Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. We'll begin in a few minutes. I guess the building just locked. So Jane is trying to figure out that

Okay, I'll go ahead and call to order the Longmont Planning Zoning Commission March 25, 2026 meeting. First item is roll call. Chair Poland here. Commissioner Edley Wells here. Vice Chair Earl here. Commissioner Boone here. Commissioner Jordan here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Next item is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapjo, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first people have with this land. It is our commitment to face the injustices that happened when the land was taken and to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that the injustices do not happen again. This was adopted by the Longmont City Council July 13, 2021. I believe we adopted this two years ago ourselves. Uh, next item is communications from Planning and Development Services, Grant Penland.

Good evening, chair, members of commission. Uh, I just wanted to say, uh, welcome all this evening and, uh, good to see you this March slash summer, I guess. And that's it.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next item is public invited to be heard. This is your first chance to speak to us. Um this is if you have something that is not coming before the board tonight or is not a quasi judicial item. Uh we give you 5 minutes to uh say your piece. Nobody signed up for this. Seeing nobody come forward. I'll go ahead and close up. Public invited to be heard. Next item is approval of the minutes from the January 21st, 2026 meeting. Do we have any comments? motions. Ooh, Jane, my screen isn't. It's on like a boat screen.

It does look weird. Oh, there it is. Thank you, Commissioner Boon. Move to approve the minutes of the January 21st, 2026 meeting. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Jordan. Thanks, Chair. I second that motion. We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any discussion? If not, Jane, let's take a vote. Commissioner Edgely Wells, yes. Vice Chair Earl, yes. Chair Poland,

yes. Commissioner Boon, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Chair, that passes unanimously.

Thank you very much. Uh we'll move next to the public hearing items. Uh we have three items on the schedule today. two of them. We are being uh taking the place of the let me get this straight here of the board of adjustments. Uh the first item is 2299 Dexter Drive fence height and transparency variance. Senior planner Phil Taylor. The planning and zoning commission is reviewing uh variance pursuant to uh 02024-06. Good evening, commissioners, chair Poland, Phil Taylor, senior planner, city of Longmont. Um I am here this evening to provide a brief presentation on the fence variance request for 2299 Dexter Drive. The variance requests considered this evening are to allow a fence greater than 42 in in height and a fence to be less than 50% transparent to be located in the front yard between the front lot light and the front facade of the primary structure. The request here is a bit of an oversimplification of the specific variance request being considered. Um because of the design of the fence that steps up in height as it moves back into the property. Um the specific variances are about each specific fence height. And those variances are uh a variance of 1 foot 1 in allowing a fence height of 4' 7 in. A variance of 2' 4 in allowing a variance uh allowing a fence height of 5' 10 in. And a variance of 2t 10 in allowing a fence height of 6'4 in. That will all make a lot more sense as the presentation moves on.

You can now see a aerial of the subject property located at the end of Dexter Drive or at the top of the culdeac. The property is approximately a half acre in size and is part of the Rockmont Heights subdivision. You can now see a parcel map of the same area indicating the large lot size and irregular shape of 229 Dexter Drive. Um, I believe it is the largest lot in the subdivision. And you can see the southwest property line uh is rather long, approximately 173 ft. The improvement location certificate seen on the screen now um is a something that the planning staff requested to indicate the length of each fence se segment and the height of each fence segment and the amount of fence located in front of the front facade of the primary structure. The measurements that were provided in this document were then put into the resolutions for consideration this evening. Here is an image of the fence, not to scale, indicating the fence heights for each segment. Um, as you can see, the fence steps up in height towards the back of the property. Here is a couple more images of the fence running uh inside but along the side property line. Um section 1505100 of the land development code um set standards for front yard fences. They must be at least 50% transparent and not exceed 42 in or height or or 3 and 1/2 ft.

Uh these rules are written with typical front yards in mind, but due to this property's irregular shape, location of the house, and deep setbacks, the standards become harder to meet, especially when trying to accomplish the applicant's stated goal of providing a visual buffer from the activities on the neighboring property. Here is another image of the fence and the subject property taken from the culde-sac. Uh most of the time when we talk about front yard fences, we are seeing requests for fences along the front property line adjacent to the sidewalk. Um as you can see from this, this is a fence running along the side property line. Um and if this fence was behind the home, it would be allowed to be 6 feet and privacy fence with no variance required. The notice of violation the applicants received is seen on the screen here. Once they received the notice of violation informing them their offense did not meet current code, um they applied for the variance. This notice of violation was received in October of 2025, approximately 4 years after the fence was constructed. Um for the four years prior to the violation, the fence was there with no problems or concerns. All public noticing for this item was met and followed the requirements of the land development code. A sign was posted on site. Notices were mailed to property owners and the public and the newspaper. Uh it was shown in the newspaper on March 20th. Due to that public noticing, uh we did receive three public comments. Um all comments received were in support of the variance requests. These uh public comments were included in the document packet for review.

The next couple slides are going to be the review criteria applicable to all applications. You will probably see these slides again this evening. I think they're important to put in there. Good for the record, good for people in the audience to be able to see them. Um, these criteria basically explain that every project has to fit within the city's overall plans, work well with the neighborhood around it, and avoid creating problems for utilities, transportation, or the environment. Following these review criteria, we have the review criteria specific to variances. Um, uh, variances can be granted when a property has a unique circumstance such as an irregular shaped lot, uh, that make strict application of the code impractical. Variance requests must still uphold the intent of the code, avoid negative impacts on neighbors, and not create safety issues. Um, that pretty much concludes the planning's presentation. We do have code enforcement here to answer any questions about the notice of violation or any history of the property. The applicants are also here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Phil. Is the uh applicants to do a presentation or are we just Yeah, they're just going to talk and ask questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing item. As such, we'll open it up uh in case anybody in the public would like to make comments about that. Nobody has signed up for that. Uh but I will invite anybody who would like to speak either for or against the variance. Uh you can step forward. We just ask that you give your name, your address, and you have five minutes. Sorry, I'm slow.

Oh, no problem.

Okay. I I live at 22.99. I'm Evelyn Gashler. Match is my name. my go by my hus Oh my husband Art and we put the fence up because the stuff or we call it trash was getting so bad by the side of their garage there. It would come over into our yard. There was no fence, nothing there to show a boundary of what was their property and ours. And some people once had to come to the door and wonder why we had all this mess over there. That's kind of embarrassing for me. So anyway, we decided we're going to put a a fence across there. Uh there is some pictures here. That's the way it looks now. I don't know how they will see them. You want me to take them?

You you can hand these to them if you like. I'll give it to Jane to hand them.

Okay. And I got some individual ones. That's And that's the way it is today. the way it looks behind that fence. Uh, I come and got the permit for it. I understood that I could go higher in the back. I think it was Dana. Dana was her name that helped me when I come and got permit. And we drew a pictures of how it would be. It would be taller in the back. Um, so that's why we went with the 6 ft to 5 ft and uh maybe these here don't have to go. But that's the way I just took these pictures last week and that's the way it looks in the back behind their fence now.

Okay. If we took the fence down, we just wouldn't be able to put up another one. Okay. So, I'm just asking for mercy. And once when the fence did get put up, no, I did not call when the fence was finished cuz I didn't understand I had to call. I thought I just had to put the permit paper in the window. So, I will say I did not call.

Okay. when the fence was finished. And also um they would drive their they have a a trailer that they fill with trash and stuff and they would push that thing back or drive it back with a four big four-wheeler and go over our grass and our sprinkler heads and break them. So now that isn't any possibility there with the fence up. And we were sure appreciate if we could keep the fence. When we first moved in there, they didn't live there. There was other folks that live there, but they kept their we work together on the yard. Okay.

And these these folks seem like they just don't have time for yard work. I don't know. Okay. But I'm sure that um Ryan can answer a lot of questions. They've all been so kind to us. Okay. Thank you. You bet. And if I can say any more, you let me know. We may have questions for you. Oh, that's all right. Oh, just stay here. Oh, okay.

Uh, is anybody else in the public would like to come forward? Seeing no one else come forward. We'll go ahead and close out public invited to be heard and move it to the commission for questions, comments. Anybody have anything that they have want to ask Commissioner Jordan? Uh, thanks. Thanks, Chair. Uh, Phil, I think uh this might be for you cuz I know you were going to be talking about do we have like an average um o how much it's over either in terms of per um transparency or height rather than looking at like on a per section basis?

We do not. Okay. So, do we are we quantifying what the ask is from a variance perspective? Yes. Yes, the specific requests outlined in the resolutions u memorialize the fence exactly as it is today. So we would know if it has changed at all or altered from what it is right now. Okay. So it would be literally be as it stands at whatever varying measurements that are from the ground. Correct. And but do we have a a general idea? It was sounded like it was between like six inches and two and a half feet. Is it or something like that? Yes. Give me one sec.

1 foot one and two foot something. Okay. Yeah. I mean, the lowest portion of the fence is 4T 7 in and a fence in the front yard is supposed to be 3 ft 3 and 1/2 ft. Okay. And have we quantified the current transparency? I know there's space between the slats. I knew it was supposed to be 50%. We did not. I'm I'm considering this an opaque fence.

