Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

Heat. Heat. Everybody Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

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

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

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

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

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Okay, we are going to go ahead and call to order the Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2026 meeting. First item is roll call.

Chair Poland here. Commissioner Edley Wells here. Commissioner Lang here. Vice Chair Earl here. Commissioner Saunders here. Commissioner Boon here. Commissioner Jordan here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Next is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne Aripo 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 these injustices do not happen again. Next is communications from Grant Penland.

Good evening, chair, members of commission. Uh just wanted to say uh thanks everybody for being here and uh happy oh yeah it's April already. Happy tax day. Uh next is the public invited to be heard. This is a chance for the public to speak on items that are not in front of the commission today or are of quasi judicial nature. Uh, nobody signed up for this, but I will open up if anybody from the audience would like to come up. You get five minutes. Seeing nobody come up, I'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard. Next is approval of the minutes for the March 25th, 2026 meeting. Do we have any comments, questions, or motions? Commissioner Boon,

I'll move to approve the meeting the meeting minutes last time. Thank you, Commissioner Saunders. I approve or I approve. Second. Wow. We We have a motion. My Apologies. I would like to second that. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Jane, let's go ahead take a vote. Commissioner Edgley Wells. Yes. Commissioner Lang. Hi. Vice Chair Earl. Hi. Chair Poland. Yes. Commissioner Saunders, yes. Commissioner Boon, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes. Chair, that passes unanimously 7 to zero.

Thank you very much. Next, we move to public hearing items. Uh, today we have 8513 St. Fraine Road annexation and concept plan. Senior planner Kristen Cot Cotay presenting.

Good evening and thank you, chair and commission members. I am Kristen Cody, a senior planner with the city of Longmont. This evening for your consideration I will be presenting in in reference to the annexation zoning and concept plan request for the 8513 St. Fra Road project. Tonight's presentation will provide an overview of the request, explain annexation and concept plan processes and describe the proposed development. At this stage, the commission is evaluating whether the site can develop consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning. So there's no final design details included in this information this evening. The applicant is requesting annexation into the city of Longmont, zoning to residential mixed neighborhood, and approval of a concept plan showing the general layout and density. Annexation brings property into the city limits, allows connections to city services. This property is currently served by Longmont Power and Communications, and annexation would allow connections to additional city utilities and services. Annexation does not approve a final development plan, but instead represents a highlevel review of feasibility and establishes the framework work of subsequent applications, including subdivision plat where detailed design and compliance with city standards are evaluated and final annexation decisions are made by city council. So what is a concept plan? The concept plan is a highle tool that evaluates whether a property can be developed consistent with current plans in place. It will show general land use density and access points. Property location. The property is located east of Airport Road and north of 9inth Avenue adjacent to the Champion Green subdivision and south of the Burlington Northern Santa Bay Railroad Corridor. The site is within the airport influence zone and is designated

residential mixed neighborhood in the comprehensive plan. The property is currently an unincorporated Boulder County and consists of rural residential site with agricultural uses. It is not currently served by city water or sewer, but is served by Longmont Power and Communications. development will be subject to the airport influence zone requirements in reference to building height, light, glare, and interference. This slide shows the property is located within the municipal service area. I apologize because it is small, but you can see the starred property in this area of the screen. It is in both in both the municipal service area and the Longmont planning area which supports annexation and future connection to city services. Here you can see the property the north property line of the site which is adjacent to the railroad corridor and you can see the railroad right here on your screen. This image shows the existing access point into the property from 9inth Avenue and this slide shows the westerly property line of the site adjacent to airport road. The concept plan includes approximately se 27 to 44 dwelling units with a mix of single family detached and attached housing. This results in a density range of approximately 6.1 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre, which is within the required density range of 6 to 18 dwelling units per acre for the residential mixed neighborhood zoning district. This slide shows the conceptual layout of the proposed development, including the general lot arrangement, circulation, and open space areas. As a reminder, this layout is conceptual and if approved, would be refined at later

stages in the review. Access and circulation. Primary access is proposed through Champion Greens via Doral Drive and Champion Circle. Consistent with planned connectivity. These connections were anticipated as part of the original subdivision design. A rightin out access to Airport Road is also proposed along with a gated emergency access onto Airport Road for emergency response purposes. This slide depicts the Champion Greens final plat which is adjacent and shows the roadway connections extending to the property line which were planned to allow for future connectivity to this site. Residential mixed neighborhood standards. The residential mixed neighborhood zoning district allows for a mix of housing types and establishes standards for lot size, setback, and building height. These standard standards guide development and are applied during subsequent stages of the development process review. Compatibility. The site is adjacent to existing um residential neighborhoods and is designated for mixed neighborhood development in the comprehensive plan. The proposed mix of housing types and density is consistent with what is anticipated for this area. This slide depicts the area in the adjacent densities. You'll see to the north the Longmont Estates Green subdivision which is at a 3.1 DUS per acre. The Champion Green subdivision which is at 4.6 6 DUS per acre in the subject property which is proposing 6.1 to 9.9 DUS per acre adjacent to airport road which is a principal arterial. This is a copy of our zoning district legend which you'll see the RMN

designation to the east of the property for the Champion Green subdivision and RSF to the north of the property. This is imagery from the comp plan which is the future land use and transportation area. Again in a very small star depicts the subject property which shows a proposed um residential mixed neighborhood zoning for the site. Neighborhood feedback stack staff has received a significant amount of public input through meetings and written correspondence. Common themes include traffic and access through Champion Greens, pedestrian safety, density and number of units, drainage and groundwater concerns, and overall neighborhood character. Additional comments included requests for alternative access points, increased buffering, and more open space. All comments were reviewed and considered as part of the evaluation of the concept plan and applicable review criteria. Key considerations for this application. Um the key considerations for this application include consistency with the comprehensive plan, availability of infrastructure, access and connectivity and compat compatibility with surrounding development. The proposal is consistent with the envision long comprehensive plan which designates the property as residential mixed neighborhood. This designation supports a mix of housing types and densities, encourages efficient use and extension of municipal infrastructure, and reinforces development within the city's planning area. The proposal also supports planned connectivity and appropriate transitions between existing residential neighborhoods and surrounding corridors. This slide um shows you the review criteria for all application types, which is a portion of the review. This

includes evaluating consistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning, compliance with applicable standards, compatibility with surrounding properties, and whether impacts to infrastructure and adjacent properties are appropriately addressed for annexation. Additional criteria includes consistency with the municipal service area, appropriateness of the zoning, and the ability to provide urban services to the site. What happens next? This annexation will proceed proceed to city council for final consideration. If annexed, the project would then move to the subdivision play phase where detailed site design, infrastructure, drainage, landscaping, and building layout are reviewed. This slide depicts the decisions for that the board has for this evening. They have they could you can recommend approval of the application without conditions, approval of the application with conditions or recommend denial of the application. City staff recommends approval of the annexation zoning and concept plan based on compliance with the land development code and comprehensive plan a condition. And that concludes my presentation. The applicant also has a presentation this evening and city staff is available to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's move to the applicant presentation.

Oops. Hello. I have you up in presentation mode and you can just enter through and that that's a full size I assume. Yep. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh my name is Jack Bestall. I'm the owner's representative for St. Rain annexation. Um we members of our consultant team are here this evening as well and we appreciate the planning commission considering this for annexation tonight. It's been uh several years. I'll leave it at several where we've uh been working on this um property and um I I'll go through this. This is a little bit longer presentation than I typically would make, but I think it maybe provides a little bit more background. Um the staff has certainly given a comprehensive presentation as well. Um, this slide at the beginning just indicates again where this is located on 9inth at the northeast corner of 9inth and airport road and the current house that's there. It's an old farmhouse that um no longer really uh is is in good physical condition. Our planned goals from the beginning were to do a quality residential development. And during the review process, we really wanted to listen to the community. We knew that there wasn't going to be agreement on what we were proposing in all cases, but we really embraced that part of the process. Uh so obviously to comply with state and city criteria for annexation, conform to the vision longmount plan and conform to the city code. Um the the plan itself really takes shape when you understand uh what what's going on with the the plat for Champion Greens which was approved 30 years ago now 1996. And uh in that process, the city required the subdivision to have two connecting points dural and at uh Champion Circle uh to attach to the to

this property to the St. Rain property and also infrastructure was also set up to make that connection. Um it is in the planning area of Longmont. It also is in the municipal services area. So the concept uh started to take shape and we'll talk more about the the final concept plan but it does comply with land use in terms of mixed residential which is the same as Champion Greens in in the in the land use plan for the city. Um it that's equivalent with to the RMN zoning which has a 6 to 18 dwelling unit range. Um we we decided that using attached and detached homes here could make sense and uh the idea became to have a more compact development. And so we're showing a range of 27 to 44 units which really gives us some flexibility in how we approach this when we hit the marketplace and understand that better um a year or two years from now potentially. The community involvement aspect was significant. We had four neighborhood meetings, individual small groupoup discussions, many of those phone calls, etc. And this led to us modifying some of the the basis of the plan and and I've organized those into kind of major themes. planning, traffic and civil engineering, environmental in planning uh compatibility was brought up existing conditions view the buffer and development standards uh the compatibility I think the staff has addressed that but really this is more of a complimentary compatibility there's they the both projects champion greens and strain they share scale massing and function and there may be diver architectural aspects to this, but they're still compatible and they create

interest and also we'll be sharing similar setbacks and building envelopes. We'll talk a little bit more about that. This is Champion Greens looking uh south uh along the the residential that abuts the St. Vin project with landscaping along that. This is the other side of the of the project. This is St. drain and uh before this would have been a dense grouping of trees and understory thicket and we've been thinning this out and moving through this on a kind of regular basis now to really achieve a little bit better understanding. This shows trees that we think are one native and two may have enough uh sustainability that we can incorporate them into a long-term landscape plan along the buffer that's planned against uh the Champion Greens property. The existing view which was expressed as a concern basically there is not a view looking west here on here on Champion Circle. There's really not a view to the to the west. Um, and it'll vary as trees come and go, but basically there's not something to to capture there. Comparable standards. Champion Greings has basements. They have a height. I believe their development plan requires 30 ft. They're in they're in an RMN which allows 35, but I think their development plan said 30. Sideyard 0 to 10 foot range. So, you'll see that their development is pretty compact as well. St. Rain, we will not have basements. uh we will have attached product which is different. The height will be 35 ft and sideyard would be 0 feet of course for attached and 5 ft for detached. Um so that's a little bit about the planning themes. Traffic themes of course are always important, always brought up and there's a reason for that. It's significant. Um so a couple these are some of the questions and

comments that we received and I literally just put them into the presentation. Does the traffic study recognize current trips in its projections? And the answer is yes. It projects conditions through 2043. How much will the roadway connection increase traffic in Champion Greens? So at Dural and Champion Circle approximately 20 to five 25% additional trips is our estimate. Does airport road eliminate access to Champion Greens? the access there. At this point, there was we had been starting to work with the city on seeing if we could get another access onto Airport Road. And the answer is um uh that that no, there's the planned connections need to remain between Champion Greens and St. Rain, but the airport road connection will help uh and it provides an option for Champion Greens residents as well. And then and of course once the access came into into play on airport road then the question would be you know could can you have a southbound left turn lane and that's a city decision but it doesn't meet the standard. So the roadway connection you can see here at Dural going directly west to uh St. Brain. It was in the plat and it was part of their improvement plan. increased trips. I've mentioned at Champion Greens with this project would be about 20 to 25%. On the other side of the coin, it's also going to because of the airport road access, it's going to increase trips within the St. Rain project by about 20 to 25%. So, it's we're we're sharing the the load here, I think. Uh the airport road access will carry about 30 to 35% of the total site trips. And you can see here that Dural um this is at Dural where the where their their little roundabout is. This goes straight through and would be excuse me at Champion Circle and it goes

straight through to Airport Road uh and provides that that secondary access if you will for both projects. The engineering themes flood plane and drainage were the key here. Um and and really the theme was St. Will Saint Rain St. rain increased runoff to Champion Greens. They were very concerned because the impacts of the flood in 2013. Number one, it's not in the flood plane and there's some still there's some debate I think on some of the Champion Greens residents about that. Um, and FE that's a FEMA source and the city and then adding water to our pond. They were concerned we might be adding water to their detention pond and no, that's not going to happen. Here's a here's an image of the flood plane uh which shows how it the flood plane is south of uh St. Brain and of uh Champion Greens. It's not in the flood plane and I think there was upstream mitigation done after the 2013 flood were there in terms of discharge uh will the ditches on on St. drains property have be a part of that drainage system and uh also the bottom one the detention pond is placed directly against the fence that was the way that was read but let's take those both on the left you can see these are the irrigation ditches in the white that white curly q pattern that was what the former owners had to irrigate their trees and their and their garden and that's not going to become a part of our irrig ation I mean excuse me our drainage system and we've had that cut off for 2 years and so it's you know it's it's just it's a languishing uh irrigation system that they used on site and the flows uh well in terms of the the water quality uh pond or the storm water area the I think what was

happening was the parcel was all green and it was read as oh they're going to put the detention pond right up against the property of lot one there you can see that wasn't the case we're going to be back at least 26 ft. We don't have a specific design. It'll come up at Plat, but you know, we're not that's not our goal. Our goal would be to have the detention pond west of well west of any of the adjacent properties. Environmental themes really focused on trees. And you can imagine, well, you will imagine in a minute, but what it's going to happen with dead trees. Most sheds have been removed. They had a um an adventure playground which was very uh popular and still may be, but they built a lot of sheds and wood and tree forts and so forth on the property. Also garden sheds, we've been taking those down fairly regularly and um also we are inspected by the city and county and we who keep a close eye on us. Another environmental comment was the site is a prebel nest prebble mouse nesting area. the the the quick answer is no, it's not. And there's no critical habitat on this property. The survey we did for the trees to meet the city requirement, we surveyed, as it turns out, 575 trees. I've blocked all of them, by the way, several times. We've sprayed them all, the ones we want to keep and not keep. And we're we're trying to kind of work through this, but this is a snapshot of just part of the site. That black line is one of those irrigation ditches. Here you can see ongoing clearing really it's a part of our risk mitigation uh plan and sometimes as you take down trees obviously they protect the other trees and as you take out irrigation then the trees aren't as healthy because they don't have the water that they're used to. So we we've been trying to watch that and our neighbors at Champion Greens watch it for us and we'll come out if we have difficulties. But we've been very fortunate so far with the winds over the last two years have been

so severe. We've only had a couple or three that have that have gone across the fence or there's been a difficulty and mostly it's been branches. Uh so we're really working on selective thinning as well. Here's a pine tree standing by itself. This is native. We think we might be able to salvage that and keep it and make it a part of a future landscape plan. We also did a nesting survey, a requirement of the city. You can see it's there's a yellow circle on the property that we found one nest and it wasn't being used for at least a couple years. And then the other the purple one to the north is the Osprey nest up in that pond off of Airport Road. So listening to the community and and going through the neighborhood meetings that we did, we actually went through basically three plans. There was a couple of hybrids, but from left to right, we started on the on the left one, did a middle one, and then and then the the one to the right is kind of where we ended up. Meeting one, we we had a plan that was like this. It had resident town homes on both sides of the main road in in St. Rain and it had 57 residential units, of which seven were affordable, 12.7 dwelling units per acre. Uh this was met with great concern and also we didn't have as good a a a setup as we should have on the site plan uh because we had we had forgotten that we needed to have a buffer. So the next plan meeting two we we reorganized what we were doing. We put in the 26 ft wide buffer there. You can see the green running north south on the right side or east side of the St. drain plan and the residential then was was relocated all to the west with attached and detached units. So that reduced the total units by about 25% to 43 units from 57. It reduced the density, it reduced the traffic and uh we were able to get and

of course the buffer was added meeting three and four. This was a real significant one. The bottom point bullet point there is the airport road access was added and this is the pretty much the plan that's the final plan now which we showed in meeting four in neighborhood meeting 4. It has 27 units 27 to 44 6.1 to 9.9 really at the lower range of uh of uh the RMN zone which is 6 to 18. The buffers in the 26t wide buff landscape buffer along the east property line uh we have about a 100 foot building to building between new homes and the Champion Greens homes and the airport road access. So the goals we have, we think we've come up, we've that the process has really yielded matching up on these goals. The quality residential project has the opportunity to be that. It conforms to the Envision uh Longmont plan. And uh it's really interesting how close it is in some areas to to being comparable to both St. Rain and Champion Greens. A snapshot of a certain area at Champion Greens shows for example 6.5 dwelling units per acre on the low end we might have 6.1 or a range up to 9.9 a the overall averages at at Champion Greens is 4.5 to 4.6 six. So, it's interesting how a real compact detached project is similar to an attached blended detached attached. It also conforms to RMN's own standards and uh conforms to lawm development code when we get especially to the five plat and uh public improvement plans and so forth. This shows the 100 foot approximate building to building distance with the with the homes on the west side of St. rain and the homes on the west side of Champion Greens and the green the strong green there on the

right side is the is the buffer. So, we really uh feel like we've met and complied with all of the requirements that uh Kristen listed uh earlier uh both law development uh requirements and um the state requirements for annexation and we would appreciate your consideration of approving this and recommending it to the council. We're here for questions.

