to ascertain what the current density is in that area but there's a lot of us that feel like the current density is way below that and the other concern is that it's a three-story development in the homes in that area directly surrounding it or single family one-story units there are a couple of two stories there's no three-story units in bond farm that we're aware of and then the last one I'll bring up and then I'll stop is that the zoning change is consistent with the order to the development of public services so again we have a concern because the streets were built in many cases many decades ago there's already traffic issues on the feeder streets to spruce you may have heard this from other discussions they're Sherman there's Grant there's Francis you know they're they're all very narrow streets and right now the way this development is currently proposed the only way that anybody can exit this development is on a spruce avenue and then once they're on spruce avenue it's kind of game on so we have concerns about that as well so again I'll work with Jennifer but I think it's important that you guys know that what our concerns are and I really appreciate your time thank you thank you mr. Coleman next person on the list is Jerry Walther good evening and thank you for listening to me my name is Jerry Walther and I live at 1305 spruce avenue just down the street from the proposed bond farm development our group the bond farm neighbors has been meeting regularly since late August when we all received the notification from the city of an online meeting about the proposed development of the bond farm property since then we have developed created and distributed almost 200 flyers some of which I bring to you tonight on behalf of our group there are several of us who have made a concerted effort to contact all our neighbors from Sunset to Bowen and from third to first avenues by knocking on doors speaking to them and leaving our flyers I personally have spoken with over 50 residents of bond farm and they almost unanimously feel the develop development proposed is too large and is incompatible with our neighborhood people are concerned that inserting a development of this size onto the bond farm property will seriously degrade the quality of life in our neighborhood for all its present and future residents thank you very much thank you next person is Michelle Bennett good evening my name is Michelle Bennett and I live at 203 Francis Street catty corner from the bond farm and if you've never been there or down Spruce Street I would really like to invite all of you to come on down drive through Spruce Street so you kind of get the feel of what we're talking about because it isn't just as black and white as it seems it's a very special neighborhood so this evening is more rhetorical for me I have questions I've lived there for 26 years I pretty much had my thought I had my you know fingers on the pulse of what was going on in my neighborhood and then this the idea of it being rezoned and I thought I knew what was happening and then all of a sudden this happened and how did we get here so I have some questions I'm just gonna throw them out there I know y'all can't answer me but um so these were my questions so now can anyone buy up houses in the designated orange zone tear them down and then build three-story apartment buildings so if it's now an orange zone and there's single family homes if I bought two of them I could tear them down and build to the zoning code I am curious about that what is the difference between I don't know but the RMN and RMF and why are certain areas with existing single family homes under these zoning parameters I don't quite understand it so shouldn't all existing single family homes be in an RSF zone because they're already single family zones should there be some zoning criteria exceptions in historical districts because historical districts are a little bit different than some outlying areas they kind of have a life of their own let's see so I could see that being on a case by case basis if if the developer fit into that environment number five did the city planning and zoning staff and decision-makers ever consider that some developer will come and buy the bond farm and built 70 units and 70 units is going to be squished into this little place I mean squished so that is what I'm like did anybody expect that to ever happen when they rezone this area and when zoning criteria is defined does the scope consider the age of the existing infrastructure and its future use so if you're going to zone something you look at the infrastructure around it when the future of that infrastructure it needs to be in order to rezone it to that capacity is the city willing to update all infrastructures to support the future needs of an RMN zone if a developer wants to tear down a rebuild you know what can we expect from the city since it was the zoning department that chose to do this so what can we expect as the neighborhood from the city to help us out and help us benefit from this development how does zoning the bomb farm and home south of spruce avenue as an RMN zone benefit the existing single family homeowners it doesn't it just doesn't there's no nothing that the city can do to make it any better it's an old historical area we can't widen the streets we can't add this we can't subtract that so my last how many homeowners in the RMN are aware of this information do all our citizens know that they're in this I mean that's why I did the map do all these people know this they all know somebody could come and do this in their backyard because if not I'd like to suggest that you tell them they might have something to say about it as well these are your citizens our citizens and this is our town so they might have a voice thank you miss binette next person on the list is Mark Danielson good evening chairman commissioners staff my name is Mark Danielson I live with my wife Annie at the corner of Lincoln and spruce just one block east of the proposed bond farm development can you please give us the address for 251 Lincoln Street yep sorry about that I would like to make a plea this evening that you curtail the scope and density of that project to help it better align with long months growth plans expressed in envision long month thank you for a few minutes of your time you will soon be called upon to formally consider the bond farm development project at 1313 spruce when that happens you will be required to evaluate a very complex issue as development proposals so often are how do you honor the rights of the developer who has invested in this property with the hope of making a profit from it he can quote chapter inverse from the municipal code that says under the current rmn zoning he can erect six to 18 units per acre and it's true how then do you honor the rights of the surrounding community who have invested dearly in their homes and have a right not to have those property values and their cherished lifestyles diminished by the action of others they can quote chapter inverse from envision long month our comprehensive development plan that requires planning and zoning to quote maintain and enhance the character of established neighborhoods unquote also true the municipal code is in tension with the city's vision it's complex if it weren't we wouldn't need human beings sitting where you are human beings have the unique ability to access wisdom to solve complex tensions and that is what's needed here there's no formula no algorithm no set of rules that can take the place of human wisdom my appeal this evening is that as you weigh these opposing desires and rights that you listen carefully to the wisdom of crowds you may remember the bestseller by New York Times business author James Sirowiki by the name by that name in which he argued that in complex situations there is surprising wisdom in the consensus of the crowd the crowd in this case as you've heard and will heal repeatedly in weeks and months to come finds this current proposal simply crazy now you may be tempted to discount these voices as just the nimby rants of cranky neighbors of course no one likes change they're just gonna have to get over it and maybe that's the case or maybe this is the wisdom of crowds consider this if you were here for the previous developers proposal of a 40 unit mixed use community you may remember that it cruised through virtually without public opposition now did anyone in the neighborhood love that proposal absolutely not anyone you asked had wished the property would remain vacant so we could walk our dogs there and preserve our views of the flat irons but we all knew that wasn't realistic change happens and we have to adjust that's life so when he proposed a development of 40 units neighbors almost without exception shrugged things change that's life fast forward to today when this developer proposes jamming 70 units onto the same property now the neighborhood is united in active vocal opposition this isn't change that we have to adjust to this is crazy everyone can sense that the surrounding streets engineered decades or a hundred years ago we're not designed to carry that load everyone can sense that the surrounding historic neighborhood of single and two family homes is clearly the wrong location for condos towering three stories high with roof top decks that's not change that's crazy everyone can sense it I appeal to you to hear the wisdom of the crowd the wisdom of the neighborhood we're braced for change and will accept it with a shrug but we're not resigned to accepting crazy and this is crazy I appeal to you to honor your charge from envision longmont to maintain and enhance the character of the bon farm neighborhood by cutting this proposed development in half at the project to 35 or 40 units proving again the wisdom of crowds I think you'll watch the opposition melt away thank you for your attention thank you mr. Danielson next person on the list and I hope I get the name right John moran hello my name is John Lachran Lachran and I live at 220 Sherman and I brought a little graphic this evening to share with you and I don't people from the in the back won't be able to see it but they some of them may have seen it and I don't know if you can see it but I live over here on Sherman the previous development proposal that someone people had talked about the entrances were kind of offset so as you look at Grant right down here there's a little job so that people have to make a couple of turns going in and out of here on Sherman is currently proposed under the development it's a straight shot right so that really I my my idea is that most of this traffic on this north side so people coming from over are gonna come down here down the Sherman one turn in Iran right same with people coming from 20 I 25 or from north on main right they're gonna come down third just like water under the door right the least resistance just go down Sherman is one turn right they're not really gonna come down and make a turn here and then make a double turn same with coming out people from coming down Francis which is pretty problematic right now because it's backed up but people there will most likely just come straight down Sherman they got one more turn right and same with coming out so we're gonna have the traffic from Hoover on the north side from Francis from Longmont High School from 66 where I typically would go to work I would come right down there I'm also from 25 all feeding mostly on the Sherman so I don't believe that's a safe thing because my house has a horse hitching post out front and a number of the houses on my street do it's over 120 years old so I'm not sure that that street can physically accommodate that or what other reparations could be made to make that work but also it's just not equitable so the thing that I like about the previous arrangements where the streets were offset is that when someone comes out