Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the September 16th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Jane, would you mind please calling the roll?

Vice Chair Earle? Here. Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Here. Commissioner Lange? Here. Commissioner Forbes? Here. Commissioner Wang? Here. Commissioner Boone? Here. Commissioner Jordan? Here. Vice Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. As we start every meeting, we'll start with the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapaho Ute and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first people have with this land. It's our commitment to face the injustices that happened when this land was taken and to educate our communities, ourselves and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. First item is communications. Grant Pendland.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission. Nothing other than to say thanks for everyone for being here and happy almost end of summer.

I'm okay with the cooler weather. I don't know about end of summer, but thank you. We'll move on to approving the minutes. This is minutes from our August 19th, 2026 minutes. Commissioners, anyone have changes, corrections, or motions? Commissioner Boone?

Thank you, Chair. I will move to approve last month's meeting.

We have a motion.

Meeting's minutes.

Thank you. Sorry to cut you off. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Edgley-Wells. Any further discussion? Jane, can you call vote, please?

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Commissioner Forbes? Abstain. Vice Chair Earle? Aye. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Commissioner Boone? Aye. Commissioner Jordan? Aye. Chair, that passes six approvals, one abstention.

Thank you very much. We'll move right along. We have our first public comment, public invited to be heard. This is for items that are not on the agenda this evening for a public hearing or items that are not coming for us as a quasi-judicial matter. There is no one who signed up on the sheet, but we'll still open it up to anyone in the room if anyone would like to speak about topics not on tonight's agenda. Seeing none, we'll move right into our public hearing. This is for 545 Collier Street variance. Principal Planner Jennifer Hewitt-Apperson, take it away.