Okay. Thank you very much. Uh I think at this time since this is a public hearing item, we will open this up for the public invited to be heard to speak on this issue on this item in front of us. Um we did have a sign up on the outside. We do have 11 names on that. Um when I'm done with these 11 names, we will give a chance for anybody else who did not sign up but who would like to speak, you will get a chance to speak. Uh you will have 5 minutes to speak. We ask that you state your name and your address for the records and then you have your 5 minutes to speak. So we'll begin with Tom Smith. Excuse me. Good evening. I'm Tom Smith. I live at 1049 Champion Circle and I thank you for your time tonight and your participation in our city and thank you to those individuals who've attended and support for us. My role as a resident there was I was drafted into becoming the bit of the monitor or archivist on this project about three years ago. And so through that, I've accumulated a variety of information that I have passed along to our homeowners, our homeowners association board and such. And u other than my experience as a junior high hall monitor, this is my next challenging one for collecting information. I think the related codes, policies, processes, meeting people has been a bit of a challenge. It has been a road that I had not been down before and I appreciate the help from a number of people in the city. Kristen, Jane

on occasion, Grant, less occasionally, Harold, I guess. Um, but notwithstanding that, there are two areas I want to address. One will be or is the uh idea of the excuse me the primary proposal and the second one it extends it because of this into some of the processes by which we got here in the materials that you got you'll have this and if you're not familiar with this and the audience may have may not have seen it that's an illusion about people's perception and you have the question and the answer on the document about whether you see a young woman or an older woman and this process is a little bit like that. What perception and what kind of decision will you make based upon the inputs that you gather. The primary proposal has several items of which we are somewhat concerned. Um the groundwater an extensive issue there. A water engineer friend provided me a statement. This proposed development is located adjacent to the 100red-year flood plane. The site ground level is 3 to 4 ft below adjacent roads of 9inth and airport. The St. Vine river bed has silted up four to six feet upstream of the airport bridge which means the flood plane water level is higher. From a safety standpoint, this is a poor location to build. Notwithstanding that, I also excuse me u did not ask him the opinion of what he thought of the St. Marine River County report. It shows illustrations that are quite devastating with the 2013 flood. I

would ask you to assure us that you received from one of the planners that the traffic study would be redone and I can't tell you if it was redone or or dry lab pencil whipped with what you have and I don't have the expertise to make that judgment. You also have in your packet of materials a report from the state assisted geologist about perch aquafers. It extensively lays out some of the concerns and the problems that appear with this. I'm curious is the time running and current. We're keeping

Okay. Thank you. Uh please take a hard look at that because this report shares that changes that the city has possibly approving disrupting the land and such does change the groundwater. I have asked in writing and I asked the prior planning director to convey it to you. So, if I'm repeating myself, we did request that plasmtric monitoring wells be installed much like those that Mr. Dominguez provided me the map on for just east of us at the valley. Please keep that in mind, too. U multiple people are aware of the 247 sump pump that runs at the corner of Dural and Champion Circle. Unfortunately, the owners there are quarantined with CO this week and they're not able to be here. Uh, multiple city staff that I've talked with at different times are aware of that house and can identify its location. The location uh bordering the outlaw of the proposed detention pond could use some help with long-term protection. There are a number of documents and references for you in the document you were given. The other item of concern deals with the how we got here. And I always like the expression about goal setting. Where are we going? How will we get there? How will we know we arrived? Please take a look at the stated requirements for using a PUD reszoning that were that failed to notify Longmont residents. Look into the three mile rule of plan. annual updates has come

and there is we need to included information about how the open records by the city indicate their failures. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list is Richard Buer. Good evening. Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'd first like to point out that the developer had 15 minutes to talk. We are only allowed to have five. My name is Richard Beller. I live at 950 Champion Circle in Champion Greens. I am here to oppose the proposed annexation and concept plan for 8513 St. Fraine Road. At this stage, the question before you is whether any housing can be built there. And I just lost my Oh boy. Okay. The question is whether this proposal in this location and on this record

Bluetooth is connected

is an appropriate fit for annexation into the city of Longmont. The answer is no. I appreciate Mr. Boll's all his details and diagrams. At this moment, I'd like you to um so I have it at the end, put back the original slide that we all look at when we enter this room. This application should be denied or at minimum continued because the record does not adequately protect the existing neighborhood from three very real harms. incompatibility with the surrounding single family community, increased drainage and flood risk and economic harm to a population that is disproportionately elderly and living on fixed incomes. I would say the average age for people living there is 80. I'm 78. First, compatibility. This is an established single family neighborhood. Many of the residents are older or choose this area for its stability, lower intensity, and predictable character. Longmont's own planning policies, including the expectations and reflected in Envision Longmont emphasize compatibility, appropriate transitions, and responsible annexation. Yet what we have before you is a concept level proposal with limited detail asking the city to move forward before the public can evaluate the full consequences of the project. That is backwards. Annexation should not be approved on broad concepts while the most important details remain unknown. Compatibility is

not just a slogan. It means density, scale, traffic, circulation, drainage, layout, buffering, and whether the project fits the surrounding area without imposing avoidable harm on existing residents. Second, property values and neighborhood stability. Colorado land use law has long recognized that zoning and annexation decisions should consider the conservation and surrounding property values and the character of the district. That principle matters here. For many of the people in this neighborhood, their home is not just where they live. It is their primary asset, their savings cushion, their financial security. When a significantly more intense development is placed next to an an established single family area without clear buffering, clear drainage protections, and clear compatibility measures, the result is market uncertainty and loss of value. Buyers do not ignore external impacts. They react to traffic, storm water concerns, density mismatch, and neighborhood disruption. Even the risk of these impacts can reduce marketability and depressed value. That is not speculation. That is basic appraisal reality. Third, draining, flooding and environmental risk. This is the most serious concerns and it deserves more than general assur as assurances. Increased density means increased impervious service. Increase imperous service means more runoff. Unless the system is proven to handle it, and the people who bear the

risk are not the developer alone, it is the neighboring homeowners downhill or downstream, many of whom do not have the financial ability to absorb repeated water intrusion, foundation damage, landscape damage, molding radiation, higher premiums, or rising insurance. Your time is over. Your 5 minutes are up. Thank you very much. Thank you. Before I leave, I wish you would review what you had on. If you had your five minutes, please sit down. Thank you very much. Next, we go to uh Brunz shoots. I didn't realize that's what it was.

So, Bron Shoots. I said it was just a sign in for tonight. Oh, okay. Thank you. Marilyn Turner, the same thing. Excuse me. Okay. And then Sandy and Mary. Okay. Thank you. Nope. Nope. No, she cannot. Thank you. See if it works. Next is Robert Woods. I screwed it up. Thanks for trying. I'm trying. We're going to see if this works on the Bluetooth. So, it's So, P2 doesn't show up. Oh, so it's not in there and I can't figure out how to get it to the mode to change it. So, that's why there's Bluetooth.

Okay. So, I'm going to try this, but I'm going to have it on my phone, I guess.

Uh, Robert Woods, 966 Champion Circle. Don't worry. Go on.

Good evening. and I thank you for your time. I noticed in the document I received over 500 pages that 120 pages were emails from concerned citizens. This didn't include a reference attachment 18 which I did not find which supposedly includes more. Um I ask you to look at those. Um, I'd like to focus on whether this proposal meets the city's requirements for compatibility with surrounding properties, particularly in terms of access, scale, and transition. Transaction first access. The staff report states the primary vehicle access would be routed through Champion Greens via Doral Drive and Champion Circle. This would turn our low traffic uh culde-sac neighborhood into a primary access point for a new development. In a community where high which with is highly elderly populated, this raises clear concerns about safety and increased traffic impact which conflicts with the city's requirements that developments do not adversely affect surrounding properties. Second, scale and height. The proposal allows homes to be up to 38 feet tall. While our our neighborhood of roughly 80 homes, all but five are singlestory. That represents a clear mismatch in scale and is not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Third, uh transition. While the density may fall within zone range, this project introduces high density and attached homes directly next to low density attached neighborhood. That is not a gradual transition. That is an abrupt change. Finally, this site states this site states um finally this site sits at the edge of the Longmont uh edge of Longmont next to the non-buildable open

space making it a gateway to the city. This level of density and scale is not appropriate for that location. We want people to be welcomed to Longmont. We don't want them to be faced with a wall of buildings. Based on the city's own criteria for compatibility across and neighborhood impact, we do not believe this proposal meets the standard for approval at current design. If this pro uh proposal gets approved, what considerations will you give to the community in keeping with Longmont's commitment to a development not adversely affecting surrounding areas? Again, I ask you to look at those emails. Those are concerned citizens. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Woods. Next is Jeff Woodward. I ask you to picture Kristen see when plane would break the flood or the the flood uh inundations. Yes. See okay that one that'll work for now. All right. Okay.

I've got a Do you want me to? These are some handouts, but I only have one set, but if you can pass them around. So, I have some My name is Jeffrey Woodward, by the way. I live at 1057 Champion Circle. And uh Kristen's going to give you some handouts. I can give these to you in digital form. So, just a little brief background for me. Uh I've been a licensed insurance broker since 1969. owned my own brokerage for over 30 years. Then I went to work for FEMA for 15 years and became a certified flood plane manager and insurance specialist. I became a liazison between the National Flood Insurance Program and the federal banking regulators. I was deployed to Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, and in 2013 here to Colorado. I helped develop grants for states, municipalities, and other entities in the hundreds of millions of dollar range. And I consulted with the forensic accounting division of Willis Towers Watson, one of the largest insurance brokers in that world during co helping airports, universities, hospitals to get funding. I'm not humble bragging. I tell you this so you'll understand why I speak to some of the flood issues that are coming up. So there are many things to look at when considering annexing a parcel of land into our city. Not least of which should be this. A wise grandmother once said, "Just because you can does not mean you should." So taken in the one of the handouts is a map of the area surrounding the proposed property for annexation. So it covers the area from the west uh of this border county open space to the north and east is an area of primarily single family homes till you get near Hover. To the south is the St. Crane River, more open space and ponds. This area proposed for annexation is an

island that has served as a de facto wildlife sanctuary for many, many years. Multif family housing in this area is not compatible. There are over 400 single family homes that surround this island. So to develop this property it the minimum just to make its cost back depending on the number of houses he's putting in there. The houses is going to have to range somewhere between 750 and 1.2 million as a min just to cover its costs. that will probably generate around $30,000 a year in property tax money for the city of Lamont. I don't think that's a lot of money to have this project go forward. So, I've personally seen deer, bear, badger, fox, and on one occasion a cougar into this property. And there's a map that I've handed out to you labeled St. Brain SCT area of interest. This is a map of area of interest for the conservation of both repairarian areas and breeding areas for the people's mouse which is on the endangered species list. I believe I have two such specimens in my freezer that were gifts from local cats and I would very much like to have wildlife biologists take a look at these mice. If they are mice, this parcel should be maintained as habitat and further clearing of the land should be suspended. Now let's talk about flooding. So if you look at the photo added 2013 flood recovery 10th anniversary, it very clearly shows the area of flood inundation which considerably exceeds the current FEMA flood map. So temperatures in Colorado have risen 2° centigrade over the last 42 years which results in a 40 and a 14% increase in atmospheric moisture which is going to

be more drought and more severe flooding. So, I was walking driving past the airport road the other day where the St. Bain crosses and Lamont was dredging out from under the bridge to make proper clearance for in the event of a flood. Um, that just tells you the deposition in the last 13 years has taken place. If you ran a level, you would probably find that the level of the river bed is considerably higher than what was done when the flood study was done back in 2013. So, flood insurance rate maps are produced by FEMA to establish eligibility for communities to participate in the flood program. Maps are produced using historical records of water flow on a given watershed. Using computer calculations, they estimate the base flood. You sometimes hear this referenced as the 100-year flood. This doesn't mean water will reach that level only once in a 100 years. Water can reach that level several years in a row. The problem is FEMA only has access to about 100 or 150 years worth of data. Rivers work on geologic time. If you dig into the ground at Champion Greens, you'll find river rock. That river flowed there once upon a time. If you want, okay,

you can read the rest of this document in a handout and I'll have be happy to provide it in digital form for your consideration. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next we have is it Davis Oppenheimer? Davis Dennis. Davis. Janice. Thank you. Sure. Stop it.

Okay. My name is Janice Oppenheimer. I live at 1048 Champion Circle in the Champion Greens neighborhood. Um, others have commented on some of the concerns with regard to uh water uh uh drainage, things like that. Um, one thing that has not been mentioned that I want to bring up has to do with traffic of sorts and specifically the uh, Champion Circle access that is being discussed. Um, there was a picture up there previously of where that access would be. There's a circle with trees and shrubs and such in it. I question whether a fire truck could get around that circle. And if you've got an access point, you've got, you know, safety concerns. That's something that has not been mentioned yet that I want to get on the record. Um, if we're talking about bringing additional traffic, whatever the percentage is. I understand that Champion Greens theoretically has um impact on uh the St. brain property, you know, goes both ways. But from a safety standpoint, I'm concerned about the access for um services. Uh especially in an emergency. It's been mentioned that there are many elderly residents in the community. I don't know what the makeup of the property next door will be, presumably younger, but it doesn't matter. An accident happens, a problem occurs, you need to get services in there. And that particular point is of greatest concern to me, not to mention just the other intersections that take place and whether something like a fire truck, I mean, ambulances come in and out, so not so much an issue, but uh emergency services access to our area and the property next door. I don't think that, you know, in my opinion, I'd

think it would be tough to get a fire truck around that Champion Circle. So consideration to that and what to do about um the access that's planned next to that um would be a consideration for the council. Thank you.