they're gonna make two turns they're gonna make a couple of turns so they could go right and then go up Francis or maybe they could go up Judson once they make that turn they could go any other way but at this point I believe that most of the people are gonna follow the route of more of least resistance and go down Sherman so another issue with that that I marked on here some of the slips so on the guidelines from the city I believe it's four or five percent that a street should a new intersection should not be more than four or five percent grade right so my contention would be there was a traffic study the other day I don't know if they looked at the grade but it looks to me like the bottom of Sherman Street is already over five percent maybe ten percent so how would that tie in if the developer is gonna tie that in would that not be a new intersection we know that this is pre-existing so we're not really proposing to change that but how would that development come up would you build a big ramp up from the bottom so they could get that grade up or if that intersection was offset would that be a different intersection so I'm not sure how that would be accommodated but the final thing that and that would be true with all of these streets have that same grade and the same grade coming up I was asking my neighbors just as we came in about the kid who got killed on the skateboard coming down Grant a couple years ago same situation coming in there so we're gonna increase this traffic right now today as I was coming home and I crossed this street on third it's not easy but there was a gentleman trying to turn on his bike right there it's not an easy turn people don't ride their bikes down Francis if you ever notice or down third I'm sorry if you notice because it's not safe a lot of people ride and walk on spruce and you can tie into the bike path down here and you can also drive down to ride downtown and jump on Pratt or Bowen and go up one of those streets and get on the back streets the only other through street is like Longs Peak right so I'm wondering like if the goal for Longmont is to be a bikeable walkable you know user-friendly city how are we you know what are we doing was one of the main bike thoroughfares so it seems like we're doing something to spite ourselves so thank you for your attention and I appreciate you considering our concerns thank you Mr. Lackman next on the list is Daniel Sorrell's did I get that right no comment okay next person is Drew Sorrell's okay no problem next person Doug Jones good evening Doug Jones at 243 Sherman Street so just up the hill on John's map over there I just wanted to echo the rest of the neighbors at the Bond farm that I'm wondering if a 70 unit development is the right place for such a large development the when Peter Spalding brought the co-housing project in at 40 units we weren't excited about it but we thought you know this is a good size it's a good fit for the neighborhood we weren't real excited about the extra businesses along Spruce Street but you know we were willing to live with that because the density of the place felt like it was compatible with what was going on there the size of the houses the size of the development felt comfortable enough to as Mark very eloquently stated you know it made sense for us and we were agreed to what that could bring to us with this development being so large so tall and just kind of this cookie cutter town houses just slapped down in the middle of this great historic neighborhood we think it's the wrong choice and it's not the right place for it so I hope you guys consider that you know let's work together to make it something and work with the developer to make it something that we can all live with and that we're all happy with so you know the developers needs are met the neighborhoods needs are met and we come out with a win-win I think that's what we're all going for thank you very much thank you mr. Jones the next person is Annie Sorotniak thank you for bravely trying to pronounce my last name it is Annie Sorotniak I live with my husband Brian Whitehead at 227 Grand Street and I as well will just want to first thank you all for your time and for your service to our community in this complicated issue I support private property rights and sensible development and they don't have to be mutually exclusive as a resident of this neighborhood I make observations all the time about the traffic as I run I walk I ride my road bike and I commute mostly on spruce so I'm paying attention a lot and so these are some of my own observations rather than I haven't sat and counted numbers of cars but I'm aware and I again I pay attention so my point is while the guidelines for the density approved for the zoning change may allow the 70 units on I guess it comes out to be 3.85 units per acre it's my opinion that the proposed plan by 1313 spruce is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood the density that 75 units if we assume two drivers two trips per day minimum the effect of those vehicles on feeder streets that are narrow I feel it will not be safe for the children and the seniors in our neighborhood also the egress heading west on spruce to sunset would create an extreme bottleneck and I take that that row very often and it often is very very tight so add all those that volume and I believe it will be really challenging and then the question who would pick up the the externalized cost of the effect of the heavy construction over the years needed to build such a large project on it would definitely affect spruce Street and who's gonna pick up that cost that's kind of a question and so I ask that I feel that the the development does not maintain and enhance the character of the neighborhood I request that you please curtail the scope and size of the project and I was in support of the co-housing development I had lived in co-housing at Lions Valley Village for eight years before I moved to Lions in 2014 and my husband has been living at Grant Street for 27 years so we're long-term ish I'm a long-term ish but he's very long-term resident so I do support development I I don't assume it's going to be just an empty space but I think maybe we together could work to find something that is a middle ground that will be profitable for the developers but also safe and sustainable and it with integrity and maintaining the quality and the character of our neighborhoods so I love Longmont and I love my Longmont neighbors so again thank you for the time and for being willing to listen to our input really appreciate it thank you thank you mr. Rottnieck that is the last of the person who was on the list we do allow anybody else who would like to come up you do give five minutes if there's anybody else who would like to take this time seeing nobody getting up I will go ahead and close the public comment period next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for the October 19th 2022 meeting or is there any questions comments and vice chair Goldberg yeah thanks chairman I moved to approve the October 19 minutes we have approval commissioner flag I second the emotion the motion okay we have a motion and a second is there any other discussion comments if not Jane we're ready for a vote commissioner height commissioner Teta vice chairman Goldberg yes chairman Poland yes commissioner flag yes commissioner mucotch yes commissioner Kohler yes chairman that passes for five approvals and two abstentions thank you very much the next item is item 6a the sugar mill station preliminary plan presenting a senior planner Jennifer Hewitt Eprison good evening members of the commission for your consideration this evening I would like to present a proposed preliminary plat for sugar mill station this particular project is located at the northeast corner of east Kenpratt Boulevard and north 119th Street opposite the historic sugar factory this site is within the sugar mill highway 119 gateway focus area identified as an area of change in the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan so as an overview of the project this particular property is just short of 24 acres it is zone mixed use employment and the applicant is proposing approximately 350 units of multifamily housing plus an additional three and a quarter-ish acres of commercial we are in the preliminary plat stage so some of these numbers could get flushed out a little a little bit more as this project proceeds to the site plan process additionally this is part of the sugar factory planning sub area that is part of the overall sugar factory steam planning process that has been ongoing within the city of Longmont so in terms of the area zoning and Envision Longmont comprehensive plan designation high density residential as is proposed here is permitted as a secondary use in the mixed use employment district so the hatched area on this map is all in the mixed use employment district there are a number of unincorporated properties still within this area I've outlined this area in dark blue and this larger area is designated mixed use employment in the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan as a general rule secondary uses are permitted so long as they are less than 50% of the total area of the zone this subject property as outlined in the red is clearly less than 50% of the total mixed use employment area so additionally this project the proposed project does meet the minimum density thresholds for the mixed use employment zone specifically mixed use zones allow residential that is at a minimum of 18 dwelling units per acre and this particular project would be upwards of about 25 units per acre consistent with both Envision Longmont as well as the land development code so in terms of the preliminary plat yeah I know this is a little difficult to see there is a much larger more zoomable version of the proposed plat within your packet so again this particular property is just short of 24 acres proposed are five lots and one out lot as well as an interior road network that would provide connectivity to Ken Pratt 119th as well as Sugar Mill Road identified as well our preliminary utility easements and there are some additional utility easements and drainage easements and such that are going to be necessary and as this project proceeds through the process assuming that presuming that this commission chooses to advance it the applicant would be continuing would continue to work with various utility providers including excel energy and the city of Longmont's utility providers utility departments to ensure that all the necessary easements and and such would be in rights of way would be included on the final plat and as these as the as part of the final site plan so in terms of the concept plan the applicants going to provide quite a bit more detail on what they are proposing in terms of building types layouts etc the concept plan as provided with the preliminary plat shows four residential lots with 11 multifamily buildings plus a clubhouse there would be a commercial lot fronting on 119th Street just north of Ken Pratt Boulevard that would be a commercial lot to be developed as at a second phase of the project additionally there would be an out lot with detention and water quality at the intersection of Ken Pratt and 119th Street and this would be part of that gateway corridor with the appropriate landscaping pursuant to code one thing to note as well is that the there are not any proposed variances from land development code standards that have been identified with this preliminary plat we anticipate that the project would be would comply with all applicable setback height etc requirements so as a conclusion staff is recommending approval of this project there were three conditions that were essentially items that would need to be done as part of the final plat and site planning process these are pretty standard specifically inclusion adding the inclusionary housing