Good evening, Acting Chair Earle and members of the Commission. Jennifer Hewitt-Apperson, Principal Planner. I'm here to discuss a proposed variance for 545 Collier Street. So this quarter acre site is located at the southwest corner of Collier Street and 6th Avenue. It is zoned residential single family and designated a single family neighborhood by Envision Longmont. You'll see it's kind of catty corner from Collier Park. So a variance is requested to reduce side setbacks from five feet to zero feet to allow for a new garage to be built in approximately the same location as a previous garage that had been inadvertently demolished. So in terms of background, as I mentioned, previously there was a garage at the southwest corner of the property, as well as a shed that still exists. You can see this is the outline of the garage in question. At some point, the two structures had been kind of haphazardly connected, and part of this project, unrelated to the variance, was to turn them back into two buildings. So it's not really clear when either structure was constructed, although the shed does appear to predate the garage based on available historical information. The ILC also shows that the original garage was built over the western property line by a couple of feet and is roughly one foot from the southern line. You'll also note that the driveway is directly adjacent to this western property line, as it extends to the curb cut onto 6th Avenue. So the approximate location of the original garage relative to the property line and driveway are depicted in this aerial photo as well as the driveway and curb cut location. So again, you would see this original garage. You can clearly see the curb cut onto 6th Avenue. This was the original garage that is being sought to be replaced. This yellow line is More or less where the property line would be. So it was built at some point when it was built. It basically doesn't seem like accurate measurements were taken at the time. So it did did encroach about two and a half feet over the property line. So there is quite a bit of history that leads up to this variance request. I'm going to go through it as quickly as possible. There are just a number of interrelated aspects that I think warrant just discussion for clarification purposes. 545 Collier Street is a designated historic landmark. The property owner, Ms. Wolf, began discussing potential plans for the original garage with historic preservation staff late last year, that historic preservation staff being me. The garage did have a failing roof structure and initially it was thought to be severe enough to warrant demolition of the entire building. But Ms. Wolf did find a contractor who told her that the garage could be saved by replacing the roof trusses. This work along with work on the studio shed that I referenced immediately to the east of the garage was approved by historic preservation staff and referred to the building permit process. This is kind of where things went awry. The building permit was approved but not issued due to non-payment which has been indicated to be due to a miscommunication between the homeowner and the contractor who was listed as the contact. Work did begin nonetheless and the contractor did go beyond the agreed scope to scope of work and what was approved from a historic preservation standpoint and demolish the garage. So a resident did bring this to the attention of the building department, who did issue a stop work order. Ms. Wolfe immediately paid the fee so work on the shed could continue. But the garage demolition triggered involvement of planning and historic preservation due to setback requirements as well as the landmark status of the house. I will note that Taryn Stewart, who is the Assistant Chief Building Official, is here and can answer questions that would be specific to the building permit issues that you may have. So a replacement garage outlined in the green, basically it's adjacent to the property line, but not over it, is proposed. It's roughly the same location as the original garage, except that it would be shifted to the east and wholly located on 545 Collier Street. The proposed garage right about here is a single story design similar to the original garage and would be approximately the same size. The requested variance would allow a new garage to be built that aligns with this existing driveway and would not impact the studio that's immediately to the right, the shed that's immediately to the right. So the Historic Preservation Commission did approve the proposed design and general location of the new garage at their July meeting with the condition that a variance first be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the required setback reduction before any building permit application could be made. I'll note that Ms. Wolf has continued to work with the building department to resolve permitting issues. I will also note that there is currently framing on the perimeter of the garage foundation or the original foundation, that this is not intended to be part of the final structure. Taryn could answer more specific questions relating to that, but these are intended to be shear wall. These are shear walls that are intended to protect the remaining building components and the shed as well from any wind that might potentially cause a problem. These framed walls were approved as an interim measure to make sure the site stays safe. As noted previously, there are physical site constraints with the driveway and curb cut adjacent to the western property line, and there is that shed that's directly east of the garage location. Finally, this property is located in the historic east side, where accessory buildings adjacent to or less than five feet from property lines are a very common development pattern. So just for neighborhood context to illustrate this point, this is the block on which 545 Collier is located. Boulder County Assessor Maps aren't the end-all and be-all for determining property lines, but it's a pretty good indication when you see such a large number of accessory buildings that are, if not adjacent to, pretty darn close to that property line. So I just wanted to show this for neighborhood context and to illustrate that this really is a common historical development pattern in this neighborhood. So in terms of public outreach, neighborhood meetings aren't typically required for setback variances, and this was waived for this application by the Director of Planning and Development. Mailed and posted notices requirements were met, as was the legal notice requirement. I'll also note that there was a separate public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission in July for the certificate of appropriateness component relating to the proposed new garage design. So neighborhood feedback has been mixed. Ms. Wolfe's immediate neighbors are supportive of this requested variance, and staff has heard from other supportive neighbors on the same block. One community member we heard from does support the variance, but would like to see approval conditioned on building permit penalties. The staff does note that this type of condition isn't typically part of planning decisions. I did hear from two community members who oppose the variance. for reasons that include the permitting issues and also the lack of a full parcel survey and reliance on the ILC for the variance request. Relating to that last part, I'd like to note that a full parcel survey would be required as part of the building permit application if the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the requested variance. All right, now jumping into the review criteria. So there are review criteria that must be met for all application types. Going through the list, I'll note that the