Thank you Janice. Next is Ed Gary. Hi, I am Ed Giri and I live at and have lived there for 26 years at 10005 Champion Circle. One of my main concerns about this is traffic. This annexation is traffic. I currently probably have four or five cars come in front of my house a day and I I would dispute Mr. Best doll's average of an increase of 20%. I believe it'll probably be more like 300% increase in traffic coming through our neighborhood. Uh the other point uh when I when I first bought that property, I talked with the original developers about those accesses on Dural and Champion Circle into that property. The developers then, which uh we can't get those developers here because they all have passed away. Um they said that the reason they put those in there is because they were under the understanding that that 5 acre property would be developed just like Champion Greens in patio homes, single family residents. Uh somewhere along the line um unbeknownst to the property owners in Champion Greens,

the zoning of our property was changed from single family to multi-unit. And there is nobody in our development that was ever notified of of a uh hearing about that change. So um there is a lot of concern about the um change to a multi-unit zoning. Nobody around us was changed. No, no other development on the west side of town was changed to a multi-unit. So, um we have a lot of problems with the uh not so much the annexation but the development of it. Thank you.

Thank you. And next on the list is Chris Crawford. Thank you. Hi there everyone. My name is Chris Crawford and um I live in the Champion Greens community and my address is 914 Champion Circle. Okay, got the message. All right, I have uh five brief points I'd like to touch on tonight. The first is our flood risk and our neighborhood and this parcel, as you know, were hit very hard in the 2013 catastrophic flood. And that's not hypothetical. That is our lived experience. I understand we're not supposed to be in a flood plane, but here we were. So, the city's own planning guidance says that growth should be directed away from floodprone areas. Yet, considering annexation of the land we already know is vulnerable, I think is not a great idea. The builder has acknowledged high groundwater. He has indicated that again tonight by deciding not to build basements and um crawl spaces if I recall and instead I've also been told in in previous talks that the homes will be raised by about 3 ft. So this is in addition to whatever our the level of our homes is there's going to be an additional 3 ft before the homes are constructed. At least that is the plan. So, um, it leads to a very real question, which is where does the water go? So, because we already struggle with water accumulation, when

it snows, we get buildup that can block access in and out of our neighborhood. And if more more water is pushed downhill toward us, we're the ones who will deal with these consequences. The second issue I want to discuss very briefly is drainage and runoff. And we sit downhill from this development. And if drainage isn't handled perfectly and enforced long term, this project could increase runoff into our community, which means more flooding risk, more property damage, and more safety issues for us before annexation is even considered. We need clear, proven answers, not just assumptions, about how water will be managed. We have an under drain in Champion Greens, and we paid for that. That is ours. So, we're the ones who have access to it and no one else. So, we would like to know how runoff is going to be managed by this new community. Third, density and compatibility is what I'd like to address next. Our neighborhood has 88 homes on about 18 acres and we're mostly singlestory homes. Um, our developer, our builder was JD Collins. He was born and raised in Boulder County and he wanted to make sure that all these single family homes could have westfacing views which we had at the time when we moved in. I'm an original owner there been there over 26 years. So he made sure that there were only going to be very few twostory houses and there are there only five out of 88 and he ensured that they're only on the perimeter of the property so that anyone who had a view would continue to have a view. The original owner of the parcel of land in question decided to plant tons and tons of trees. And as you saw with Mr. Bestall's presentation, there are 575 trees that have been identified on that

property. So, we are mostly singlestory homes and I don't want we don't I don't have time to get into the issue of the uh I I just want to monitor my time too so I'm not buzzed off the platform over here. Anyway, um uh regarding the zoning issue, I don't have time to address that, but several of of of uh my neighbors have addressed it already. But anyway, we are in a very quiet established uh area and um you know and and we were zoned single family and and uh then we were notified that we were changed and the reason we were changed was to allow uh high density growth around us which we knew nothing about. So this proposal that Mr. Best doll has discussed tonight could put now up to 44 homes on just 4 acres with buildings up to three stories tall in addition to the 3 ft that was mentioned in previous talks. So that's going to be a dramatic shift and not a transition. It's a huge shift. It affects our privacy, the views of the mountains that some of us do have. Noise levels and overall character of our neighborhood. It isn't just a change. It's a fundamental mismatch. The fourth issue is traffic and safety. Our streets are narrow and winding and they're old. They were never designed for heavy construction traffic. I mean, I'm just trying to envision excavators, you know, rumbling through our narrow, winding streets. How do we get out? How do emergency vehicles get in? So, this plan is to route construction vehicles through our neighborhood and have future residents use our streets for access, which raises serious concerns. Emer is that really 5 minutes?

That's really 5 minutes. Oh my goodness. My most important point. Yikes. I didn't get to it. Next time I'll be back. Thank you.

Okay. Um, that is the list of the people who signed up. I will now continue to open up if there is anybody in the audience who has not spoken yet who would like to come up and speak. You do have an opportunity to have your five minutes to speak. I have opened it up. I am not seeing anybody come. Oh, please come forward. Once again, state your name and your address and you have five minutes. Barbara Nielson. I live at 3613 Doral Street or place in uh Champion Greens. My house was the last house to be built. My neighbor's house and my house said, I believe the term is aqua filters. So when we have heavy rains or even when the farmer across the street on North irrigates, that water comes under 9inth and into our property. Last year, I had the city come out and survey my land cuz there was so much water being pumped out of my basement 247. He Tom probably has pictures of how much water was coming out of my sump pump and my neighbors. I want to know how the drainage is going to be built when it's going to go across that. As I assumed in your presentations, that water drains over there, but it's going to drain back into my house, my basement, my neighbor's basement. And I'm I'm not joking. That water was pumped out 247. And that's why I had the city come and look at my property to make sure I didn't have a break in my water pipes. and they came out and they your city people are the ones who told me I had an

aqua filter under my house and that was where the water naturally drains. So, I want that to be taken into consideration when the drainage issues are being brought because if you're draining that water over off of 9inth across and down, it's coming back to my house and I don't want that. I don't think I should have to put up with that. If you're going to be making money off of this development, you should take into consideration our problems with your development and the sump pump going off for drainage cuz the drainage in our area is high priority. There are numbers of houses in our neighborhood that have that problem. And I want that to be a real consideration from my representation here in the city to look at this property and really survey it and really study it. Cuz if I have flooding in my basement simply because the man across the the farmland irrigates over there and I have to have my sump pump running because of that. Where does that drainage from this development go there and then comes back to my house? I want that to be seriously looked at, considered, and planned out before you okay this development. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else who would like to come forward? Thank you. My name is Oh. And I live at 1048 Champion Circle. Can you please say your name again? The uh we didn't catch your first name because First name is Kenneth. Last name is Oenheimer. And I just wanted to make sure. Oh, and your address, please.

1048 Champion Circle. and I am married to the lovely lady that spoke a few a few minutes ago. I just want to make sure the council was aware that there is an investigation uh underway by the county on the property in question and that um um it is for rubbish and and for improper use business use of the property. So, I' I'd ask that before you make any uh final decisions that the outcome of this investigation be uh be completed. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we have one more gentleman who'd like to come forward.

Good evening. My name is Nick Deer. I'm at 1044 Champion Circle. That's my neighbor. Okay. And I'll be less than five minutes. Um, the biggest thing for me, I've only lived there two years, but we have a de facto senior community right now. People walk. The people who walk are in their 80s and 90s. Elizabeth, I think, or Dorothy is 90 years old. She walks almost every day. and all of a sudden if we get, you know, 20% more traffic, I would dispute that as well. I agree with Ed. I think the numbers would would at least double and I would be very concerned about cars driving in and out into the new section in 8513. Um, so basically if if we're going to do this, and I'm not against development at the right density. If we're going to do this, I'm going to want, you know, like uh speed bumps, traffic cameras, 15 mph posted speed limit because that's the speed we we all drive at today on Champion Circle, right? We don't we don't go in there. There's no speeding or any anything. You have to understand there's no children there. We don't have any children. We don't have any uh teenagers. We don't hardly have we don't have any young adults. We have a few middle-aged people, but mostly I'd say the median age is about 70 75. So I think it's very important to manage the traffic and the density. The last thing that Chris wanted me to uh mention was uh and this is something I mentioned to doc or to Mr. best in a previous meeting and that is that that parcel today scares me because of all the fire fuel that sits there you know I mean after

the Marshall fire we I think we all had a wakeup call right um and you know it's just sitting there now and that's that's concerning me like I said I'm not against uh proper development but that's the last thing is fire risk thank you for your time

thank you. We'll give one more. Yes. One more call out. Hi, my name is Lana Beaston. I live at 1049 Champion Circle. Um Kristen, can we look at one of the slides that has the the strips of houses? I'm sorry, I should have said this before, but the what shows are lots and the potential houses. I won't take a full five minutes. Anyway, I

like this the We had them all lined up. His 44 or 43. I think that was on my Yeah. What what I'm trying to say is that um the uh up to 43 44 houses are on a single strip of land. Um can you get closer to the microphone please?

One long row. Um if it's 44 houses that he's building um they're in one single linear line. Uh, in our neighborhood, that same amount of space from south to north, we have 12 houses, 12 properties for the same amount of space as maybe 44 um maybe 44 homes. So, um that's I know this is just for annexation, but in the future when you consider this um development plan, um please look at that difference because that's to me not compatible. Um I'm not against the the annexation. I'm not really against the development, but what uh Mr. best has um told us is that it seems excessive for our neighborhood. So, I'd like you to look at the comparison between 44 houses and 12. Thank you.

Thank you. One last chance. Seeing nobody else come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close out. Public invited to be heard. We'll move now to the commission for questions, comments, motions. Do we

Does anybody have any I I will go ahead and start off. Um, Kristen, uh, the zoning has been brought up a couple times. Um, I do believe I do did see something in some old documents I have being here for a little bit. Um, where it was originally single family. Um, do you know at what point Champions Greens got redone to RMN? I believe it was in approximately 2018 with the Envision Longmont comprehensive plan update. I would probably want to address uh defer additional questions in relation to that to our director is he has done a great deal of research in reference to that and can probably speak to that in much greater detail than myself.

Okay. Thank you, Grant. Good evening. Uh yeah, just to jump in uh briefly, Kristen did describe essentially the the general time frame. Uh subsequent to the Envision Longmont adoption in 2016, there was a citywide reszoning effort that essentially reszoned this property at the time to RMN. So that was in 2018, I believe September. And you said that was part of Envision Longmont. It was subsequent to Envision Longmont. So the the subsequent overall basically city-wide rezoning effort. Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll go ahead and move to Commissioner Edgely Wells.

Thank you, Chair. Okay. So, I'm going to start with a reference to the applicant's cover letter regarding um the compliance with the Envision Longmont Plan uh 1.2C community amenities. St. drain neighborhood will provide a greater economic basis to grow the crucial mass necessary to support facilities and programs that enrich the quality of life of the community. Um there was a comment submitted from council member Popkin regarding uh reference to the airport advisory board and uh comments possibly coming from them. There were no comments that I saw made. So then I will also go to attachment three of the concept plan um under the Vance brand airport notes where it basically to my understanding states that um any sort of noise or any sort of flyovers close to these homes um associated um will not be subject under the city of Longmont's regulations by the FAA. Um, and then I also wanted to note attachment 7, the traffic letter, page 36. Um, I know a number of residents in the community have commented on traffic and their concerns regarding traffic. And in December 6 of 2022, this uh appears to state that out of the 76 vehicles analyzed, the fastest speeds occurred out of 22 of

them. So if there is an increase of 20 to 25% of traffic on top of in 2022 increased speeds of roughly 20 to 25% I would open the commission for discussion on what that traffic rate might look like um how the airport noise and traffic might um interfere with quality of life for um anybody living in future development. Again, just discussion for the commission.

Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I have a number of questions, but I'm going to at least start Commissioner Edley Wells, with something you raised on the airport. Um, I was on the airport advisory board in 2023. It was not brought before us. Um there is a letter in attachment 16 from the airport manager that is a form letter stating the airport does not recommend construction of any new housing within the within the airport influence area. Um so I I don't think that was noted actually in the communication um but it is in the attachment. Um so just putting that out there for the record pretty clear on the navigation easements otherwise. Um Mr. Bestl I think I do want to ask the applicant some questions. Um, so height was raised as a concern from residents. Um, there was, I believe in your presentation, and please correct me if I'm getting the figures wrong, that the existing Champion Greens was a 30 foot height at max and the proposal in the concept plan that you've put before us was 35 ft. Is that accurate? What I saw in the development plan showed 30 feet for Champion Greens and they're under zoning now that allows 35. We are under for St. Vine. We would use the RMN zone which allows up to 35.

Okay. So what the 30 ft that you had in there was what what the developer would have been allowed to do in Champion Green, not necessarily the current what was built. Is that Yeah, I think what I I think if we're thinking of the same slide, I think I showed 30 feet for Champion Greens and 35 for St. Brain.

Yep. Okay. I want to make sure I had that right. Um there was a comment from the community that the homes in St. Brain could be raised up to 3 ft and therefore the 35. Um I don't know if that's on top of the 35, if that's incorporated in the 35. Can you just address kind of what that what that means practically? Um, I don't know of any information to that effect. That's new to me. So, we haven't reached the point of setting grades or anything. What I was what I did state a number of times in my presentation was that we at this point have have no reason to believe that any of the drainage from St. Rain will go towards uh Champion Greens. And the reason for that basically The reason for that is that by state law, you have to use the historical flow direction. And in that case, it's southwest. And we can do what we need to do there to make sure that the drainage does go that direction. And it wouldn't go to the farmland to the south or the open space. If I understood the other comment, it would go to a storm drain in Airport Road. And so we would be able to control that. Um, and so I'm I'm answering your question, but I maybe I added additional information. We we don't have any plans at this point to elevate the site three feet. It's not and it's premature to even understand what that would mean. You were going to my next question on drainage and runoff. So, thank you for jumping the gun there. Um, we have attachment five in our packet, which is the drainage report. I'm not going to pretend to understand the the intricacies of it other than to state it seems

the the study suggests pretty clearly that um the the drain the runoff can be met can move into the storm drain at this point with a concept plan. We do not have a preliminary plat. We don't have a more detailed um detailed set of what's actually going to be built. Does this drainage study get redone and done in more detail so we really understand what's being built?

Yes, sir. That's Yes, sir. When we when we go to uh preliminary and final plat and the public improvement plans, there'll be a a much more detailed drainage report that the city that the city staff will scour. And I use that term in a positive way because of all the projects we've done here, they're very detailed in their evaluation both on water quality and drainage and runoff. Thank you. And then I did not you included the nesting survey that we have in the packet, some of the environmental, some of that is several years old. I recognize this project has taken several years to get to this point. Do those have to be redone prior to construction as well or as we see further a bigger pardon. They didn't mean interrupt.