Okay. Um I guess the some I know that sometimes when variances or let's just say planning type things come through planning and zoning, there's a certain amount of leeway the planning director can grant. Uh is that apply in this situation or does it exceed that? In other words, why how it came direct to us or did it already go through that check? It does not qualify for an administrative modification. The ask is too great.

All right. Um the other question I had is kind of about the spirit of the transparency uh as it's written. Um, is there any indicate because it sounds like this was um the transparency is primarily so you can see the front of the house from the street. Is that the idea? Yes, I believe so. Transparency sort of you picture a white picket fence,

right? Uh I guess the question is from given that it's a culde-sac and it's effectively a circle when we're looking at the the fence in this case it's more or less perpendic uh parallel to the the a viewer as opposed to perpendicular. So transparency doesn't take into account uh the orientation relative to the intended purpose. A a fully transparent fence that's running parallel to your sight line is is basically sorry a fully opaque fence is effectively fully transparent but if it was perpendicular it would be fully opaque. We don't factor that into the code at all. We do not.

Okay. And I guess the has um I know part of the the co you know our considerations tonight is about safety and things like that. Have we had anybody uh weigh in on this from like the fire department or anything like that? No, there are no safety concerns with how the fence was constructed or where it is located.

Okay. Uh, last question I have, I guess, is I mean, it's an odd-shaped lot, and I guess is the expectation of privacy for owners who have odd-shaped lots on the back of a culde-sac, is that were we considering that the same as people with traditionally shaped lots? The land development code is supposed to address all properties. Okay. I think those are all the questions I have. I'll try to not pipe up too much more often. No problem. Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I have a couple of comments. Um, we were given in our packet a markup by one of the planners for this fence. I'm finding it. Excuse me. Here it was marked up with a red flare and this was part of the permit that said 42 in 50% open from this point forward. Do you remember that? Uh I wasn't a red line, but it did say 42. Uh when we were when the fence was put up, we were gone. I forget about that. When the fence was put up, we were not home at the time. And the gentleman, Casey, that put the fence up for us went out and picked the fence up where we where we bought it because he works for them. and he would put the fence up while we were gone from Friday until Sunday night. And I didn't um see the transparency. I did I did after it was up. Okay.

But then after it wasn't nothing was said about it after 4 years, I thought, well, then I guess it's it's okay. Well, I'll address that as well. Um, so if you think about all the projects that are under construction in the city, um, the city inspectors cannot spend their days driving up and down every single street. Oh, I know. Um, so it's a requirement. It's actually written on the permit that you are required to call for inspection. Is it written on mine? I'll have to see.

But yes, I I know it should be 50% now. You know, I know that now. Yes. But if it was, we'd probably have more on our side than what we want. But that's that's the way it is. Um, really the only leeway that I would have on this particular lot would be the fact that it's a weird lot and the front property line is in a curve. So, I would argue that that magic um location where the fence has to be short is a long a curved line from probably the corner of the garage over to the side property line, which gives a lot more leeway for that fence. Now, we're not in a position with this panel to make that variance, but I could see that being okay. As it is, it really is just a blatant um uh violation of the fence code. And we have the fence code for reasons. And um I would not like to give a variance to set a precedent that would allow this to continue to happen. Another way of giving and I and I apologize that you have a bad neighbor. That's that's that's a tough place to be in. Another way to have solved this problem would have been to put shrubs or a hedge along that property line. Um, but you didn't do that.

No, it'd be kind of hard for us to keep a hedge trimmed and all the leaves. Well, it it's it's just an alternative. Sure. I I know that. Yes. So, let's see if I I had anything else in my notes. I have seen other um properties in town here that their fences enclosed completely. It's in the front yard. It's there's no opening on it whatsoever. Probably not at that height.

Yes. Yes. And perhaps without permission. Things do happen without permission as well. Yeah. Oh, yes. I understand that. I understand that. Um, I think those were those were my only comments at this point. I'm just saying it's been it's been peaceful and more quiet with the fence up and we don't have to put up with cleaning trash out of our yard all the time. But I know that's not your problem. It's ours. But just to see it every day

and I truly am sorry that you're dealing with a bad neighbor. Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad neighbors in town. Yes, I know. I know there is. Yes. Okay, that's all I've got for right now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Edgely Wells.

Thank you. Um, okay. My mic is on now. So, in the planning and zoning commission uh document that was submitted to us, I see that 2295 Dexter Drive had been cited for some of the trash and debris that was in their yard and that it had been resolved. However, the photographs that you've submitted to us today show I were you saying those are current photos as of recent of the yard now accumulating further debris. Is that correct? I didn't hear all of that. Are the photos current?

Are the photos current? Yes, they are current. Yes, the photos are current.

Okay. cuz in in the document that I'm reading, it shows that it was cleaned up and but the photos you're bringing in say something different. Um, and what I'm getting at is um the hardship that it possibly creates um that the neighbors have not kept up and could potentially be causing you some hardship by allowing debris to accumulate. But um it does have to be recognized that when they were cited for their debris, it was mitigated. Um so I just want to bring that up for consideration that when it's brought to their attention, they clean up so that they don't receive further citation. However, it does seem to uh the problem seems to worsen again. So

it has been that way for years. They code enforcement can come and ask them to clean up and they might but then they're right back at it again. I see. You just like rearrange stuff or something. I don't know. Okay. But you I'm I invite any of you all of you come over and see our fence. You can come see our fence and you could see behind there. Those are my only comments. Ryan's probably been out there lately. I don't Thank you. Commissioner Earl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'll be pretty brief here. We had, um, you know, no comments from the public, um, in this meeting other than the applicant. We had three positive comments in the record that we received. We did, however, have the notice of violation, which suggests there was a complaint, which I would interpret to be a negative comment. Um, can we talk about the kind of notice of violation, how that came to be? Um, kind of the history of that a little bit. What was that? Yes.

What did he say was a complaint? He wanted to hear about how you got. So, Ryan's going to talk about that. So, yes, this uh this fence violation was

Oh, sorry. My name is Ryan Garbert. I work for City Longmont Code Enforcement. Uh I received this case uh via neighbor complaint. um did originate from 2295 Dexter Drive after uh there were some notice of violation issued for um some junk and trash issues on their property as we kind of just previously discussed. Uh which is why again that notice was issued. So um yes, there was a a neighbor complaint uh about the fence. Okay. Thank you. Now that's that's helpful since we didn't have the public comments on that. So I figured it was kind of implied.

Yeah. Um, I would say I'm a a little bit aligned with Commissioner Boon on the thinking here. Um, I'm sympathetic. I think the fence looks nice. I I understand the purpose it serves. I'm looking in the record at attachment 7, which is the fence permit itself, where it is very clear what the max height is in multiple places. And um I don't see given our decision criteria the um that it meets a criteria for a variance. And it's kind of unfortunate cuz I don't think it's really disruptive to have to have the offense there. But the code is what the code is and we make decision on the variance based on the way that our criteria are set and I don't see us um satisfying that criteria.

Okay. Thank you Ryan. I I actually have a couple follow-up questions. Um, has there been a history at 2295 of reported violations throughout the years? So, the last documented violations at 2295 and correct going off memory here uh were in September of 2025. Um, nothing prior to that though.

Nothing prior to that. Okay. Um, I guess Oh, I'll hand it over to Commissioner Boot. Thank you. It's just a clarification. 2295 is the house right next door with all the junk. Yeah, directly to the It would be kind of to the west, I guess. Okay. And is 2295 the one that filed the complaint about the fence or was that a different neighbor?

So yeah, the residents at 2295 filed a complaint about the fence that we're discussing tonight here. Okay, thank you.

Ryan, I do have another question. What do we do for multiple habitual offenders? And you know in this case they went and they cleaned up and it got resolved. But as we see pictures now and I I actually happened to go on to Google search and actually from 2024 the Google picture actually had some not flattering photos of that property as well. What do we do with a habitual offender like that? I mean outside of the decision we have to come I also want to see you know what other steps what can be done by the neighbors when something like this happens.

