Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. I'm a call to order. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, to the 07/16/2025 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the first order of business roll call.

Chair Height? Present. Commissioner Lang?

Here.

Commissioner Boone?

Here.

Commissioner Poland?

Here.

Commissioner Saunders?

Here.

Commissioner Wang?

Here.

Commissioner Arment? Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. The city of Longmont has acknowledgment statement that I will now read into the record. We acknowledge that the City Of Longmont sits on the traditional territories of the nations of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We endeavor to honor the history and the living and spiritual connections of these first peoples with this land. We commit to face the injustices that happened when these lands were taken, to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. Thank you. Next are communications. Anything from director of development? Pendlin.

Nothing this evening other than welcome, everyone,

and happy July. Thank you very much. Anything from assistant city council Terrell?

No. Nothing for me tonight.

Anything from the commission? Moving on. Anything from the public? The public is invited to be heard at this point in time. Any member of the public can come up and speak for five minutes about matters that are not on tonight's agenda or matters that are not likely to come up on a future night's agenda. Seeing no one present, I will close that. Move to approval of minutes. The minutes from gen I'm sorry. From 06/18/2025 have been circulated. Any comments?

I have one. I was not here. I did want to personally thank commissioner Zukash, Popkin, Flag, and Tedder Chris Tedder, for their service to the commission. Their years of endeavor are greatly appreciated. But then moving on, are there any comments to the June 18 commit minutes, or a motion to approve? I will recognize I lost my seating chart. Vice chair poll.

Nope. There I am. I move approval of the June.

Commissioner Lang. Aye. Commissioner Boone? Aye. Commissioner Polin?

Yes.

Chair Hite? Aye. Commissioner Saunders? Aye. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Commissioner Arment? Aye. Chair, that passes unanimously seven to zero.

Thank you, commissioner Wang. Item agenda item agenda seven a, residents at Alta Vista riparian setback variance. I believe senior planner Zach, whose last name I'm gonna blow Basak. Basak. Sorry. Will present on behalf of, the city of Longmont's planning department.

Okay.

Alright. Good evening. Zach Blazic, senior environmental sustainability planner with the city. I see some new faces, some of you who I haven't met before, so nice to meet you. Here this evening to present the residences at AltaVita riparian setback variance.

Before we even get into the first slides of my presentation, I just want to acknowledge that this is the first time we've heard one of these riparian setback variances at this board. It's the first time that one of these applications has actually made it this far into the process. So I'll ask you to forgive me, first and foremost, because my presentation will be lengthy as I go through some of the history and what leads to this process and how this process goes, I'm going to do my best to explain all of that. So bear with me. Thank you for your patience and attention, and here we go.

So I'm gonna start zoomed out at a very, very high level. And you can see with my very fancy laser pointer mouse, I'm just gonna run this over what is the Dry Creek number one. It's one of the Longmont area streams waterways. In the big zoomed out version here, we have Clover Basin over here. It runs west to east, over here past Hover and up and along towards Kenpress.

This is the Southwest side of town. Again, like I said, this is one of Longmont's area streams, so it is subject to a riparian setback. How we get to what that setback is, I'll explain in a moment. But for anyone in the city who wants to do development, new development along this waterway, they are subject to a 100 foot setback. Again, I'll go into more detail, but just at a very high level, this is what we're talking about.

So this code section, 105,020 F1, applies, like I said, that 100 foot setback to all other Streaming Creek corridors and riparian areas as defined in chapter fifteen ten, not specifically listed in section f one of that code section. The setback should be 100 feet measured from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, including the outer edge of canopy of riparian trees and shrubs. So this code section has a number of waterways and water bodies in the city that are measured to a 150 foot setback. Again, that includes some of our reservoirs, rivers, creeks, a combination of all of those. This is not or this portion of Dry Creek 1 is not listed in that subsection as one of those 150 foot buffered waterways.

So that's how we come to the application of the 100 foot setback. So anybody who, like I said, has a property within that 100 foot setback, they are not allowed to build the following within that setback. So those are all buildings and structures, including accessory buildings and structures, fences and walls, streets, access drives, parking areas, outdoor storage. Basically, anything you can associate with development is not permitted within that 100 foot setback area without a variance. So how do we obtain relief and get that variance?

So the way this works is a little nontraditional from your regular standard variance process. In this case, city council is the deciding body. Planning and commission is a recommending body, and they, the council, may reduce setbacks if it is determined that the setbacks are greater than necessary to protect stream and creek corridors, riparian areas, and wetlands. So, basically, it's up to the council to determine and up to you all to make the recommendation of that determination whether it is necessary for a setback to be in place to still protect that Streaming Creek corridor or riparian area, wetland area. So zooming in just a little bit farther, the property in question is 2475 Bent Way, which is currently vacant.

It's south of the residences at Alta Vita, and the residences at Alta Vita are the applying entity looking to expand what is their memory center and independent living center to the North. So more additional senior housing. The property is bound by Fordham Street on the West and Dry Creek Drive on the East. Bentway to the North and the actual Dry Creek corridor, and there's a Greenway bike trail there as well, to the South. The property is just shy of 17 acres.

It's part of the Saint Brains Center annexation. It zoned a combination of regional center on the East Side and multifamily on the West Side, and the comprehensive plan designates each as the same. Right now, the property is being used for agricultural purposes. It's a greenfield, and so we are going from greenfield to infill development. So I just want to be super clear, so bear with me.

Like I said, Alta Vita Senior Residence is the existing assisted living facility across Bentway to the North. We are right now reviewing just their variance application, not their full site plan, not their fully engineered drawings. This application is just to evaluate the riparian setback variance. All of the conceptual plans that the applicant has provided is what staff have used to come to the determinations that we have through this review process, and anything that is approved, if this variance is approved, would be subject to application to that future site plan if when it comes in. Does that make sense to everybody?

Okay. Okay, so the applicant is going to go into full detail on what they are requesting, but I'm just gonna give a very quick overview of what we're talking about on the property specifically. You may wanna look just at your screens because this is teeny tiny for me. Right now, the property is bound by the red lines. The solid yellow line is the riparian habitat edge, so that goes all along Dry Creek to the south.

The dashed yellow line is the 100 foot riparian setback, so you can see what is proposed with a conceptual future development within that setback area. And basically what the applicant is asking for is relief from that setback all the way to the edge of the sidewalk. Again, they'll go into more detail about their specific request and what impacts there may be from that, but this is just a high level. This is what we're talking about. So there is a different set of review criteria from your traditional variants as part of this application.

Those criteria are listed on the screen. I am going to go into very specific detail about the first one of these, which is highlighted in yellow, and I'll explain why in a minute. But I do want to point out, we did give everyone on the commission a printed copy of the slideshow. I'm going to go through a whole bunch of stuff here in a minute, and I just would appreciate if you would write any questions or notes down on that as we go along. Hold your questions till the end in discussion.

That way I can just slam through this as quickly as I possibly can. So again, the first of the review criteria in section 1,105,020 F5 mandates that a development has satisfactorily completed a sustainability evaluation system worksheet. So what is that? Basically it's an Excel spreadsheet. It's used as a tool for both staff and the applicant to evaluate impacts to ecological health and the natural environment as part of a proposal for a variance.

It is additionally designed to allow the applicant to explain methods of mitigation from any anticipated impacts, provide analysis and context into site design choices that may contribute to ecological health and sustainability on a site, and any of those impacts or benefits to adjacent riparian habitat. So the way this works is that the applicant completes this evaluation for themselves, and as part of the staff review, we also complete the evaluation and then we compare our scores at the end. The worksheet applies an individual score to 17 different categories. We're going to spend some time getting into each of those in a moment. For the staff version of the analysis, we included representation from planning and development services, parks and natural resources, public works and sustainability, so input from quite a variety of different groups.

The applicant has their own group that did the exact same thing to provide their analysis. Before we go in, I just want to note a couple of things. In the spreadsheet itself, not every category applies to every project. So what I mean by that is each application is evaluated against the SES with the consideration of each individual site's context. So any given site is eligible for its own given score.

A site on parcel one could get a completely different score from its next door neighbor on Parcel 2. And basically it's just the context of each individual site that amounts to that score. A couple of other things just because a project gets a positive score in the SES that does not mandate or guarantee approval. And just because a project gets a negative score in the SES, that does not mandate or guarantee denial, meaning you do not need to base your decision to recommend in this application based on the score itself. This is just part of the context that you can use to come to your final decision.

So up on the screen, and again, I do apologize this is so very small, but this is just a quick example of what a column in the spreadsheet looks like or what a row in the spreadsheet looks like. So you've got your over on the left side, you've got the category. In this example, it's aquatic habitat. You've got the code section that we are basing our evaluation on. You've got the way that the category can be scored.

So in this example, it can go from minus one to one. In this column you get the score that was assessed and in this column you get any basically correspondence about why we got to that score. So this is what the spreadsheet looks like, A copy of both the staff spreadsheet and the applicant spreadsheet were provided in the project attachments. We can use those to go over some of our feedback if you have questions later on the road, but for now that's just kind of what it is and what it looks like. I am now going to go down through each of the categories to kind of talk about how the staff specifically got to our score.

I will try to go through some of the ones where the staff and the applicant meet the same score as quickly as possible. And if you have questions about that, we'll get to that in the end. I'm going to try to focus the majority of my discussion here on ones that we did not score the same. So we're going to start at the very top, which again is this aquatic habitat category. The biological characteristics, quality and hydrologic integrity of surface water and groundwater that support habitat in the riparian area.

Protecting and restoring aquatic habitat helps maintain critical ecosystems in the riparian area. So in this category, we can score from a minus one indicating that aquatic habitat is impaired or damaged, to zero, aquatic habitat is maintained, or one, we restore or improve aquatic habitat with the proposed development. The applicant in this category scored zero indicating that existing habitat is maintained. Again, with all of these, the applicant will have the opportunity to come up and explain their score. So I'm going to kind of try to breeze through those.

But staff on this one, we scored a minus one and that's simply because points are not awarded in this category for improvements added based on storm water. Points for those improvements are considered elsewhere in the document, so we can't give points for just stormwater improvements specifically in this category. We've still evaluated the whole site and identified a net negative impact with the addition of engineered urban environment. Basically adding any urban area within the scope of the riparian setback is anticipated to have some level of negative impact on aquatic habitat. So we went with a minus one here.

Again, this is just one example of staff and applicant have different scores. For all of these through the presentation. I'll have a little does not equal sign for those ones, so keep your eye out for that. And hopefully that'll help us be able to find these later on when we come back. The next category, wildlife and habitat, non aquatic wildlife species and biological and physical features in the riparian areas that support them.

This category is rated for minus one, again impairing or damaging existing habitat zero, maintaining existing habitat one, restoring or improving habitat. Staff and the applicant both scored one in this category. The staff reaction is we reviewed the application materials and they indicate that habitat will be restored and improved to some degree within the riparian setback area, specifically focusing on the removal of noxious trees and the addition of native plantings and seeding along the landscape section between the high watermark and the bike path. That's a noted improvement for us, so we agree with the applicant the score is one. The next category is waterway water quality.

Improvement of existing surface water and groundwater quality, not stormwater runoff, in the riparian area will help meet adopted stream standards and designated uses. So a minus two in this section violates adopted stream standards. A minus one adversely affects water quality in some way. Zero maintains current conditions. One improves water quality.

And two improves water quality for listed impaired waterways. So this is an example of a category where a score of two is not available to the applicant because this is not an impaired waterway. So for both the applicant and staff in this category, we came to a score of zero. We identified that the proposal will maintain current wastewater quality standards on the site, and we will move along. Okay.

Up next is pollution source reduction, control of the use, production, or discharge of chemicals, organic matter, sediment, and other pollutants from entering the environment. Minimizing or eliminating contaminants at the source protect soils, groundwater, and surface water in the riparian area, supports downstream beneficial uses, ecological air, and animal and human health. This one can be rated from a minus two. Pollutants currently exist that could be released into the surface or groundwater that have not been mitigated Minus one pollutants exist that could be released that have been mitigated. Zero maintains existing current conditions.

One reduces existing pollutants at the source and two improves water quality for impaired waterways. Again in this situation a two is not available. The applicant scored minus one acknowledging that pollutants may be introduced to the surface and groundwater. Staff agree. With any new development, any variety of pollutants could be released into the riparian setback area from the parking lot or anywhere else in the development.