Nope, not at all. Um the Yeah, you need to do a nesting survey before you begin construction and typically I think it's within 7 to 10 days before. So, it's going to be immediate at that point. Okay. Those are the questions I have for you. I do have a couple questions for staff and Kristen, I don't know if it's you or someone else if I'm good or do you want me to defer for a minute? Can you defer for a minute?

Absolutely. I will defer to the chair and come back. Thank you. Um, Mr. Bessel, if you maybe maybe you might want to take a seat up close because you might have be called up a couple times here. Quick question. Uh, a public comment was made something about threestory homes. I don't remember that being stated in the report. Can you com I mean are we are you considering three-story homes or Well, excuse me. Um, Mr. Mr. Chairman, the 35 ft I don't really measure by floors or stories, right?

So 35 ft typically would would allow I guess a three a three story or three floor home, but it's not going to be able to go over 35 ft. And so yeah, that's that's the standard. Okay. And another question, um, the current trees, uh, especially the trees that are along what would be your east buffer and their west buffer, how tall are some of those current trees? Would you have a 50 80? Um, so somewhere between 40 and 80. Okay, thank you.

I haven't I haven't measured them. Some are tall. Okay, that's all I have for right now. Do we have any other questions? Okay. Uh, Commissioner Boon.

Um, thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Bestall. So, don't sit down or sit down and grab a mic. Hi, thanks for being here tonight. Um, one member of the public expressed some concern about the fire risk of the existing property and you said that two years ago you blocked off the uh the irrigation of the original trees. Is there any irrigation there now? No, there's none. Um, when when I hear these stories, I mean, not stories, but when I hear this information about some pumps pumping 24/7 and so forth, it's a it's a it's a big concern because there's no water being put onto St. Brain property at this time. My understanding talking to Tom Smith is that it's not continuous. There's houses here and there. And, you know, we're we're obviously not experts on groundwater. We we've done some original geotech work, but um that you know we're the city didn't really wasn't going to allow us to do basements and we we we thought it was preferable not to. That that's I can give you more background, but that's some of it.

No, that that's good. I was mostly concerned about potential fire with on the existing site. I know there was a lot of trash there, old buildings, right? That type of thing. Um, we we're we're moving fairly quickly to, you know, and we we can't go fast enough probably, but we're we're working through it and and uh working primarily along the St. Rain edge. Uh there's there's quite a there's quite a bit of uh material there. And so it's something that, you know, we're we're not, you know, we're not going to do it all in one month. It's just going to be a regular process for us.

Mhm. Okay. Um, another just question on on your original plan, you were providing some affordable units and it appears that you're not doing that on this proposal. Is that correct? That's correct. You're going to do the fee and loop. Well, pro what we're planning on doing is doing building uh offsite. Oh, actually building offsite. Yeah. We're working with housing right now on a on a project um which would be on Francis that would be an a for sale affordable project. It has about uh 23 units and this this would be part of that.

Good. Good for you. Um okay, I do want to say I'm just going to make my own um opinion known here. We've seen your projects before in our city and my opinion is that you you are willing to develop parcels that big builders are not going to want to deal with. And I commend you for that. And you're very patient and you have jumped through a million hoops. There are so many studies in the packet that we got. We have wildlife. We have um Geotech. We have um well, there were a number of studies that were done. You've checked all the boxes. I know from previous experience that you build a good product and that you're a builder that cares. So, my opinion is that I would welcome you to develop this parcel um the way I know you could do it. That being said, I'm going to address just a couple more of the community concerns. Um, traffic in particular. We had a a traffic study done, and we see traffic studies on every project that we look at. I can't remember one that gave a B rating. And this gives a B rating. And that's so much better than most of the stuff that we see. If I was going to live in this project, um, I wouldn't be driving through Champion Greens. I would enter off of Airport Road. I might drive a block down Durell and exit to 9inth, but I'm not going to be driving through

Champion Greens. And I think the additional traffic through the bulk of the of the existing Champion Greens Uh the concern about that I think is just um unfounded. Um let's see low density. I will point out that this is for for the new zoning the RMN zoning. Um Mr. Bestl is proposing to be kind of at the low end of the density and we deal with compatibility a lot and compatibility does not mean the same as it means compatible with and we have not seen the architectural um drawings for Mr. bestell's project, but um I've seen other stuff that he does and I have no qualms about his design sense. It matters to him, so I'm not concerned about compatibility. Um and I guess the last thing is the original the original subdivision of Champion Greens always had those two stubouts into this property. There was always going to be something there. Um, I'm not a traffic engineer. I think we maybe have one back there.

I think she's um I'm sure that a uh circle was not installed in the city that a firetruck could not get around because that's just not done. Um, those two stubouts were always there. there was always going to be more homes over over in that piece. There's a huge buffer. There's over 100 ft house to house. Um, so I really think that the community's concerns, most of them are unfounded. And I understand that you don't want your neighborhood to change, but our city is growing. And this, I believe, is a really nice way to do a an infill project. So, thank you for all the work you've done so far.

Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Earl, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'll go on to some city staff questions. Kristen, thank you. Um, Mr. Bestl noted obviously we'll be doing another drainage and runoff survey that the city will scour when it gets submitted. I assume the city has scoured the existing study that has been submitted. Did city staff and the experts on it have any concerns about that? Especially relative to the concerns raised by the the community and the fact that there are some drainage issues in the existing development.

Certainly, thank you for that question. So, city staff did do a thorough review as is required um in our standards and I no real issues were raised. Our traffic engineer is here this evening, so she could definitely address that in greater detail than myself if you would like for that to happen. The drainage. Perfect. Josh Sherman, our public works engineer, is going to address that. Thanks, Kristen. Thank you, Josh.

Good evening, chair. Good evening, members of the commission. Josh Sherman, engineering administrator with public works. Um so to answer the question with regard to drainage and a drainage study at this stage right at annexation um as was mentioned in the presentations not all the final engineering has been completed. Um and in fact at this stage what we really are looking for at this type of application is just that they're acknowledging what the city criteria is which is that they will have to manage their storm water runoff back to the ex existing or historic condition. Um they've proposed to do that with a storm water detention and water quality facility which is pretty typical and would meet the city standards. Um so at this point what they've presented is feasible but certainly they're going to have to present more information once they get into that um next level uh with any application after you get past annexation to get into the more detailed engineering right the grading and the sizing of that facility um etc is what we will review in more detail when we get to that stage. Josh, are you familiar with any of the concerns the community raised about some of the drainage issues in the existing development?

Um, yes. So, what I am aware of with regard to existing drainage issues are, and forgive me, I'm going to forget the name of the street, but um the first east west street when you enter the property,

um, Dural, thank you everyone. Um, at one of and I'm going to forget what there's two accesses off of 9th Avenue. One of those accesses um has a cross pan on Dural. There's a big evergreen tree there that shades that corner in the wintertime. And so as we get snow melt right through winter um that snow melt and and icing builds up um on the downstream side of that pan um because of the shading and um just by the nature of what happens there. So there is some um you know issues at that intersection. What I will add which is maybe a little bit extra here is that um the city doesn't plow local streets except for um in extreme conditions. So we plow arterial streets are 9inth airport etc. And then collector streets which are some smaller streets but are still used for um emergency access and school buses etc. But we don't plow local streets. Um this subdivision chooses to hire someone to plow those local streets which is certainly their purview. Um, but snow melt and snow buildup um on a local street is something that we live with here in Colorado.

Thank you. Yep. Um, sorry, Josh. I don't know if this is you or another member to talk about the traffic study a little bit more. Um, I may let Caroline come up and address any questions you have.

Sorry, Caroline. Well, you're coming up broadly the question here because I've I've I've read read through the study. I you know, Commissioner Boon noted generally speaking this is better than a lot of the studies we look at. Um this is based on I believe 43 units so at the upper end of what Mr. Bastel is proposing. Um, I'm not seeing that the study shows a a dramatic change. Um, obviously there's always concerns about is the study accurate? Is does the study reflect what we would expect? Can you speak to how it matches up with um kind of the city standards for how these studies are done?

Sure. So, my name is Caroline Michael um city of Longmont Civil Engineer 1. Um so Commissioner Earl um so pretty much every development of a certain size is required to do a traffic impact study. Um the methodology for those is pretty consistent. Um they're required to use the IT trip generation manual to come up with um like trip generation numbers based on the land use which there's several categories for that commercial and residential. In this case, it's like residential land uses with single family attached and single family a few single family detached homes. Um so I mean it's that's like very consistent with what we would do with um other traffic studies. Um the unit count on this is I mean by traffic studies standards 43 43 units is relatively low. Um, I mean, I've seen like traffic studies for like Costco that get into like over 10,000 or something trips per day. So, I would say and um I know that there was also a question earlier about whether the traffic study was redone. So, I think what that's probably referring to is um this annexation was actually it's been kind of in the system for a while. So, I believe some of the text was probably updated and um the latest date on there is uh December 2025. Um the field counts have not been updated. The ones still on there are from 2022. However, um if this application were to move past the point of annexation, the applicant would be required to um complete a new traffic study essentially. So they would probably move on to a preliminary PL site plan, public improvement plan submitt, and at that point they would have to redo the traffic study. Um that would probably have pretty similar

findings, but things can change in that process. And um yeah, that's what I was hope I wanted to hear that. Um on the airport road access, the right in right out only right now. Um it's stated that the city won't allow that to be a full, you know, won't allow the southbound turn. Um can you just talk through briefly what is the standard that doesn't allow that?

Sure. So there's been a lot of um questions about access to this property. So there's a few different um standards that we use to govern access to new properties. Um generally new private accesses from arterials are prohibited. In this case um the applicant is proposing a public rightway access to airport road. Um so that would be allowable as long as they're meeting the spacing standards which is 600 660 ft. Um which is possible on this property on Airport Road. It is not possible on 9inth Avenue given the way the lot is configured. It's like very narrow front edge on 9th Avenue. Um so that's why the airport road access would be preferable because that can meet the standard we have. Um the right in right out is more of a safety consideration. Um it's generally been our practice. Um to try to limit the number of full movement accesses we have to arterials. Um we've kind of seen that that can lead to some crash problems. particularly with people making leftbound inbound left turns um misjudging gaps in traffic and getting hit. Um but um yeah, that's mostly the rationale behind that. Um if you want to reconsider at any point in the future, that would right now it's pretty acceptable as is. if the applicant I don't believe I don't know if I've ever seen anything that was like for a full movement access on airport road but

thank you I appreciate that that's the traffic study questions I had I'm guessing someone else might have more but thank you Caroline um Kristen just a quick comment um I appreciate the work you did in putting together this packet um there were 125 pages of community comment I read through all of them um I appreciate the community being so engaged and I also noted how Many of them commented that you had been willing to meet with them to talk through things to explain things and just really want to commend you and staff for the work you have done on that. So, thank you. Thank you for the feedback. I we all I at the city believe the public um engagement is very important in this process. So, yes, but thank you for the feedback. Thanks, Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. Um this question might be for you Kristen or Caroline if you're still down here. Um, it's also traffic related. So, uh, first off, I noticed that during the presentation, Kristen, it looked and I don't know, maybe I misheard, but it sounded like the access to airport was there was a note about it being locked for emergency access, but most of the conversation we've had is about right in right out. Certainly, there are two accesses onto Airport Road. One of which is the rightin, right out, and then one farther north, which is proposed to be the gated emergency access with the Knox box.

Gotcha. Okay. Um, on that point, another piece of community feedback that has been prevalent this evening has been, you know, in addition to traffic, but construction access and the disruption of having large, you know, trucks coming in and out. Um, has there been any discussion about potentially limiting access in and out of this development to the airport side of things so it doesn't disrupt the neighborhood?

And I'm obviously going to defer that question to our developer consultant. Uh, yes, there has. In at least two, I think neighborhood meetings, it was brought up as a concern. I think it's a it's a very important concern. We we'll do everything to get permitting and access from Airport Road uh during during construction. I mean, it only makes sense. It's easier for us, by the way, but it's much it's much more it's much safer for the neighborhood and everything. So, okay, that's what we'll be doing.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Bistol. Um, and then Kristen or I don't know Caroline, you might be be able to speak to this. And this is more of a general question about, you know, some patterns and things. One of the things that I've seen, and granted, it's been a short time here, is that when we're looking at a potential uh either preliminary plat or an annexation, we often see concern from the adjoining neighborhoods about impacts regarding traffic and safety. Those are two big patterns that come up a lot. And one of the things that I see is, you know, we often debate whether or not the uh the traffic study is representational, what it's based on, if it's actually going to be the way we think. And I'm curious, have we gone back and seen for the things that have gone through, have we seen measurable increases in injuries, traffic accidents, or any of that to that effect?

And thank you for that question, Commissioner Jordan. I do think that question is probably best addressed by our transportation engineer. So, if I could get Caroline back down here, she's right behind you. Thank you. Thank you, Caroline.

Hello, Commissioner Jordan. Um, so there kind of two parts to that question. So, one, um, is the traffic study study representative? Kind of went through part of that before, um, with the IT trip generation rates. That's pretty standard across all developments in the city. Um also, um uh we do require applicants to do like field traffic counts for these traffic studies and um we typically would require those on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. We try to do them if we can roll schools in. Sometimes they come in in the summer um cuz we know there's a lot of different factors that influence traffic like we wouldn't allow it on like usually a Friday or something like that. the traffic's usually a little bit lower or um you know people work from home and a lot of things have changed in that respect but um also I don't know if I could really say that we've looked at like our um crash rates with regard to development like specifically I mean there's probably some correlation I mean the largest crash you know we see the most amount of crashes at our like large highway intersections And some of that is a function of just like there's a lot more volume at those intersections. Say like 118 in Maine, um 118 in County Line, 119 in 66. Um 9th and airports like not a very high volume arterial intersection. It's relatively low. Um of course that'll probably that'll go up a little bit probably with this new development. Um, and to be honest, um, if there is access through the JP Greens neighborhood, there will be some increased traffic in that neighborhood. I mean, I'm not here to say that that's not going to happen at all. Um, I do think, um, I it was mentioned earlier that there's pretty narrow roads

through there. That actually usually works as a traffic calming feature. people don't drive as fast when they see that the road is narrower, the visual language is different. Um, and there's also things we can consider in the future if it does become a problem with um speed um traffic calming or like no parking signs if that starts to be an issue. So, we're always open to it. It's all public right away. So,

okay. I I think my question was more in the lines of, you know, we've we've done a traffic study, whether it was residential, commercial, whatever, but we did a traffic study at some point, the the project approved, it got moved on, it got built. Did do we ever end up going back to check to see even spot checks here and there to build our confidence in our in those traffic studies that they did predict accurately? I don't I I can't provide a specific example of that. No.