comments and making sure ensuring those requirements are met and you know continuing to work with fire our fire rescue department to ensure that they are having they have the necessary access and easements etc as well as working with our engineering natural resources public works natural resources team to ensure that appropriate grading drainage etc is provided on site the applicant has demonstrated compliance with review criteria for all application for both the general all application types as well as the specific preliminary plat as noted the project as proposed will comply with city standards is not seeking any variances does meet the requirements established for secondary uses as well it's content and it is consistent with the emerging goals and recommendations the sugar factory steam sub area plan the applicant has been working with staff to ensure that what they are proposing is consistent with the overall vision for this particular area and again as noted staff does recommend approval of this project with conditions that really just relate to additional information that would be required with subsequent applications and with that I'm going to turn it over to the applicant to discuss the project concepting in more detail thank you good evening Mr. Chairman members of the Commission appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight to present this project we're very excited to be here and present a new rental community within the sugar mill station redevelopment area and by the way do I need to state my address sorry about that Sean Sean Finch Fairfield residential 1644 Platte Street Denver I like to thank staff as well for their direction and the collaboration that we received to this to this moment tonight I did just want to like tell talk a little bit about Fairfield and who we are we have been around for 36 years doing business in the apartment development business that's that's what we do that's what we focus on we develop what we call a fully integrated platform where we we find the opportunity we take it through the approval process through permitting we construct the community and at the back end we we manage it as well so we're involved from the front end to to the actual management of the property this is our first community in Longmont but we do have a long history in the Denver and the surrounding communities over many years I want to just point out a some maps that that were taken from the the August 2020 ULI report it was the technical advisory panel report and excuse me in that report they they identified land use mixes that achieves to achieve a goal of read about revitalization of the the historic sugar mill area the panel identified these three land use plans and just wanted to point out the residential areas of them to the to the east is the residential zone in the orange color and there's also one kind of the mid mid area of the of the plan and our proposal is over on the eastern area in that residential zone and again here's another image of the site as you can see it's on the eastern end with the the sub area plan in the with the dashed line around it again as it relates to consistency we believe that you know we are consistent with the zoning we have the zoning map down in the corner of the the image and then just kind of for historical the the site plan shown on the on the upper corner of the of the slide that's kind of our starting point we and working with staff we kind of came up with this kind of cartoonish image and that's what we that's what we work towards it's changed a bit as you'll see in in the slides going forward but you know everything has to start somewhere and it's it's kind of cool to take a look at where you started and and kind of how it develops over over a period of time from here I'd like to hand over to the anvil air who can take you through the more details of the project and I also wanted to say if I may the members of the Fairfield team are here as well as our full design team so if I can't answer a question I've got some backup good evening Leanne Valier with Norris design or 1101 Bannock Street in Denver thank you very much Jennifer and commissioners and staff for your time tonight we're very excited to discuss this project and you know it's Jennifer touched on the preliminary plat before you really establishes a gridded network and this roadway network creates the the framework for what will happen for the rest of the community and the rest of the sub area plan to the east as well as to the west and it creates utility easements that will really help set the redevelopment of this area emotion the roadway networks improve the conditions of the existing roadways provide the access to those adjacent parcels both to the east and the west and provide opportunities and infrastructure for additional parcels in the future so this is our conceptual site plan which provides the commercial residential and recreational land uses the residential component not only supports the future employment and commercial uses within Sugar Mill area but also fills a greater need within Longmont the streets have been designed to accommodate on street parking and buildings have been brought closer to the streets to support the desire for a more urban streetscape this is an important urban design element to help promote the pedestrian connectivity and to hide parking behind the buildings the multifamily community will include indoor amenities such as fitness co-working spaces community rooms and bike and ski repair shop while outdoor spaces are anticipated to include pool and spa outdoor kitchen fire pit areas community plazas and community garden a 10 foot multi-use bike trail is being provided along the north side of Kenpratt Boulevard and this trail will will provide a portion of the missing link identified in the parks and recreation trails master plan to provide connection to existing trails and recreational amenities we worked very closely with city staff to locate the required pocket park in a location that would not only serve the residents of this community but also the greater Sugar Mill area as it continues to develop this site plan meets all city code as was mentioned and we don't anticipate any variances so the architectural form and materials of the building took direct inspiration from the historic Sugar Mill the use of brick and high quality fiber cement siding highlights the past industrial nature of the site while keeping a pedestrian scale for residential experiences at the request of city staff the buildings along Kenpratt are four stories while the interior buildings drop to three stories adjacent to the interior roads to promote that pedestrian urban scale and all buildings will feature four-sided architecture the top left image is a view of a four-story residential building from Kenpratt Boulevard moving to the top right image is the view of the pedestrian scale of the internal gridded roadways the bottom left image is a view of the front of the clubhouse and leasing center and lastly the bottom right image is a view of the clubhouse and leasing center from Kenpratt Boulevard at Great Harvest Drive entry so in closing this project will be the catalyst for the revitalization of Sugar Mill area by providing the residents and infrastructure to attract attract future opportunities and we thank you very time very much for your time this evening our team is here and available for a comment and questions thank you very much i think at this time this is a public hearing item and we will go ahead to the public invited to be heard on this item uh i will open that up currently there is nobody on the list but we do invite anybody in the audience who would like to come up and speak to this item on the agenda you will have five minutes to go ahead and state any opinions you have out of it and remember please state your name and address for the record hello my name is michael baird i'm director of supply chain with western sugar um my address is 12698 Fisher Drive in uh Englewood Colorado down in Dumber i'm here representing the sugar mill uh yes it is 100 years old yes we know every bit of those 100 years um we feel it feel it within our operations on a day-to-day basis but we're still operating and i just wanted to make sure that that's clear to the zoning personnel um to the planning personnel there's a railroad that goes north of sugar mill road and that is still operational and all intentions are with our long-term planning it's this site is crucial to our business feeding into denver directly as one of the only silos that we have and silo stations that are in this area that can feed the large customers that we have in the in the denver area you know denver um geologically is is kind of on an island when it comes to supply chain and how that fits into other areas of the united states so with the name being western sugar and feeding the a lot of our customers go on west in denver being a big part of that long amount is very much a big part of our plan so we have no problem with growth we have no problem with development we just want to make sure that we are here to say it's still operational we plan on keeping it operational through all of its old age in grace and that railroad we we do plan on continuing to operate so the noise the the operation of a sugar mill loading trucks the traffic of of big trucks um because that's there's no packaging out of that place there will be no it's all it's all bulk bulk rail bulk trucks so i'm here to represent the company and to make sure that um that that is known that it's our intention to keep it to 150 to 200 years old so it goes with the long-term plan thank you thank you mr. bear anybody else in the public yes hello john lachlan again 220 Sherman street and just looking at the picture right here and the previous one from the inside view of the rental office my understanding that the city was trying to encourage less grass area especially that is not going to be a functional area so i'm just looking at this right here along ken pratt it looks like a lot of green grassy area that would just be maintained for no particular purpose so i would just encourage the commission to kind of be a springboard and model for other developments sort of like at the hospital i thought they did a nice job at the new hospital rather than just having like a grass where you see the guys out there every week cutting and bagging hauling that away thank you thank you mr. lachlan anybody else in the public would like to come up if not i'll go ahead and i'll close the public invited be heard for item number six a at this time we will open it up to the commission for questions comments and motions if somebody is so moved commissioner flag kick us off thank you chair following up on the sugar mill statement i have to ask about the building so i guess leon are you uh can you speak to the building construction and and uh how sound worthy or not they will be good evening related to sound you know we're typically required to do a an acoustical study um and that's done you know during the daytime hours so whatever uh wherever the noise readings get kind of land we will you know design the buildings accordingly so whether that means you know the windows maybe have a higher acoustical grade to them but ultimately we have to you know we have to insulate to a certain standard and that's what we do and and your tenants will understand that there is a working railroad adjacent and they will and the accompanying lighting that is in existence um what what size will those units be we have one we're proposing one two and three bedroom units and the square footages are are roughly 700 square 50 square feet on the low side up to 1300 square feet on on the high end so so the possibility is that you may actually have small families uh people with children who are going to rent these units that could be and since i don't have a detailed landscaping or grounds