Yep. So code enforcement violations are meant to be escalatory in nature. Um our main goal is voluntary compliance. So uh if property owners are working towards resolving a violation we're going to obviously work with them and extend that time to get things done. Uh, as you noted, right, this might be more of a habitual offender type situation. Um, our code does allow increased civil penalties um for repeat violations within a 12-month period. That's on a fine schedule outlined in the municipal code. Uh, we also have options to if it's a junk and trash violation, uh, abate the violation or issue them a summon to municipal court. I will be clear that 2295 I believe they did receive one or two civil penalties um as a result of the stuff going on there. Um but they haven't received any summones to court or we haven't entered the property to physically clean it at this point. Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm just going to say right now where I'm at and I I think we have maybe a little more discussion, but I'm kind of also in the thing it it's pretty clear what the codes code states is acceptable. Um, and if it was something a little bit closer to what we could work with, and really my my thing is the opakeness um the height and given the fact that it's on a hill, there's a slant there. I could give or take on the height. I'm not really hung up on the height. It's the opakqueness. Um, and it's unfortunate because I think if you had put in just a regular picket fence, it would have more or less achieved most of what you needed. And if needed, add a couple shrubs to help fill it in a little bit. Um, I've seen that in in various other neighborhoods where people have put in either picket fences or a combination of picket fences and shrubs. Um, and at this point with only a couple of

complaints against him, I know this has been going on for a long time. If we had had more of a history of complaints, I think that's something maybe that we could also work with. But right now, um, you know, it's unfortunate the fact that the complaints have just come out recently from within the last year from the from the neighborhood. And I understand that this has been going on for years, but from our stance on this commission, we have to take and just see what actually has happened. We haven't been around for those years. Um, that's where I'm at right now. Um, I I'd like to see if there's, you know, I I'd be all in support of a picket fence and put in some shrubs. That would be a perfect solution. Um, that's kind of where I'm at right now. Looking to see if anybody else has any comments. Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. I'm kind of on the same page with Chair Poland. Um, and I would wonder if you would entertain taking down or modifying the first two panels and putting up a different style of fence with pickets or a more transparent fence and or shrubs and leaving the rest. Even though panels three and four are also too high, I would give that variance, I believe. But if we could do something for the the ones that come all the way out to the street, I think that would be a good compromise that would still give you the privacy protection that you're looking for and it would more or less satisfy the fence code. Um,

that's the first three. The first the first the first two. It would be really helpful if we could bring up the picture of the first the first first three the first two or two. Yeah. The first first two the first two. So that first 18 foot section either. Yeah. either the first 18 foot section or maybe just the first two panels and having one low panel.

But could we leave the fence the we didn't want to put up a picket fence because they'd probably have the pickets broke off at the top. And I'm sorry, Ryan, but it's this history's went it's going back I mean 10 years just trash and trash and trash. I don't know how many times they've been over, but that's why we didn't go with the picket fence that we had something, you know, the solid board at the top. Well, you could do a transparent fence that wasn't a picket, you know.

Yeah. Can we if we went with the first two sections and make it more transparent? Is that what you want? Well, considering that there's three that are alike, um it probably would make sense to make all three of those the same. Yes. Like take

I don't have a problem with the fence coming all the way out. It's just it's height plus transparency. If we set it down further into the ground and maybe took out every other if it were lower if it were lower and more transparent then you would satisfy the fence code. Can I help you? You are allowed to have that piece of fence per the fence code.

Yeah. And I think we might have a little discussion with the commission about what others may be looking at also as well. So before we come to a final, this is absolutely off the top to bring it down to where it's supposed to be. Okay. Okay. Understand that? Now take it off the top then. Yes. You don't want to go down lower to the ground. You just take it off the top. This is my This is our son helping mom through this. Okay. Okay. If we took the board off of the top, well, it' just be altered to Yeah. Look like a picket fence. No, no, it still be a rail across there, but the slats will be there will be more opening in the slats and it will be lowered.

Lowered. No picket fence. No, nothing. If we cut the top off, cut the top 6 in and put that other put the solid top back on. Took every other panel out. Every other So you can take every other panel. Well, we'll see. Just for her to understand. Okay. Okay. Yes. Because actually that would be that would be perfect. But um are you done, Commissioner Boon?

Okay. Commissioner Jordan. Thank you, Chair. Uh Jeremy, this is actually for you. Uh just quick question. Um, and I want to kind of look at it the so I'm going to be the devil's advocate here, but since we did get a complaint from the the neighbor that has all the garbage, um, do we feel like we if we were to accept a variance that the city could be open to litigation for favoring one neighbor over the other when the code is clearly stated? because and I only ask because it feels like we're potentially empowering some retaliation, but we are talking about if we did that, we would be going to the code. So, you know, you know what I'm saying? We're in a sticky spot here and I want to see what your opinion is.

Good evening, members of the commission. Jeremy Terrell, senior assistant city attorney. Uh, excellent question, Commissioner Jordan. Um, without getting into too much detailed legal advice, I I would say as long as the planning and zoning commission considers the conditions of our code in terms of what is required to grant a variance and consistently applies that, then I I feel confident of limited to no liability for the city.

Okay. Um, and so wi with that said, I kind of I'm going through the the review criteria and I'm kind of just run through them real quick. This is sort of my interpretation and I'm open to to discussion but um I do feel like in AI I that the special circumstances are kind of they do apply here just due to the shape of the lot. Um I think the A.2 there are certain things that are at odds with each other here but for me the the degree is it's whether property and development can have any beneficial use without the variance. I do feel like that is weighted proportionally here given the what may be 10-year conflict and it sound seems kind of antagonistic. Uh this might be a situation where uh this is actually improving the use uh for the neighbor in question. That's subjective but that's kind of how I'm looking at it. Um I don't think for criteria B of impairing the purposes intent uh let's see here uh C u the adversely impact of surrounding properties neighborhoods fire code um and I don't think any of those are are big considerations for me I think it's whether or not it's self-imposed and it's um for me I feel like Commissioner Boom when you mentioned potential alter partial alteration to make a softer variant I feel like that would be in line with the unique circumstances about this lot that kind of prevent it from granting the homeowner the privacy that others would expect. That's kind of how my read is. Um anyways, just sort of some thoughts here if any commissioners want to weigh in on that. Thank you, Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,

Commissioner Boon, I want to make sure I understand what we what you were talking through here and just make sure that I'm getting this. Um, I'm going to refer to the image that's on the screen. Um, I'm also looking at the improvement location certificate. Um, because you mentioned the lot lines earlier and I think that's relevant to this discussion as well. Um, and that's attachment six in our packet. So if I'm understanding your suggestion, um it was that the 18 ft the fence segment that is closest to the culde-sac on the picture here to the right. Um the basically we would remove that from the variance so that it would have to meet the 42-in height and 50% v the 50% transparency and we would grant a we grant the variance for the other segments the the subsequent 18 ft and then the 24 ft closest or furthest back. Um and we allow that to remain as is if I'm understanding that correctly. Mr. Chairman, do you mind?

Oh, Commissioner. Okay, let's see there. Thank you.

Yes, I think so. And um as I mentioned before, I really think that demarcation line should be a curved line that aligns with the front of the property line. And when you do that on the ILC, you will see that that the 6.3 portion of the fence is fine and the 5.8 portion of the fence is also fine except for the last little bit of it. Um, so that would be the variance would be, let's see, it would be panel one, two, three. It would be panel four from the street.

That would be the only one that would really need a variance because from panel five back, it complies with the code. Yeah. And I mean, that was my understanding of your of your suggestion. So, I appreciate that clarification. Um, I do think that from a from a PZR standpoint, um, it would still be the variance for the both the 18T and the 24T segment in total. Um, but you're right, the practical variance if we adopt the if we think the lot line is that curve. Um, you know, based on the we're really only granting a few feet of variance is the practical implication of that. Yes, that's what I mean.

Yep. I I'm more amendable to that in terms of a a modified variance. Um I think that could be a reasonable way for us to proceed.

Council uh Councilman Popkin, it does not uh the fence does not go all the way to the sidewalk. Is that very the No, it doesn't quite I just wanted to jump in for a second to make sure that everyone was clear on what was being actually suggested. So, can between the back and forth there, can you just restate what like what specifically was being proposed? Who wants to take that? It looks like Commissioner Earl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, so my interpretation, Council Member Popkin, um if you look at PZR 20262A, which is our resolution for for approving, there are three separate variances in section three of that. Um there is for the the first eight linear 18 ft, the second linear 18 ft, and then the following um uh uh following section. I think we're basically suggesting scrapping that first variance for the first linear 14 ft. So that has to meet the code and the variance applies for the other two. Um partly on the belief that the lot line and the unique nature of the property means that we're you know the the practical variance here is a couple of feet um in length, but the code variance is the full 18 and 24 feet. Did I describe that appropriately?

Yes. I just want to make sure everyone else understands it at this point, too. Agreed. Thank you,

Commissioner Boon. I don't think the 24 ft needs a variance. I think it complies. I think that's why it's 14 in the variance here. Oh. Oh, no. Yeah. No, they no that because the I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, the city considers the along the front edge of the house as the line for demarking what's the front of the house. So that last that last that first section of 24 ft is actually still needs a variance. Correct. Yeah.

So the code says any portion of the front facade of the primary structure should be there. the 24 ft section, the farthest section from the street, a portion of that section is behind the front of the garage. So, a only a portion of the 24 ft is in front of the front facade of the garage of the neighbors of the no of her garage. Okay. It's it's sort of at an angle the house and so the garage does step out further than the front door.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, can I I think I'm going to ask a very related question to what you just said, so I apologize that you just sat down. Um, this is it's a technicality. It's not really a the PZR that we have has that final variance for 14 linear feet. The images we're seeing are all the 24 linear feet. Is the is that difference because of the where the extended line of the house is? It so the 14 ft is intentional in the variance request. Yes. I apologize for the confusion. That last segment is 24 ft long, but a portion of it is behind the front facade.

Got it. Okay. I just want to make sure that if we go ahead and vote for it that we're using the correct language in the very Yes. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Do we have Oh, Commissioner Boon, are we ready for a motion?

Well, we're actually before you go ahead and state your motion, if you can read off of what your condition is. Get the correct reading. Oh, I maybe don't have the correct reading. Okay. I would make a motion that we modify the variance to include the second 18 ft portion and the 24 ft portion or if you want to call it the 14 ft portion that is in front of the house. um to grant the variance for those two portions of the fence and to require that the front 18 ft of the fence be modified to comply with the fence code.