Okay. Um but as far as um existing neighborhoods and things like that, we don't see like we have not seen spikes in like vehicle-tovehicle or vehicle to pedestrian impacts or crash data uh ex pre-existing neighborhoods when a you know an adjacent development came in or do we have that data? Um it would I do have access to quite a bit of crash data. It would probably require me I guess I don't really look at it through quite that lens of figuring out, oh, there was new development here. Does that mean it increased

in this adjacent neighborhood at like Harvest Junction? Cuz we're building new um there's a lot of new development on Quail Road. Um I do know that I mean we have like quite a bit of information available out there for crash rates um on our vision zero page. Um there's I don't want to misspeak but there is I believe a crash dashboard map that is up and usable in some form. Um so if people are curious they can always look that up. I can also provide that information. Um so we I mean we have it pretty well. I definitely have the information of where our pedestrian and bike crashes are happening. I just don't have it.

I'm sorry to spring it on you. I I realize this is this is a question that might require more research and things like that. So I apologize for springing it on you. It's just I noticed that this these types of questions have been kind of a theme. It might be good uh from a confidence perspective. Um but on the last subject of uh traffic that I had, there was a comment about turning radius for fire trucks getting around that like roundabout. Was that considered as part of this or is that a different study? Has it weighed in?

Yeah. Um little I will say that I have not seen um there's kind of like turning templates that you can like kind of lay over existing roadway sections. I don't think I've seen that specifically for a fire truck, but I will say that the fire department does review all our development applications. Okay, we got Thank you. our fire representative come down. Awesome. Sure. As far

they can't hear in the back. that one there. Sorry. Commissioner Poland, Mark Samson, assistant fire marshal, city of Lmont Fire. Um, sitting in the back when that traffic circle came up, we did pulled it up on Zoom and did the measurements. Champion Greens over there has mountable curbs and so we measured the turning radius and it did meet our 3050 which is adopted by fire code. And so if if we need more room, we can get up on the sidewalk because it's attached. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Uh and I don't know, Josh, this might be for you. I apologize. I know you're all the way back there. Uh this is a question about um water. And while you're on the way down, I guess one of the things that came up with community uh notes and and commentary was the the characteristics of the Saint brain itself. uh specifically the accumulation of silt and things like that. Um now is the St. Vin higher than it was uh or is it just changed paths and and delivered silt in different banks? What are the operations we're doing to dredge some of this?

Uh good evening again, Commission. I'm Josh Sherman with public works. So um a couple thoughts. The um city does uh at all of our roadway crossings evaluate and monitor um sediment deposition and and other you know scour and other factors. Um typically if we're going to dredge or remove sediment um upstream and downstream of the structure we're we limit that to about don't quote me but 300 ft or so. So we don't go a half mile upstream. we go, you know, a few hundred feet um to make sure that, you know, there's no trees growing in that area, that deposition is not occurring. Um, interestingly enough, further west of Airport Road is actually Boulder County. Um, so that stream is not um necessarily in our jurisdiction, whereas once we get east of Airport Road, the majority of that stream um is in Longmont. Some some of that may still be on private property or, you know, unannexed property, but by and large, it's within our area. What I can say a little bit more too is um having worked on the city's resilient St. Vin project for a number of years um and as was mentioned which was accurate you know post 2013 there was LAR survey of St. Frank which represented existing contours post flood.

Mhm. Um that information in addition to um in certain areas additional boots on the ground survey was used in the most current flood plane modeling that was updated and adopted in 2024 that represents the revised um 100red-year flood plane that's shown in this application. Um so I I I can't speak specifically. Is there some sediment deposition, you know, up in St. Brain between here and Lions? There could be. Um, and yeah, well, I was just I guess the question being is is the evidence of sediment and some dredging indicate that the river is higher than it used to be?

Um, I can speak through um the area in town where we've done quite a bit of work and um the creek is not higher than it used to be in those areas. All right. Thanks. I mean, that's that was kind of my thought. Uh, I know sediment can be pushed around a natural course of river. It can move here and there, but I know flood risk and the water table is a huge concern here. And so I just want to make establish well, you know, are we in more danger than we were in 2013 or is it about the same? I mean, I know we've done a lot of mitigation projects.

Uh, the C city has certainly completed a lot of mitigation projects on St. Brain Creek. Um that work and how it's um planned and constructed has to start at the downstream and work its way upstream. Started all the way out at Sandstone Ranch near Pass County Line Road. Um it's been completed up to South Sunset Street. There's a master plan for work all the way up to Airport Road. Okay. Um Allrighty. Thank you. That was all I had, Josh. I appreciate it. You bet. No problem.

Um I guess I'll yield here just a minute. I I did want to just throw out a couple thoughts on compatibility as well and I'm going to kind of echo what Commissioner uh Jerry said and about this idea of compatibility. I think there's an issue of the number of living units, the access, the design, all those things, but it doesn't exactly mean exactly the same. And I feel as when that the the the builder here has at least in terms of massing and the size of the individual units, the space between them, and I know it is denser, uh to me it seems that this is not a high density development. We're not talking five-story apartments um or condos. Uh this to me seems relatively uh meager compared to some of the other denser areas that we have in the city. Uh and and to the point of the unbroken views, I understand that was probably the intent of the original builder, but in the past 30 years, uh there was opportunity perhaps to buy that plot of land by another developer that wanted to do things similarly. And here we are. I mean, we can't every every time you buy a plot of land, you know, you buy a house and there's undeveloped land next to you, you have to assume it's going to get developed. That's just the way I see it.

Thank you, Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you, Chair. Um, Carol Caroline still here. Oh, there you are. Hi. Um, hi, I'm Devon. I don't think I've ever met you. I do have a question. just to get a better understanding of the traffic study. Um so there are numbers provided for 2027 stating that traffic vehicle trips per day are 327. Um and then um I'm and please correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay. Um and then the year 2043 total traffic the increases to a thousand average daily um traffic trips and that is along 9inth an airport. There is uh it looks like an access road to Dorado Drive from 9th.

So I'm wondering is that increase in traffic typical for um most development studies or traffic studies for developments? So, I don't have a I don't have it in front of me. So, I think the 327's coming from the trip generation table and that's kind of like a base rate um based on the number of dwelling units being proposed. Um I knew I know for some of the figures of like the total traffic in like short range or long range they're also factoring in some like background growth like assuming um actually the applicants traffic engineers actually here can maybe it's maybe a little fresher for him how he did it but um yeah there's like some they assume background growth of like x% of growth on airport road and x% of growth on 9th Avenue that's just going to happen regardless of whether or not the development happens. But um I can pass it off to Chris McGraan if he doesn't mind coming up here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. There we go. Chris McGran, LSC Transportation Consultants, 1889 York Street, 80206. Lift up the mic. Want me to repeat that? Nope.

All right. So yes, I Chris McGran, I did do the traffic study. We've done it a couple times. Uh the 327 trips is the daily trips that that IT trip generation manual spits out when you put in the inputs that we have for our site. It's worth noting if we were to update the study in a year or so for the next process, if we're fortunate to get through this process now, that will go down because the manual was updated late last year and the rates went down slightly. It's not going to go to 200, but that 327 might be 315. So it's going to go down a little bit. Caroline was right. The 327 is the same in 2027 and in 2043. The difference is we the city wants to know what's this going to look like when you're finished. So 2027 was probably a little aggressive, but that's that was the year we thought originally we'd be finished. That's not going to happen now. Might be 28 or 9. Uh and then the 2043 was that 20 years out. So the city can see, okay, we know you're not changing over 20 years, but we're going to change around you. And so what does that look like? And so that's why we did the 2043 analysis. If we if we were to update that study this year, it would probably be 2029 and 2046

because those years we keep getting moved forward. Uh but those traffic studies, the city has has done a really good job though. I've been doing studies for over 20 years in Colorado and maybe about 10 or 15 years ago, we started having a scoping process with Longmont. So we actually have a process that we go through with Caroline or someone on our team where we here's what we're going to study, here's what we're going to count, here's the analysis, the years we're going to do. And so it's kind of it makes their job easier to review our reports and it makes our job easier to not get a lot of comments if we all agree on the high level assumptions up front which is what we did here and that's what we'll do if we have to update the study in the future. If we if Mr. Bestall decides to change something maybe different than was in the study we would have to rescope that with Caroline and her team when we update the traffic study.

Okay. So my follow-up question to that would be the increase of the traffic to a thousand uh isn't necessarily in correlation with the development. growth of the city over time. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not exactly sure where the thousand numbers coming from that you're referencing, but that's true. Our traffic is 327 in the short term and in the long term, but if we update the study, that'll go slightly lower. Okay. Um that's page 17 on the traffic letter is what I was referencing, but I appreciate you explaining that to me. Um I do have a second question, but it's for Kristen. Thank you so much. I'm here if you have any more questions. Thank you very much.

Hi. Um, so I I appreciate all of the time and effort put into the these documents and these attachments. It's a lot of work. Um, as several of my fellow commissioners have already stated. Uh I do want to circle back because it is stated um on some of these attachments the AIS and if envision Longmont um is part of the criteria of what is supposed to be matched for this development. Um, I do want to ask a little bit more um on quality of life and how you see that playing out with I guess the advice of the airport manager to consider and the development and uh quality of life of the residents of the new development.

Certainly, thank you for that question. So, in reference to the airport um overlay district, obviously if this um annexation advances and the property develops, additional referral requests will be sent to the airport manager for consideration of the board and the staff would obviously take those into high consideration. The property is required to record an aviation easement and that aviation easement goes through all of the documents as they get recorded. that's required on them which states that it allows aircraft overflight associated impacts with noise and limitations on building height and certain uses compatibility. So that is would be in place to notice residents in reference to um the fact that they are within the airport influence zone. As far as quant quality of life, that would be very hard for me to quantify based on the information we have before us. But the airport overlay zone is obviously something we consider um in great great deal and they will be a referral partner going forward if this application advances.

Okay, Commissioner Lane, thank you. Um Caroline, I had one quick question if you're still down there. Um, what was the when you talked about the access from airport versus 9th Avenue, you referenced like a 660 ft dimension. What was that referencing? That's like a like a linear measurement of like spacing from like access point to access point on an arterial. Okay. So like from 9th up to where that is proposed. Yes.

Okay. Okay. And then yeah, it doesn't look like you'd almost have to have a right in and right out. I mean, the way it's set up today, you've got that median in there in the middle airport, correct? Yeah. I mean, there's like it's not a like continuous median, right? Yes. I mean, there is one there.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Uh before I get to you, I do have uh Mr. Bestl have a question for you. The question is uh the buffer that is going to be on your east side. Um it's 100 foot you said from building to building. Um I'm interested in what the makeup composition of that is. There's a current fence there. There are some trees there. What is that buffer going to is is that going to be backyards? What? Give me some information on that buffer.

The u the landscape buffer would meet the city's requirements for uh this this type of a buffer. And so it's excuse me, they have there's a standard for between different types of residential. So, it'll be it'll be a a full-blown landscape uh you know, construction drawings as a part of the site plan. And we'll have um you know, I've been working to try to save some of the you know, the trees and the other materials. It just seems like such a waste to take it all down again. But as we go into it, we may need to to take even more of the existing trees down. But it would it would be, you know, a landscape that meets the requirements of the city. And typically we're we're into our our team does a lot of Zerich landscape, you know, where we're trying to do drought tolerant native materials. Um, and so you would have 26 ft of that landscape buffer. You'd have approximately 30 ft of right away for the street, Osprey View, and then you'd get to driveways and then you'd get to new homes. So then you have, I think they have 15 foot rear yards, if I can remember that. And so approximately it's it's a there's a real significant area there building to building.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Saunders. Oh, thank you, Chair. I thought Okay. Are you sure? I I don't mind waiting if he was actually first. I took it off.

Oh, you did? Oh, okay. Okay. Um welcome. Good evening, everyone. Um thank you, chair. Um, I wanted to address the community, the representatives of the residents. If you can't hear me in back, will you do this so that I can see that you can't hear? Okay, perfect. Sometimes we walk away and we can't. I want to make sure that you can hear. I've sat there before and it's hard to hear if you can't get the microphone. So, A+ on on the research for the residents hit a lot of really important issues. Um, I have a lot of notes, so just I just want to make sure I'm right there just for one second. I um also wanted to applaud um uh Planner Coat for all the due diligence and reaching out with the community. It's very important. They are the experts of that experience and it's really important that we get to hear that. So, thank you. Um, also to um the applicant's representative um I um forgot your name for a second. Hold on. Mr. Bastell Bastell

Bestl I like reading the documents that you submit. They are at a high level of professionalism. So thank you. It makes it easier to read and understand the project when they're at that professional level. So appreciate that. and sentiments that um Commissioner Boon expressed about that I also agree with. Um I wanted to start with um planner coat if that's okay at the beginning of the um packet. I have to get to my page. I have a lot of postits. Okay. Nope. I wanted to talk about um this note that you have in the very beginning. Where is it? and the governing body for um some criteria review. Did I blast past it? It's about the Longmont planning area and coordinated area um for the city's urban growth area um from the Denver Regulation Council of Governors. Do you know what I'm talking about? Can't seem to find it. I I don't know what specific area you're referring to, but I do understand um what

it it seemed like it was the first time that I it seemed like it was the first time that I saw that um sort of recommendation or think that one of the things that we're looking at aside from the comp plan, let me see if I can get the right phrasing cuz I wanted to see how it affected this project. I think it's from, and I'm not a planner, but I'm interested in planning, obviously. That's why I'm here volunteering my time. I think it has to do with Governor Polus' sort of this is what we're doing with zoning across the entire state. That's what I think that it has to do with. Um, I'm just trying to find the right word for you because I wanted to see. Just bear with me. Oh, alignment with the envision plan. I skipped over have a note. Um, the Longmont plan, it's the second paragraph under five. Align alignment with the envision plan. It's page 10 of 20. I'm just going to read it while you're looking for it. So the long planning area and the coordinated planning area compro comprise the city's urban growth area or UG as defined in the Denver regional council of government's metro version plan v metro vision plan the municipal service area the long planning area and the coordinated planning area also comprise the city's threemile area plan as referenced in the Colorado revised statute 3112105e the future Land use plan guides guides how land within the Longmont planning area is intended to develop over time. It provides a policy framework for future zoning and development decisions with final land use boundaries and zoning established through the development review process. Is this a new is this kind of a new and we're

trying to see how it's what I can say about the city's three mile plan is it's incorporated within the envision long comprehensive plan which defines the municipal service area planning area and coordinated planning area. The approach has been accepted as compliant by state statute. The subject property is located within that area. higher level detail about how that policy framework work was brought forward or pro is probably questions better addressed to our legal counsel. Yay. Mr. Terrell, can you please um address this for me and how it affects the home rule like because we have total control apparently what I have heard from other council conversations that as home rule we have total control of local issues and our laws beat if you will because I'm also not a lawyer beat states law in regards to this whatever that long thing was.