In our discussions it was considerations like fuel or oil leaks from vehicles, landscape equipment, the use of pesticides on landscaping, fertilizer for landscaping, and then your routine pet waste and trash. We identified elements of mitigation proposed on the site, so we were able to avoid a minus two, but we agree on a minus one. Okay. Up next is storm water management under one acre. I'm not going to read all this to you because the site is over one acre, so we do not consider this category for any points.

Staff and applicants agree there. The storm water management over one acre category. Control of treatment of stormwater runoff reduces pollutant loading, protects water quality and improves conditions for in stream aquatic life in the riparian area. So this category can be rated from zero which meets basic stormwater management requirements. We don't have a negative score here because we're not going to approve a project that does not meet those standards.

Zero or a one, which includes distributed rain gardens where stormwater infiltrates all applicable runoff. We agreed with the applicant on a score of one for this category. Storm water management details were added. There is rain garden usage in the concept plan. We will expect to see that with the site plan.

And again we agree on a score of one here. The next category is floodplain protection, the preservation of the function and integrity of floodplains to minimize flood related events. This category can be rated from minus one which only elevates improvements to zero which meets code requirements to one, no new structures in the floodplain to two, no new structures in the floodplain existing or new. So the applicant gave themselves a score of two in this category citing that all structures will be located outside the one hundred year floodplain. Staff scored one in this category, so there is a difference.

While we agree that there are no new structures within the one hundred year floodplain, there aren't any structures being removed out of it as part of the proposal. So we did not believe that the application was eligible for a score of two on this one just based on that criteria. Okay, next is ecological connectivity within the riparian area. Preservation and protection of ecological buffer zones limiting fragmentation of riparian areas. So this is scored from minus two which we see severance in existing connectivity within the riparian area, minus one degrading or decreasing existing connectivity within the riparian area, zero maintains existing connectivity, and one enhances or creates connectivity.

The applicant scored zero indicating that the proposal will maintain existing connectivity. Staff scored minus one concluding that the proposal degrades or decreases existing connectivity within the riparian area that already exists. So right now animals have full use. Any type of ecology has full use of that corridor. Staff's opinion is that even if there is not severance in the existing connectivity, we're not building something all the way through the center the creek necessarily.

There is some level of degradation or decrease with the addition of any new structures, parking areas, etc. So that's why we settled in a minus one for this category. Next is the tree canopy, management and protection of trees in the riparian area. Both the staff and the applicant scored two, which was the highest score in this category, agreeing that a reduction in invasive trees along with the addition of native riparian trees to the southern portion of the site will result in a full improvement enhancement of the tree canopy specifically within the riparian area. So agreement on this one with a score of two.

Up next is transit and access to it. I'm gonna go ahead and just skip ahead again. Both staff and the applicant agreed on a score of two in this category as well. The proposal provides connections from the proposed development to the Dry Creek Greenway and is within a quarter mile of existing bus stops. It's eligible for the full two points.

Up next is parking. Reducing parking areas reduces storm water runoff into the streams and wetlands within the riparian area, provides for the more efficient use of land. This is another one where staff and the applicant agree on the highest score, which is one. Parking information was provided by the applicant on the conceptual plan. It shows that the maximum number of allowed spaces to be provided is less than the total maximum.

So we agree with that score. The next category is ambient light, minimizing light pollution, excessive lighting, and glare. This one can be scored from minus one, which would require a variance to the lighting standards. Zero meets code and one does not allow any light trespass into the riparian setback. And two, there's motion activated lighting and no trespass. Staff and the applicant agreed based on what was submitted on a score of zero. Our expectation as a staff with a site plan review will be that the current code standards are met with the submittal. And so they're not gaining anything. There's no higher score that they're eligible for. An applicant agree they're gonna meet the code.

The next category is daytime noise levels. Reducing or mitigating noise helps protect public health and the environment within riparian area. This again can be rated from a minus one, which would require a variance to the standards. A zero would meet code and a one would minimize noise impacts within the riparian setback. Staff and the applicant agreed on a score of zero.

We don't anticipate requiring a variance or exception for noise standards for the proposed use, which again is a senior housing facility. However, not enough information was provided by the applicant to score anything higher. Again, we agree on this one. For nighttime noise levels, which is the exact same category except for at nighttime, the applicant scored one, citing that there's already existing ambient noise in the area. The anticipated minimal noise impact from the proposed use at night is low.

Staff gave a zero. Again, we did not have enough evidence or information to provide a score higher than zero on this one. We didn't look at any kind of noise control plan, acoustic analysis, research, anything like that. So while again we agree that a senior housing facility is not anticipated to have some significant noise impact on the riparian corridor, we don't have enough information to score higher in this category. So that's why we settled on zero. Okay. I'm almost done. Bear with me. Vegetation. Protection or preservation of existing vegetation in soils and the use of vegetation that is native or suited to local conditions improves the riparian areas and protects the watershed.

Appropriate vegetation supports ecological balance within the riparian area and can reduce maintenance costs. This one can be scored from minus one. Native vegetation is removed. Zero. Native vegetation within the setback is maintained. Or one. Native vegetation within the setback is enhanced. And we agreed with the applicant on a score of one. There are noxious trees and other weeds being slated for removal and the landscape plan that was provided indicates that native trees, shrubs, and pollinator friendly plantings will be established at the recommendation of a professional ecologist. We'll see native tree and shrub coverage increase.

And it is anticipated that native vegetation within the setback will be enhanced as well. So agreed on a score of one on that category. 16, heat island effect. Pavement structures or materials that increase heat retention. Urban temperatures can be reduced through the use of options like light colored pavement or roofs or green roofs.

Reducing heat island effect protects native species within the creek or stream and riparian area that may be sensitive to higher temperatures. This one can be scored from minus one. No use of shading or light colored surface materials. Dark materials are maintained for impervious surface areas to zero, maintaining existing conditions to one, light colored surface materials are used, shading is incorporated and two, the best thing you can do is install a cool roof. The applicant scored zero noting reductions in the area of exposed asphalt as a result of below ground and covered parking as well as additional shading within the riparian setback.

So that claim is in the direction of you know, there's a net zero outcome with what they're proposing. We scored a minus one. Elements to specifically offset heat island effects like the cool living rooms, light colored materials, and everything listed on the previous page are not shown in any concept plan with the submittal. We've determined that the criteria to obtain a score higher than a negative one have not been met. So with more information maybe we could get there but we don't have that information with the submittal.

So we settled on a minus one. Last but not least, infill or redevelopment, redevelopment of underutilized land or development of pockets of undeveloped land surrounded by existing development, promote the use of existing infrastructure. We both settled on a score of zero for this one. This is an infill site. It meets the criteria and so we agree on that.

So with that long, long analysis, the applicant's final score was 10 in their spreadsheet. The staff final score was five. So again, there are some differences. We can talk through those in the discussion portion but that's what we came to through that SES process. I'm going to quickly touch again on the specific review criteria for this project.

This is in that species and habitat protection section of the code. The applicant will speak specifically to how these criteria are met. They will also speak specifically to how the standard review criteria for all application types are met. I just wanted to highlight that they did comply with the sustainability evaluation system and they would be required to mitigate any impacts of development as conditioned or approved through this process. Some nuts and bolts.

No neighbor input was submitted during the neighborhood meeting, notice of application or leading up to this public hearing, so I have nothing to share on that. With that, you have the following options to make your decision. You can recommend approval of the residences at AltaVita, Riparian and Setback Variance. You can recommend approval with conditions or you can recommend denial. The difference between this application and your standard regular run of the mill variance is that in this situation planning staff, DRC staff do not provide a formal recommendation.

So we're not taking aside. We're just giving you the feedback that we have through our SES. So again, the sustainability evaluation is the tool that you can use to consider staff's feedback for your recommendation. And that is the end of my long presentation. Thank you for bearing with me. I will turn it over now to the Updates team.

Thank you, player and blade, Zach. And now the developers team, please come up, introduce yourselves, speak away.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I'm Don Macie of Macie Development Company. Let me get another slide up here. Oh, I can run this now. Here's our project team.

It consists of our family, which is my son Parker and daughter Sloan behind me, Heather Houston, and Catherine Barthel with Birch Ecology, and Joel Paz, who's our, civil engineer from from, Rocky Ridge civil engineering. I would like to give you some more background on what we've done here, what we plan to do, and, kinda what the situation is presently. If I can run this. Our family's been here a hundred years, and we've owned this property sixty four years. And to outline the the the original property, it goes along Nelson Road, down Hover Road to what is that drive down there?

Anyway, and then back up Fordham Street, which was about 200 acres. And we annexed this in the early 1980s and started mostly on the retail development along Hover Street, most of which we still own and operate, including the King Superstore, which is this one here, the big one, which most of you are probably familiar with. There's a series of banks and restaurants and other things like that in there. We developed the legacy apartments in the which is 436 units here in, let's see, in the late nineteen nineties, early two thousands. And and and and the the the parcels here on the South, except for where Kohl's is and the retail, that was sold to Kenny Pratt, and he basically did his warehouse type projects down there.

The last parcel we have is what we call Parcel G of Saint Francis Center, which is up here down Bentway, back down Dry Creek Drive, along the creek back, and over to Fordham Street. In 2008, we had the idea of doing senior housing there. We felt there was a market for it here in Longmont. So we had a master plan prepared. This is the original master plan from 2008.

And the north part of this has been developed. Right there, we have our Aldovita memory care center. Next to it, we have the Aldovita assisted living center. And here, we have the all dependent Oliveira independent living center. All three of these, we own and operate.

So we have decided to start on on on the rest of this parcel, And then we ran into this riparian easement or setback that had been put on the property that wasn't there when we did our original master plan. What we would like to do let me show you this next one. Our independent living parcel right here is currently a 100% occupied, and we have 76 people on the waiting list. So we'd like to do another independent facility, which also helps the other two facilities as well. So we have that plan on this Easterly parcel.

And we have we have spent some time doing a preliminary site plan on this site. We we also have some preliminary site plans on these sites. Those three tracks and what we intend to do there is more lower level housing. It would not have commercial kitchens and offer meals and things like that. People would be on their own, but would be rentals for seniors.

And there'd be a little clubhouse and maybe a pickleball court and that type of thing. But as you can see from this exhibit that if you follow this dotted yellow line where the current riparian setback is, it substantially restricts what we can do on that parcel. And it really almost eliminates the development on certain areas, toward the west end over here where it's higher in terms of proposed development. So that's why we're asking for this. We'd like to see the riparian setback reduced down to the north edge of the bike path.

The bike path was put in there, oh, eight or ten years ago in conjunction with the Platte River Power Authority, which we let them come through there to do a backup to their substation. And there's a huge power line underneath that bike path. And they have a 15 foot easement in there as well. Well, that kind of concludes my presentation on on on the background. I would like to point out that the in in this section of the code, 15 o two zero five o, in regard to variances, it says the purpose and the in applicability of the variance variances are intended to alleviate practical difficulties or hardships arising from the strict application of the provisions of the chapters of which these apply to specific property.

Variances address extraordinary, exceptional, or unique situations that were not caused by the applicant's act or omission, and we feel this applies to us and that the variance should be granted. That's all I have. If you have any questions, I can take them now or later, whichever you'd like. Mr. Massey,

hopefully my microphone is on. Is there more presentation that your team is going to provide?

Excuse me, I didn't hear what you said.

Is there more presentation that your team is going to

provide Yes, yes.

Think we'll hold off to ask you more questions until your entire presentation is presented.

Okay, fine. Thank you. Next is Heather Houston, the ecologist. Thank you. That goes forward and that goes back.

Oh, that's your phone. Okay. Okay. Good evening. I'm Heather Houston from Birch Ecology. And I'm not only the President and Senior Ecologist of Birch Ecology, but I'm a resident of Longmont. And I've lived in the Renaissance for twenty years. I shop at the King Soopers. I regularly ride on the Greenway Path through the project site. I bank at elevations.

And I know the area well, and I think it makes me uniquely qualified and gives me a unique perspective for evaluating this type of project. Our company was brought on to the team in 2024, and we've prepared some key supporting studies, which I hope you've had the opportunity to review. Maybe you haven't. Zach has reviewed them. Those include the riparian habitat assessment and the setback evaluation memo.

And then also we prepared a cover memo to the variance worksheet, the SES worksheet, and discussed the review criteria in there. We also worked with Joel in Rocky Ridge Civil Engineering to complete the SES variance worksheet. We prepared the conceptual landscape plan, and Joel worked on the concept stormwater conveyance and water quality management plan, which we'd like to share with you. And then also a general ecological resources survey was prepared by Western Environment and Ecology back in 2023. So my presentation is going to be split into four parts.