plan i'm wondering if there is provision for some kind of play area or a place where a kid can kick a ball we we have some areas some green spaces identified on the plan they haven't been formally um identified as exactly what the activities could be um but but things like that we are we are definitely considering as we we look at what our resident profile looks like and some of these people may own pets are you allowing pets yes and so you'll have availability of dog walk we will do a dog walk area and we typically provide a dog wash station as well okay and um then i started thinking about uh the recycling on site i know that you have trash facilities and these people are renting so they don't have the wherewithal to take anything that's recyclable to the martin street facility here in longmont and in longmont we're making huge pushes for recycling and even composting now i'm not sure i would expect apartments to do composting however um is it possible that you can work into some of these kinds of things on your grounds so that we can uh i mean it's a lot of people here right a lot of trash a lot of recycling um starting from go as part of their i don't know how you do at least agreement or something that they would be required or you'd make a facility so that they can do that i'm concerned that we carry on throughout the city because one of your statements was something about um keeping up with the environmental concerns and this is one of long months as we we encourage that and we we try and make it easy for the folks to be able to recycle so in our our um our trash areas throughout the community we have bins for um regular trash and for recycle and separate pickups for each okay and i'm thinking in terms of everybody ordering from amazon will there be provision for large and small cardboard boxes even to be recycled we will you know we'll talk through that and and you know figure out how we you know whether we we have somebody to break down the boxes um but that's something as on a management side that we do so we'll be able to identify that if it becomes a problem and manage it i appreciate that um like i say we're very much looking at long months being sustainable and the last question i have is in regards to your in it right in right out uh intersection there at pratt and pratt and great western drive and i don't know if you want to answer that or if i need to talk to traffic engineering well ask your question we'll uh we'll see who's best better suited to answer it well i have safety concerns because i have noted in the past watching people with large vehicles drive right over and make that left turn anyway or go across an intersection and um how comfortable are you with that your development well i can't can't speak for everybody um but there's an opportunity on 119th to make that left turn much safer um so i would hope that people would choose that option um because it's it's not out of the way by any means um if i you want a more technical answer than that yes i can uh ask our traffic engineer to add to that add a little more color thank you very much good evening commissioners uh jeff plank 4582 south ulcer street denver colorado 82 or 80237 and uh help prepare the traffic study for this and so this is an existing intersection right here the projects will be tying in with an axis on the north leg there with three-quarter movements actually so you'll have the eastbound left into the project there and they'll operate um from the traffic study reported as level service c which is an acceptable operations movement level service can be acceptable up to level service e so two more categories um for the threshold to be acceptable there okay and i guess my next questions are to traffic engineering all right thank you jeff is there somebody from traffic good evening commission uh chris hoffer with uh public workers natural resources um did you have a question i do chris um looking at this schematic all it's i not exactly it's not showing me what i'm trying to find out um because i have seen traffic at great western come out and turn left onto 119 and go ahead south and west um there's small roads in that area i think um my concern is that how will you prevent people from being able to get around say an island is there an island in the middle of the road there that's going to prevent that so yes there is an island currently there that creates that three-quarter movement that was just spoken about uh for eastbound to turn left or north into this property so there there are islands there in the middle and then also with the development of farmhouse just to the south and east of this property there were some improvements done to those existing islands that are on the south side and that is a right in intended to be a right in right out um so they are constructed to highway standards um of course we can always build something but we can't always make people do the right thing so okay so but you're satisfied that it's adequately constructed yes yeah it is constructed to current standards for for the highway thank you thank you commissioner tedda thank you chair pollin um chris while you're still here i have a question for you about the proposed signalized intersection there at 119 in kenpratt that'll be concurrent with this project or prior staff is looking at that i don't know the final decision has been made at this point but most likely um there's other things happening in this area um when the signal meets warrants uh that's when the signal will be constructed um i think that and maybe their traffic engineer can answer better than i can i'm not sure that this project in and of itself meets the warrants at that location but it would be our intention to construct it shortly thereafter or with this concurrent with this project and and there was a second signalized intersection there at i think third and alpine mentioned in the that that is uh under consideration for future signalization as well um depending on background traffic and again i don't recall from the traffic impact study but i don't believe that this particular project with this traffic generation met the warrant for alpine and third as well but thank you but it is on the city uh cip project a list and it's under consideration by the city thanks chris i had a question for the applicant as well the one of the buildings is going to have live work as part of it can you expand on that a little bit tell us what it's going to be like we don't have much of that in this city so i'm fascinated with that we don't have a design for the floor plan yet but effectively what they are is the ground level is is um can operate as a a small business maybe an office um at the ground level and then the upper area is the living area and are is that a definite component of i mean for sure you're going to have that yes okay thank you that's all i got thank you commissioner will catch thank you chair i want to go back to the intersection of ken pratt and 119th street again regarding the signalized intersection it looks like in your recommendations you also looked at the mutcd recommendations and look at the crashes that happened there so are you recommending a signalized intersection there or not it just wasn't clear for me if someone can expand on that i can cover both of the warrants um ken pratt and 119th street does not meet vehicle volume warrants um that would have to meet the warrants when development to the south is developed in the future and that'd be determined in a future traffic study um the city did direct us to look at the crash experience warrants there were five crashes in the period of one year so that does meet a candidate for consideration of signal and so the city is determining that right now and have you looked i know you you counted current pedestrian and bicycle traffic have you thought with so many units how many pedestrians and bicycles are going to cross the highway or want to cross the highway safely if a signal was implemented in the future there'd be crosswalks for that but no the pedestrian and bicycle crossing was not incorporated in traffic study and that's fairly typical for the traffic study yeah i know it is typical it's just you have a trail right there across the street and a trailhead so um i assume a lot of people that are going to move there are going to take that in consideration when they look for a place to stay um and it's you know a marketing opportunity okay thank you commissioner height thank you um mr french i guess i'll start with you i have a whole bunch of questions but i'll go to you first um so lama has an awful lot of apartments at least in my opinion um or my observations um particularly recently just to the south of you i think uh you know another four to five hundred units maybe i'm a little high another 300 units at least um has gone in just to the south a little bit east of that um is a major development on the other side of county road one is another project coming in um you're planning to put in another 350 ish units of apartments why the number is actually 330 okay so it's a little lower thanks um we believe there's a we believe there's a demand here we believe there's a desire for people want to live here in longmont you've got some new businesses along the corridor that are here and more potentially coming so we think it's a it's a great opportunity to be a part of the community and provide some quality housing and what about a different mix um as opposed to apartments um some ownership-based multifamily types of products maybe condominiums maybe paired homes um just north behind the that country club there's a a mix of housing types going in have you thought about that uh we have not um i think it's always good for a community to have a good mix of of different product types for sale and rentals our business is apartments and so that's what we've looked at for this particular site okay um no thanks um i don't know how to to press you further on that um but planner you at apperson you're next sure you referenced i think it's in page nine but you also in your presentation um identified this project as being part of i think it was you called it the sugar factory planning sub area correct i thought it was the sugar mill factory but it's whatever it's called um i've not been able to identify that i know that um other planners have presented to us periodically over the last i think two years the you the uli report and then there was a reference to a new study late last year by suntech and in those studies and as you referenced there's a sub plan but i don't find a sub plan anywhere in our zoning code um is there such a thing am i missing it it's a work in progress currently um i did look at the zoning map because that's what i'm want to do can do you have that handy can you pull that up for everyone to take a look at right there we go so this is the zoning map yeah there we go um it's different than the official zoning map but i think it is a fair representation of what we have going on 125 ish acres is what that triangle represents in the zoning map that mu e the multi-use employment is east of i don't know what that main road is sugar mill road north south um 119th street 119th as it continues right it's north basically it's north of sugar mill road and then that southern section okay there's a there's a very large that large white area is currently unincorporated uh boulder that was my next question that's unincorporated that's not part of the city at all correct correct and it is considered it is designated for mixed use employment on the envision longmont comprehensive plan future has no zoning characteristics right now it's designated such in the it's it is um if memory serves me correct um general industrial and unincorporated boulder county okay because in the sub area working projects work in progress plans as i understand them land use issues design issues um and somewhat importantly remediation