We be getting rid of 3.1 but keeping the variance would be 3.2 3.3 but get rid of 3.1. So that essentially um that essentially would in section three it would it would take it would get rid of item one and it would leave items two three and four two three and four in the variance. Oh that gets complicated. You might have to modify four so it just applies to these two. But

any other So that's what you're thinking about. Let's Anybody have any comments on that? Commission or uh Vice Chair Earl? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um this is it's a technicality question again here. It's it's about the language and how we're doing this. Are we suggesting and Jeremy I'm looking at you um to help me with this a little bit. Are we suggesting we're that we're using the um conditional approval or are we modifying the approving the variance? Cuz what what I'm hearing is we're effectively changing some of the language in section 3 of PCR 2026 2A. um we're not really imposing conditions and I just want to make sure whatever motion we make because I I don't have a problem with the language Commissioner Boon suggested. I just want to make sure we're doing it appropriately.

Good evening, Commissioner Earl. I'd recommend the commission adopt a motion to direct staff to amend PZA to reflect the variance Commissioner Boone is suggesting and authorize the chair to sign said resolution at a later date. That will that'll give staff time to amend PZA and then also allow Chair Poland to sign electronically and then get it finalized without having to wait for the next meeting. Do we have any other comments? If not, Commissioner Boon, do you want to put that into a motion? I will move that we do what Jeremy just said.

I I think that's fine, but I would restate your conditions for staff's benefit along with my own. Okay. What I don't have is that's the Let me just pull it up. We go. Okay.

Yes. Um, Commissioner Jordan. Yes. You were saying that you would do us a favor and not them a favor. Well, are you going to come over then and keep their stuff cleaned up beside? because that's not doing that's not doing them a favor. It's not doing us a favor. Do us a favor by having our fence as it is so we don't have to see it or pick it up. But who's going to keep that clean over there on their side? How will we know it's going to stay clean?

Well, I I think the city has a process for that. Unfortunately, it requires be good. It requires the public to call in and say that there is a violation and then the um city would come out and look at the property and if there is a violation they would do a citation and has been indicated since there have been multiple citations before u there's a possibility that the citations get more and more expensive as if they are committed. I I think uh yeah, Ryan, please. Yes.

Then they get very they get very what do I want to say? Vulgar, very Oh, yeah. It's certainly something that we had to call peace on them. Anyway, I want to be quiet.

Yes. Uh it's certainly something that we can keep addressing. again as I mentioned right and as you mentioned the city does have a you know escalatory process for that um it would be helpful if the you know residents or Mrs. Gashler was calling in when they did observe that because again we do primarily work off complaint base um for this type of stuff. So yes, we do have a process to make sure that that property is being maintained. Um, I mean, I'll advise you it is kind of a a long process sometimes if we're issuing a ticket to court that takes several months to actually get through the judicial process and be resolved. But, yeah, there are there are ways that we can stay on that adjacent property to make sure that trash isn't becoming an issue there.

Okay. Thank you. Are you ready, Commissioner Boon? Sure. Um, probably still not going to state this correctly, but I would like to move that we I'm still not clear if if we're going to have 2B or 2 A. It's 2 A. It'll be 2 A because we're going to take out item one. Is that correct?

It's a a motion to amend PZR to direct staff to amend PZ A A um stating what that you're suggesting. Stating that uh let me get the right paragraph here. stating that in section three, the variance of one foot for the 18 front linear feet is removed from the variance. And to add to your motion, give uh Chair Poland authority to sign.

Give Chair Poland authority to sign this after the fact electronically rather than bringing it back to the next meeting. Yes. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. Are there any further discussions? Uh, this. Oh, yes.

Will you come over or whoever? Well, Ryan, he's not in our area now. And see that that's all cleaned up back there before we re uh remodify. I don't want to remodify with all that. I I would think that what it would have to be done is then a complaint would have to be called in which would force them to clean up and then the work I we can't make it contingent on them cleaning up first. But if there's stuff that needs to get cleaned up, I I'm thinking that the best way is is to go ahead and have somebody

call and complaint. call and whether it's you or one of the other neighbors, call in a complaint. They know it's Yes, Ryan. Did you want to add something? No. Yeah, that that if she wants to file a complaint, we can have someone from code enforcement come out and Okay. restart. Very good. Okay. Um this is what the motion.

Oh. Um, I'm just going to comment this is a imperfect situation. Um, um, I I personally I I I would probably want to see more opaque going a little further back, but uh, given the conversation, given the stuff that has happened with the, um, the neighbor, I'm good with where this ended up. I think it's a fair compromise. Um I don't think everybody is happy but that's what tends to happen with compromises. Um and I think that hopefully too that we have given you uh some some of the tools that you can use. I know it's going to be tricky with the neighbors. Um but I think this is the best way to move forward. Um, I do not wish to use or make it president of using variances to solve neighbor disputes. Um, so I think we're trying to be careful in the line that we're walking here.

Yes. So, um, I am for it. So, if there's no other comments, Jane, let's take a vote. Commissioner Edley Wells. Yes. Vice Chair Earl. Yes. Earl, sorry. Commissioner Poland. Chair Poland. My goodness. Commissioner Boon, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Chair, that passes unanimously, 5 to zero.

Thank you very much. This item now enters a 7-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 and zoning commission's decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk's office and the planning office within the 7-day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, March 26th at 8:00 a.m. and ends Wednesday, April 1st at 5:00 p.m. Uh, thank you, M. Um, and then I think we are ready to move to our next item. The next item is item 7B. This is actually a planning and zoning item. It's uh 216 grant street variance for enlargement of a non-conforming structure and setback variance. Associate planner Molly Day. Welcome Molly. I think this is the first time before us.

Probably take a couple minutes to get everything rearranged. Thank you Okay, Molly.

Thank you. Good evening, chair. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Molly Day. I'm an associate planner with planning and development services, and I'm here this evening to walk you through the variance requests for 216 Grant Street. The property is located at 216 Grant Street. It is zoned residential single family and the future land use designation in Envision Longmont is single family neighborhood. The request this evening is in two parts. The first part is a variance request for a 3.1 ft sideyard setback or a 5-ft sideyard setback is required. The second part of the request is a variance for an enlargement or expansion of a non-conforming structure. This shows the existing conditions at 216 Grant Street. The existing home has a 3.1 ft sideyard setback from that north property line and the applicant is proposing an addition on the back of the home that will continue that 3.1 ft sideyard setback, thus creating an expansion of a non-conforming structure. These are some proposed elevations of the addition provided by the applicant and public noticing requirements were met on these dates. This table shows the dimensional standards for the residential single family zone district and I have highlighted the portion that shows the 5- foot required sideyard setback.

Additional applicable standards are in reference to non-conforming structures. Because this proposed enlargement or expansion does not meet the current dimensional standards of 5 ft, a variance request is required. Applicable review criteria for this request can be found in these two sections of the land development code. As senior planner Taylor referred to earlier, this is the second time you are seeing these. Here's the criteria for all application types continued. These can also be found in the staff report provided on this slide. We have the variance criteria and here they are continued again. And these can also be found in the staff report provided and these criteria are what the commission will be basing their decision on. There are two decisions for the commission this evening. The first of which is does the variance request for the 3.1 ft sideyard setback where a 5-ft sideyard setback is required meet the review criteria. In addition to that, the commission must decide if the request for a variance for an enlargement or expansion of an existing non-conforming structure meets review criteria. These are the three options for the planning commission this evening and there's more detail on these options in the provided staff report. Thank you. That does conclude my portion of the presentation. The applicant is here this evening and they have a presentation prepared.

Okay. I will be available for questions after they have presented.

I would now like to welcome the applicant to the podium and once again please state your name and address for the record. Okay. Commissioner Committee. Um, my name's Tony Schrader, Anthony Schrader, if you're the bank or an attorney. And my wife Lori is here with me. Um, so there's probably more pressure coming from that side of the the aisle than this side of the aisle. So, I want to talk you through this variance request. It's in Oldtown. Uh the the original structure that we're asking to add on to was built in n 1936. I don't believe there was a setback variance back in 1936. It is part of the Bond farm historical district. So although it's not a historical home or have a historical uh designation, um it is uh part of the history of that area. And we purchased this house in 2020 fully intending it to be our toes up house where we would retire and believed had a reasonable belief that we could put an addition on onto the house that would follow the current building line. So um that's why we're asking for the variance. We are asking Whoops. We're asking the add-on to be uh to follow the current building align and I'll take you through some of the things you're seeing here on this slide. So, this is from the permit or excuse me, the plans we submitted with our permit. Um, and just to explain maybe some of the what you're seeing here, the purple lines are the addition, the blue lines are the current