The first part is the existing and proposed conditions. I want to go into into the habitat value and landscape context, discuss a little more about the existing and proposed conditions within the setback, talk about the conceptual landscape plan and the concept stormwater conveyance and water quality management plan. Then we'll also go into the variance review criteria for a reduction of riparian setback. We'll go through the SES variance worksheet. And because Zach's already gone over it once, hopefully we can go a little farther.

But I think discussing part one and the variance worksheet really just lays the foundation for all the other reviewed criteria and hopefully that part will just flow pretty quickly. And then I'll have a brief conclusion. So I want to start off with the landscape context. This is the Dry Creek Corridor upstream of the project site, and you can see the proposed project at the right side of the slide there. You can see a lot of development in this slide.

And then moving downstream, you see the project site and also the area downstream to the east. East of Hover, there's a concrete lined trapezoidal channel that's more than 1,000 feet long. And these areas are important for considering the landscape context and habitat value and the potential wildlife use, which all factor into the evaluation of potential impacts. And so this is a drone image of this site. We're going to come back to this image.

You can see the Dry Creek corridor on the left hand side there south of the bike path. You see the proposed development area on the right side north of the bike path. You can see the center just south of the creek there, and you can see phase one of Alta Vita north of Bent Way there, and Dry Creek Drive is in the foreground. So this map shows the existing condition and the riparian setback as it exists today. So we mapped the solid yellow line, which is the edge of existing vegetation.

As Zach explained, the yellow dashed line is 100 feet from that. And the magenta areas are areas of Russian olive trees that we mapped, and that is a state listed noxious weed. So I have a few photos to show you the condition on the site. This is part of the riparian corridor that's one of the nicer areas kind of towards the western side. Those are non native willow trees.

They are located on the south side of the creek. Going farther to the east, you can't quite make it out there, but there's a little bridge crossing there at Dry Creek Drive. The trees are mostly on the south side here, and on the left side you see a bank that doesn't have as much vegetation. That's one of the areas we hope to enhance. And then this shows you really the transition that's provided by the bike path with, you know higher quality habitat on the south side and less valuable habitat on the north side.

And then if we skip to the north side of the bike path this is what it actually looks like within those 100 feet. So as an ecologist, you know, this is not providing a lot of high quality habitat value today. This is a view, a panoramic view. You see the creek in the background. Those green plants are alfalfa. There's some nonnative grasses and weeds. Then you see the Max Tech Center in the background. And then there's areas like this that have been disturbed. There's some utilities that have gone through their, you know, past work. And so this is not what we view as a high quality habitat.

There's not cover. There's no trees and shrubs. And so going back to the drone image, now we can see the riparian habitat on the south side. We say this is good habitat for urban adapted species. That means animals that can live in this type of developed environment.

On the North Side we see an area of limited habitat value. And then this red oval shows that one area I pointed out in the photos where we'd like to add more trees and shrubs. Our plan shows more native trees and shrubs on both sides of the bike path. And we think this is an improvement over the existing condition. And so this map shows where we would propose the riparian setback line to be, that blue line right on the north side of the bike path.

And this shows both the lines. And you can see that the area between those two lines doesn't include any areas of native vegetation. It's those lower quality areas bordering the bike path that I showed in those photos. So this is the overlay this overlays the development on that plan and it shows some of the conceptual storm water conveyance and water quality management plan features. We've incorporated rain gardens for water quality.

There's bioswales. We're going to focus on LID design principles. But one of the difficult parts of this is that it's only at a concept stage and we don't really have the grading plan. So obviously there's a lot of details that can't be dialed in yet, but still there's certain things we know we can do. This is an overview of the conceptual landscape plan and this just focuses on the area of the existing 100 foot setback north and south of the bike path.

And zooming in on this, you can see, you know, what's proposed. This is the west side, tracks A and B. We've got pollinator friendly seed mix and shrub and tree plantings. And then when you go towards the middle, track seed, there's more room to work with. We have more trees and shrubs on both sides, pollinator gardens.

If you look at this map, most of what's in that area between the bike path and the yellow dashed line is landscaping. And then going farther to the east with Track D, the same is true. We have a detention pond and rain garden that are going to have native seed mix and tree and shrub plantings. We're putting more trees and shrubs close to the bike path to add more shade there as well. So this plan would include 21 additional native trees and 154 shrubs, so that's 175 trees and shrubs.

And I'll note there's going to be additional tree plantings, you know, both ornamental and native throughout the development once the full landscape plan is developed. That's a future task when the planning gets farther along. But this is areas we know we can think about that are immediately to the bike path. So now I'll go through the review criteria, part two of the talk, for the setback. And as Zach said, that the setback can be reduced if you determine that it's greater than necessary to protect the stream and creek corridors, riparian areas and wetlands.

So the SES variance worksheet, as Zach noted, our original or our submitted revised submittal gave a plus 10 with further explanation in staff review regarding the flood plain protection. We would have scored a plus nine. And I want to say that, you know, as Zach noted, there's 17 categories. We ranked 16 of them. We agreed with staff on 12 out of 16.

And there were just four where we disagreed. But, you know, as Zach had pointed out, this is a new process. Many of the differences I think come from how you interpret the scoring system. It's new to all of us. And also parts of it have to do with how developed the plan is.

And so, you know, the Macy's are asking for this variance kind of upfront to inform future planning of more details of the rest of the development. I'll just go through these now. Aquatic habitat, so as Zach noted, we did have a difference here. We gave it a zero, staff gave minus one. And the staff report says there's a net negative impact from the engineered urban environment draining into the aquatic habitat.

So to me this means water quality impacts. But the rating criteria, it says that no points can be gained for stormwater improvements. So to me, this one's a little bit tricky. It doesn't quite make sense compared to the other criteria because we're thinking of the impacts, but then there's no credit given for mitigation for water quality impacts. So that's one difference, I think, of just how we rated that one.

And it's just it's new. So I think it's important to consider the existing impacts and water quality of the area, what species are present now, and how sensitive are those species given the existing environment around them. And so I would argue that with mitigation of runoff through LID design principles that we would not have a significant adverse impact, and that's why we scored at zero. Wildlife and habitat, we agree on that one that it restores and improves existing habitat. We've discussed reasons why we think that's true.

Waterway water quality, we also agreed on that one. It will maintain existing conditions with proper implementation of the storm water management plan and best management practices to be used during construction. Pollution source reduction, we were confused about this one initially, how to rate it, but staff helped us to understand the scoring better. And we realize now that we're not eligible for a score higher than zero since there aren't existing pollutants, which I think that could be argued depending on which pollutants we're focusing on if on other criteria we're saying there's automatically impacts from urban development in an area that those may already be present and that, you know, this project won't be creating a significant adverse change to what the conditions that exist today. So I bring this up not to argue the outcome but simply to just help all of us figure out how to use this tool and how to interpret the criteria for this project and future projects because this is important.

In the end we lowered our score to minus one because we weren't able to say that 100% of all the runoff everywhere from the development will be treated. And like I said before, we don't have the full grading plan yet and that's too much to promise or say at this point. And that's a goal. But we need to have a grading plan to really be able to adequately rate and confidently say that. Stormwater management, both staff and Birch agree on a zero score for this category.

The project will incorporate LED design principles and will use bioswales and rain gardens to infiltrate runoff. Floodplain protection, we actually lowered our score here once we understood better what the rating was that because there wasn't a building there now we couldn't get it to, so we lowered it to one. It's confusing and we're just learning how this works. On some of them when I first read over this I was asking Zach, you know, wait a minute am I reading the existing condition or the proposed condition or both? You know.

And so they helped us explain. Really were very helpful and we appreciated the guidance. Ecological connectivity. Now this is one, another one we don't agree on, and I think, again, the landscape context really matters and it depends on whether you're viewing this in a theoretical sense or more of an actual sense of the boots on the ground condition. So looking at the landscape setting in the existing condition with a 100 foot setback, it's important to think about which species are present and how sensitive are those species because of what's already there.

What types of animals live in this area? In my view, the important area is the East West movement corridor parallel to the creek on the south side of the bike path. That's where the trees and shrubs provide cover for animals. It's where the water is. It's where they would rather be moving about more than what we saw north of the bike path, right?

It was mowed. There's just like weeds and a little bit of alfalfa and it was very exposed. And so that's not a priority area compared to the area south of the creek. It's not part of a linkage area that's connecting up more important habitats. Just because of the surroundings and also the concrete channel East of Hover, all of that really severs a connection to other areas downstream.

So our plan would not create any new stream crossings that would interrupt the East West corridor. And then additionally, we'll be providing more native trees and shrubs both north and south of the bike path. So we'll be adding riparian vegetation that does not exist today, increasing the cover of the and the vegetation buffer between the proposed development and the creek. And so in many ways you could argue that we could be improving connectivity, but we conservatively rated this as a zero, meaning that we maintain existing connectivity and staff says minus one because you're building anything at all within the 100 feet that inherently has an impact. And so I think again that's just think viewing it in a more theoretical sense and viewing it in a more practical sense kind of comes at that difference.

So next one is tree canopy. We agree we'll improve and enhance the tree canopy with the proposed plantings. Transit, this one is very easy. It's less than 500 feet from the bus stop. There's going to be good pedestrian connections for seniors that would go to the shopping center to the east, the park on the west side, the bike path.

Parking, we've already it's shown yellow there because our score was raised from the first round. We are providing less than the minimum or the maximum number of allowable parking spaces. Ambient light, Zach explained this one well. You know, we don't have a developed lighting plan yet. We know we're going to meet the code.

There's strict limits because of the proximity to the airport as well. Daytime noise levels, it's pretty quiet over there, but we figured, you know, we'll give them a zero on this one because there could be a noisy delivery truck during the day. Nighttime, we disagree on. I understand what Zach said, we didn't provide proof, like a sound study or anything like that. I'm just kind of using logic and personal experience from having ridden my bike.

I ride my bike, my cruiser bike to dinner on that bike path and sometimes when I'm coming home, you know, we go by there and I was thinking about it was like chuckling, like they're not having parties out there. It's quiet. And so I also think that it's relevant to consider the existing ambient noise environment. I went over there two nights ago. You know, standing there you can hear the traffic on Hover. You can hear motorcycles racing on the Diagonal Highway. You can hear Dry Creek. I mean, these are busy roads. And so if there were really sensitive species to this noise, they're already not there. There's industrial fans at the Max Tech Center that seem to run all the time.

So there's sounds already. And, you know, for us the existing or the future proposed senior living is not going to create a significant adverse impact on the noise environment changing it in any real way. We went over there. You can get a decibel meter app on your phone. We went over there and said, okay, let's measure this to show how quiet the existing facility is.

And you couldn't really get a reading that just measured that because what you hear is the traffic and other sounds around the area. So I don't know if this will work well. Maybe this will work. This was a video that I don't think it's That goes back and forth. I don't know if this is going to play.

But if I played this for you, you would hear and it was just chance too because this was the first video I took. But you would hear a motorcycle in the background and then you hear a finch singing and then you don't really hear anything else. It's like a ghost town over there at night. Oh, now it is playing, but there's no sound, which was the important part. But you can see no parties and it's quiet. Yeah. So and then that's panning around. That's the proposed development area and the creek in the background. Okay. So you can take my word for it on the noise.

But I think it's not too much of a stretch on that without having acoustic studies. Vegetation, we agree on. We're going to improve the conditions, enhance it with the plantings, controlling the noxious weeds. Heat island effect, we scored zero for like the net change, but I understand, like Zach said, we don't have a full landscape plan yet that would show where tree plantings may be around the parking lot. We did make the point that, you know, some of the parking has been moved into covered garages.

There's parking below living spaces, and so that reduces the area of surface lots. And we're going to add trees and shrubs for shading that don't exist today. So we were kind of taking that as a net change of zero. But since we don't have the full landscape plan, you know, I understand why there's a difference on that one. But that's just where that came from.

Infill or redevelopment, we agree on this one, surrounded by existing developments, existing agricultural use. So staff score plus five. Zach's report says that was a very good score, so we were pleased with that. And BERT score plus nine, that's with the one point I lowered from that flood plain thing once I understood it better. So I know that's a lot.

I'm hoping that just lays the groundwork for all these other things we can kind of breeze through why we rated things the way we did. So the second criterion is the project is designed to preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the impacts of the development. So here again, this is where I say the landscape context matters. You know, what is there? The existing, what's the surrounding environment?