issues um associated with the old sugar mill um are identified as key components how does this plan this project mesh into that work in progress it seems like that's a big work in progress and then we have a new concrete plan coming in sure um so in terms of the environmental components um there has been a environmental assessment as well as a species and habitat plan prepared as part of this project it was included with packet um i saw a phase two that said there were no agricultural chemicals but i didn't see the phase one the phase one would um basically assess whether or not there were uses that warranted going deeper into a phase two i appreciate that for the the site specific project sure but it's next door to an asbestos laden plant at least that's what i understood you know the county posted it don't come in asbestos um asbestos moves asbestos is friable asbestos is an air hazard um is there in mr. baird you might have to come back and answer some questions too is there are there any issues associated with putting in residential in an area that i don't know if it has or hasn't been remediated for asbestos um to my knowledge it's not something that you know we have to take into consideration the existing property um in terms of environmental issues um we can't you know we haven't aren't able to really consider adjacent properties um the existing you know the environmental assessment for this particular property um and i don't know if i'm going to let the development team speak to that um a little better because they are going to be a little more competent in that than i am but what i'm hammering you on and i hammer is a strong word um in the city's review of this sub area and it's planning and it's you know looking at remediation issues um has it thought about how you would start doing residential development in the midst of possibly doing remediation i mean is there a is there a thought about that from the city's perspective i'm going to defer to glenn he's been more involved in that planning process than i have i adopted that process um actually from erin um but for the on-site yes that's in fact that's why it's taken so long is trying to come up with a finance plan that would at least clean the site um on the sugar mill itself but um so that is a big part of the and we call it sugar factory because technically historically it's really a factory and not a mill so we were corrected at some point through the process but it's a very big part of we're into kind of the implementation plan so it's a very big part of the implementation plan okay um mr barrett do you have anything more to add regarding the owners remediation plans if any that you can talk about thank you okay um miss you at apperson so this all dovetails into my issue of secondary uses um secondary uses you know not the primary use when we look at and i seem to be in the minority we look at this as a district wide type of um issue um you kind of narrowed it to 125 acre parcel as opposed to the whole district which when i look at the zony map the m ur district runs north to third and over to down your second um well not second but main almost but weaver park rogers road primrose the car dealerships etc back in there um as part of m ur and somewhat contiguous to this property correct but if we look at the 125 acre sugar factory sub area um half of it isn't sold at all because it's it's an unincorporatable county um but it's designated for m ur i guess um but you identified that this 28 acre parcel 23 acre parcel represents 19 percent of the entire 125 acre sugar factory sub area um and it's all going to be residential not all of the sub area is going to be residential um there's no residential component so do you foresee a problem this is a great i guess anchor or a start to redevelop that area adding residential but i think it limits potential future residential use or m ur potential to only which is to encourage residential as a secondary use with an employment emphasis if all of the residential is going to be in this particular parcel do we limit the opportunities for future owners to do good things in an m ur capacity because residential is taken up by this particular project which is all residential so um just for clarification there is a commercial component to this project there is a there is a you know taking out taking out the rights of way outlots etc um 20 percent there are five parcels proposed one of those is commercial um and then there is also the live work component proposed um you know in terms of whether this takes up all of the secondary use potential um you know we really are looking at less than 50 percent and this is far less than 50 percent of this entire area so um you know at this point you know we have to consider projects as they come in and you know it's very difficult for us to be able to say well no you can't do this because someone else might come in later and want to do the same thing that's something we're not in a great position to do um Glenn would you like to add anything on that no i think that's when you have an area like this that is not annex we go back to the comp plan and look at what's recommended and i believe this whole area is m u e right correct this is all mixed use employment i might just say or i apologize that's okay i knew what you meant okay um thank you both i do have a follow-up in regards to that can you go to the applicants uh page screen number three i believe because i think this will help i have the same question concerning what this does for future is this the one you were referring to yes because on any of those three there is another a second residential component kind of in the middle and i'm wondering have we looked at when we add those two residential components together where are we at percentage wise well i don't think we have done this was you know kind of a quick shred yeah yeah but but this is getting to to uh commissioner heights question is well will will we will this be able to be done something like this so one thing i will point out is the m u e area does basically go up to roughly third street so this this sugar factory planning area is not the entire m u e area so there is quite a bit more um m u e in this immediate vicinity okay thank you our vice chair goldberg thanks chairman hi let me ask you just a couple quick questions and then maybe i'll have one or two for the applicant um i'm gonna ask him the same question but when we were planning this project did we take into consideration the functioning railroad line to the north and like was that was that kind of in the discussions and understood or was there some like silent hope that isn't railroad going away or something like that like was it top of mind so we're you know we this it's important to note this is a very preliminary part the process as as it moves you know assuming if if this commission chooses to advance this project forward mitigation any mitigation efforts that would need to be taken or need to be considered those would be evaluated you know as far as the acoustic analysis would be evaluated you know we would not assume that any of the existing uses would go away um you know we we do have buffer requirements as well so we would have to you know as this moves forward through the site planning process we would be looking at the standards looking at how they would you know do their noise mitigation etc so but yet no we we aren't assuming that the railroad is just going to go away okay great so yeah this this is I mean this is a mixed use employment area this is a functioning you know some areas some parts of it are currently vacant not in use but there are functioning businesses and and industrial type uses in this area and that's something that definitely is a consideration moving forward great thank you um during the applicant's presentation they talked about the bike path running along 119 as being part of a missing link I think to provide connectivity on the side of town um can you did your team evaluate that from the perspective of helping connect the bike path on the east side of town and is it helping connect and how so the development review committee does include representatives from parks and recreation transportation etc so um those are you know issues that weren't you know we had we would be caught with that as something that's contemplated for sure and we'd be working with the applicant moving forward to to do that okay I think the rest of my questions will be for mr.  Finch a little break sure mr. BC and I'm at 1644 platt street as well thank you thank you I'm asking the same question were we were you guys thinking about the railroad and the kind of existing infrastructure or existing structures and businesses when you were building this project or when you were planning this project yeah absolutely so this isn't new to us I mean we've done this before I mean when you brought that question up the first thing that came to mind is um we built the project down on us 36 in west minster over kind of by if you know where the west minster promenade is and there's a rail line that runs right next functioning rail line and what we do is we're just very design focused so in that project we actually the city asked that we put up a wall so we put up a brick wall there and then we do as Sean mentioned Sean Finch we do an acoustical study we do it during the day and we'll get an stc it's like a rating and it'll tell us what sort of building materials what sort of windows we need to use and we'll do that and what's interesting is we found a lot of times railroads make a lot of noise but believe it or not freeways make more noise and a lot of our projects are by freeways so we are used to this okay thank you the city has a requirement for inclusionary zoning slash housing or contributing a fee in lieu can you clarify your position on that and just kind of the why sure so this is an interesting one this may get us all thinking a little bit here so if you can you flip jennifer to our oh i guess it's me sorry i apologize there um oh wrong way i'm gonna use this one is so you know one thing we haven't talked a lot about is the history of this project so you know we've been working with city staff we've been working with uh tony chacon in the economic development department since 2020 and the way that we got involved in this project is because during the pandemic this property was under contract to a big logistics company that if i said the name everybody would know and they decided that um it wasn't in their plans anymore and and we had an opportunity to step in and talk to the land over landowner put the piece of property under contract so you know i think it's important to understand that for one um and as soon as we did that the first thing we did was we reached out to the city we reached out to staff and said you know we're we're a residential developer owner operator and we're interested in putting apartments here and um we want to learn a little bit more about this mixed use employment zoning and what it actually means and this site plan just so everybody's clear is a function of several meetings with the city where we laid out percentages of commercial versus um uh residential so it it didn't it wasn't just something that we laid onto the city it was multiple rounds but um during that process um we had uh tossed around the idea of um actually taking the the um three acre commercial piece and um considering putting an affordable housing project there um at the time that we had those conversations with staff we were told that there was a considerable amount of affordable housing housing that was planned across from us to the west or was in the works and that is probably not a good idea so think about just paying the cash in lieu and that's where we are today as we've proposed to pay the cash in lieu at the direction of what we heard okay thank you excuse me one of the other requirements um or