structure. Um, so you can see kind of walking through the bottom part of the the graphic is actually the back of the house. And the first thing you'll see is what we're we're asking is to continue the uh building line that's in place. If you walk through that area, that neighborhood, there are plenty of homes built probably in the about the same era with the same sort of setback challenge, we'll call it. And um I've seen multiple additions in the area. None of them would have a little jut to support the current setback requirements, which is what's being depicted in the with the red line off to the left. Um, catch up where I'm at. So, we looked at maybe compressing the building space a little bit. So, in other words, taking we'll call it in round figures 2 feet out of the engineered design where we would compress the bedroom and the bathroom. And you see the first problem would be the bathroom which is built basically it's not a large bathroom. In fact the entire addition is less than 500 square ft. The bathroom would be compressed by another 2 ft and it's already very small for two people who are getting to retire getting ready to retire in that space. The bedroom could eat uh we could actually take and move the bedroom over slightly uh along with the closet. We don't really want to uh change the size of the closet because it's also solving a serious storage problem the home has cuz

it's small. But we could move that all over by the two feet. that would cause a problem which is being highlighted by that red square and the line in the right center. And what you're seeing there is a little misleading because there's it it depicts a back door in that area like it's existing, but that's not actually the case. I'll I'll get to that here in a minute. But it would require us to move the landing and staircase for that back door entrance closer to the garage and create kind of an awkward space. it would be very difficult to get through to the uh to the backyard area. Um the other the other thing that we considered was taking if you look at the top center moving the closet to an alternate location so it would be at the end of the addition instead of there in the middle. Um that would cause a couple other issues. So, the way the bedroom's currently designed, uh, even with the limited space between the garage and the bedroom, we did build kind of a passive solar feature into that section where the bedroom would have a large sliding glass window and sunlight could come in through that area. If we move the closet, it'll all but eliminate that because you'll have a shadow from the closet and then of course the shadow from the garage and also kind of create this awkward uh unusable space there in the middle. um is you know and of course I think part of the challenge here is the cost of re-engineering. Um we probably would not solve this

little safety problem we've had for a while. So if you look at this, this is the existing back porch and it has three converging points for access from the back. You see the stairs coming up from the down um stairs coming from the downstairs. You have the stairs coming down towards that landing area and of course the door. And what's happened multiple times is someone coming into that landing, the door opens into that landing and someone gets knocked down the stairs. That's happened twice. So, as we retire in that area, I want to eliminate that problem. And so, some of the design is to move that entrance to the back portion of the of the porch where it would have its own access through stairs up to the the porch area. Um, and I want to highlight a couple other things. You know, this is this is Oldtown. Um, you know, I mentioned to you guys, you walk through that neighborhood, there's a plethora of variance issues in that area and we did apply for a variance back in 2023. Um, we actually went through the entire process. We paid the fees. Uh, we got the envelopes and, um, at the time I was working with the general contractor. Apparently approval went to the general contractor. He he was told that they would be we would be grandfathered. I don't have any of the documentation. Um but I don't have a reason to lie about that. But it was approved that the entire um setback would be grandfathered in. And I think I've presented some of the evidence of at least what I have when we decided to not move forward with the permit at that time due to I'll call it the COVID building cost that was

going on. You know, we got quotes up into the 400,000s for 500 square feet. um we kind of put an end on it and uh now we'd like to continue with that and time is kind of critical at this point. I have three years, three more years of working that I can get this built and paid for um before I retire. So um that's it. Okay. Thank you. Uh seeing that this is a public hearing item, we will go ahead and open up for public invited to be heard. Nobody had signed up. Um but we will give the public a chance if they would like to speak for this item. Seeing nobody come up, we'll go ahead and close out. Public invited invited to be heard. Turn it back to the commission for any comments, questions, motions. Um, I'll go ahead and kick this off real quickly. Um, Molly non-conforming. One of the uh options is for the director to go ahead and make an administrative modification. Is there a reason? Is this too big? Was is that why it wasn't done that way?

Yes. Thank you for the question, chair. Yes, the 3.1 ft setback is too large of a variance essentially from that 5 foot required setback. 3.75, so 3 and 1/4 ft would fit that administrative modification threshold of 25% of a deviation from code. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I'm looking on the site plan that we were provided. I don't have um I don't have the neighboring lots, but I am wondering um what is the current setback on the neighboring lot as built? How far away is the neighbor's house? I do not know that information was not provided with the application and the material for this request

because I think that's something to consider. Um, you know, we truly don't want houses to be too close together for many reasons, most of them fire reasons. Um, so I think that's something to consider. Tony, can you come up for a second? And I'm going to add on uh in in looking at some of the pictures and I believe correct me if I'm wrong for this area. It appears that there is a house and on one side there's a driveway and on the other side most of the uh residences have a very small setback that kind of go to the other person's driveway.

Right. So every in this section of town, the lots are very uh narrow and long and each uh lot is separated on the at least on my side of the street on the south side by a driveway. So the driveway is the really kind of the the neighboring structure. Um so to the north is another driveway. Yeah, there's a little retaining wall there and then another driveway. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um and then I have one other comment.

So, in looking at the plans that were submitted. I have less issue Well, I do I do kind of have issue with the setback, but I have less issue with the setback than I do with the fact that you have a non-compliant basement. Right now it's not even 7 ft high and it's 6 1/2 ft or something like that. And you're proposing to continue that non-compliant height of a basement. No, we're not having the addition will not have a basement. Um, it's a crawl space. It's shown in the building section, I believe.

I believe it's depicted as a crawl space. Okay, let me I'm gonna have to find it. Might be a tiny note in here because I would not agree with extending a non-compliant basement. Yeah, Commissioner Boon. Uh I mean the the whole purpose is actually to add a first floor only first floor room. Okay. For us. So,

let me just see what I saw. I want to make sure. Architectural plans. Here we go. And I hope I'm just wrong.

Okay. The foundation plan looks like a crawl space. And then when I look at when I look at the crosssection on sheet A3.0, it says crawl space right here. Says crawl space. See, this is what I'm looking at here. So,

take a look at page five and zoom in. Um, okay. So, maybe that's a deep crawl space. It appears that the new foundation is down at the same level as the existing foundation.

Okay. Um, and that would lead one to believe, you know, well, it it's non-compliant as a basement. Um, you'd want to make sure that it wasn't being used as a basement because that greatly increases the non-compliant space of the house. I'm not an engineer, so I can't comment on why the engineer would put it equal with the current foundation, but the intent is not to have a basement there. So, and I think it's also depicted in the drawing as crawl space.

Okay. It's a really deep crawl space. It's a 6 and 1/2 ft deep crawl space. Okay, that's Let's see. I had another couple of questions. Um, now you said that back in was it 2021? 2023. 2023.

Okay. I was around then. I don't remember it. That doesn't really mean anything. But um can we verify that it was applied for and granted? That was before grant, right? Thank you, Commissioner Boon, for that question. When this was brought to my attention, I did do some research into our online system, and I did find a variance application from March of 2021 that was originally applied for. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah,

by Tony and a fee was paid. There were no other documents in that record and it was closed out um from inaction. So, it was closed out withdrawn. The variance was applied for, but it was not reviewed and approved. I can't say as to what the review looked like because I was not here then. However, it does not look like it went to public hearing and no decision was made and so the application itself was closed out withdrawn administratively due to inaction. Yeah, I looked for it in my files from a few years ago and I couldn't find it.

Um, okay, that's all I've got for now. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you, Chair. Um, okay. So I have a comment but then a follow-up question based on the architectural plans that I am reviewing in this packet. So my first comment is in review criteria for the variance. Um I do want to ask whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the standard. I would say uh yes, I'm aware of the city has setback uh limits.

Mhm. Did I know it was 5 ft for that particular area of town? I would say no because most of the houses in that area are not set back 5 ft. Okay. Um, my second question is based on the drawn design for the addition and speaking um to the way that the home is currently structured. You're trying to mitigate a safety concern by being a to walk from the basement to the backyard. And then with the addition, you're addressing maybe a different entrance or exit so that people can't be um running into each other.

Yeah. in the drawing. Can you please um I'm a new commissioner so could you please explain to me where that mitigation would take place and if there is another way in and out of that room so that way that is not going to happen again. So, kind of re-reing this. The blue area, okay, is the porch. The exist I'm sorry.

Oh, I can. Okay, that might help if you can see that. Um, so this area right here is the back porch. Okay. Today, where this landing is right here, there's an existing door to the outside. Okay. the stairs coming up, stairs going down into that landing and the door is the safety issue. Okay, the door opens on into the landing. So, the intent was to get rid of that door and move the back entrance to over here to the my right of the diagram and create stair access so that you could access the back part of the home. miss the whole stair landing situation and go up uh to the what's basically the porch and kitchen area of the home.

Thank you. So, in that regard, is it moving the access rather? It kind of seems if you're moving the access point that um people running into each other could still be an issue. No. No. Well, I mean, you don't have a door. Okay. You don't have a door in those stairway anymore. So, someone's not opening the door on you as you're coming down the stairs. Could you have people walking up and down the stairs? Sure. But they're they're just walking up the stairs to the landing and then that area there. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Earl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just a couple questions and these are a little bit more technical, so Molly, I think they're probably for you. Um, one, I'm fairly inclined to vote for this variance period. I want to make sure I understand exactly what I'm voting for. Um, we're being asked for two different variances here. One is the allowing the setback in the expansion and then separately to allow the existing structure to be expanded. Correct. Thank you, Commissioner. Yes. Okay. Essentially,

and so effectively, again, I'm not suggesting I want to do this, but I want to make sure I understand here, if we were to grant only the variance to allow the expansion that the expansion portion would have to be with that 5 foot setback. So, and I recognize that the applicant has talked about why that's not ideal, but I just want to play this out. I can explain this a little bit better. I am going to read out a section from the code and then kind of explain it

hopefully to give clarity on that question. So in section 1508070 which is the non-conforming structures under A which is enlargement any enlargement alteration or expansion of a non-conforming structure that complies with applicable dimensional standards for the portion of the structure being enlarged is allowed provided such expansion meets all other applicable standards in this development code. So, if the proposed addition were to meet that 5-ft sideyard setback, no variance would actually be required. The reason there is also the expansion or enlargement of the non-conforming structure variance request is because there is that setback variance request. So then when we're looking at A2 under this same section, enlargements of non-conforming structures that increase the degree of nonconformity, so not meeting that dimensional standard, are prohibited unless the director approves an administrative modification, which Chair Poland brought up earlier, or if a variance is granted.