Good evening uh members of the commission. and Jeremy Trell, senior assistant city attorney. Commissioner Saunders, uh, excellent questions. I'd love to give a lecture on home rule. Um, but sparing everyone the lecture on home rule, the quick two kind of like word, two sentence summary. So, as a home municipality, the city of Longmont has supreme jurisdiction over local issues. Um, the state of Colorado maintains its position on statewide issue issues of statewide concern and there's a whole framework for mixed local statewide issues that I'm not going to get into because there's a matter for this conversation. It might

u but annexation and the ability to annex property into a home municipality is actually an issue of statewide concern. So the municipal annexation act of 19 something I'll take that

is uh what requires our three mile plan. So all the reference to three mile plan is something that we have it's been in the statute for decades um probably since the 70s I have to imagine. So it's not something new. Uh, our three-mile plan, as Kristen pointed out, is a combination of Envision Longmont, the um IGAS with Boulder County and Weld County, and then our general um other document that I'm forgetting the name of, but um we have a three-mile plan. It's a requirement of the annexation act, and that's something that city council has to consider when it if it decides to annex the property. So like on the resolution and annexation ordinances for city council, it'll city council will have to find that it meets the annexation act requirements which includes compliance with our three-mile plan.

Can you summarize that three-mile plan in a brief few words? It's mostly in response to the city and county of Denver who at one point was taking a lot of land around it and more or less we we can't extend our boundary more than three miles in any given year and we have to have cooperation agreements and uh planning documents to kind of create a framework by which we grow as a city. So it was passed because the city and county of Denver kept on taking additional land. City and County Denver has a whole another framework and coalition of local governments that have to prove any annexations there. Uh just because they're so powerful as as a home rule city and county. Um the city of Longmont doesn't have all those requirements. We just have to have collaboration with our neighboring counties that we pull land from which we do um regularly have intergovernmental agreements with Boulder and Weld County concerning annexation of property. And I know this parcel is listed in our um or identified in our intergovernmental agreement with Boulder County as a property to be brought in to the city of Longmont at some point.

Thank you. Um I wonder if I could stick with you for a second. I just have another legal question. Sure. Not on um with concept plan concept plan for annexations. Is that considered a stronger legal document than other concept plans in other major developments or applications? No, they they would be all the same.

I'm just I'm wondering um because it's going to get to zoning here in a second. And so once it's been decided density on a concept plan for an annexation um or a lot of these other components are still TBD right when we get to site plan and traffic and gr grading and drainage. I'm wondering how so you're not saying there's any difference as far as legally for a negotiation with the annexation. The concept plan does not carry any extra weight. Not any extra weight compared to any other concept plan. Perfect.

So the concept plan annexation is the same as a con concept plan approved or modified or amended after annexation. it any future development of the property has to meet the council plan. Um concept plans of annexation are slightly different just in the sense that we have to establish zoning. Yes. At the time of annexation and that's a requirement of the municipal annexation act. Yes. Great. Oh, I think I might be done with legal. Thank you so much.

Hear if you it might come about. You don't know. Um could I go over to um Kristen again? RQ. Um, the proposed project has been sort of vetted through our city processes processes at this capacity of um 9.9 dwelling units, right? to test and see if utilities, if um water, if sanitary can handle 9.9 units.

That is correct. Okay. And so they don't they're not going, "Oh, well, they're testing out the 18 even though mixed neighborhood can go 18." So yes, essentially um the the concept plan establishes the framework for the the zone and the concept plan also has to be in compliance with the zoning district that they are proposing. They would um look at the fact that this can the city provide services at a high level. Keep in mind more detailed studies will provide additional information which could change the density considered by the developer. So that is the reasoning for the range. So high level conceptually can this be developed as an RMN property is what annexation concept plan is looking at and additional studies could show the developer different things that would um change their unit count. But if they were to vary, say to ask for more than what's allowed on the concept plan, they would have to come back before um planning commission to request a concept plan amendment. You just answered my question right there. Right. And so that's what I'm getting at with the concept plan. So they're locked in right now. If this agreement's going forward, they're locked in at that range.

If this if the concept plan is approved, yes, that would be what we would use to develop the property further. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Do you mind if I keep going just a little bit? Okay. Um I'm sorry, Mr. Bestelle. Bestel Best. Best. Best. My apologies. You have a tough one when you have to read everybody's names. I I applaud your effort. You too much. Best. Thank you for coming back down. We all need to get our steps in. Right. Smoking's the new or sitting the new smoking, I heard. Okay. Um, so I wanted to ask you just a couple of questions, please. Do you have a t target buyer for this proposal?

Um, I suppose, but it's a range. It's not like a specific demographic. Sure. And we'll do we'll do a lot more detailed work, you know, over the next couple years really. But, you know, I can see it being um older. I can also see it being younger. Old older I can see population. I'm sorry. Age. I'm sorry. Okay. No. How did you How would you like me to characterize? No, I just didn't I didn't know what I didn't know if you were talking about building. I just didn't know. I just wanted to quantify that. I'm not retired, but I'm older, so I wasn't going to say retired, right? But but anyway, it's a tricky word. I hear you.

Yeah. So I think um but I can also see it being uh you know professionals and quite a range in that you know they're still working um and I can see quite a range in terms of the age grouping there but you know it it's a it's a property I think that has can have appeal for you know a range in the demographics. Well, I appreciate you un sort of noticing into our sentiments earlier the cultural compatibility between this proposed development and what's existing, right?

Okay. Um and you um the 35 ft height is because of groundwater. So, no basement. No. Um 35 ft is what's allowed in RMN. Okay. And I think a lot of times you might have for example just a twofloor home, but you might but it allows you to get much more creative with pitch roofs for example. Sure.

So you know depending on the product and the type of design, you know, I see that more happening. You could have a two and a half floor with it, you know, with a loft or things like that are possible. And I I thought at first when I saw it was because of the airport overlay and I thought that four stories was the max in an airport overlay. Yeah. Okay. I Yeah. 35 ft I think is the better standard to use than floors. Okay. Or stories.

Fair enough. Um I wanted to talk just for one second about the different concept plans and the affordability component. Oh, no, I don't actually because Commissioner Boon already found that answer out for me about the instead of fe and Lou the building off site. Um, also high five. Thank you. Um, I think my last question for you if I may. Do you have a date of the start of the review? This might be for Kristen instead. So, when you're tracking development, right, it's the start date of when like your paperwork is in or do you have that date? Could I bother you for that?

It kind of depends on whether the planning commission approves this and then the council approves it and then how we get organized to submit our more detailed plans in the final plat. So, you know, I I can, you know, if we're fortunate um you know, we move right along. I could I could see us maybe in construction in a year and 3/4. Okay. I'm sorry that was not what I meant by my question is timeline. That's totally fine. Um, we have in our project description on August 23rd, 2022, the Longmont City Council considered an annexation referral request to the subject property and voted to authorize blah blah blah blah.

What is the start date that we're going with for any rules and regulations that would have to this proposal would have to comply by? Thank you for that question. So looking in our Asella database, it looks like the document status for the the first submittal of this application was 210 of 2023. Um, and it's been in review since that time. I believe we've done four rounds of review or perhaps five on this set. Um, so that would be when the review uh started on this property 210 of 2023. Okay, thank you so much. Um, so appreciate the questions. Um, I might have a just a couple more. Um, oh, actually Kristen, if you don't mind, I saw um the people that are involved. I really like this new format. If we can look at like what department is doing it. Um, and I apologize. I know Monica, but I don't know what her job title is. I know she works with FEMA, but I didn't see that anybody was in the notes about hazard mitigation or FEMA. Josh is already getting

Monica is our flood plane administrator and I don't believe she had a review in reference to that because this property is not within the flood plane. Okay. Um our public works engineering staff might have additional details on that if you would like that information. Not on flood on fire

on fire mitigation. That would be something that the police or the public safety looks at and I do know um probably about a year and a half ago an individual from our fire department was out and looked at the property with only jurisdiction on outlot I which is currently in the city limits. I do know that um Mr. Bestall has worked with Boulder County on the property that's currently in unincorporated Boulder County. I don't know what that will look like going forward, but Mark can probably address that a great deal additional detail. His ears are burning. Get um so thank you, Mr. Marshall. Uh assistant fire marshal Mark Samson.

Mark Samson. Mr. Samson. Sorry, I just rolled all of it into one there. That's okay. Okay. Christine got it pretty much right. So, we cannot enforce the trees and everything that are currently in Boulder County. We can enforce property maintenance with code enforcement on the outlot eye um 20 foot buffer zone. So that's where we stand. So, I'm looking to find information about the wildland urban interface and the hazard that fire is on and how a fire relates to land use and zoning.

Depends on where you're talking about and where it lands on the map. Yes. With the state map. Yes. So, we currently we're in wildfire zone 2 from the Boulder County Wildfire Zone map as far as my understanding goes. Yeah. So, it's outside. So, Jeremy's showing me the parcel and it's outside the wildland urban interface zone. Um, so I had trouble finding information about city of Longmont wildfire urban interface code. What I did find was that it

I'll just wait for a second. We just adopted the 2024 WOI code and to be in compliance with House the city did did the 2024 in two months. Oh, in two months we will. So, we're in the process of complying with the Colorado wildland resiliency code. That's

okay. This is sort of where my state and who's in charge and whatnot because being that I was on parks and recreation board during 2013, I just got in and we're doing the master plan and then that flood happens and it felt a little bit like we were kind of chasing some of the flood um code if you will um because no one had ever seen something like that ever. you all the flood guys were up cast in in steamboat and this great event was happening. I am starting to get the impression that um wildfire is sort of following suit with flood as far as sort of keeping up with the code and regulations. So what I was trying to find wildfire interface, right? Um what I found was that we had to comply with state and we had to comply with FEMA, which is federal, and come down to state and then Boulder County was the um spot I landed to find any of this information as it relates to the city of Longmont. Is there a different document that I should be looking at then? Because right now it the dates that if the start date is 2022 for this project, it the the new wild land, they really need a better short for this cuz Wui is kind of

Yes, thank you. is is since it's not enacted yet, right? So, it's not going to have any impact on the annexation currently. Currently, no. Correct. According to assistant city attorney, right, two month two months will two I know. I I know land development is just like this. Isn't it fun for everyone? Take a picture at what time we're at. Okay. So, that's coming in you think August perhaps? The proposal or the It should come in June. I I think the state law requires it be adopted by June 1 and council is set to take it up on first reading April 28th. Not to give council Popkin a heads up.

Uh public meeting public April 28th is a scheduled day for first reading and then approximately 30 days thereafter for the second reading. Uh but based on the WOOI map contemplated for the city of Longmont, this property is not in the wildland urban interface zones for that code that's not yet in has not yet been adopted by council. Correct.

So maybe but maybe not because we don't know because city council is going to look at it and they may have notes, they may want to change things. We can't really apply it before it's happened. Correct. Okay. But going back to my home rule concern, the state has found that wildfires are an issue of statewide concern. They're moderately to high concern. Boulder County assessment through their 600 pages of mitigation for this parcel.

So again, I did not have any code to look at for City of Longmont. So I went through Boulder County as the guiding jurisdiction for wildlife urban interface. Okay. So it Boulder County is divided into two wildfire zones. One which is the mountains forest portion of Boulder County and two which is the plains grasslands of Boulder County. You may view Boulder County wildfire zone map if you like. And city of Longmont is in zone two. Um because in response to the many wildfire events in the history of Boulder County, the Boulder County Code has adopted comprehensive ignition resistant construction requirements in wildfire zone one. Wildfire Z Oh, sorry. Wildfire zone 2 has historically had relatively few fire events that have resulted in wild widespread structure loss. Okay, so now this is where I'm coming from. So my parents are 80s years old. I grew up in Boulder County. My parents were right next to the Marshall fire and they were impacted with the flood. I have a lot of concerns about this being compatible for this zoning. So, we're going to let the fire code sit for just a second because that that's sort of new information. So, I just need to percolate it through. Just understand that I'm using the Boulder County information. So if you guys want to look at that too and see how maybe what

I had to retract what I said. So I forgot the WOOI code actually already went into effect. The WOOI code went into effect 10 days after March 24th. So just recently March 24th. So it does apply but only for city of Longmont properties which is parcel is not correct. But the Boulder County regulations do not apply to the city of Longmont. They but they do apply to Boulder County, which this is in Boulder County. If the property were to come into Boulder, be developed in Boulder County, then yes, they would apply. But that's not happened yet. Correct. Right. We're still talking about issues of what it is right now, current issues, which we can enforce. That's fine.

I don't need you to enforce anything. I'm just making sure. That's fine. That's not to my thing yet. That's not to my thing yet. I'll turn it back. Okay. Okay. This is a little bit of a pause and I've been talking a little bit. May I continue or would you like me to relinquish? Please continue.

Okay. Thank you so much. Okay. So, in our code, we have wildfire is under disaster, right? Occurrence of wildfire is considered a disaster. And I'm not totally sure the difference between hazard and disaster, but I think that a hazard might lead to the disaster. So, wildfire consider I'm considering it a hazard. And that's why I was trying to get to Monica because she does the FEMA maps and all the rules and regulations of that because the annexation that we are asked to assess hang on one second is about the zoning. So I hear all the concerns about traffic and drainage but I feel that is a little bit further down in the details. I do have I I don't agree with so I'm dissenting about the um proposed zoning of RMN um for a couple of for a few reasons. The RMN historically because it was single family and oh Kristen can you tell me what the max density was for single family?