So native habitat is limited to the creek corridor south of the bike path. The surrounding developments in the concrete lined channel downstream of Hover reduce the wildlife habitat value and use of the site in the existing condition. And because of this, it supports primarily urban adapted species which can coexist with humans in developed areas. And the proposed landscape improvements would widen the riparian corridor and increase the cover of native tree shrubs and herbaceous plants both north and south of the bike path. And this represents an improvement over the existing condition with increased cover, shade, and habitat for pollinators.

So we feel like we're meeting this one. Three, the project is designed to preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats and features. So I spoke of this in detail in regards to the SCS worksheet. The landscape context matters. What habitats are being connected? What species are there? What's the existing condition within those 100 feet? The East West Movement Corridor is the important area, and that's along Dry Creek south of the bike path. And that's going to be preserved and enhanced by managing noxious weeds and by additional native plantings. And there will be no new stream crossings intervening that East West Corridor, which is important.

But also remember that area is already chopped up. Right? There's already roads on two ends of it. So what is it connecting to? The proposed plantings north and south of the bike path will help to buffer the riparian habitat of the creek from the development area.

And that's, you know, that's a true statement. So for the species that do live and use in this area, we'll be making it better by what we're proposing to do with these plantings. So given the mode condition and lack of woody vegetation north and south of the bike path, these plantings represent an improvement and would create a more protected movement corridor. And I already said this last point considering the species that use the area. It's not going to degrade habitat connectivity between natural habitats and features.

Four, the project is designed to preserve desirable and significant trees. There are none in the development area. We're not going to disturb any desirable or significant trees. There's no areas of native vegetation within that reduced setback area or the development area. Five, the project is designed to mitigate adverse impacts by protecting species habitat features such as but not limited to, and it lists a whole bunch of important things there.

The development area north of the bike path does not have any of these high listed high value wildlife habitat features. There's no raptor nests, there's no, you know, feeding areas, wintering areas, you know, it's alfalfa in weeds that gets mowed. There's development all around it. Six, the project is designed to integrate with and otherwise preserve existing site topography. There's going to be minimal change to the existing site topography.

It was already leveled out many years ago when it became an agricultural field to grow alfalfa. Alfalfa. Seven, the development mitigates a modified setback standard by providing higher quality, more desirable wildlife habitat enhancements along the corridor. I think, you know, we can say this is true. As mitigation further reduced setback, the riparian habitat south of the bike path will be enhanced through the removal of Russian olive trees and other noxious weeds, and additional native trees and shrubs will be planted to increase Additionally, outside the existing riparian corridor, the upland habitats both north and south of the bike path will be enhanced by planting additional native tree shrubs and pollinator friendly wildflowers between the development area and the creek.

So we meet this one as well. And then finally, the standard review criteria. The application is consistent with the comp plan and purpose of the code and zoning district, conforms to any previously approved concept plan, preliminary plat or PUD overall development plan and complies with all applicable statutes, codes and ordinances and regulations. So the proposed residence at Alta Vita is consistent with a comprehensive plan and would be an expansion of an existing development. The conceptual master plan developed in 2008, which Don showed on his slides, shows the intent to develop senior housing extending south into the 100 foot setback, which didn't exist at the time.

And the application is consistent with the procedures required for a riparian variant setback request, as Zach noted in his report. Number two, application complies with applicable city standards, including for street and utility design and layout, and adequate utilities are available or will be provided for appropriate urban level services. As the design progresses, the applicant will work with the city during the site plan process to ensure all standards for street and utility design are met. And the staff report notes that adequate utilities are available to support future The application proposes development that's compatible with surrounding properties in terms of land use, site and building layout and design and access. The project is an expansion of an existing development and is compatible with surrounding properties in terms of the land use, site and building layout and design and access.

Four, the application will not affect surrounding properties, the natural environment, existing or planned city transportation or utility services or facilities, or the adverse impacts of the use will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. As we've shown with the riparian assessment and habitat evaluation memo as well as the SES variance worksheet, we demonstrated that the proposed project will not have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The project will improve habitat conditions within the existing 100 foot setback by managing noxious weeds, planting native trees and shrubs and pollinator gardens both north and south of the bike path. And then, of course, the concept storm water conveyance and water quality management plan will incorporate LID design principles with bioswales and rain gardens to protect water quality. And with all of this, there should be no significant adverse impacts on the surrounding properties, existing or planned city transportation projects or utilities as noted in the staff report.

Five, the application where required complies with

the

sustainability evaluation system requirements to mitigate impacts of development within the city's riparian areas and as applicable to other projects as determined by a separate agreement. As we've said, the applicant and staff agree in most areas rated on the SCS worksheet. The staff score was plus five which was noted as a very good score. And as I've said, some aspects are difficult to rate because the project is only at a concept level right now. For example, we don't have the landscape plan for the entire development.

We don't have the grading plan. There's a lot more detail that will be added on stormwater. But additional points could be gained through the final design process. The application includes appropriate transportation plan including multimodal transportation access and it is integrated and connected where appropriate with adjacent development through street connections, sidewalks, trails and similar features. The conceptual master plan shows driveways connected to Bentway on the North.

Additional coordination will occur with staff as the design progresses. The project is less than 500 feet away from the bus stop at Dry Creek Drive and Bentway. And as we've said, seniors would have pedestrian connection to the adjacent shopping center on the East side of Dry Creek Drive and the park west of Fordham Street. So part four, finally. So the conclusion, we will say here the habitat quality and landscape setting are important considerations when evaluating riparian setbacks.

A modification of the stream setback to the north side of the bike path would not exclude any areas of native vegetation. I think it's important to really think about that, like what are we protecting within this area? Due to the surrounding developments, the wildlife that do occur in the area are primarily urban adapted species that can coexist with humans. The proposed landscape improvements will increase the habitat value and expand the width of the riparian corridor over the existing condition. The increased cover of native trees will also shade and cool the bike path.

And the project will comply with all water quality and stormwater regulations. And the concept stormwater conveyance and water quality management plan, as I've said many times, incorporates LID principles to mitigate potential water quality impacts. Our evaluation shows that the setback can be reduced with minimal impacts that can be mitigated. The project can provide needed senior housing while still improving and protecting the functions and values of Dry Creek Number 1. And therefore we're requesting a variance for the riparian setback to be reduced to the north edge of the bike path.

And that's all I have.

Thank you, miss Houston. I'm sure there are likely to be questions, lobbied your or lobbed your way. But this is a public hearing, and the public is now invited to come speak. Seeing none, asking according to secretary Madrid if there are any people signed up. Being none, I will open and close the public invited to be, heard and open the matter up for, the commission to address.

I have a couple of, I guess, legal issues to address first, which is to clarify exactly the role of planning and zoning in this particular project, which is we are recommending body to city council for its determination to grant, a a modification of a riparian setback. I note that, planning and zoning and the natural resources department, are both referring entities here. I don't know if anyone from natural resources is here tonight who might, be able to share with us its view, of this proposal. I'll I'll tender that request out.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Jim Crick, ecosystem manager for Parks and Natural Resources with the city. We played a pretty significant role in helping evaluate, the SES evaluation for this, proposal. And, I guess, really to to get to the point, parks and natural resources staff would recommend that the commission recommends the council to approve the variance with the condition that they are able to, particularly to meet the landscaping plans that they had for the improvements along the riparian corridor south of the bike path. We had a couple of questions on whether that's feasible.

One being adding the vegetation to that area. Is that feasible considering floodplain in in the urban area and making sure that that doesn't widen the floodplain. And the other consideration in question was their ability to actually establish any of the woody vegetation trees and shrubs with irrigation.

Thank you.

My

question for you would be north of the bike path. Did you have any concern about the desert of the fact that there's nothing growing north of that bike path? And is there anything that we might consider that should be added to that area?

No. I I don't think there are any serious consider concerns about that area. I know with the consultants previous presentation that they were getting into some of the more details about the ecology of the area. In scoring in using the scoring system with the SES, it's pretty binary system and purposely so, so that is more objective. So really from staff's perspective in the scoring, really, there is any impact to, particularly like the wildlife corridor, or not, that corridor has significant ecological value or not, we would have to score that as an, a negative impact to that area.

But overall, I would not consider those impacts to be very significant.

Great. In that regard to to the west, there's a park, the name of which is going to escape me right now.

Willow Farm.

Willow Farm. And and then further west, looks like there's green space, a significant amount of green space around Dry Creek Number 1 and then eventually between, I think it's Grand View Meadows Drive and Mountain Drive. This is a 150 foot riparian setback zone suggesting to me that all of that area to the west of this particular property might be prime wildlife habitat corridor. Is that correct?

Yeah. I I think that's a safe assumption to make based off of how we set the a 150 foot setback for that area.

Great. And then when you get to the 16 acre facility, half of which is tightly mown, which used to be an alfalfa field. Is there I've not seen any indication that there was any review of any species that might use that area, even though it is, I think in the words of of miss Houston, highly degraded. Is it used at all? Do we know?

We don't have a necessarily have a data ourselves in the city for wildlife usage in that particular area.

Okay. Thank you very much. I'm gonna shift back to assistant attorney Terrell to ask questions about as I read this variance request, it's an atypical variance. We use the standard set forth in the modifications of stream corridor setbacks as the guiding principles by which we make our recommendation to city council. But city council then needs to consider a plan.

And then we are supposed to make our recommendations to the council based upon our review of both the development plan and this variance request. We don't have and I can't really fault the developer for coming this way, but we don't have any development plans in front of us. They're just seeking a riparian setback. But part of our review is supposed to determine whether or not the development project is going to impact this riparian setback. And we really don't have much of an idea of what this development project looks like. Is that for lack of better term kosher for us to proceed in this manner?

Good evening, chair Height, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Jeremy Terrell, assistant city attorney. It's an excellent question. As our senior environmental planner, mister Blasek, noted, this is the first time we've had such a variance request come through to the planning and zoning commission and will be the first time the city council as well. Looking at the code, there is some and looking specifically at 15O5020 f five, which are the modification of the setback standards.

So the criteria that you're considering in making a variance request, it does use the term development, the project. I I would say, in my opinion, that we can consider reduction of setback based on the information provided. And then to the extent the development presented any information at today or a city council, they have to comply with those conditions going forward. So we we generally require that if a developer comes in, makes certain promises to planning and zoning commission or city council, they're bound by those promises, and that's what we'd say here. So when you saw the conceptual information from the developer in terms of the trees and shrubs that are going into that northern strip above the dry creek but south of the bike path, things like that, Those are all things that I would recommend to the planning and planning and services department to consider when the project is going forward, making sure that complies.

If it doesn't comply, then I would think it'd be a request to modify the approved variance, which will come through this whole process again. Does that answer your question?

To a certain extent. Thank you. Those were the initial questions I had. I will turn it over to the rest of the commission and noting that vice chair Poland has rang in, and I'll try to turn his microphone on. I seem to be inept at doing such.

Oh, hold on. Next slide. There we go. There it is.

Okay. I have a question. So this was annexed in what year?

Commissioner Poland, this was annexed in 1987.

1987. And at that time, was there any site plan concept plan that was submitted at that time?

There was a concept plan. It was primarily for senior housing. And it was there was no conceptual plan itself. It showed half of Bentway ending at a cul de sac in the center of the property. And that was the extent.

And then in 2008, they submitted a new concept plan. I mean, was that actually submitted the one that they show where there is actually looks like tracks a, b, c, and d actually had building set for that?

That plan was approved under the preliminary plat in 2008.

2008. So my question to you, Jeremy. That came before we had this riparian setback in our code. How does that work? We the the city approved a concept plan. We come through. We make something new to the code. What happens to the concept plan that had been approved?

So vice chair Polans, excellent question. The concept plan from my perspective and the site plan are still approved. However, when we're talking about the setback requirement, that applies to any new development coming in. So just because you have a concept plan and a was it they're primarily plat approved doesn't mean that you can start building. We certainly still have additional processes that have to be approved along the way before you can start construction.

And that's kind of where we're at now is like they're ready to continue with the development process, get ready closer to grading and construction, but because the criteria for the reduced setback has come in that still trumps. It's very similar to how we would handle, for example, like our fee in lieu for affordable housing. Just because you have an improved concept plan in the hopper or apparently a plan in the plot hopper doesn't mean that you get to wiggle away affordable housing increases over the course of, what, forty ish years.

Okay. That was my question.

Thanks. Commissioner Wang?