Okay, that's help. Yeah, that really does help. And it's weird, but that's really helpful. Um, and so I think then I wanted to just ask a clarifying question based on what Commissioner Boon brought up on basement crawl space. I got to tell you, I'm not an architect or an engineer, and so I'm trying to interpret these plans a little bit. I'm going to go with the applicant saying it's intended to be a crawl space. Given the variance we're granting here, we're not granting a variance for a basement in any way, shape, or form. is if we go ahead and approve the PCR as written, I assume they c it cannot be a basement given the plans that have been presented. It has to be approved as a crawl space and therefore it has to be inspected as a crawl space and meet all the applicable codes. Is that accurate?

Thank you, Commissioner. Great question. I might defer to director Pinland as I am not in the building department nor am I an architect so I don't want to answer that. Thank you Director Pendlet.

Uh thank you. Uh I think I understood the question commissioner. Um so I'll I'll start with the second part. Uh from a building permit perspective if it was proposed as is. Um as um Commissioner Boon pointed out it could not function as a basement. So it would not be given occupancy for a basement. In terms of the first part of your question, um I don't know that granting a variance for the setback for the structure itself would necessarily preclude if the applicant so chose to submit a permit that actually met the building requirements for a basement. meaning going deeper um to actually fulfill building permit requirements. Okay, I'm going to sorry I want to explore that just for a second here.

Sure. Um we're we're being asked to grant a variance for the setback. We're being asked to do so for a 403 ft addition and that's what's written in the PCR. If you're going to do if if it was going to come back as a full basement, I assume that means the square footage would be greater because the basement would increase the square footage and therefore it would have to be a different variance than the one we're pro proposing tonight. Is that fair? I

I don't believe the square footage is subject to the variance criteria. Um in terms of the PZR, um it is called out specifically. So I think that's something we may have to address. But to clarify again, the variance itself is for the expansion. Um, now that I said that, I I understand where where you're coming from. So, yes, it would be contrary to what is approved tonight if if it was approved based upon that square footage.

Okay. Yeah. And I don't Tony, you've made it clear that's not the intent of what you guys are trying to do. I agree with Commissioner Boon's concern that that's not really appropriate if we were to do that. I don't have a problem with the variance as written. I want to make sure we're not opening a door that is, you know, causing a different problem. Um, so I appreciate the discussion and the fact that the square footage is in there I think is protect potentially protects us even though you guys may not love it from a clean variant standpoint. Okay, that is correct. That's all for me, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to make a motion or defer to anybody else. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Jordan, you're next.

Thank you, Chair. Um, with regards to the door that has been causing the stair falling issues, um, to me, I I don't really buy it that this if you had to if you didn't get the variance that that would go out the you you'd have a three-foot closet instead of a sixoot closet. I mean, you you might have to make some compromises, but I don't I'm not going to take that as, hey, you know, we're we're it's a safety issue that we're mitigating here. I think that's a decision of yours and your with your architect and your builder. I also want to understand because I understand uh that uh Molly that um there was a variance a degree of setback where the planning director could approve an administrative modification and it if I understood correctly he said 3.75 ft was that cut off and we're at 3.1. I did some back of the napkin math that's 8 in. So, if you bump the side of the house in 8 in, how much you really losing?

So, first off, you're still losing 8 in. You're losing 8 in out of already a small bathroom that's built for two people that's supposed to be built for two people. Um, you know, this is not a lavish master bedroom bathroom suite. It is a standing shower, a toilet, and a sink. Um, so it's not overly large. I think the other part of the equation, and part of what I'm pointing out is just the appeal or the lack of appeal of that building line. Okay, that that this home uh you know I think is part of our equation for retirement and um I I don't want to do anything to deter from its look and its historical feel. So

and and and I I appreciate that and I I say that as someone who has rebuilt a ba foundation from underneath the house and have made compromises on the architectural, but to me the old town side of things. You're in the bomb farm district. I can see that you're respecting the historical character of the place. And to me, that's more compelling that you're trying to keep things looking consistent and not like tumors clumb. But I don't buy that that you're mitigating a safety issue or you couldn't be creative with other uses of space.

Well, you talked about dropping the closet size down by 3 ft. I guess I don't understand how dropping the closet size down by 3 ft in the current design would get rid allow us to get rid of the stairwell problem. Well, cuz you right now you show a um an entrance and the the target plan coming off what is effectively at the top of the landing to that L-shaped staircase.

Yeah. And in my mind, uh, if the building were to move a couple feet in one direction, that the the wall that clos the exterior wall of the closet if you as you have it now could stay exactly where it is in your target plan. Just the addition gets thinner. That's not a sixt deep closet. Now it's a 4ft deep closet or a 3-ft deep closet. At any rate, that's not really All I'm saying is I think you could get creative. To me, that's not a primary driver for whether or not I approve or not tonight. I think it's to me the most compelling things is keeping in character with the rest of the neighborhood and the fact that I don't believe that this is any really different than what neighbors have done prior to this code being into effect. That's all I had to say.

Okay. Thank you. Uh I'm just going to add my two cents. I like this uh architecture uh work that you've done on this. totally agree with keeping a straight line with it. Uh it keeps in with the car character of the neighborhood. Um and it makes it easier for you. Gives you a couple extra feet. I know I I did a a basement and yes, you're right. Small bathrooms, they get hit really easy with even small changes. Um but I like the fact that it's a straight line and and that's why I'm all for this and um I would be for a uh resolution improving this. Which leads us to Vice Chair Earl.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we adopt and approve PCR 2026 3A, a resolution of the planning and zoning commission approving the setback variance request and expansion of a non-conforming structure request for 216 Grand Street. Thank you. And I'll go ahead and second that. Do we have any more discussion, questions, comments? If not, Jane, let's go ahead and take a vote. Commissioner Edgley Wells, yes. Vice Chair Earl, yes. Chair Poland, yes. Commissioner Boon, no. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Chair, that passes 4 to one with Commissioner Boon desenting.

Thank you very much and thank you to the applicant and thank you Molly. The next item is public hearing item 7C, which is 2950 Colorful Avenue off-site sign variant. Senior planner Christine Cotay uh is presenting the planning zoning commission is reviewing uh the variance pursuant to uh code 202406 is adopted by the city council. Can you do the appeal for Oh, sorry. Yes. Thank you. Oh, yeah.

Yes. Agenda item 7B now enters a 7-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 and zoning commission's decision should be amended or reversed by city council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk's office and the planning office within the 7-day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, March 26th at 8:00 a.m. Ends Wednesday, April 1st at 5:00 p.m. Thank you. Uh now, uh Kristen, we're ready to proceed with you.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Poland and commission members. I am Kristen Cody, a senior planner with planning and community development. Tonight, for your consideration, I'll be presenting a variance request for the property located at 2950 Colorful Avenue related to signage for White Fields Community Church. The subject property is located at 2950 Colorful Avenue, which is right here on your vicinity map, and consists of approximately 10.64 acres. The site was annexed through the concept direct filing number one and is zoned primary employment. The comprehensive land use plan also designates it as primary employment. It is important to note that the sign associated with this request is not located on the subject property. The existing monument sign is located offsite at the northwest corner of Highway 119 and Fair View Street, which is right here. So, the Whitefields Community Church is requesting two variances this evening. first to allow for an off- premises monument sign which is prohibited under section 1506.030H of Longmont Development Code. The second is an increase in the maximum permitted sign face area. The code limits monument signs to 80 square ft for properties with two to 10 tenants. The applicant is proposing a sign face of 102 square ft which requires a variance of 22 square ft. This proposal would reface the existing monument sign located at that northwest corner. Um the applicant has indicated that the sign is proposed to be removed at the time that the Westview property develops and if approved the variance would allow both for the off- premises sign and the increase in sign face. This is some imagery of the sign. This is from um Colorado 119 looking north at the sign.

And this is from Fair View Street looking west at the signage. Public notice for this application was completed in accordance with the requirements of the development code. The property was posted on March 6th and the notice of public hearing was mailed on March 3rd and the notice was published in the Longmont Times call on I believe March 20th. No public comments were received in reference to this request. All applications are reviewed against the criteria outlined in section 1502.055 of the Longmont Development Code, which is criteria for all development types. These criteria ensure that the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan, complies with applicable city standards, and is compatible with surrounding properties. This slide is a continuation of the criteria for all application types. In addition to the general criteria, variance requests are evaluated against the variance criteria in section 15020601.5.8.2. These factors include whether the property can achieve a beneficial use without the granting of the variance, the degree of deviation from the code, whether the applicant was aware of the standard at the time of purchase, if there are alternative solutions, and whether granting the variance would maintain the intent of the regulation. That concludes my presentation. I will now turn it over to the applicant for their presentation and I am happy to take questions following that. Thank you so very much.