I believe R I believe RSF is 1 to eight units per

Okay. So eight is the max on that. And so in 97 or whenever that was zoned the green green champion green in their PUD was zoned single family and the max they could have had is eight. So in compatibility with mixed neighborhood coming in at what 6 to 18 that does not seem compatible to me. Um, if this were something that I did, um, feel met the criteria of being annexed into the city, I would recommend that the standard for compatibility be applied to what it was when it was built, be applied to the neighboring communities of what it was built before it is how it is now. So, it would be like a percentage. So like since it's maxed at 8 percentage originally like okay so now that it's um residential neighborhood and it can go up to 18 well that is not compatible to also the single family above. I don't see any other mixed neighborhood around there. It sort of seems like it's a little bit isolated. Um Champagne Greens and so I and I'm not trying to like second guess envision. I was on the committee when I was on PRAB and went through all of that process. It's a huge process and it's really hard um to gauge the comprehensive plan for future stuff when stuff is happening and a comprehensive plan takes many many years and many documents to put together. So if I were um to put some sort of of note on that I would say that the the the compatibility of zoning should be a little bit more in line. 9.9 seems really still high for the max of eight next door and max of eight up above and

then it's a all the way around so it's zero. So nine still seems kind of high for me. However, I don't think that this project um meets the criteria for um annexation with that zoning. I bet you want to know why. Okay. So again to um give credit where credit where do get is due. I really love this new format. It's super helpful. Um so alignment with the envision um plan. I'm not sure. Oh, sorry. Sorry. I jumped ahead. Yep. No, I can do that. Okay, I'll circle back to that. So, review criteria analysis seven seven review criteria analysis section 150205 review criteria for all application types. This is our first major code like criteria to put this um annexation which is can we bring this property in and attached to all the city services but at this zone density or this district. So that says the code section 1502055. The application is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purpose of the code and zoning district conforms to any previously approved concept plan, preliminary plan or PUD overall development plan and complies with all applicable statutes, codes, ordinance and regulation. So I'm hanging my hat on regulations. I do not feel that this proposal meets that criteria. I do not see any FEMA for the

um wildlife wildfire urban interfate interface and I do not see any evidence to support um the FAA information. um these two regulations are critically important and so I don't feel that this application for um um um for the zoning nor for the concept plan. I don't I don't feel that that proposal meets this criteria. Um and I can go back into the BOCO hazard plan mitigation. That's the information that I had to go get. I didn't see anything in in the applicants documents about fire mitigation. I didn't see anything from city about fire mitigation. Um, by the way, May is fire mitigation awareness month. I find it to be extremely important um I think that um for planning and development to go to some of the goals listed here that this um concept this annexation and concept plan application um go towards. We have goal 1.1 and goal 1.2 two, embracing a compact of efficiency and promote a sustainable mix of land use. I agree with Kristen our planner um coat that those do um support it. However, they also support the sustainability strategies of update of planning and zoning updating regulations. Um that's 5.3 in the Longmont comprehensive plan under sustainability. the strategies that we're supposed to be updating the regulations. We have are supposed to be talking about financial incentives for different districts and landmarks. We're supposed to be updating

land um agriculture and food to develop different code protecting districts especially protecting historic and conservation districts. So, I I don't find that this property, while I agree with um infill, I think that is really important. I do think here that's outlined in the Boulder County um hazard mitigation plan, if you had that pulled up, it there's 600 pages of it on page 127 that um vegetation Oops. Let me read it for you. Sorry. Once again, um, vegetation and biodiversity. Trees and vegetation are important for wildlife management and human health. Diverse vegetation and promotion of ecosystem resilience will help to improve biodiversity and reduce fire risk. And that is coming from the hazard mitigation plan that was established in 2002 from Boulder County which I understood to be the jurisdiction for this regulatory issue of fire mitigation. So I do not feel that this application meets that criteria of section 1502055. There was one more Yeah, I want to have a break, too. I just have one more thing and I'm going to let it go. Thank you so much. Um, so the second reason why I think the the the proposal does not meet the annexation review criteria, if you look at section section 15026A-

or2 where it says a the annexation complies with the municipal annexation act. Oh, that's what you were talking about earlier. Weren't you of uh 1965 as amended CR dot dot dot go to um underneath C um the notes that um I believe these are notes that you wrote um Kristen. If not, please um correct me. Under C, it says, "As noted above, the proposed RMN zoning district is consistent with the mixed neighborhood future land use and designations as identified in the envision law comprehension plan." I disagree with that because the proposed land uses are not consistent with the purposes and intents of the proposed zoning district because the original zoning district when the PUB was put together because PUDs are fairly important. And when that was put together, it was already zoned at um a single family with a max of six. That was a lot of information. Okay. I would like to relinquish. Did you want to say something, Kristen? I'm sorry.

No, I just wondering if you had a question for me. No, I just wanted to make sure that was your language and I wasn't reading into something or somebody else wrote that. You're correct. That is my language. Perfect. Okay. So, those are my two reasons for um denial. Okay, thank you. We've had a couple people ask. So, we are going to take a let's try to keep this to five minute break and we'll come back and get back at 8:45. 8 minutes.

Well, I want to Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

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

Heat. Heat. Okay, if we can all come back to our seats. If we all can come back to our seats.

I will I just not

but I don't my constraints your constraints. So that's all I want to understand. Jeremy was suggesting using a gavvel, but Okay, we're getting ready to get back to here. Uh, we're back to our comments, questions. I will say this. Um I've gone through the looked over the requirements. I actually have a different opinion. Uh I do feel that this was changed. The zoning was set to residential mix use and that is an invi uh envision Longmont. Uh they are asking to meet what's in Envision Longmont. We I'm not going to try to change what's in Envision Longmont here. I do agree that at some point envision long mod set that and that's what we are asked to meet. That's what the uh developer has asked us to meet. I believe it does meet

that it is compatible. Is it the same? No. But it is single family. Some of them are going to be town houses probably up to four units per. To me that is compatible. It's not like, but to me it's a compatible. Also, with the fact that this is going to be on the west side of the development up against Airport Road, which to me is kind of a major road. It makes sense to have higher density. If you're going to do higher density in that area, it would be up against Airport Road. So, I do feel that it does meet that. Um, looking to see if there's any of anybody else who has other opinions. Commissioner Jordan, a minor clarification, and this could be uh maybe for you, Jeremy. Uh, I want to I know that the airport manager note has come up a couple times and it was specifically saying not because it's there's going to be a plane crashing into it or anything like that. It was to reduce the likelihood that someone moves in there and litigates against the city due to noise. And I guess I would like to understand how prevalent that has been for the city. Has that been a big problem for the city with other people who have moved in and near Vance Brand?

Good evening, Commissioner Jordan. Great question. Um, I'm not aware of any lawsuits threatened past or past lawsuits against the city on that issue. There are lawsuits concerning Rocky Mountain Airport on a similar issue, but the city of Longmont has not been named in such a lawsuit to my knowledge. And we do have an, as Kristen mentioned, we do have an navigation easement and a disclosure required under our code to all future owners, including tenants, uh, notifying them in advance that there's air you're near an airport, you're going to hear airplanes

and and what is that boundary that is you're either near an airport or not legally? Like what is that cons what do we call that boundary? I I I wouldn't say necessarily legally, but the FAA has given us guidance on what they consider to be the the air airport influence overlay zone. Okay. And so there's actually a separate uh within 1504 or what whatever our zoning ordinances. Yeah. In our zoning ordinance, we actually have a separate overlay zone um that anything within this kind of oval shape has to have these navigation easements and be aware of noise issues and this one falls in it.

So the question I would have and maybe this might be for you Jeremy or you Kristen uh within that oval shape approximately how many dwelling units do we have in the city of Longmont? It's it's massive. Is it over a thousand? Yes. So this would be I'm thinking 44 divided by a th00and it may be maybe less percentage. We're talking less than a percent less than half of a percent likelihood increase of potential litigation of which we haven't seen any. Correct. All right. That's all my question. Commissioner Lane.

Thank you chair to uh Commissioner Saunders point. Jeremy, how does that work? Okay, so Champions Green was zoned single family. They changed the zoning, went to mixed. This partial is not in the city right now. This is what this means about is annexing the end of the city. So, it's like a chicken or egg thing. How does that work with zoning? I mean, can we suggest a zoning for this parcel as part of the annexation? Does it get annexed first and then the city decides on zoning? What what does that what's the precedent for that?

So, uh, Commissioner Lang, annexation is a purely voluntary act by the city of Longmont. We can never be compelled to annex any property into the city of Longmont limits. um under our state law. Um what we do in terms of identifying a proper zoning for a parcel under consideration as we look at Envision Longmont, which is our comprehensive plan, which includes all the areas uh of the city of Longmont that are already in the city along with the areas that we anticipate coming into the city at some point based on those intergovernmental agreements with Boulder and Weld County that I previously mentioned. And so when Envision was adopted, uh, it included a reszoning of the Champion Green subdivision from the PUD to whatever it is now, Rmen. Um, and then the parcel under consideration tonight was identified as coming in as a mixed neighborhood at that time. So that's what we that's what the city considered when Envision was adopted. Uh, certainly we could the city has all options available to it. So, we could decide we don't want to annex the parcel at all and then it won't come to the city. Uh, we could annex it under conditions. Uh, so we could require additional buffers, things like that, put height limitations on it, and the city could certainly put a more restrictive zoning on it. The city is empowered to put residential single family on it. The caveat being that the applicant owner doesn't have to take that. They can say, "Fine, I'll just stay in the county. I don't want to come into the city. So, we can put any conditions we want on an annexation, but it two ways. We we can't compel this property owner to come into the city. Uh but we can certainly put whatever conditions we want, but the property owner could reject them.

No problem. Commissioner, let me get you back. Commissioner Lang, no, I can do this. Oh, mic on. So that brings up a question. If it doesn't get annexed, would you still develop on county property?

It's not rhetorical. We tried to be highly comp. Yeah, we should have. Sorry about that.

You've been getting your steps today. No, I I you know, we we're really interested in developing this parcel and we think the proper use is actually what Envision said starting in 16 with the mixed residential and then the zoning overlay. We don't have that zoning. We're seeking that as a part of the annexation, the RM RMN, and we do think it's compatible as you've heard me say before. So, uh I you know if if uh if conditions get too ownorous and if and if um you know there's those kind of things put on the property, it would give us pause for sure.

Okay. You know, we have a lot of investment in this and uh to make further investment and try to carry out what we think are the policies of the city. Um you know, we'd have to think it through. while I have you up here. So, I know it's early in the process, but you're looking at attached and detached a mix of of housing there. Yes, sir. Okay. And then so for attached owners would own the structure but not the dirt. Um there's two ways. I see I see it being lauded. So, everything would be laotted. Okay. Um but I mean theoretically you could also do a condo. Oh, gotcha. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. I'm Yeah, I'm kind of torn. I mean, I get It would be nice to match Champion Green, but it is infill and infill it's tougher to do a single family on its on a plot that small. So, that's that's a tough one for me, but okay.

I think the context has changed from the 96 plat at Champion Greens 30 years later. And I mean we I we don't you don't need to hear about costs and all those things, but also compact development along major corridors. Those are things that are important or at least the city has said are important to to how they to the limited parcels that they have to to to rely on in future development. So the I think in your letter it says the housing the uh driveways will be frontloaded. They be facing east. Is that right? Onto that little Osprey View.

That's correct. drive. So they'd be looking kind of at the buffer zone on the west edge of the current development. Okay. Okay. And so the houses would their backyards would be kind of facing airport road basically. That's true. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You bet.

Vice Chair Earl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Commissioner Jordan, in response to your comments about the airport influence zone, um, if you look at the city of Longmont zoning map, it has this spelled out just to give you a sense of size, and this is very much not exact. Far northern boundary goes beyond 17th hygiene road. Southern boundary beyond Clover Basin, beyond Pike Road, almost to Sunset in the east, but definitely well past Hoover. So, is a significant portion of the city. Um and it's really designed to you know designate where it could be an impact if you actually look at the traffic pattern for the airport. So where um airplanes are encouraged to fly under the voluntary voluntary noise abatement procedure program. I don't remember if it's procedure or program. It um this parcel is outside of that. That doesn't mean there won't be noise, but just throwing it out there for the record. Um, I'll be very brief here because I've asked a lot of questions and I appreciate the time. Um, I I really like the way that this development has evolved over the the iterations that it's worked towards compatibility that it's increased buffer. Um, I'm in a position I'm happy to make a motion. I see there's another comment, so I'm not going to cut off debate, but I will gladly make a motion um when anyone else is done. Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. I just had a couple follow-up questions. Um Kristen, do you mind pulling up your slides and looking at the zoning map? I think it was slide 18 or 19. And I'm wondering for some Longmont history that's not me recalling this, but how did this triangle where it says Dell, right? The street Dell. How did this come about as being mixed neighborhood when clearly yellow is single family and then Boulder County, but that's agg and then to the north is single f I'm sorry, to the south is rural. So it seems a little like an outlier.

Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of information in reference to I thought he might come down. He can never retire. Indeed. I'm so sorry, Don.

Just for the record, I can retire, but um I'm not planning for a little bit longer. Uh Don Burch, planning manager, city of Longmont. Um to uh Commissioner Saunders's question, when Envision Longmont was going through the process for the update back in 200 roughly 16, the consultants and the long-range planners at that time were looking at not only areas for additional density to be added to the city because of our what we determined was our housing need at the time. Back just for everybody's understanding, we looked at what was considered the housing need for our city of Longmont. And back in when we were doing the Envision Longmont, we estimated we were about 3,000 units short of what was required in order to meet the demand for people who wanted to move into Longmont. And that was based on information from the state as well as Boulder County and looking at other communities up and down the Front Range. Every city had kind of their own deficit. And as part of Envision Longmont, what we were trying to do at that time was we were trying to allow for opportunities for additional housing to be constructed within the growth management area of the city of Longmont because we are hemmed in by our agreements with Boulder County unlike many other communities who do not have the same growth restrictions on them, especially those that are up in Lmer Weld counties and further south to Denver. they can continue to grow and jump out and take farmland where we cannot. We have to stay within our boundary and we have to use the land that we have left appropriately. So the decision at that time and the direction that was given by the council was to make sure that the plan that was going

to be put forward would account for the need that we had at the time plus allow for future development to occur and allow for people to move into the city of Longmont. to do that, we can really only get more dense. And so when we went through and we looked at the existing areas, we identified areas of change, which you'll see in um some of our existing neighborhoods. We've identified those as area of change where we expected development to go in developers to buy properties and to actually either knock down or change the housing type and increase densities or look at other areas where for example we had older uh industrial areas say along like the uh St. Rain River down along by Lefthand Brewery in those areas where we were trying to encourage redevelopment and increase density.

And so when the consultants and when the long-range planners were looking, they were trying to identify areas where additional density could go. Why specifically Champion Greens got added, I can't tell you. But what I can tell you is that it was a result of the study that they did and this area adjacent to it being that it was available and open and undeveloped was seen as an area where additional density could be added. And so that necessitated then the upzone or at least on the comprehensive plan a change of land use from single family to what we now call the RMN the residential mixed neighborhood zoning. So once the land use has been changed and that was gone through the public process which many of you well maybe not all of you some of you few of you still are here when uh when we did it um but that was almost a two to threeyear process that we went through with public process presenting to various groups going out into the community attending functions updating people letting them know what we were working on um after we got the comprehensive plan adopted, the next step then is the implementation the implementation of the vision that the council adopted and that meant reszoning. So there were many areas within the city that were reszoned and upzoned related to that plan. This is one of those areas that was changed. Um and then as a part of the land development code adoption which included the zoning districts and the zoning map that as well came before the planning commission a number of times to go over every section to talk about the regulations, give them an understanding of what we were trying to do to implement the

vision in the plan that was adopted by council and then they made a recommendation to the city council to adopt the the zoning districts and the land development code. City Council held public hearings on that published notice in the paper of the hearings and it was adopted.

Okay. So, not this site specifically. You don't have recollection. I don't either. I was on that committee. If you look at Envision Longmont, I was the proud representative. I agree with the density and at that time I heard 2,000 units behind, not 3,000. Do you know what how many units we are behind now? No. Okay. And I was part of that deposition of open space when city staff was instructed by city council to look for property. So that 9inth and county road one on that corner. I keep want to say it's Rogers, but it's not. I can't remember what that development is, but it was part of that deposition of open space where we're trying to get that land back so it was going to be able to be buildable. Um, okay. I don't have any since we we don't know why this was called out except for those sort of overall and it is long. It is a 2 to threeyear process and it's a lot of information and it is trying to help Longmont grow appropriately. So agree with all those things, walkability and all those things. I was just trying to see if you maybe had in your recollection of any of those conversation because it does kind of stick out a little bit. Um, if I may, um, during the break, the assistant chief marshall, Mr. Samson, said that Jeremy had the map that was approved through council last month, apparently. Sorry, I missed that. Can we pull that up if if it's part of our if it's part of our documentation?

Yeah. Maybe Mark and I realize it's not on the website yet. So, I also noticed that um the URL.