recommendations from the staff was that you get kind of identified the need to continue to work with excel and um continue to navigate the waters around utility access um is your team prepared to do that absolutely yeah we've already engaged in conversations we've had a couple staff meetings with excel and um long mod power to talk about how we're going to um just kind of plan logistically all the utilities so that is in the works great those are all my questions okay i need to apologize to my peers up here because those are some like softball questions the reality is you know this seems like a really good project for the location in our town and i have very few problems with it um you know it's nice to have a project come before us that doesn't require a variance and those can be challenging to to get through um we haven't seen a whole lot of development in that part of town and specifically on that property you know i've lived in long month for a long time and the sugar factory is certainly an impressive beautiful you know like landscape and icon for our town but there just hasn't been any development around there there's been so many challenges that uh commissioner height brought up um but it's really exciting to see development coming into kind of the gateway to our town additionally it's the kind of development that we need you know every all you got to do is read the paper every few weeks and you'll find out that we don't have enough housing we don't know how to have enough housing i can't remember ever seeing something saying that we have too much inventory right so yes we do have a lot of apartments going up and we do have a lot of developments going in but i think that's what's going to continue to let the folks that work here live here you know the folks that want to you know our work workforce teams will workforce staff will have a place to live and i think that will continue to make long month accessible because those property values are going up and up and up and it's making it impossible to live here so i think it's really desirable and i know that we have to stick to a particular percentage in a when it's a secondary use in the you know mixed use um employment area it can't exceed x percentage but i think that calculation is important to have but without looking at it without like doing too much math i go well this makes sense it's what our town needs it's what we're going to continue to need and it's in a good side of town there's the rest of the property to the west where we have other neat opportunities for you know whatever the rest of the kind of areas we're calling out additional residential or commercial or or make other mixed uses so in the end i just don't have too many concerns with it and i'm largely favorable of it maybe real quick question when it comes to in our packet kind of on the first report it showed the staff recommendation it's a little bit of just when it said our options it says one approve two deny or three approve with conditions historically we have option one is to approve option two is to approve with conditions and then the denial is the third option when i pulled up our actual resolutions it reflected that so i just want to make sure we're that whatever motion i'm about to make is you know received accurately so you know i'm going to put out a motion out there and look forward to hearing from the rest of the commission any feedback there but because it meets all the review criteria which are shared in the staff packet because there's no need for variances because there's no pushback from neighbors because the applicant recognizes that there's a fully functioning you know factory just to the north that requires a rail line i get it and they get it because they're willing to meet all the recommendations that the city has provided as recommendations for conditions i don't really see any reason not to move forward with this project so my recommendation or my motion would be to move motion to approve pzr 2022-11 i think i'm going to call it b 11 b which requires the following conditions well there the three listed in our in our packet the applicant has selected the fee and lieu option for inclusionary housing ordinance and we'll add that during the final plat and site plan review process fire reserves the right for future comments should any changes to the submittal affect emergency services and additional information calculations plans and analysis will be required at the final plat and site plan review stage to show all of these things have been met let's go ahead and move to commissure lukash thank you chair i have two questions for staff and i'll start with a soft one there was a public comment there and it was talking about water um that the colorado river is low and we know that's to the west pardon me uh i believe i guess yujin do we need to have a second on the motion before we continue discussion okay okay uh i'll go ahead and commissioner coler um so i yeah i can agree with commissioner goldberg i think this is a easy project i think some of i do have a couple of questions so i i'll second the motion but i'll put you back in the okay okay so we have a motion and we have a second now for additional comments commissioner lukash thank you chair uh so regarding the water we know colorado rivers to the west what about the east uh are we having a problem uh regarding water and access to water i assume it's about potable water um and um are we looking at our water reserve when we are looking at new developments and specifically you know this is 330 units so it's significant i'm going to defer to mr heifer okay commission um yes the the city is constantly and continuously looking at our uh water portfolio um working on the water rights that we have making sure that we have the agricultural rights being adjudicated into municipal use so it's a constant and continuous process we do have the the raw water policy that goes along with the city's annexation procedures so when the properties annex they have to turn over historic raw water and then for development we require that the property have a minimum of three acre feet per acre of supply um part of that is storage and part of that is surface water um so uh once it's annexed if the historic water raw water does not yield three acre feet per acre they have a deficit and at the time of plat uh that deficit has to be made up and that can either be by cash in lieu which then the city can go out and purchase additional raw raw water or cbt um or uh they can the developer has the option to purchase a handful of different ditch rights or shares that they can turn over to the city does does that answer your question or um yes yes yes i just wanted to make sure someone is looking at that and what was the process so i think you answered that and since you're out there uh my other question was um just going back to that intersection of ken pratt and 119th um then you mentioned that's that being looked at it's part of a consideration um and obviously it's a highway so cbt is involved i'm sure um what what can we do to to make that happen can we do something to make that happen um yes i will say that um i think i mentioned that there are other things that play in this area um there is a open mine um permit on what we call the irwin thomas project that is to the south of this area here um and in working through that plan for them to mine uh this would be one route for trucks and that trucking would push everything over warrant um to install the light there um i think that we're very close um i think as was mentioned earlier that the crash data is getting to that point that that can be considered um so as we go through platt and as we put together the public improvement plans for this project we'll have to make a determination on if that light needs to go in now or if it needs to wait it it feels like that it's getting pushed towards sooner rather than later i guess i'd say um i'd also say that uh being that it's on the highway in highway 119 or 119th street i believe is a collector street that makes it eligible for our tcif funding as well so it wouldn't be the developer all constructing that signal when it comes in okay so that was another question so it's more the city building that and with c dot and not the developer um i think the developer would have some participation in that but uh we do have other funds to cover it as well just because i'm looking you know we've been hearing that it's it's connecting missing links and then trails and some some safe crossing there would definitely connect things and connecting people and trails mobility is definitely a link that is needed just because of the trails to the south and that would be a great at-grade crossing to be able to get people south on 119th street to the to the trail head there okay thank you for your explanation commissioner cola um so yeah as i was saying i think this is a good project i think it's um refreshing out to have a variance to make our lives kind of easier here um but i do have just a couple of questions and i will actually first second what commissioner the cotch said to me this kind of seems like an island of people actually without that way to cross ken pratt i think the only other way they could get across would be to go up further east um and cross that third but i don't know that there's a connection even between this a sidewalk and up to third so it i really feel it needs that extra piece in order to make it safer pedestrians um but i had a couple questions on the environmental study i think that might be best answered by the applicant happy to um so i noticed there were there's an existing red tail hawk nests there now and that your construction might overlap with the nesting period so i'm just curious if the hawk were to show up the season prior to or during your construction what would you do it seems like a project too big to just postpone on behalf of a of a hawk um what action would you guys take yeah so um we've uh one of our consultants ctl is heavily engaged in that um i i don't know if we can go so far at this point in actually saying our schedule and win that overlapping if it overlaps or not i i don't think we're there yet to say if that's the case um there is a protocol which you'll have to forgive me i don't have it memorized um that there's a uh a nesting season um and i know we have to make sure um that we go out and do surveys to confirm that there isn't nesting or any red tail hawks before we start construction and we're planning to adhere to that policy and i guess that's my question so you go into the surveys and the nest is there i mean are you willing to delay construction is that so um we've we've asked the question so i think our first step before we go so far is just say we're gonna stop construction i think we are we were told um when we talked to staff we actually talked with um i'll forget the gentleman but the Zach last week thank you for that and um Zach said our if a nest were discovered our next step would be to contact um Colorado Fish and Wildlife and um have them come and make an observation and a recommendation on what needs to happen so that would be our next step i would just i guess personally advocate because this area is being developed and the birds obviously have less and less places to go and they um seems like they have nested there for multiple years now you know it might be possible that if the nests were to show up you know you wouldn't have to cut the tree down necessarily once the construction was built the bird might come back and then not be impacted at all well and and one thing to keep in mind here is um the trees that you'll see if you drive by the property they're actually not on the property they're on the adjacent property so i think when it's being evaluated um the evaluation is really whether construction will interfere with them being in proximity to the site yeah that's great okay and then