Good evening, commissioners. Um, I'm Chris Dayton, operations director at Whitefields Community Church. Um, thank you for the time to address the signed variants that we've proposed. Um, you'll be happy to know I only have four slides. Uh the first one is just who we are to get acquainted with what the church does, how we do community outreach and the second third and fourth are just u the sign visibility. So who we are, we are a Christian non-denominational church devoted to serving the spiritual and physical needs of our community. We were founded in 2006 and at that time we

pardon me. Can you just lift the mic up a little bit so we can capture your voice a little bit better? Very good. Thank you.

Sure. So we were founded in 2006 and at that time we met at the memorial building over in Roosevelt Park. We stayed there for 14 years and moved to our current site in 2020. So we've been there at Colorful Avenue for about six years. We belong to the Calvary Chapel Network, a family of churches working together to proclaim the the gospel, make disciples of Christ, and plant churches. We support missionaries around the world, such as in in Europe, Central America, South America, and outreaches in South Africa. Typical Sunday attendance is about 650 people. So, as I said, we uh we have an extensive local outreach to the community. Uh for example, in 2005 in the summer, we began what we called a project back to school where we supplied 99 backpacks, new backpacks stuffed with with supplies for children that couldn't afford to to uh buy those supplies themselves or their parents certainly couldn't. Um, as the year progressed, we went towards the holidays and we um initiated another program that we do every year called Project Greatest Gift. And there we we supplied 389 uh gifts to children that would otherwise be at risk of not receiving anything for Christmas. We've contributed over 76,000 to and four local outreaches. One example of the beneficiary of this is a table of hope food pantry located on our premises. And every second and fourth Friday uh Saturday of the month, they give out food. And last year it was in the tune of 3,600 total people served in,350 boxes of food given out. That's who we are in our local outreach. The current sign is visible from 119.

And I've taken a picture of 119. is slightly zoomed in. Uh for reference, the uh the bold white fields letters are about 2 ft tall. So you can see them from 119, which is what we wanted. Um and this is in compliance. We're not talking about this sign. However, it would take a person a concerted effort because there's trees blocking it. As they zoom by, they're going parallel. So they would have to look and have the time to see the sign. So we are presented with an opportunity to have a more visible sign. And as Kristen said, this is at Fair View and um Colorado 119 on the northwest corner. The sign put there would certainly uh allow people to say, "Hey, there must be a church back there and let's just follow the sign and see where it goes." Uh when installed the um well, first about the sign, we didn't want it to be just a regular rectangle. That wouldn't be in compliance with what you want or what we want. We wanted it to to look pretty uh to be visually appealing. So the sides of the sign emulate the sides of the Brock and the top of our sign emulates the profile of the Rocky Mountains with the Longs Peak, Maker Peak, Twin Sisters, and all around it. It's it was um designed to be small enough that the rock border would be seen around the perimeter. We just thought that add another uh context of um visual appealing. Plus, it added a wind buffer for our sign. While the sign was temporarily installed, as shown in this picture, uh wind gusts of 75 miles per hour were recorded in an easterly direction. Uh there was no visible damage to the sign. Uh and finally, as Christian mentioned, this is an opportunity given to us by Don Macy of Macy Development. He said that we can use the sign until such time as he wants to develop a parcel of land

and at which time he would let us know and we take it down and we agreed. That's all I have.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um yeah, we'll probably be asking some questions, so be ready. Um this is a public hearing item. At this time, I'll go ahead open up for public invited to be heard. This is a chance for the public to make comments on the item before us. Nobody was on the list. Keeping them open. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out. Public invited to be heard and turn it back over to the commission for discussion, questions, comments, motions. Commissioner Boon. Um, thank you, chair. You have a really big sign on your building. I think it's bigger than the Walmart sign across the street. Um, so it seems as though people can find you. There's also, um, I think you're in that same area where the climbing collective or whatever it's called now is, correct? Correct. and they don't have a big sign um out on 119. Um I congratulate you for having such a a a big congregation. Good for you. Those people already know how to find you and it sounds like there's a lot of other things that you do where people probably might need to be directed to where you are. But as long as they have your address and uh GPS, they can find you. Or if they're driving down 119, they can see your other big sign. Um, my biggest concern is that it sets a bad precedent for

putting big signs on 119 that are not on the property of the business that abuts 119. And I think from a safety standpoint, if 119 becomes an avenue of big signs for all the buildings that are two or three blocks off of 119, that that's a problem. Um, another thing that you said in your write up or somebody said in the write up was that this was just going to be temporary and one of the reasons that you were asking for a variance was for the safety such that people could easily see where to go. If it's temporary, then what happens when it's when the Macy property is is uh developed? It's not there anymore. So that reason for having it, I don't think is valid. Um it's a pretty sign. I like what you did with the rock and the mountains. Um, it's a little too big. It's almost it's almost of the size where a 25% variance could have been administratively granted, but not quite, I guess. But my main issue is that it sets a bad precedent of putting big signs on 119. So, I will have a hard time supporting it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. Um, Kristen, I had a question. Um, so this type of sign is prohibited. That's off premise, right? That is correct. Uh, is there any um I don't I was looking through the sign code and I couldn't find the specific section on that off off hand. What is the rationale for that? Typically signs are limited in that fashion to avoid uh roadway clutter, distractions to drivers and also um to protect the view area, the view area within the sign.

All right. Um that that was the one question I had and I'm going to throw out a comment and I I think I'm going to kind of echo what Commissioner Boon said. I mean I'm looking at Google Maps Street View right here just on Fair View. this sign would be larger than the Longmont city limit sign. I think that is kind of to the I'm in the same boat. Um to me it reads like an advertisement. It doesn't read like it's signage. Uh and I think if you have a really healthy congregation, they know how to get there. That's what I have to say.

Thank you. Uh Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Kristen, thank you. Chris, thank you. Um you you're asking for two variances here. Um one is to put it um off premises. I understand why you want to do that. I'm not convinced it meets criteria, but I understand why. I don't understand why you want the sign to be 102 ft rather than the 80 ft. I I appreciate the design that you've put together. I do think it looks nice, but I don't understand why it couldn't look nice at 80 square feet instead of 102 feet. Um, so I don't understand the even the reason why you're requesting that variance. I guess

what we were trying to do is to make sure that our sign didn't look silly with respect to the stone sign that it was going to be behind it. If uh if it was 80 square ft then it would look quite small and the west view words that are engraved behind it would show through. Okay. So if it was shorter, you would see the words behind it. Yes, that's

I I can understand that. I I guess whether it looks silly or not might be a little subjective, but I understand not wanting the words there. I still I I struggle a little bit with the you know the off- premises sign, particularly given it's temporary. I'm when I go down to our review criteria where we have to look at are there special circumstances um I don't really think there's exceptional dimension shaped topography of the property um you the property and development can absolutely have beneficial use I recognize the sign is valuable um but there is beneficial use there um we do ask whether the applicant purchased the property with knowledge of the standard. I don't I think you had a box in there, but I actually can't remember the response. Was that something that was known at the time of develop when it was purchased?

Right. It was no. Okay. Um and whether standard can be addressed through some means other than a variance. I I mean I don't think there's another way to do that other than believing the sign on the building is already appropriate and whether the purpose and intent behind the regulation would be maintained. I don't think the purpose and intent behind the regulation would be maintained if we granted the variance. Um I I I'm not um I don't think I can be in a position to support the variance. I understand why it's beneficial. Um I just I I don't think it rises to the level of meeting the criteria we have to meet.

Thank you, Councilman Popkin. Thank you, chair. I just had a clarifying question on two aspects of the the dimensions here. So, just to make sure I'm perfectly clear on this, the the signing question we're talking about is the white sign and that's the 102 ft. Correct, Kristen? Yeah. And and so then is the stone behind that considered a sign and is that conforming or not? Cuz if if the white sign is 100 greater than 80 ft, wouldn't the stone also be much greater?

What I can tell you about the sign that exists there today is I did search through the city archived records and could find no record of a building permit for that sign. Although um Kyle Hayworth, who is the traffic engineering administrator, did approve that sign location in a permit that was included in your packet is I believe exhibit F. So the existing sign it has been approved by um transportation in reference to location and size. So we would only be looking at the White Fields um overlay. Thank you. Just curious about this.

Thank you, Commissioner Edgely Wells.

Thank you, Chair. Um, so I can't speak to the rock sign being on the property of the Macy property owners who will eventually develop on that property. That is their thing. Uh, but what I can what I would like to speak to right now is um the Whitefield sign as a safety concern as a possible distraction for drivers going down 119. Um especially since on your current property you do have a sizable sign that does um let your congregation know where you're located. Um thinking uh on our review criteria for variances, one of the items does say um if it creates a fire hazard or safety concern. And I would like to maybe um invite us to think about the distraction that a sign that size could create for drivers on 118.