Thanks. I would like to, I guess, get a baseline here. So the setback we're talking about is pre preventing building structures, fences, like parking lots, anything built within that 100 foot setback, does that preclude the landscape from being altered, such as putting in detention basins or, you know, graveling it over or putting more bike paths? Like, what if that if a setback remains in place, what can be done in that section?

Commissioner Wang, anything that is not specifically named in the section that lists the features subject to the setbacks. So for your example, detention basins are permitted within that setback area. However, any type of, you know, structures, buildings, parking, etcetera, everything listed in that is not permitted. Did I answer your question?

So they could, in theory, rock the whole place over with landscaping rocks?

That is not something that's specifically listed in that section. So I would say, yes, they could. They would be doing so as just part of their private landscaping

Mhmm.

In that situation.

Okay. The okay. And this might be for Don or maybe Heather. I'm not quite sure who would answer this, but it looks like currently the area is mowed. Who maintains the sidewalk? Is it the city or is it the property owner?

Who maintains the sidewalk?

The city.

The city? The back path is maintained by the city?

And Everything below the back path is maintained by the city.

South of this bike path.

We have a tenant farmer that has been taking care of an alfalfa field that they farm. They actively farm.

Okay. So so once if you do this concept landscape plan is approved, anything south of the bike path will still be maintained by the city. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And anything north of that would be maintained by the property owner or or Alta Vita?

Yes. Okay. I'm gonna halt for one second. I think that was Parker Macy?

Yes.

Can you identify yourself for the record, please, sir? Thank you.

Hi. Parker Macy. 1426 Tarrarosa Avenue. Thank you. Thanks.

Thanks. Okay. And then I'm wondering, for the section south of the bike path, how would that be presented? I mean, is it gonna be, like, naturalized then? Or is it gonna be grassed over and mowed? Or, like, do you know exactly what the maintenance plan is?

We had talked about reducing the amount of mowing from the current condition south of the bike path. I think that obviously needs to be a maintenance conversation with the city. There are some areas where willows are trying to grow, sandbar willow shrubs that are mowed down. Some of the mowed areas have a bunch of Russian olive suckers. Mowing is helpful for weed control, but our hope would be to be more proactive and try to give some stewardship to some of this to promote better conditions, you know, as part of the mitigation.

Okay. So I'm assuming that section south of the bike path will not be irrigated then?

Well, what I had discussed with Dawn is that we'll need to provide some supplemental water when those trees and shrubs go in to help them in the early establishment phase. It's going to involve field fitting. And so as an ecologist, going out there and looking at the slope of the land, hey, there's this little low area or, you know, it's not like a normal landscape where you draw a circle with a dot and you plant in that place. You kind of look at exactly in the ground where are little micro sites with differences in soil moisture that can support those plants. Generally when you buy plants from a nursery, they've got a big top and a little bottom because that's how they get sold.

And so they don't have a lot of root system. And so they need supplemental water for the first couple of years. And that could be as simple as, you know, a water truck just, you know, giving them a little shot of water on an as needed basis. You know, a cottonwood tree can certainly grow there without extra water once it gets established. But if you plant it in a place that it doesn't need help in the beginning, it's probably going to be too wet over the long term. So I'm a plant nerd and I help with kind of field fitting those things, and that's kind of what we discussed. We didn't want to put in pipes on the south side of the path.

Okay.

And then some of the areas that are more dry, like closer to the path, we're suggesting things like rabbit brush that don't need much water.

Okay. And then the presentation on the north side of that bike path would be a little bit more different with the native plantings. It'll probably be mowed or I mean grass.

No. I mean we're suggesting we're suggesting trees and shrubs and pollinator gardens and so none of that would get mowed. The detention ponds, I think there's some additional conversation that Joel is having with staff on how those need to be designed and maintained. We've recommended native pollinator plant, you know, seed mix in there. My hope would be that it wouldn't have to be mowed a lot.

It's not going to be like one of those park detention ponds with bluegrass, right? We're hoping to have native trees and shrubs around the sides and then provide some amount of habitat value within what those ponds are. But I think details of the design requirements need to be worked out to make sure, you know, that everything meets code.

Okay. And the other question I have is based on the current conceptual landscaping plan, do you know what the percentage of that setback area, the 100 feet setback area will be covered by building? If it is built out, then, like, what percent of that would be covered by building or other structures and the other left as open?

I haven't calculated that, and I think we don't really know for a 100% sure, but the landscape plan does show like close ups of those areas. You know, if I go back to it, it shows details. And so here's the three details. So this is the westernmost area, tracks a and b. And in this area, I go back, see how the creek path and the the creek and the bike path both pinch up to the north in that area, and so it's a little more squeezed on the west side.

But here you can see, you know, there's pollinator gardens and plantings by that label, you know, before you get to that track day label, and then there's that rain garden, detention pond area, and then more landscaping. And this is the most pinched area. And then this is the middle section, Track C. So almost all of that's landscaping on the North Side. And some of that, you know, there'll be additional ornamental trees and things I'm sure integrated throughout all of that too. But we've put in native shrubs and we've put in pollinator gardens and then a bunch of native trees on the South side. And then when you go to the Farthest East Track D, it's almost all landscaping.

Okay.

And so if you compare it to what's there today, there's going to be a heck of a lot more native plants plants and higher, you know, better vegetation that supports and provides habitat.

Yeah. I was gonna comment, like, looking at this conceptual plan right now, it looks like a lot of the buffer space is is to be remained open or undeveloped, but I just want to know what the percentages would be covered up. Mean

I could easily calculate that. I think also this plan is, you know, it's not the plan, right? It's

But just a ballpark, like if it were to be developed, would, you know, you're asking for variants up to the just north of the bike path. I mean, is your plan to, you know, build everything right up to there or, you know, maybe cover half of that up or a third of it?

Well, that's not my question to answer.

I know. Maybe it's for Don or Yeah. Parker. I don't know.

I didn't do the question.

He's wondering how close do these buildings kind of approximate what you think you'll do? How close they'll be to the bike path? Think Especially going back to these.

Like what percentage of that pool area will be covered up by a building?

Well, we haven't calculated that. The independent living on Track D, that's pretty well set site plan. The others are very preliminary. You have to understand this, the chicken egg process. And we're not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all this design when we have a setback that's going right through a third of the property.

So we can't do this development unless we get the setback down. And so that's kind of what the chicken and egg process is. And this landscape plan that Heather has done is basically just for this setback variance. When we go to develop the properties, well, the city has very strict requirements on landscaping, and there will be a lot more trees and shrubs on all those sites than what this shows.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

You bet. Thank you.

Good. Commissioner Mott?

Okay. I guess my first question is because I noted along with commissioner Wang that a lot of the some of those developments don't really intrude into the setback that much, but except for landscaping. Was there ever a consideration that some of the parcels will be developed with the existing setback? Or is the setback necessary to develop the parcel?

That's what you just said.

Yes. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. And then early in the SCS, there was a consideration of the impacts to the aquatic habitat. And there was a lot of discussion, I believe, from Heather on the existing conditions of some of the habitat, but I didn't really see any existing condition of the aquatic habitat. If I could get some context on that, like, this stream a year round thing? Is it a seasonal stream? Is there existing wildlife in the like, existing aquatic wildlife? Do we have any information on that or any idea of that condition?

Want me to That's the end of the reports that you provided.

Well, I'll say it's a perennial stream. It's a couple of feet wide. I haven't seen any fish in there. There is an irrigation diversion that comes out of it. Let's see if I can go back a little bit.

I don't know if you can see this. There's an irrigation diversion, and you can kinda see this little stripe down here. That's concrete channel that's on the south side of the creek that carries some of that water away. As I mentioned, with the landscape context, having this stuff around it and especially the concrete channel that cuts off, you know, habitat from species moving up and down through there. If it's just this concrete trapezoidal channel that isolates that area and limits the species present.

But I think, you know, staff's presentation and what has been discussed is that just the presence of all this development to begin with inherently affects the water quality and what species are present. And so my argument would be if they're sensitive species, they're already not there because of where this is. And so this is not going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, you know, to use a cliche. It's not going to create a significant adverse impact that like tips the scale. And also we're trying to manage the water quality, both complying with regulations and then also doing these LID principles, trying to infiltrate the water and do better than the old way of doing things.

So the idea with that would be to maintain the existing conditions at a minimum.

Okay, thank you. And then I guess I think this was partially answered but like on the procedural thing. So any conditions or anything we apply today, if they don't meet that, they will come back through the planning zoning board as a modification then. So we can assume that anything they present here, they will be held to. I'm not sure who that question was aimed at best but

It's probably me. Yes. So certainly their presentation is kind of the guiding principles for planning services going forward. So to the extent they're making substantial changes to what they presented here that's going to impact, you know, the criteria and analysis for the variance for their appearing setback, If they want to make a change, they had to come back to this whole process, get a reapprove approval through city council with a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission. Okay.

That doesn't excuse the rest of the review process going forward. This is only about the riparian setback variance request or the modification, however you wanna call it. So it'll still be required to comply with all of our landscaping standards, lighting standards, parking standards, building standards, all of that through the regular planning development services as process as it goes forward.

Okay makes sense thank you.

I also just want to add that that's contingent on council adopting the condition just keep in mind this is the recommending body so council would have to go forward and adopt that condition from the recommendation. Understood.

Okay.

Yes. That's if the rec if we adopt PZR B, the one with conditions with approval, then, yes, that would be counsel making that condition. So in addition to whatever they whatever applicants presented today.

Okay. And from my understanding, was it the sustainability advisory or what was the other recommending body in this case? Natural Resources Department. Natural Resources. They recommended with condition?

Correct.

Okay. Okay. I think that answers my question. Thank you.

Commissioner Boo?

Thank you, chair. I have a couple of questions. The first one being I am not totally convinced that the floodplain does not affect this property. Can somebody convince me of that? Has somebody done an overlay of that? Considering the news that we've had in the last couple of weeks, I'm pretty sensitive to that question.

I'm Joel Paz with Rocky Ridge Sill Engineering. And so your question is that the floodplain is not affected by the proposed development.

Is any of this project in the floodplain?

Yes. There is a portion of it. Do you know where the slide that would show the the floodplain. I know we've got one. I just start scrolling.

I tried to do a little bit of an overlay, and it seems like maybe part of it is in the floodplain. And that would

a slide with the proposed development plan. Maybe it's on the one that Don showed, like, the third or fourth. Go back.

So go

back. Yeah. Oh, there you go.

There you go.

Is it on that one?

Yeah. So it's a is there a way to zoom in on this? Do we know? If not, it's the

the purple

Let's try this.

Or magenta dashed line there.

Yep. Yeah. Red one.

Purple. Nope. It didn't work.

Oh, it's okay. I can kind of hover the mouse over it. Yeah.

Yeah. There you go.

So it's kinda right in here. You can see the purple dash line. And so it's it's a little bit north of the the sidewalk here, but it is on a portion of the development. And so we're not allowed to have any structures within that floodplain without going through a Lomar Clomar process, which we're not proposing to do. So there's, you know, basically it's just gonna be landscaping and maybe some couple sidewalk connections within that floodplain.

Yeah. It seems to get really close down at the west end.

Yeah, the west end it gets it kind of comes down closer to the walk there and without zooming in it's hard to show. But there are some structures that do get closer but as long as they're outside, as long as they don't cross over into it, that's allowed and that's typical on any other development. So that portion is no different. It's kind of separate from the repairing setback. It's a separate item that we have to abide by.

Right. And I know that's not part of this discussion tonight,

but Mhmm.

It should be, in my opinion. Okay. Let's see. So the riparian setback requirements were put into the city code. What year was that?

Commissioner Boone, that was in 2019.

Okay. That's what I thought. So much later than the concept plan that we initially saw and was initially approved. I'm probably misusing this term legally, but it's almost like a taking to have to comply with such a strict Ruparian setback after the fact. If if we were to approve this, I would feel a lot more comfortable if rather than the north side of the bike path were we were to consider something, I don't know, five feet north of the path or something like that, that would for sure get us out of the floodplain.

Would get us out of the floodplain. And the second thing is if we approve the variance tonight, I think we definitely need to have a condition that the decision is based on even conceptual landscaping that we saw tonight. We can't just give a free rein of wherever that line happens to be without the condition of the added landscaping. Because it was all of this added landscaping that was put into the worksheets to raise the score. And so without all of that landscaping, that long exercise means nothing.

So I think that needs to be specifically put in any kind of variance that we might grant tonight. That's all I've got for right now. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you for everyone being here. I wanted to start off with the positives. The positives for me are sixty four years here in City Of Longmont. Think that's a wonderful thing. My family's been in Boulder County for almost that time as well. I think that is a positive for me. Positive also for bringing two ecologists on on this project. I think that is also a positive.