you have prairie dogs so i assume you're going through the the city of Longmont process for removal of those we are so met with Zach he walked us through the entire process again i mean we have a lot of steps ahead of us still we have to go through a site plan process um we have to go through our whole build building permit process so um you know we'll we'll definitely stay up to speed on that and uh when the time is right um follow the protocol okay great thanks and then i had one follow-up question for staff actually uh one of the members of the public mentioned all the grass and i uh looking at this drawing i would agree with that what options do the does the applicant have to do something more like the hospital did and not have the lawns necessarily sure it's important to know this is a conceptual plan so the areas in green are fairly generically shown as landscaping um so as we move forward with the site plan process and uh leon can actually just discuss the actual what they're looking at in more detail but as we move forward we do have requirements as far as um trees and shrubs and such and um you know encouraging water-wise landscaping etc so i'll let leon talk a little more about that yes water is water is a concern for all of us and we're all in this together so we don't plan to turf that entire area so again thank you it's definitely a representation of of um landscaped area um a lot of what you see along kenpratt boulevard is actually seed out right away so that other than um seeding any disturbed area we don't have control over um a lot of that once once construction is complete um we'll utilize a lot of native seed and low water planting beds um we'll use turf and more high water demand in just the pocket park area where we will have um you know kids playing that sort of thing where it's appropriate um in the heart of the community there will be um right now it's more green but that's planned to be um some community garden spaces plazas um some pavers so um all of what is green right now will certainly not be turf so thank you okay um i'll just quickly give my thoughts uh i am in favor of this this is just the preliminary preliminary plan uh there's still some details to be fleshed out but it is the first piece of the puzzle for this piece of property that the city is looking to develop uh i think it's thought out um i look forward to what we do with the rest of it but as far as the first piece i think it's a good beginning and i'll be for this project is there any other comments thoughts questions if not jane i think we are ready for a vote commissioner height no commissioner tedda yes vice chairman goldberg yes chairman poland yes commissioner flag yes commissioner lucotch yes commissioner kohler yes chairman that passes six to one with commissioner height dissenting thank you very much this item now enters a seven day appeal period during this time any agreed party may appeal the commission's decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning zoning commission's decision should be amended or reversed by city council all appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk's office and the planning office within the seven-day appeal period the appeal period begins thursday november 17th at 8 a.m and it ends wednesday november 23rd at 5 p.m that takes us uh that is our item for the public hearing uh we now are into other business are we okay to keep moving forward commission okay um items from the commission um so i guess i i think you have a final call oh sorry final calls sorry you're right final call public invited to be heard jane do we have anybody on the sheet no we do not have any is anybody left in the audience who would like to come and speak for final public invited to be heard if not we'll go ahead and close final invited to be heard and now we will move to items from the commission um so as glenn said i had a chance with commissioner tedda and with planning director glenn vandemwegen to interview we had seven candidates we have two open seats that will be coming open next year we have the three alternate positions uh that will also need to be filled and do you mind if i talk okay um we chris and i uh we're very impressed by the candidates um we kind of broke this into three parts i would say the first part is uh coming down to picking five people out of the seven who we'd like to move on through and it became clear to us that we did have a preference for five people um i will say that the people who did interview was jerry boone salina coller ana lukash k marsh joshua palmer matthew matthew popkin and amy saunders um those and out of those who we chose to move forward was jerry boone salina coller ana lukash matthew popkin and amy saunders uh we felt that the current members and current alternates are doing a good job and that we were uh would like to keep them on on the commission uh the next part was probably the harder part which is deciding which two we would recommend to be the permanent members on the commission um we started with uh commissioner lukash uh who has been on the commission for one year we feel that she's done a really good job and we would recommend that she be one of the two positions uh the other one what we've decided is that we would recommend that amy saunders be recommended for the position which would mean that jerry boone salina coller and matthew popkin would be recommended as alternate positions at this time um i will move it to the commission if there's any questions any discussion on that vice chair gullberg thanks chairman admittedly this is a little bit of an unusual process i can i tell you um this feels weird to be having this discussion in this format with applicants here i don't think this is a good way to do this um are we making the decision today or is this something that we will uh we're making are we making a recommendation today to city council cool okay so from chairman you had me well this is hard because none of us sat in the interviews or anything like that um so i gotta tell you um i will i definitely i'm definitely favorable to the recommendation to bring on commissioner lucotch full-time um boy i would make a recommendation to bring on commissioner cool coller full-time to given her tenure with the commission as well i if you want to have this conversation publicly right now this that's that's fine but um i'll lean on you please yes commissioner coller oh wait uh there you go so i i appreciate that i really do um and perhaps it would help in your to know that i um volunteered to be an alternate i would love to be a full-time commissioner but i have no concerns about being an alternate i i do this strictly in a volunteer capacity so i offered um my services in any way the commission felt was best so thank you that for that though i appreciate it okay i think you're back on okay oh sorry forgive me um man if she is if she is interested in being a full-time member of our commission i find again i'm challenged with why we would pass um i could i please defer to you and uh to chairman and commissioner teta to expand on why we should select uh i think it is candidate saunders maybe uh thank you okay well a question was asked so it can be a open discussion i think we're in like okay okay we'll go to commissioner flag i have the same sentiments as commissioner goldberg does and i reference the fact that uh commissioner coller brings with her incredible strength in the environmental areas um that the rest of us i don't think have and she has it at a touch commissioner teta uh commissioner flag and fellow commissioners and chair i think we all those of us involved in the interview process anyway concur and completely agree especially based on tenure and and uh and also all that commissioner coller brings with regard to her environmental background and experience but she also went way out of her way to impress upon us her willingness to continue to be an alternate no one else did that seven very qualified candidates for five positions and trying to juggle who gets what made it very difficult yeah which i will add which is why i mean this is the second part of it that was the first part of it the second part is for us to have a discussion as a commission to finalize our recommendation so um and i will agree with where chris uh commissioner teta it was not an easy decision i mean and i mean am i hard fast with the decision no but i mean uh what me and uh commissioner teta wanted to do is make sure that as a commission we came up with a solid recommendation to the city council of who we feel so that it is not left into the city it's in their hands but we're providing a solid recommendation and that's why we felt we had to nominate somebody and that's how that's what it was so commissioner or a vice chair goldberg yeah so then thank you and thank you for your guys time with the interview process um what i'm hearing is that this wasn't a decision based on merit perhaps commissioner kohler was more effusive than she's being at the moment about her desire to be an alternate um i'd be so brazen to is to make a recommendation that we we make the recommendation of commissioner kohler and commissioner lakach as our permanent seats if they're agreeable to those without any judgment but if they're agreeable i i think that would be my first recommendation commissioner height thank you um i agree too from a pure utilitarian standpoint i believe commissioner saunders is new um and and shows eagerness and potential but commissioner kohler has been fantastic for many years um and is invaluable and we'd be silly not to have her as silly um it would be a mistake not to accept her as a full member are there any other comments oh commissioner tedda and i am perfectly fine with that yeah as i am as i am as well commissioner vice chair goldberg commissioner kohler are you willing to be a full-time member of the planning and zoning commission i am thank you i didn't i didn't mean for this to be such put me on the spot maybe i shouldn't have been the alternate today it's a lot of pressure on you guys okay so um i guess we uh there and there will be five of us voting on this then i will go ahead and yeah we have the five who are not um i'll go ahead and put forth a motion that commissioner lukash oh yeah sure i guess i would actually ask are we sure that commission that the other applicants are willing to be the alternate are you going to end up in a position where you don't have an alternate um i will i will pass that over to planning director glenn band nim wagon what happens if they turn down a chance or the opportunity or the recognition to be an alternate right so a part of the application the written application is are you willing to be an alternate and i believe all our candidates said yes so um they can always withdraw i guess from the process okay all right just to clarify that and you know if something happens and you don't have an alternate i'm obviously still willing to do that okay so what i'll do is i'll go ahead and make a motion that we recommend to city council that commissioner lukash and commissioner kohler be the two recommendations for the two permanent seats and that commissioners boon commissioner saunders and matthew popkin are recommended for the three alternate positions okay we have a second we have a motion we have a second any other discussion if not jane i think we are ready for a vote commissioner height commissioner tedda vice chairman goldberg yes chairman poland hi commissioner flag yes chairman that passes five to zero very good thank you very much um so that item is done i just want to take the time and i want to thank even though they are not here i want to thank the public who came out today and spoke at public invited to be heard at the beginning of the meeting um it's actually refreshing to see and get participation from the public and hear their opinions on items that affect them and that may or may not be coming