Okay. Could I respond to that? I did talk to uh C do DOT about this. Um they have a form 129. We went through that and they said it doesn't apply to us and we're fine. So they don't agree that it's a safety hazard in any way. Are there any other questions, comments, motions? If I could say one other thing, this is a rare opportunity for us to get more visibility for the westbound drivers. Like I said, although we have a big sign on our building, a lot of people that come don't say they saw the sign because you have a narrow angle. You have trees in the way. You can see it if you're perpendicular to it, but how many drivers are going to turn their heads and make a concerted effort to look at that sign at that point? Not many. So, the sign on the building is there for people who are finding us based on other means, not by seeing a sign. And I'm just saying that if we have Mr. Macy saying you can use my rock sign for a year, which is about what it seems like it's going to be. Um, it's a a great opportunity for us to to alert people and at that time the sign's going to be coming down anyway. Okay, Kristen. So no matter what the size of the sign is, they would still need to request the variance to put it in that location because it's offsite. Correct.

That is correct.

Okay. Do we have any more questions, comments? Would somebody like to make a motion? Commissioner Jordan. Um just one more comment. I I want to again echo. I think that variances need to be considered with really really tough uh thinking. They really need to be granted only when it's the the last option. And the fact that it might only be there for a year to me makes it like a not a good use of a variance. um especially because it would open up as a precedent other off-site properties to then put more signs along 1119. So for that my that that being my opinion, I would motion that we move forward with PZR2 20261C to deny the variance. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Boone,

I'll second it. We have a motion. We have a second. Any further comments, questions? If not, Jane, let's take a vote. Commissioner Edgely Wells, yes. Vice Chair Earl, yes. Earlie. Chair Poland, yes. Commissioner Boon, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Chair, that motion passes 5 to zero to deny.

Thank you. Agenda item 7 C. Uh, the appeal process announcement. This item now enters a 7-day appeal period. During this period, 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, must be received in the city clerk's office and the planning office within the 7-day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, March 26th at 8:00 a.m. Ends Wednesday, April 1st at 5:00 p.m. Thank you, Kristen. Thank you, Chris. Thank you for your time. Okay, we are done with the public hearing items. Next item is final call, public invited to be heard. This is a chance one last time for anybody out in the audience who would like to come and have any comments for the planning and zoning commission. Nobody was signed up. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out. Public invited to be heard. Next is items from the commission. Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. Um I would just like to mention that um a number of us went to the um help me out here. the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute conference that was held a few weeks ago down at DU. And first of all, I really appreciate the city sponsoring us to go down there. It was very informative. I learned a lot. Um, my only regret really is that I didn't see any planners, any Longmont planners down there with us. Were there two? There was one.

I think there was one. Okay. One of our newer planners.

And I would certainly encourage um this event to be made possible for the planners um in in years to come. Uh each year has a certain topic. There's been water use and uh I don't know there was a whole session on the Colorado River one year. This one had a lot to do with housing which is you know what we are all dealing with and it also touched on uh many of the house bills that are addressing things that are perhaps in conflict with our home rule as a city. And I found it to be very interesting and kind of conflicting. There were a lot of attorneys there. There were planners. There were people from other um other locations. There were people there from W uh not Wyoming. Well, there probably were, but from Oregon and Washington that presented some really interesting planning solutions. Um there was one um panel that had someone from Pitkin County talking about affordable housing in Pitkin County where the um the mean price for a house is $8.1 million. Um and they're still trying to provide workforce housing. So you think we have have it tough. Think about being in Pitkin County. Anyway, it was very informative and I would certainly encourage um anyone from the planning department or even from the city council for that matter uh to try to attend next year. It was great and thank you for your support.

Thank you, Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to bring up the exact same point, Commissioner Boon. So, I appreciate you getting there first. I

not at all. I I echo what you said. I am grateful to the city for for allowing us to go. Um I I would highlight one of the one of the lunch speakers was Don Elliot who gave a talk about the past and future of zoning in the west which was I mean informative, educational. I would love to have that. I would love to make sure that all of council could see that same presentation. Um particularly as we go into a comprehensive plan season. I think it was just so it it was so much packed into an hour. So, as someone who's only been on this commission for a little over a year, it was incredibly valuable context for me. Um, so I'm really grateful for that. And just as we do more and more, I mean, I think some of that some of the history and how we get to the zoning is really good to bring up. Totally separate point. Um, I know council has directed staff to uh look at some of the multifamily zoning that we've talked about before. Um, I'm hoping that we can have an update on that that progress um and when we might be able to see that in front of us. So, I I would hope that we can get that update from the planning director when it's his his turn. Otherwise, thank you.

Thank you. Um, any other items from the commission? If not, we will go ahead and move to items from Council. Representative Popkin. Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you, commissioners. Um, for, you know, I've sat through a few, uh, variance hearings myself, and, uh, they each present different considerations and I thought you guys all navigated that really thoughtfully. appreciate the consideration and they're tricky and they're often personal um or very very deeply felt by the applicants. So, um and I believe all of them by law are well are usually Longmont residents or at least on behalf of an applicant on behalf of a Longmont resident. So, thanks for considering that. Um couple updates I think that would be either broadly or directly applicable to PNZ here. Um, first, uh, the planning and zoning commission saw a presentation last August, I believe it was, on the old Walmart site, um, by the north of the village of the Peaks off of Nelson Road. Um, city council did approve that intergovernmental agreement uh, earlier this month, I believe, if not late February. It was one of those. I think it was late February, actually. Um, and the LMA Urban Renewal Authority, I believe, will be considering that final approval next week. Um, so thank you for your past review of that if you were on the the commission at the time. Um, yesterday, city council approved a phase one effort to advance planning work for Front Range Community College urban downtown campus um, with the intent of attracting the college to that permanent higher education uh, downtown area. Um, just to make sure everyone's clear on what part we're talking about, if you know where the first and main transit station is planned for on the west side of 287 and north of, I guess, south of First, um, you'd be looking across 287 to the east, south of First, south of the railroad tracks there

between there and basically Boston Avenue is that core area that we're talking about there. All of those materials are public online. Feel free to drop me an email if you'd like more clarity on that specifically. Um that is very exciting and definitely relates to a lot of the broader first and main um planning area and the steam sugar mill broader plan areas that many of you have um either contributed to or reviewed in the past as well. Um let's see uh what else do we have here? Uh city council has approved updates. I uh at the February meeting I was sharing some uh kind of d the direction that city council was headed in terms of advisory board um update on process particularly on interviews. Um all of the updates that I shared in February that were under consideration were approved. There was a uh brief uh side quest to consider whether to limit the nature or scope of the recommendations uh specifically for advisory boards um that um passed first reading and then did not pass on second reading. So that is no long that was not part part of the overall recommendation in case you were following part of that but not all of it. Um and then on a few other things that are going to be forthcoming to the commission and Grant correct me if I'm wrong. Um, I won't promise any timelines here, but uh there was a uh well, I guess I made the motion to direct the planning and zoning commission uh I think it was two weeks ago to evaluate uh which uh future zones should allow for new drive-through uses um and recommend zoning and code changes if any to reflect Longmont's modern land use needs. Um so PNZ will be considering that. I believe actually you all received a presentation about that last spring if I recall correctly at least on as a study item at that time and not a directional item. So that'll be building on that topic. Um there was another drive-thru consideration being propos uh being

worked on that staff is is fine-tuning in our code that's more for the Main Street Quarter and separate from that motion. Uh and lastly, I believe uh the commission either in your next meeting or the meeting after that will be seeing uh code updates proposed for the bike parking um throughout the city. I don't know if that's been scheduled yet officially, but the transportation advisory board saw a draft of that earlier this month um and provided some initial feedback. So, just a little bit of a preview on what's to come. Thank you very much. Next is items from planning director Grant Penland.

Thank you, chair, members of commission. Uh I'll go ahead and uh update in terms of uh timeline. Uh I think the specific uh request from council was to bring back in the form of a zero reading uh essentially adding single family attached in the single family uh residential zone district. So, uh, from a time frame perspective, we're hoping April May timeline. Uh, staff had already been kind of working on that. So, the intent is to walk through kind of what the implications of making that type of change. Um, we already discussed at least at a high level with commission. Obviously, we haven't had that discussion with with council yet. So, um, a little bit of a crossover there, but that's our anticipated or goal timeline uh, time frame. uh bike parking. Um since uh council member brought that up, we I believe are looking at May to bring that in front of planning commission. Um and with that said, uh we actually do have several land use items as well. Um so many such that uh we are looking at two items on April 15th. one being an annexation um that we anticipate that will um garner significant interest uh from the public. So uh that coupled with a URRA amendment that is somewhat timesensitive. So uh that's the goal for April 15th. So we will be requesting if the commission is immunable to start that meeting um at 6:00 and then uh we would look to have a April 22nd meeting as well. Um that would include uh land development uh uh code amendment uh dealing with prairie dogs as well as a conditional use site plan. Um and then I won't go into the gory details other than uh again we have several others that are kind of vying for the May time frame. Um and again

looking as I mentioned the bike parking for May. So uh definitely have a a heavy schedule anticipated in the next few months and I think that's all I have this evening. Okay. Thank you very much.