I do think that the buffer is a positive. I think it's moving in the right direction for ecological conservation in the city as we are doing more infill now. Take that as you will. Where are my other positives? I think it was thoughtful with the landscape plan. I did have a couple of questions before, I guess, I go into my negatives. Mister Belzak? Was that close? Blazik? Thank you.

This new system of scoring is in my positive and negative. This is the first time we've used this scoring? Yes. No. Commissioner Saunders, that's correct.

Okay. So there's some feedback, I am really thankful for Heather, if I may use your first name for giving such strong and thoughtful feedback about that process. I think we hopefully have learned some things going through this process. One of my feedbacks were that some of the the if there's not a plan put forth, like for the lighting, the noise, noise daytime, noise nighttime, maybe that should be more in the negative numbers rather than just a straight zero that it didn't change anything. I can see, so I teach and I can see where students would just not turn in something and still get, they'd still pass.

Do you know what I'm saying? So if you don't submit something, and I'm not saying just for this case, I'm just saying going forward that it could be helpful for folks to not just get sort of a free pass on not submitting maybe lighting plan or vegetation plan. I think that just giving a zero feels like a pass. I do appreciate Heather's, what do you call that, anecdotal experience of being on the site with the video. I think that's helpful even though we couldn't hear.

I think she makes some good points about hearing that ambient noise from the street. I do disagree that the night noise might be the same across the street with this new proposal. I think that nighttime noise and nighttime lighting is gonna be significantly higher, especially so close to the riparian edge on this tract a. So I'm not in alignment with that. I am also thinking with that scoring that they should be weighted per typology.

So if this is a riparian variance, categories that are more focused on riparian typologies like the aquatic habitat, pollution source reduction, ecological connectivity, heat island effect maybe are weighted higher. I've worked on some other evaluations with the city and some of those areas can be weighted more significantly than others. I know on some of them where you can't get to because it's not applicable, maybe a weighting system could be a little bit helpful for specific typologies typologies going forward. So those are my 2¢ on the scoring system. I think that that's really important going forward that we have this more objective sort of system in looking at this variance.

So I wanted to put my two cents on that, and it was helpful to have. So I'm glad that you guys are are doing that, and I appreciate Heather being sort of the test pilot going through that because it is tricky, and especially with that teeny tiny baby font. That was very, very challenging to go through. And then once you've got there, like some of it is, it's broad broad questions. But I I get that it's that it's new. So I appreciate you all working on that. So planner, bell sack, and Blazic.

Blazic, you got it.

I'm doing that wrong. Blazic. So you put in our packet that it was a strong score at five. So I'm curious how that came about if this is the first time.

I'd be happy to elaborate on that. In the context of this site, I think we can all agree that the applicant did leave available points on the board by either not providing certain information or, you know, not meeting a certain standard. Like, for example, a green roof wasn't shown. Right? So they don't gain that additional point.

I would say that there are less points available to them in this project with their current application, than there are points that they could lose. Does that make sense? I think that through going through the process, five is a score that I mean, I don't wanna take a stance and say, this is a really good score. This is a really bad score. It is not bad.

Compared to?

So the only thing that we really have to compare scores to is back when this process was being developed, there were previously approved variances within the riparian setback that we went back and tested the actual procedure on.

Interesting.

What I would caution you, again, kind of like I mentioned in my presentation, is that every project is different, right? So I do not want to make an apples to apples comparison between a project that scored something similar or different to have you make your decision, right? You have to make your decision based on just the feedback that we've given on this application. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And that's, I think, why I'm bringing it up because that valuation of the word strong score sort of sways me a little bit because I don't have any other context of this evaluation system. So when you say it's a strong score, I'm trying to figure out what is that in comparison to of other projects.

So

that's why I'm saying that strong score sort of

And I don't want you to take

it that way,

if you will.

So It's more that there weren't very many more points available for them to score going through the process.

But there were still points. They could have gotten what you just said. Sure. Okay. Okay. I'm trying to see if I have any other questions for you. Okay. I don't have any questions for you right this second, but I did want to circle back to the flood. And I saw in the back that someone was very excited to raise their hand and come and talk about flood. You can't hide back there. Do you mind coming up and answering a question about flood for me? Because I do I do think it's important, and I just wanna clarify something, and you are so excited. If you want talk about flood, I want to talk about flood.

I'm Monica Bordellini. I am the flood point administrator for the city.

I thought that's who you were.

That's who I are.

I haven't seen you in person, Tazette. I've I've read about you and some of the stuff that you've done. I'm glad that you're here to talk to us. Yeah. Absolutely. Why do we not care about five hundred year flood and we only care about one hundred year flood.

Well, that is a I loaded

got the whole back row laughing. Goodness. Of them are just like, oh, leave me now.

Well, I'll tell you the truth. The community, floodplain community, would like to start regulating the five hundred year floodplain, but we're lucky if we can get the hundred year. Yeah. And and get everybody to abide by our regulations in the hundred year flood plain and the flood way, which is probably what you're thinking about a lot with all the recent flooding. So there is a proposal on the table to start regulating to the five hundred year, but I'm not confident that that's going to happen anytime soon.

We do have a requirement. Well, the state requires that critical facilities be looked at differently than as far as floodplain regulations go. So we require any critical facilities that are proposed new facilities that are in the floodplain area to be elevated two feet rather than one foot. But the other option is to is for one foot in the five hundred year. So we don't have there aren't any federal regulations and there aren't any state regulations that are in the five hundred year. And so Longmont doesn't have any requirements for the five hundred year.

Well, appreciate your candor. Thank you. I think that it is it it's baby steps, definitely. It is. You know,

it's the

same thing with the riparian buffers. It's these these baby steps. And as our environment changes and the people change and the city changes, I think that it's important to have these conversations. Absolutely. So thank you for for jumping in and taking that question. That's all I have for the flood, and I actually have to go back to to plan

Okay. Blazak. Do you guys wanna see a map of what the floodplain looks like?

The five. That the one? That's the 500? The orange? The orange is the 500. That's what because I saw that one and I was like, woah, that's something serious. But I know that there's that that difference in regulation. Yeah. So especially in that tract A, I think that concerns me the most. And it yeah, it's unfortunate for this to, fortunate or not to have this project happening right now with Tract A in those buildings in Tract A. And maybe actually someone from the Macy family can answer this question for me. What type of buildings are in that Tract A closest to the bike path?

Commissioner Saunders, there's gonna be townhouses and rowhouses.

Okay.

So, basically two story structures is is what we've been thinking.

And while I have you, can I ask you this question? I don't know if you were involved in these conversations when this, site plan was put together. Was there any consideration of flipping it? I mean, would love to see it flipped because Tract A is so narrow up in that riparian area. It just seems like, man, it would just totally solve so many of these issues if it was just flipped.

Yes, there is a reason why we have the various tracks laid out like we do, and it involves the height restrictions and the view corridors.

Oh, great.

So the entire reason why we've done what we've done is to put the biggest, tallest structures furthest away and then scale everything down, looking to the west to preserve the view corridors and to deal with the development and scale the property down and make the more intense development closer to where the shopping center is, the busy roads and that sort of thing.

Yeah, I see you guys are being really thoughtful about this and same with the ecologists and so I appreciate that. Oh, what was my other question gonna be? Do you know off the top of your head let's see. How far off from the north side of the bikeway, the bike sidewalk, is it two in feet to the the north line of the setback?

No. Would have to defer to Joel for that. He's the engineer. He would have those approximate numbers. They're very close.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, thank you.

Alright.

Mister Joel. I'm just gonna go with first names if that's That's all fine. Poor Mr. Blazek. So do you know how far off that is? I'm specifically looking at tract A so if you wanna And guesstimates are fine.

Yeah. And I don't know We do actually have dimensions. I don't know if it's on this exhibit but I can read them on the printout that I have.

Okay. Or

maybe So you're saying on a?

Yeah. The width of the in track d, the width of the detention on that line.

Okay. For starters on track A, and you said from the the concrete trail

Yeah.

To that 100 foot setback is 72 feet approximately. I mean, it varies a little bit along there.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then do you know the width of that storm water detention from north south?

The width of the pond, I don't have that dimension, but the the distance from the back of the trail to the 100 foot setback on the west end of that pond is 70 feet. Okay. And so

Okay.

You can see the width of the pond is gonna be somewhere fifty, sixty foot wide there. Okay. We we do have some flexibility with that when we get into the nuts and bolts of the design to to tweak things. But that's a that's kind of a placeholder based on initial calculations on imperviousness and how much detention we'll need And for the

before I let you go, for the detention pond, says, did it say on one of the slides that it's going to be a native pollinator mix? Is that correct? So my concern with stormwater detention pond is the clogging up of the stormwater facilities with higher plant life and seeded plant life and flowering plant life and plant life that can't survive forty hours being underwater.

So

my and I think that's why we always see mowed turf in those detention ponds. They're also for City of Longmont, I believe they're regulated to being some sort of functional use as well like recreation or park or some sort of area of that. Have you started investigating those types of regulations or is that too far down the path here?

Well, so I know it's not planned to to serve as any other functional use. I know that's something that has been done in the past. I don't even know

if we're allowed to do that anymore or if it's more limited now. A portion of detention facilities can be applied to pocket park space.

Who's this coming down?

If Do like to answer this?

If it's requested. This is Tyler Dell. Tyler. He's our storm water expert.

Commissioner, see it? Tyler Dell's storm water engineer for the city. Yeah. With this particular feature as they've designed it, it's going to be a have a rain garden bottom that will eliminate a lot of the plant clogging features. So, that isn't as big of concern here as a pawn an older pond would be that had the smaller orifices that were susceptible to clogging.

So the rain garden's inside the detention pond?

That would be the bottom stage of the detention pond for the water quality event. That's the LID practices that the applicant

Right. And so you're not concerned about having the native pollinators in the detention part of the detention pond outside of the ring guard?

We would make sure they stayed out of the ten year water surface elevation to avoid taking up any of that detention volume. But then outside of that area, we have, the ability to consider and use those a little more.

And do you know if the city has, maintenance protocol for both of those?

These facilities would be permitted as our permanent stormwater control measure program. And so we have a maintenance manual that'll have to be submitted with final design. We do city inspections. The applicant will do annual inspections. And then they have to submit annual reports stating that maintenance has been completed.

Everybody's glad that you're here. Thank you so much for answering those questions for everyone because I appreciate that. Excellent. That answers a lot of my questions. Thank you so much. So I guess I'm just gonna wrap it up. I know I've been hogging. I'm sorry. But I've been very patient. I waited. I'm wondering if I could have someone from the Macy family come down one more time. Sorry Parker, I thought I had it, but I thought it was all done. This one's a little bit tricky. So if the variance does not go through, and it's not just us, right? The city council also has to approve. So what happens next?

I think we have to go back and look at all of our available options and whatever remedies we may have.

Yeah. So this site plan would I mean, because it looks like a large majority of the site plan is not in it.

Correct.

Right? It's just this tract A and B that kind of give the rub here. And so I'm wondering because I like what Commissioner was saying, I don't know what I'm getting, what Commissioner Boone was saying about having a strip across that bike path because it's the city that maintains the bike path. Correct? That's what we determined Correct. And I believe there's two foot, and maybe Jim knows, there's a two foot maintenance that goes along the path. So if the variance was reduced down, I'm trying to see if that's helpful. Is it a two foot maintenance path that this city It's

a very unscientific mower width. So four

to six feet.

Four to six feet. Okay. Thanks, Jim. Okay. Thank you, Parker. I don't have another

question. Okay.

So I guess my final thoughts are about having that continuance of the buffer all the way across because my biggest concern is Tract A And B with the building so close to I mean, if I'm a squirrel living in this house, in this tree house, like, that building's right up next to me and I'm not gonna be happy about it. But if I'm way down east, that's not so bad. So I have concerns about how tight it is here, but I I appreciate how the developer was really thinking about, views, the view corridor. I appreciate the plantings. I do have concerns about seating.

I think a lot of people get excited about seating because who's doing that? What? Both thought it was my time. Thank you. So I have concerns about monitoring the seeding. Does that align a little bit, Jim, what you guys were talking about with from Natural Resources about the seeds taking hold. And I do hear you, Heather, about like monitoring the site and looking at it. I don't know how we can maybe put that into the condition of the stewardship monitoring that would have to be a part of this. Because you really just can't just I don't want people to think that you can just throw seeds out. No.