in front of us um but i do applaud them for coming out and giving us their thoughts on a subject so i just want to make sure that if if they are listening at this point that we have heard them um and we appreciate them coming out is there any other items from the commission seeing none and seeing oh commissioner our vice our yeah vice chairman goldberg yeah i just want to apologize to the commission i threw my motion out on today's agenda item real early and i didn't mean to end the discussion or cut off questions and uh i apologize that was bad for him okay um we do not have with us uh council member rodriguez and so now items from planning director glenn ben nimuigan i do want to talk about your schedule in december um we do have an application that'll come before you the regular date that we set way back at the beginning of the year is december 21st um it's getting kind of close to christmas we could certainly do the 14th and we're hoping maybe that fits better into all your schedules vice chart goldberg yeah that's better for me i don't know about the rest of the commission uh commissioner flake it doesn't matter to me either one is fine commissioner teta uh doesn't matter to me either commissioner lukash uh i'm available for either i would prefer the 21st actually just because i have some i have a surgery and i'm i will maybe recovering on the 14th still but most likely i will still wiggle my way in here to meet your height before i think for uh for me well i'm available on both i i think i would prefer the 14th just to give a little bit of cushion going into christmas so i think the consensus is the 14th great okay all right other than that i just want to give you um an update on some of the things that are proceeding through city council um i might have told you a little bit about uh the main street corridor plan and the recommendations to implement it through some parking changes and through some allowed uses changes um last night at city council they approved on second reading the amendment to the parking code that basically says residential can now be a maximum number as far as number of spaces so i think that's a little bit of groundbreaking um change to the code now we took an incremental step so that only affects the mixed use downtown and mixed use corridor districts so um it's still uh in the rest of the community it's still a minimum parking standard for um residential uses but who knows maybe we'll see further changes as hopefully this is successful and helps us um implement some of the goals of the main street corridor plan which was trying to create a more active economically viable and pedestrian oriented area so um then the other part is land uses where we're going to put um recommending conditional uses on future auto related uses uses that have uh high turnover as far as for automobiles drive-throughs that went through first reading last night and we'll come back in december for second reading on that as well so um we're finally getting to the point of implementing that plan that i think was adopted in 2018 i don't remember exactly what that date was but just to let you know about that also from a transportation planning standpoint um the transportation uh division is going to move forward with a master plan um for um transportation they are uh incorporating vision zero which is a concept of reducing to zero um deaths on our roadways whether it's pedestrians bicycles drivers so um phil did a really good great presentation on how his intent is really to flip the normal transportation planning process where you look at how do we move vehicles safely to how we move pedestrians safely so i think it's going to be a very um great process and hopefully some of you can be involved in that as well but yes sir we did have a study session on this i think it was last um right at the new year where we i think that's all we discussed was secondary and i thought we kind of hammered out the process that how we would define the district and that we would stay below 50 percent um but it is not codified you're right yeah now one thing we did talk about um we did um have on our to-do list amending all of envision long month um that has been put off for a couple of different reasons however i think what we will do in next year is bring back the implementation part of the comp plan um and i think that's one thing i talked about is maybe we need to get some more qualitative um standards into the primary secondary so um potentially we could do that through the amendment of that chapter of um envision long month and then we would normally follow it up you know with a code amendment when they brought up the sugar the sugar factory area plan yes commissioner height said like i can't find it does it exist and i feel like i've seen it on this screen or i received an email about it or i saw it on that screen one day there was colors and a vision right um did erin share that with us yes and then can you reshare that with us sure yeah so it is a work in progress and erin was the project manager with it um and she showed you where they where we were at that point um it's it's really kind of interesting in that we started this process primarily i think for some things you identified there's so many barriers and issues with development in this area we were hoping to spur some action well we have several developers now that um are trying to work out plans as we're doing the long range plan so um one of those developers that actually has the sugar mill um went and hired their own planners um to to look at some different concepts so at this point we're trying to work with what's been done by stan tech but also work in some of the ideas that came out of charlie woolley's planners that is a studio urbano pretty well known planning firm out of guatemala i believe it's out of guatemala pretty unique planning efforts um but trying to incorporate those ideas and still keep it flexible um has kind of extended some time frames for us uh and then also tomorrow we're meeting with the um uh the public works and natural resources folks that are looking how do we re um configure some of the open spaces and wetlands um that are on the other side of the railroad tracks so um it's taken longer okay one follow up uh come on as it relates to inclusionary zoning and development versus paying fee in lieu is that did i say that right yep does the city have a preference it came across today that as if we may have encouraged that um um does the city have a preference between them developing it or handing you know making the fee you know i've heard i have heard things like the city isn't in the business of building homes you know or let's let the developers do that i've heard kind of both sides so yeah and i've heard both sides too i think um uh some folks uh believe that if we had that fee in lieu um we have a lot of different options that we can use it for um and then on this site i think there was a concern with what the city had already in play for and everybody's kind of competing for nine percent um low income housing tax credits so um on this particular site a year ago the feeling was maybe it's not the best site i think that shifted to a point now where we'll take what we can get kind of staff would like to see some projects built and from my standpoint i'd love to see a developer figure out how to build it within their units um and at this point the fee in lieu is too easy of an off ramp i i guess i might have guessed i don't know if it's dollar for dollar in the end you know like it i think about my airline miles i get you know like do you buy miles no it's not you don't buy the miles like it's kind of like nice but it's not equivalent in value right you know as the cash you know i just wonder and the fee in lieu is really it's a delta between um the units they would have provided a market rate versus what the affordable rate is right so it's not like um you have to build three units go give us the amount of money to build three units it's the delta and the difference in price right so okay do we need to be training our staff to not to sway this our applicant suggested that he was encouraged or that that was the recommendation from the city maybe that's because this discussion was a year ago or six months ago but i just don't know how that how our positioning gets disseminated you know among the team right especially if you're saying it has now changed well it is a different division than planning sure but um they're directly related to the city manager um you'll also see kind of a movement for affordable and attainable yeah um with the idea that we're we have the missing middle problem as well so um we'll probably see some amendments come through with the code that um uh allow some incentive for attainable housing sure um but to be honest i i'm not really sure what the thing i mean admittedly i this property this project could have brought what 30 is a 10 percent or so 30 it's 30 12 percent and so how many 34 340 so 3440 affordable housing units i don't that feels that feels like a nice job yeah and fairfield and i spoke to them about it and they uh they do build affordable projects so they were very interested in that um the other one on this side is do do we give up the commercial um for potential more residential so that was part of it as well glad did you or Eugene wanted to say anything on the bond farm uh commissioners uh Eugene May city attorney uh so i believe you received a letter on the bond farm from michael spillman john um there's been a change of circumstance actually today i was informed by planning staff that there is a complete application for concept plan amendment where planning and zoning will be the recommending body to city council who is the decision maker i consider that to be a quasi-judicial proceeding i think it's best to have it be quasi-judicial the whole way through through p and z and so um you know my recommendation is that the due process protections of a quasi-judicial proceeding uh are in place now actually today it was a much harder question uh yesterday when we didn't have a application and we're just kind of trying to figure out how to interact um and inform the public and you know that's not really the planning and zoning's role if you look at the functions and duties and the code uh you guys act on development applications you make recommendations about uh comprehensive plans those sorts of things you don't really explain the history of envision long line i think that that's a staff role and so in some way i think the application coming in and being complete today makes it easier for me to sort of advise you that i think you should treat this as a live application i am going to tell city council that we have a live application the bond farm community has been very active i saw them last night at city council many of the same people that were here today and they're trying to you know get their voices heard which is great but we have a process to do that and for here it will be the concept plan hearing and you know for quasi-judicial you make the decision on the evidence presented at the hearing and so uh we'll work with them uh to have them understand that process uh and why we have due process to protect the applicant uh as well as to give a form for the public to be heard in an orderly process and you know i'm encouraged they were receptive to that i think jennifer talked to them early before the meeting and i think educating them about the process and and showing them where in the process they have an opportunity to be heard they'll be heard here they'll be heard at city council and that public input will go into the mix for the decision makers and the recommending body um so if you got any other questions i think that's kind of where i'm at and we kind of discussed it this afternoon as to what the right process was okay thank you is that it okay then i'll go ahead and move to adjournment