Yeah, it's a lot to type in though. Let me So I I wanted to reference um chair pollen's remarks. I I I heard that maybe it sounded like I was trying to say that I was trying to get planning and zoning to change in vision long. I was not at all. I was looking through the way vision long mind is it has the guiding principles and then at the end it has all the strategies on how we're supposed to go about doing that and I was going through looking at um what planning and zoning's responsibilities are where we lead and where we support and those other guiding documents or other um sorry strategies related to the 1.1 for um oh my gosh goals and policies for a sustainable and resilient built environment. So, I was referencing if we're going to use those goals, embrace a compact and efficient pattern of growth, how are we doing that sustainably? And so, that's why I was matching up that goal 1.1 with those um strategic um call outs at the end of um the envision long line. And so we have the strategies in which to build the environment sustainably in Phil buildup using those sustainable markers of um of of the different districts. Okay, one second. Let me orient. Can you put the little mouse on our property?

Yes. Oops. Okay. Is it just this? So it is you can see champion green listed in the doral drive and so the pars will be that parcel to the left. Perfect. So anything not colored is not in the wildland urban interface zone but yellow is something. Yellow is something. So across the street on the side of airport it is a moderate intensity zone too. Yes. So if the property was built there there'd be additional restrictions but there's no restrictions on this parcel. But it's close and it's close enough for my comfort because I did see how quickly the Marshall fire went.

I will say quickly and this is all look what look it's irrigated now in this picture. What I want to caution against if the I don't know what the water rights are on these agricultural properties. If they're junior water rights and we're in a drought and that those water rights get sucked up by I don't know at this point May then these are not going to be irrigated any longer and these short grass smaller things I don't know what's on here I just have to assume can go very quickly and then without this buffer here anymore then the champion grains becomes at risk and my problem is there are no regulatory documents to fire mitigation or to the FAA overlay to support this annexation. There has to be some feedback from them from the FAA. It's a federally regulated area. So, the fact that they didn't respond to us isn't quite enough for it to pass mustered in that criteria for me.

Fair enough. I just I just want to add so for example in the Champion Greens area if someone wanted to to tear down their house and redevelop into a townhouse or quadlex or anything like that assuming it meets all the other zoning requirements. We would not have any wildfire resiliency standards imposed on it. I don't think I speak in hypotheticals either. I know. Just saying. So I'll just throw that out there and leave it.

We're all throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. Okay. Um, the very last thing, Kristen, do you mind putting the Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's not. It's You might have this. It was in the applicants document, but if you've met met your steps, I think I can get maybe Kristen to do this. I just want to look at the nesting survey real quick. On the applicants, it was page 26. If you can access, do you mind if she pulls up your slides? Thank you. Perfect. The slide

and happy tax day. Um, I think it was it's the nesting survey with that wildlife interface map freshening our minds. Keep going. It's getting closer. There it is.

There it is. So our site so the inventory that we the city of Longmont has there are pre precious or higher value properties in the inventory. So say like with parks and we look at the inventory of parks and how they are connected a lot of them are disjointed and that's fine. This is

youth has disconnected. Thank you. This property has edges all around it. However, if you see from the vantage point of perhaps a bird and we have evidence that bird nesting has happened that you can see that this area is a great nesting site in between all of our lakes. And so keep it takes a really long time to get this high density area grown much longer than it takes to build any proposed building that we have currently for the site in my opinion. So again I don't think that this area is good for being annexed in and um having those city services. If the developer still wants to go ahead certainly, but I feel that it will be extremely expensive to not be able to tap into city services. But that again, that's the developer's choice. I think through the inventory that's available to the city of Longmont, through my experience and my 50 years living in Boulder County, this is a high priority parcel to keep as far as fire mitigation, as far as um vegetation and wildlife diversity. So, I I'm not um I'm going to go ahead and move then. I know where this is going. I'm going to shorten this up for us. Okay. So, I'm going to move, right? Because I think I was the last comment, but you can do what you do with this. Just one second, please. Is it all right if I move?

It is definitely okay if you move. Thank you. And then we'll look for a second. Yeah. And then we can go to further discussion at that point.

Absolutely. I just need to get my wording right if you guys don't mind. One second. Okay. So, I move to I move to recommend because we're just recommending, remember, city council is the one that has to prove this. I move to recommend denial of the 8513 St. Rain Road annexation and concept plan based on the findings that I did not find that the application does not comply with the review criteria of the aforementioned regulations and the standards of the land development as as mentioned missing the FAA reply from any airport any entity at all. I did not see that in the documents. And um for wildlife urban interface um mitigation, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

No, we do not have a Oh, commission. No, I was going to make another motion. Okay. So, you have to get the no first. Yeah. Yeah. Uh we have a motion and there is no second so the motion fails. Go on for further comment, questions or uh Vice Chair Earl. Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I move that we adopt PZR 20264A, a resolution of the planning and zoning commission recommending approval of the 8513 St. Fra annexation and concept plan. Um we found the application to be complete. It's been considered during this public hearing. Proper notice was given and it conforms to the requirements of sections 152055 and 1502060 A2 of the Longmont Land Development Code. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Boone. I will second that motion.

We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any other questions, comments? I will say that I also find that the uh review criteria analysis 1502055 uh sections A B C D E and F have been met. Also section 1502060 A.2 for annexation review criteria A B CDE E F and G have been met. And that's why I will go ahead and I will be in favor of this. Uh Commissioner Edgely Wells. Thank you, chair. Um, I have a comment to make. So, it's not that I am not in favor of development. I have concern over liability and that is why I raised the concern um that Commissioner Jordan commented on that there is uh little liability liability regarding uh litigation based on noise because of the AIC. Um that was my concern. It was brought to my attention um after reviewing the review criteria. um you can't quantify quality of life which I can't based on what was submitted in the application. It's true. Um so that is my comment and that is why I also vote yes today.

Thank you. Um Kristen, if you can please also uh also on that part and it was noted that I don't know if it's on the deed. Is it on the deed that it recognizes that it's part of the airport influence zone? So, it will be recorded um in the Boulder County Recorders Office as a separate document that will obviously be tied to the property. It will also that statement will be required on any subsequent development plans. So, the plat will require the aviation statement, any site plans that would be required. So that doc information goes with the development and is included on um the different items that are recorded.

Okay. Thank you. Also one further question. Um if this is approved and sent if we do go ahead and this goes over to city council and they do approve this um since it is going to be multiple plats it will be coming back to us as a preliminary plat if I'm not mistaken. Typically, yes, a preliminary plat because it's more than it'll be more than four units, right? Or four. You're correct. Four lots. That would be a minor subdivision, but any um preliminary plat that does not qualify for that does require a planning commission public hearing. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Saunders.

Uh thank you, Chair. Um Kristen, on that point, I've read that um if the applicant has 12% affordable housing, it gets fasttracked and it misses some of the feedback from planning and zoning. Is that going to be applicable here? Even though they're doing inloo, is that percentage still relevant?

I don't believe so. are uh we do have an an individual with our affordable housing department who could speak to that more in depth, but it's my understanding that the 12% has to be developed on site for that consideration. But I would ask if Melissa could come down and address those questions for you. I She was not I'll just put that on the record that it has to be on site for that 12% to work. Yes, correct.

And um just one more sticking point with that FAA feedback. The point for me is to have that feedback at this annexation juncture. Attaching it later doesn't do me really any good as um a reviewer of these documents because I want to know what they have to say right away. Just like I would want fire and fire mitigation to say before we get really in depth. It's a huge ontaking to develop and annex and and tap and get all those services. So, it's my understanding that those things need to happen now at this point in development review.

And I do appreciate your feedback and that is included in attachment 16 of your packet. The information provided to us by Levi, who is the airport manager. The FAA did not provide specific comment, but we did get comment from our airport manager. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other comments? Jane, let's go for a vote. Commissioner Edley Wells, yes. Commissioner Lang, hi. Vice Chair Earl, hi. Chair Poland, yes. Commissioner Saunders, no. Commissioner Boon, yes. Commissioner Jordan, yes.

Chair, that passes 6 to one with Commissioner Saunders dissenting.

Thank you very much. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before city council, please contact the planning division for further information at 303 65183303. That concludes public hearing item 7A. Next is final call. Public invited to be heard. This is a chance for the public to comment on anything that is not coming before us or has come before us today. um and wishes to have 5 minutes. There's nobody who has signed up. It doesn't look like anybody's coming forward to speak. So, I'll go ahead and close out. Final call. Public invited to be heard. Items from the commission. Commissioner Saunders.

Commissioner Saunders, we have not heard enough from you this evening. Thank you everyone for participating. That is a great um conversation. I appreciate everybody's hard work and attention to making this a better place for all of us to live. Um but that's not my question. Uh my commission comments are um the March 25th meeting that was the variance. I think it was maybe it was um council member Popkin brought up the regional transportation projects the first in Maine Bart Bash tracks. Are we scheduled to have any presentations on those? And can we please

chair? Uh members of commission. Uh I I guess the quick answer is no. Nothing scheduled. Um if you would like any specific presentations, yeah, I think we'd like to hear from the commission which they would like to learn more about, but we can definitely get those scheduled. We have a meeting next week, right?

Yes. So, we have a week to think about it and then can give us some time to chew on it. Um, Commissioner Jordan,

thank you, Chair. Uh, hey, Grant, this is, uh, sort of for you guys. Uh, one, um, you know, thank you all for showing up and such for us tonight. It was great having all the questions. I do apologize for springing that follow-up question on traffic analysis without I wasn't able to review in time. I'll get better next time. But on that subject, I there's so much of a pattern we see at these things of I disagree with the traffic analysis or yeah, you know, they say it's going to be a little like a 20% uptick, but no, it's going to be 4,000 or whatever, you know, and it's it's hard to uh provide some level of assurance. It would be great if we could even even if the city were just to sponsor a couple spot checks to say, look, we did a traffic analysis three years ago that predicted it was going to be at X. we went back and checked and it was at X or it was at X minus 10% or over 20% but give us some indication that these things have some bearing on reality. Um that way we can say look we really confident in this analysis process as opposed to it being sort of arbitrary and academic. Uh I would love it. I don't know if it's in the budget or the cards but because it seems to be such a pattern I think it would be good to help uh reassure the public.

I'll just chime in really quick. uh chair, members of commission. Uh I I can definitely pass that along. Uh it definitely doesn't fall specifically within planning and development services, but I can follow up with uh the director and at least let them know that uh that's a a request or recommendation and uh go from there and report back. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other items from commission? If not, we will go ahead and move from items from Council Representative Popkin. Thank you, chair. Um, man, I sometimes do miss these meetings. Um, I appreciate the very thoughtful discussion and and just for the commission's benefit, obviously, uh, the formal recommendation on any project that the commission makes is something that I will represent um, officially including any um, particular dissenting notes. Um, but but frankly, uh, I flagged last night at council that this this was a public hearing item this week. I know some council members may be tuning in to the recording and the recording is always linked in the council communication when these projects move forward. I think the in in fact some of the most valuable uh parts are not the formal recommendation itself but actually all of the discussion and the questions that you all uh do take the time to to plan for and ask um as well as the the the feedback from the community. Um because uh much to my sugarin we don't always have the luxury of of the time to get into as much of the robust discussion and Q&A that you guys do. So um keep that spirit going and uh I really appreciate the thoughtfulness there. Um, I appreciate uh, Commissioner Saunders's point on the transportation projects. I I think uh, I look forward to hearing which ones you want to um, get into more and and work with staff to figure out kind of what what updates make sense. I think making sure that this commission does understand some of the the bigger projects that are in the works I think will be really important especially as other development projects might come before you so you do understand some of the future traffic uh factors and transportation flows um and the multimmodal aspects that come with that um which are a key piece of so much of that so appreciate the thought the the spirit of that um and if I can support in any way please don't hesitate to let me know I am also the liazison to the transportation advisory board so uh hopefully I and be be of some help

there. Um, and then lastly, uh, I know I presented, uh, shared a few updates on what council has been up to in terms of kind of updating council, uh, rules and procedure, especially around boards. Um, we had a discussion at our city council retreat at the end of March about a few broader kind of board consolidation changes, potential future board concepts. Um, I won't bore you with all of the thoughts there. Uh, if you're interested, feel free to let me know. Um, PNZ did come up in one context, though. We did have a a brief discussion about uh in in the period of consolidation about potentially just formally combining the the uh board of appeals and PNZ. So that's not technically two separate things. Um so uh that that hasn't been formally approved, but I think we probably will move in the direction of a little bit of consolidation there just for everyone's sanity and not feeling like you have to jump between two different hats that probably aren't necessary to have. So uh that that was briefly discussed. I don't have a timeline for that. And uh I think that's all all I have to say on that, but I'll gladly take any questions if you do. One one thing on that since they have some rules that are slightly different than ours uh and and the one I'm thinking of that I would like to if we are going to undertake it

can we go to a sevenperson committee instead of five person committee just so that we don't have to keep different sets of committee people you know the numbers that have to meet for a given meeting. I I think we'd be looking to try to keep the the P&Z structure. I I'll speak for myself here, but as the liaison to PNZ and a former me member of PNZ, I'll say my my intent there would be to try to keep a similar structure as close to possible as what PNZ has um and and basically fold in the board of adjustments into what the only thing I would say too is I do know that the vote had to be 4 to one for a super majority. I believe

a super majority. Now, I don't mind if that's kept. It's just the members so that we don't have to if it's one item people have to leave and come back. I think it would be good just to have the seven members and and if if it's a super majority I don't I I don't think that matters as much. It's the number of people that I would be Yeah, I appreciate that feedback chair pull and um I don't think we're not under any time like pressure cooker right now to make that adjustment. And I think frankly this is a great opportunity for us to say like hey as we do consider this change like what does PNZ what would PNZ members appreciate. So um I think that would be something that I'd gladly take to this group um once we have something um maybe more as a starting point in writing. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you.

Items from planning director Grant Penland. Uh once again, chair, members, commission, I'll just do a quick overview of what uh at least a preview of what is upcoming. Uh maybe with a question or two as well. Um you may have already seen next week's agenda includes a land use code text amendment as well as a conditional use site plan. Um and then we're looking next month uh the May 20th uh potential for an annexation and concept plan amendment. Uh we'll likely try to keep that to a one item evening just because it is fairly complex. um anticipate at least some decent input as well from um uh the neighborhoods or the the yeah neighboring property owners etc. Um which

uh it's a annexation and concept plan amendment for Gateway North. Uh I think little TBD right now uh but likely uh and then uh we're looking at uh a special meeting again uh April 27th and a lot of it has to do with uh the applicants schedule. So we're going to try to accommodate that May. Uh it's past my bedtime May 27th. Uh it's for a a variance uh that would be coming uh as a I believe formal variance in front of uh uh the commission. But again, we're trying to accommodate uh the the requesters schedule. So, um if we could shift it, we would, but it looks like that will probably be an item there. And then we still have a couple items that are floating that we're trying to get in front of the commission. Uh one being an urban renewal authority amendment, uh still in the works. Uh again, it's a TBD. And then I think I mentioned last time as well, uh bike parking amendment. again potentially combination for uh that May 27th date. Um but again still still somewhat up in the air. Uh and then we do have a of course a slew of others. I won't go into June just because uh I hate to try to prognosticate that far in advance but that's what uh is upcoming. Just wanted to give you a heads up that looks like again May will likely be a a two meeting month.

Okay. Thank you. Seeing nothing else, we'll go ahead and we are in adjournment.