I got this pollinator garden and I don't have to do anything with it. I think she would agree that that's not really the case.

So I I think to answer the question I think you're asking, these the seeding that would most likely be done with their their landscape plan is really more in their, like, the the detention basins, the rain guards, that kind of area there that, are gonna be kinda start fresh in a landscaping, condition. So I wouldn't be as concerned there, particularly on the North Side of the trail where most of that landscaping typically has some sort of irrigation system to get it established anyway. South of the trail, I think what natural resources staff considered to be the biggest benefit was gonna be the trees and shrubs added to that corridor. So not necessarily seeding south of there where there may be more difficulty with irrigation.

Oh, the establishment for them?

Correct.

Oh, okay. For the woodies on the South Side. Oh, okay. Because I thought it was the seeding on the North Side.

No. Oh, okay. Most of the concern is about with the woody vegetation that Heather had mentioned and figuring out how to get that irrigated and established on the South Side.

Okay. But she I think she answered that with, like, some sort of temporary water truck or

something like it's doable.

Yeah. That sounds pretty I mean, there's access there and everything. I just don't know if it has to be part of, like, condition that we would put in the recommendation or that's just something regulated by the city.

That that was Parks and Natural Resources staff's part of that conditional approval would be to commit to some sort of irrigation to establish that woody vegetation on the south side of the trail.

Okay. Okay. Oh, let me ask you this. With the way that the area is being maintained now, would you say that it's fair that, yes, it's being mowed and it's prohibiting the noxious weeds, but it's also prohibiting any native growth as well?

Is my my answer is gonna be probably more anecdotal. Yeah. Knowing the vegetation that is over there

Mhmm.

That's considering that south side of the trail has got some smooth brome and some other non native grasses that are probably preventing native shrubs in particular from getting established. I don't believe that the mowing is necessarily inhibiting any native species from getting established. I think it's just the nature of the plant communities that are there.

Right. So you're saying the mowing is helping more than it's hurting?

It

depends on what the goal is. Yeah. So if we're looking for broadleaf like canna thistle or other species like that for weed control, then certainly mowing can help with that. Yeah. But in terms of trying to help native species establish, I don't think the mowing's really having much of an impact one way or another.

Okay. And then do you know what landowners are regulated to when they have this buffer, when their land is already up to this buffer as far as maintenance and and care for that buffer? Is there anything regulated in city?

Do you mean any, like I'm not not sure.

When you have a ditch on your property, you have to, like, take care of it. You have to make sure this stuff's not falling in it. But do you have to do anything here with this buffer area? Is there any sort of maintenance? Because it sounds sounds like this is new. Repairing buffer is new. So are landowners regulated to a certain level of care and maintenance?

Like if they have a stream corridor going through their property Yeah. Or scenario. No. It's it's it's still their private property and up to them to maintain it as they need to.

Okay, great. Okay, thanks Jim. Okay, so I'm going to wrap it up and I think that there are more positives than negatives for me. But I did think that for conditions maybe putting a strip across I'm pointing at my screen. A strip across that north bike path that's more than what's happening in Track A but maybe not as extensive as Track D. Joel, you said that was 70 feet for the for the detention pond? That l? I think that's what he said. Yeah, that seems pretty. I just wanted

It's make 70 feet to, from the concrete path to the setback. The width of the detention pond is probably more like 50 to 60.

Oh, okay. That's helpful, thank you. Okay. So that's I think that is is a little extreme. I'm thinking maybe more 25 across if commissioners agree that might help a little alleviate with that flood and a little alleviate a little bit more of the continuity of the buffer especially in this tighter place with Tract A.

And maybe it's not redoing the whole, site in, because here's the thing, we are to look at this and determine that the setbacks are greater than necessary to provide stream and creek corridors through the riparian areas. I don't know necessarily if the setbacks are greater than necessary. I do think all of these mitigation proposals are positive except for track a. That I just can't I mean, b even I can get over, but track a, it's so narrow and that's where a lot of that vegetation is and where a lot of that positive habitat is happening for me. My other second condition for the commissioners to think about would be some sort of stewardship monitoring, But I think Jim may have answered it that that is also part of the natural resources condition except for Jeremy's up here.

So those are my thoughts as far as any conditions in sitting here and listening to help support this going forward. I think the family's done a really great job in being respectful too. That's a lot of words, buddy. To the site, and the colleges have done a really great job looking at it. And I'm trying to do my also thoughtful review of the site and my impressions of what's happening here going forward.

I mean, you're right, this is a test case and it's not just commission, it's also counsel. So that's sort of where I'm at and where I'd go from here. And I think there's some more comments, so I'm going to relinquish my microphone.

Yeah. I'm kind of sounds like we're gaining some kind of impetus here. Track c and d, I have no problems with. Track b, there's that one little piece that juts out, but track a is really the problem child. I don't mind granting a variance. I just can't get behind granting a variance, which is almost zero feet, when it comes down to going up against the bike path. So some kind of buffer above the bike path, I could get behind, 25 feet, somewhere around there. Interesting to see if other commissioners have thoughts on this. But, yeah, somewhere around 25, thirty, forty feet, somewhere around there.

Commissioner Lang, before I shoot my mouth off, do you wanna shoot yours? Sure. Thanks.

On that picture, the main one we've been looking at, the, riparian boundary, that solid yellow line, how is that drawn? Is that the middle of the dry creek? Is is that what that is?

It's the outside edge of the riparian vegetation,

Okay. So it's bit That's a good picture, actually.

Sorry. Microphone. Yeah. So I drew it in AutoCAD with an aerial photo and then did an exact 100 foot offset in AutoCAD.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. I'm kinda leaning towards the comments the other commissioners were on the East end, it's there's plenty of of space to to grant a variance within that 100 foot setback. But once you get further west, it's much tighter. And it would be nice to have something that's not quite up to that bike path.

It parallels the creek for a while, but then it seems to kinda go towards it there, towards the West end. So, I mean, it's a convenient place to say, let's just make that the new, you know, the variance is is the north edge of that bike path, but maybe be better to kinda go along with the edge of the repairing zone and instead of a 100 foot, twenty fifteen, 25, 30 whatever, have it parallel that repairing that solid yellow line. And and then towards the west, would probably be very close to the north edge of that bike path, as you get excuse me, to the east. But as you get to the west, it would definitely push into your guys' development a little bit and force you to go a little further north is what I was thinking. But I think you guys had a great presentation, and I'd I'd appreciate all the mitigating things you're looking at putting in there because you're right, most of that section closer to the bike path is just it's just a field.

I mean, there's not a lot going on there in terms of, you know, critters running around, maybe some mice. I don't know, I'm not a biologist, but it's, you know, it doesn't seem like there's a real friendly environment there for living creatures.

Thank you. Mr. Macy? May I clarify something? In tracks a and b, which there's been a lot of comment about, those site plans were done a long time ago before we even had a setback.

And when we go to develop those, we have to comply with all the city regulations, one of which is setbacks from property lines. And if if the if the variance is greater, the property line will be on the north side of the walk, and those setbacks are gonna apply from that period, from that point to wherever the structures are. And the setbacks vary, whether they're a front setback, side setback, or rear setback. But those buildings won't be, you know, sitting right on the bike path like they show up there. We just haven't redone those site plans. We have redone Track D and part of Track C, but we haven't done a and b.

That's what I was gonna remind my fellow commissioners that we don't have a development plan in front of us. What we have is a concept plan that is subject to change and you're satisfied possibly with C and D being at this conceptual plant level. The development doesn't appear to be close. But rest assured, that would possibly change if we granted variance. With that, what I wanted to ask Planner Blazak is what are we allowed to be built in the one hundred year flood plain?

Would defer that question.

Zero. You

very Thanks for holding up the

big zero in the back.

That's what I wanted to know. So part of the variance that we'd be granted would be, inclusive of the hundred year floodplain, hopefully gets caught up in a in another level of regulation, but we are we would be granting a variance into the one hundred year floodplain. I don't know that we want to do that. Ms. Houston, I have a couple of questions for you because I still get caught up in the legalese of it all.

Commissioner Hyatt, I just want to clarify that construction is not permitted within the one hundred year floodplain as a result of granting a riparian setback variance. Understood.

We'd still be granting a variance into it, though. I don't want the interesting concept to thought bubble. Is miss Houston still here?

I changed seats.

Yes.

Thank you. I read 15 o five zero two o f five to to allow city council to grant a modification if oh, come on. Following criteria have to be met. City council with recommendation may reduce setback if it determines that the setbacks are greater than necessary to protract to protract stream and creek corridors. And then section 15 o five zero two of f five a seven, and you ran through one through seven fairly well.

I appreciate that. But the development, and we don't see we don't know what the development is because the development proposal hasn't presented to us. The development mitigates the modified setback. Your modified setback is zero. Let's call it that.

It mitigates the modified setback standard by providing a higher quality, more desirable wildlife habitat. I don't know if you showed those. And in particular, I also wanna ask you questions about n 15 o five zero two zero f five a. You need to provide a detailed species and habitat conservation plan under 15 o five zero three o h. I saw attachment two in our materials, which I think came from your office, which is a riparian assessment memo.

Yeah. And then

that is that a species habitat conservation plan under 15 o five?

No. It is a western Environment and Ecology prepared a general ecological resources survey is what they called it.

Right. Because I look at what this 15O5030 h species and habitat conservation plan to require to be fairly detailed and I don't see one. It has to, you know, describe the collateral functions, list proposed. And he did

Commissioner Hite, that was included as one of the attachments in the staff report.

Which one is it? Three. Sorry. If it's there,

Oh, yeah. That's this one.

October 2023. That's the '23 environmental report. That doesn't appear to be a concept of habitat.

It is. It's the same thing. It's just got a different title at the top.

Because I don't see that it's recommending enhancements and restoration and preservation and of desired visitation and demonstrating physical and administrative capabilities to implement a plan. I don't see a plan here. I just see it as a survey of what conditions are. You see it otherwise? I don't see it meeting the conditions of what, again, 15 O5030 h require.

Tell me how it meets that. It's it's actually not your requirement. It's applicant's requirement. Correct. Thank you.

That was not a report prepared by my company, and no one has ever said it was not adequate to fulfill the purpose. I guess that's all I will say about that. I feel that we revisited the information in that report and updated it in our memo. I think, you know, we have what species are we protecting and conserving in the development area, I guess, is one question, too. I think up there there's maybe rabbits. There's a lot of grasshoppers.

You know, where are they? So

the requirements are relatively detailed in 15.0503 H. And it is a requirement that has to be presented to us and to city council, and I don't see that plan. I see a habitat investigation and I see your riparian memo, but it doesn't appear to me to be this specific plan that is required. In that context, I will you don't think there's one either. Is that correct?

Well, I didn't prepare a report with that title.

So Do

you want to take a look at 1,150,030 H? Sure. And see if you've met all these requirements?

Do we have it available?

Or 15 o five zero three.

And so the project is this the full text of it here?

Yep.

30H.

Can't I read out loud?

Because nobody wants to hear you read. I

will change screens in a moment. I just wanted to remind the commission about the criteria for the variance requested tonight. That's the slide I pulled up on the screen. I think it's on page five of your hard copy packet of staff presentation. So this is the criteria for the riparian setback variance.

I just wanted to remind commission of that as we're considering conditions and that the conditions that be reasonably related to established criteria, which is this section. But in terms of commissioner chair height question about 15 o five zero thirty, I do pull up on the screen here. Oh, no. I hate when that happens. And h is further down.

And perhaps might be a good time for a restroom break while the applicant takes a look at the section for the efficiency of time.

Are you recommending that?

I've been taking my own breaks, but I just we've been going for two and a half hours. So I'm fine. I'm just seeing the benefit of everyone's health.

I think I'm fine too. We'll break till 09:45. Well, no. 09:35. Ten minutes.

Thanks.

Okay. +1 515-0502.

15 no. Yes.

14 o five zero two o is the protection of the standards that we're working under. Right. O 15 o five zero three o is the habitat and species protection requirement.

The list of it, but it's saying that it's required is in o two f five.

F one. It's just an f. Following procedure

shall five.

Not f five?

No. It's f. May o? F. Says may require. The following procedure shall apply to all applications for development, contain, and identify. I'm sorry. Am I reviewing this right?

No. I'm in the different

Oh, may be followed may be modified under the following standards and procedures taking into consideration the findings of a detailed species. So it can be maybe modified.

Modifications may be modified under the rules and procedures. Taking into consideration finds of a detailed the setback standards of f one and f two, which is a 100 to a 150 of this section, may be modified under the following standards, taking into consideration the findings of a detailed species and habitat habitat conservation plan under 15 O50308.

So how can you

You have to have an O308.

To have the consideration. You have to have the detailed species habitat to consider whether or not you're going to be modifying them. Yeah. So you have to have the plan Yeah. To even think about it.

Yeah.

Good catch, councilman. Counselor. Counselor. Counselor.

Alright. We're going back on the record. Is everyone there? Miss Houston, do you have more to report back to us? Hold on one second. Yes. You guys ready?

We're back on record. Good? Okay. Thanks.

Got it. I'm learning. So in terms of the species and habitat conservation plan, it's my understanding that those more detailed plans are required when there's sensitive species or habitats that you're trying to protect. And so we have a general ecological resources survey that kind of goes through those things that didn't note that there was the presence of sensitive species. And so my thoughts were that that wasn't really a part of it.

But I will pass over to Jim and to Zach to comment further on it. But in terms of what we have is a study that I think covers most of the requirements. And staff had said that it was adequate for them to evaluate the project. And so we didn't think other requirements were in place for species protection.

Thank you. Zach, do you want to add anything to that? Or Jim, do you want to add anything to that? It's not really your obligation to do so.

I'll just note that what was submitted was sufficient for us to complete our review. Understood.

From my view, sitting nearest chair, it's a requirement of the review processes, and I don't see that plan here. Broader, when I look at 15 o five zero two o f five standards overview that the applicant need to show that the the setback is that that the 100 foot setback is greater than is necessary to protect stream and creek corridors, I I don't know that that's been shown. I don't know that it's been shown that a particular level is protecting the stream and creek corridor here of Dry Creek number one. I don't know what that what that footage is. I just know that they're saying that, you know, they're going to the edge of the they wanna go to the north edge of the of the of the sidewalk, the pathway, varies at different levels to the stream, so it's not consistent.

I don't know why that is protective and that the 100 foot is not is overly protective. And moreover, you know, the the f five, you know, a seven, the development the development mitigates the modified set standard, the modified setback by providing a higher quality and more desirable wildlife habitat. I don't see that this plan creates a higher quality and more desirable wildlife habitat. So I don't see that the applicant has met its burden here. And I don't know if the applicant wants to address that issue before I pass it back on to the next commissioner who wants to speak.

I think we are providing higher value wildlife habitat. I think the existing condition of that mowed edge in the area north of the bike path is very low habitat value right now. I think also we need to consider what are the species that are present in this urban environment. We're not trying to create conditions that are suitable for Canada lynx. I mean, what's there is rabbits and maybe raccoons going back and forth.

I'm gonna I'm stop you there because you're saying maybe. I haven't seen anything that indicates what wildlife habitat is there.

Well, there's a general ecological resources survey that documents species that are there.

Well, was kind of like endangered species that weren't there is what I how I read that report. Am I wrong?

I believe there's a description of the overall habitat conditions and species use. There's no prairie dogs there. There's no trees or shrubs that provide any significant habitat for birds. It's mowed. There's no native plant communities.

And so it's pretty limited on the North Side. So I think given the existing condition and given the species that inhabit this type of developed environment, which I'm calling urban adapted species, it will be better. Even though there will be development there, it will be better to have more native trees and shrubs along both north and south of the bike path than it is today.

Vice Chair Poland.

Good lord. I don't know if I wanna step into this, but when I read 15 o five zero three o h two, plant content, a species and habitat conservation plan shall include the following information at a minimum and as applicable. Then it says the planning director may modify or waive specific requirements due to the development's location, previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular species on a site, their prohibition of a reasonable use of the site, and other relevant factors. When I read that and with the knowledge that the city has accepted that as a species and habitat conservation plan, somebody gave the approval and somebody has the right to make modifications to what is included in that species and habitat conservation plan. For that, I'm willing to say that fifteen o five zero three o h two is met as far as having a plan content plan content the way I read it and given the fact that the city has approved it and accepted it.

As far as what's contained in it, description of populations of wildlife and plant species that are known to have potential to inhabit or use the site, including a qualitative description of their spatial and temporal distribution abundance, including all federally or state licensed threatened or endangered species and state species of special concern. Given that, I'm willing to accept the species and habitat conservation plan that was submitted. Those are my thoughts.

To which I'll add that I kind of thought it was admitted that there wasn't such a plan, but that Planner Blazak had determined that what he had been submitted was enough for him to conduct his review. So I don't know if the full analysis of this waiver under three zero eight had been provided. But again, two, this requires an analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and plant species. We don't know what the proposed development is. It hasn't been presented or formalized yet.

On and off-site issues related to the timing of the proposed activities. We don't even know what the proposed activities are. And then a plan for implementation, maintenance and monitoring of these mitigation measures, that hasn't been presented that I know of. So I see what you're saying and appreciate that people are trying to make this work, but I don't know that the plan is properly packaged. Presented that ultimately the development project will be approved by staff.

It won't come back to planning and zoning, which is appropriate because that's how our planning department is set up. But we don't know what that development looks like to be able to approve a riparian setback that's based upon the impacts from the development. We don't know what that development is. We can't perform our task, I think, properly as required under these statutes. I will recognize Commissioner Sanders. Saunders. I don't want to call you Sanders.

I know. Stop calling me Saunders. All right. Thank you. I am going to wade into this.

I appreciate Chair Height's due diligence in reading thoroughly through the code. I had sort of the same experience in reading the ecological survey originally that it did seem like it was a list of the species that aren't there. Like a list of the species that are it's unfortunate we don't have a representative there from them saying that, okay, these species that are threatened are not there. Although there was one that was that was noticed that burrows were there but at the same time they had gone back during a time when the animals are not there. And I sorry.

I forget what species it is. So I thought that was a little disingenuous to look for them in November when they're not there after August. That being said, I agree that the burden has not been met with the materials provided as such. I also think that this is the first time we've heard this type of variance, correct? Jeremy, this is gonna be you in a second. We have not heard this kind of variance before. Right? And so this is sort of testing the waters. Is it possible to put this as the condition to have this plan before it goes to council?

And when you say the plan, the species and habitat conservation plan required by

With all of the details. Yes. Yes.

I would refer the commission back to the criteria for the riparian setback as opposed to the 15 o five zero thirty h

criteria. Why would you do that?

Because the conservation plan isn't of the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission for tonight's application except to the extent it lists in the criteria.

That's what I'm saying. As a condition before it goes to council to have that plan ready to go for that may or may not consideration. Right? Because it may be modified under the following standards procedures taking into consideration the finding of detailed species and habitat conservation plan under fifteen oh five zero three h. So it still needs to be a part of it.

I would say no. And the other reason that I'm going to give is that it's the applicant's burden to prove the variance. I don't think it's the Planning and Zoning Commission's job or responsibility to have them supplement the record. I would say if Planning and Zoning Commission feels that the criteria for appearing setback, specifically the project design and mitigate adverse impacts by projecting species habitats such as all of that is not met, then it's the commission's burden to deny or to make an appropriate decision based off their established criteria. I don't think you can require that the applicant supplement the record.

Agree. Can't require it. Okay.

Know what? I'll pass Ferd down because I'm collecting my thoughts after that.

On a different note, well, they're they're just doing this. It was mentioned the property line came to the bike path. Is that where?

The creek. Mhmm.

So so is the property line at the creek or the bike path? And what what would the city determine the, like, standard set off setbacks based off of when the actual development comes? Because we again, we don't have the formal development plan. So it was mentioned that the setbacks might not be accurate.

Commissioner Armand, so the property line was shown in the slideshow as the red line. I believe that property line goes to the center of the creek. And then the other thing that I will remind you all while I have the opportunity is that this is also future development adjacent to a greenway. So there will be additional buffer standards from the landscape review of that site plan that would apply to this greenway. Landscape buffer standards specifically. I believe it is a landscape buffer type b, which is 20 feet of landscaping required against that greenway.

Is the greenway the bike path plus four feet?

Sorry. What we were conferring, just to be clear. The greenway itself is buffered on either side 50 feet from the centerline, and then there's an additional landscape buffer on top of that. Does that answer your question, commissioner Hite?

Yeah. I just wanna know where the greenway is. What is the greenway? The bike path?

It is the area encompassing the creek. So from the center line of the creek Okay. In either direction, that would, I believe, include the bike path in this situation.

Is it basically half of this riparian zone then?

It's a considerable portion.

And what happens in that? That's just a landscape require an area that has to be landscaped. It still could be developed inside of the floodplain.

Again, just keep in mind that landscape review is outside the purview of this discussion. That's with the site plan review. It's just something to think about as you're considering your conditions.

That's what I'm trying to think about, what it entails. Minus 10 plus four. Yeah. It's a 50 foot wide landscape buffer from the center of the ditch.

On each side.

On each side. Others care to chat? Care to muse? Care to make a motion? Care to move this forward?

I'd be happy to read into the record the definition of primary greenway, which is a public right of way consisting of linear strips of land adjacent to creeks, rivers, ditches, roadways used for stormwater drainage, passive and scenic open space and park purposes, and self propelled transportation modes. Primary greenways provide connections between community and residential areas and are described and designated in the comprehensive plan.

Thank you. See no further discuss I'm sorry. Commissioner Wang.

Thanks. So I guess we're here to figure out if the setback is greater than necessary to protect the streams and creek corridors. I feel like 70 feet from the sidewalk is definitely greater than necessary. I'm just figuring out how far from the sidewalk. I mean, I'm going back to commissioner Boone's comment. I would feel a lot more comfortable if there is a little buffer on the north side of the sidewalk. I I'm for approving the variance, but, not the complete sidewalk, shrink down to sidewalk, but being a little bit down from the 100 feet. It's more like 25 feet. I don't know. They could run 20 feet, five feet.

So I don't know what you guys' thoughts are on this, but

To which I'll add, I don't know that we know what that figure should be. I think I I don't know if I agree with you that the applicant has carried its burden to show that 70 feet north of the sidewalk isn't necessary. It's there seems to be a suggestion that there is, but I don't know that I know enough to make that determination. And and I don't know that what they're proposing. I certainly don't know that what they are proposing is sufficient. So I'll recognize you again.

I would kinda have to agree. It is a chicken or the egg thing. It is very hard to figure out, like, what we want to approve without knowing what the final project's gonna be.

Right. Which is if you can't tell where I'm heading that I can't approve this because we don't have the full suite of material that we're required to have. Others? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Mott? I think

I was talking about this a bit earlier when I was asking about the current condition. But I do think that that is and that was something that has been discussed. But I do think that the word necessary for me is important because we don't really have an it was discussed that there's the endangered species profile, but we don't really have a profile of all the other wildlife and environment. And so without that information, it's kind of hard to establish what's necessary to protect that because we don't really have an at least I don't feel like I have a good understanding of the existing conditions which we are protecting. I know there was a discussion about the modification of removing noxious trees and adding natural plants.

But I don't know what that is doing to protect the existing environment because I feel like I don't really have a good understanding of what that existing environment is, what the wildlife profile is, etcetera. So on that, I would tend to agree with Commissioner Wang that I feel like it's kind of difficult to establish that necessary steps have been taken. And if we are to modify the setback, what that necessary distance is. It sounds like right now that, yeah, there is no necessary distance besides the bike path, which seems convenient for development purposes, but does not seem to be like taking the the wildlife or the actual stream environment into into consideration, I guess, what I'm trying to say.

If if I might be

able to provide some help in that from a you know, my professional ecologist staff position, as far as what the current conditions are in terms of what kind of wildlife use use that corridor. I would actually concur with, miss Houston's, assessment that based off of the vegetation that's present there, that it is urban, used by urban, adapted wildlife species, raccoons, rabbits, squirrels. Maybe to put in perspective, to give you idea of, like, a foot buffer, that is necessary, we we consider for, like, songbirds, robins, or anything like that that are nesting to provide a 50 foot buffer around those nests for any sort of disturbance. So that being the type of species that we would expect to find in this corridor, I think maybe that gives you a starting point. Or is there any other clarification I can provide on what our assessment is of the wildlife usage of this corridor?

I actually think, let me ask you this question. 50 feet from the stream, the center of the stream is where the bike path how far north of the bike path? Does it vary?

It probably varies. We'd have to take some measurements.

Zach, do you have a thumbnail sense?

I would just echo that it varies. So

The 100 foot is from the edge of the trees, the canopies. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Saunders.