proposed variance is consistent with Envision Longmont as well as the purpose and intent of the Land Development Code and RSF, Residential Single Family Zoning District. This property would continue to be a single family home, and the proposed garage would conform with dimensional standards for accessory buildings, if not necessarily the setback standards. There are no changes to streets or utilities required, nor are new services needed. The requested variance would allow for continued use of an existing driveway, so it would not necessitate any changes to the existing road network. Regarding compatibility with surrounding properties, as I noted, accessory structures adjacent to property lines are a very common development pattern in the historic Eastside neighborhood as well as many other historic neighborhoods throughout the country. The proposed garage for which this setback variance is sought would be of a similar size and style as the original garage. It would no longer encroach over the western property line and would be a similar scale that you see for other garages in the neighborhood. So as I noted, the two immediately adjacent property owners do support this requested setback variance. And the proposed garage location, as again noted, is representative of common development patterns in the historic east side. I'll note that criteria five and six are not applicable to this particular request, as it is not in a riparian area. And it is not of a scale that warrants an appropriate transportation plan. So in addition to the review criteria for all application types, variances must meet the following additional review criteria. I'm not going to name each one, but I will just describe how each are satisfied. So in terms of practical difficulties, there are slight challenges for strict application of setback requirements, as I noted, namely the driveway and curb cut locations, as well as existing shed. Requiring that setback in this location would make it extremely difficult for a garage opening to access the driveway. Additionally, with the shed location requiring a five-foot setback on the southern end, you would end up creating this really awkward kind of concealed pocket on the rear of the property that realistically could present some security challenges. Finally, this is a local historic landmark at 545 Collier Street. It's also known as the Bemis Rowan House. And as such, the location of accessory structures can matter as much as their design in terms of compatibility with the historic property. The proposed variance would allow this new garage to be built in roughly the same location as the original garage, which the Historic Preservation Commission determined was appropriate for this particular property, while also recognizing that the Planning and Zoning Commission is the decision maker on requested setback reductions. It is going from 5 to 0 feet is a pretty significant reduction. However, it's important to note that that original garage did go over the property line by 2 and 1 half feet. So this would basically reduce that. It would eliminate that previous encroachment. This would require the foundation to be rebuilt as well, which would take concrete off the neighbor's property. It would enable this garage to be built in a way that reflects that original location and ensures that neither the building nor the eaves encroach over that property line. In terms of whether the property was purchased with knowledge of the standard, Ms. Wolfe, she purchased this property with that existing non-conforming garage on the site and no reason to You know believe that either didn't meet standards or that it would be an issue in the future Finally the variance is the only method for reducing setbacks And it would I you know staff is of the opinion that because this would be replacing an existing non-conforming garage it would reflect historic development patterns in the historic east side that predate the current development code which Essentially, it maintains the intent of the code and the plan. It maintains those historic development patterns that are cited so frequently throughout Envision Longmont and the land development code. So continuing through, again, relating to the adverse impacts on neighbors, this would really remove an adverse impact on one of the neighbors. And additionally, the two adjacent neighbors have indicated that they are supportive of this variance and that it really would benefit them because that original garage really functioned as part of their property boundary and they would like to see that condition restored. Further, the new garage would be required to meet all building and fire code requirements, so it would definitely improve the safety over what was there before, and it would correct this existing violation as well. So second to last one, it can be argued that the unpermitted work and resulting demolition was a self-imposed hardship. That said, Ms. Wolfe appropriately coordinated with historic preservation staff prior to applying for a building permit. We were discussing this garage starting about a year ago. And then in February, I can say She contacted me again about the rebuilding of the roof, so we were able to discuss that and ensure it met all of our criteria. And from the historic preservation standpoint, issued the documentation necessary to pull a building permit. You know, I noted previously, and Ms. Wolf will speak more to this, that it seems that there was a miscommunication. And she did state that she did not authorize this demolition. And I have heard from adjacent neighbors who indicated the same thing. I'll also note that she did take immediately corrective action when these permit issues were brought to her attention and has been diligently working with building historic preservation and planning staff to remedy the situation. So I will say also relating to comprehensive plan alignment, staff is of the opinion that this variance request does align with Envision Longmont. It would maintain that character of an established historic neighborhood by restoring development pattern that's commonly seen in terms of a detached garage that's nearby and adjacent to a property line. It is a designated historic landmark. And again, as I noted, the Historic Preservation Commission determined that the proposed garage would be consistent with the landmark house and would not detract from it. And then finally, this is an area designated a single family neighborhood by Envision Longmont. This category does include neighborhoods that are comprised predominantly of single family detached homes. There are no changes in the number of dwelling units proposed. This will continue to be a single family home and the proposed garage would be of an appropriate scale for both the property and the neighborhood. So with that, the commission has three decision options. Option one, they can either recommend approval of the application without conditions, they can recommend approval of the application with conditions, or they may deny the application. Staff does recommend approval of 545 Collier Street garage variance based on compliance with the criteria as well as standards in the development code. And with that, I am going to turn it over to Ms. Wolf let her expand or clarify anything I may have said. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Wolf, the floor is yours. If you can introduce yourself to start, please.

Okay. My name is Lizzy Wolf. I'm the owner of 545 Collier Street and the owner of this mess. I'm open. I'll give a short explanation of what happened, and then I welcome questions for clarification if anything is not clear. So after setting aside money to rectify the garage situation, which was kind of a unusable structure on the corner of my property. They just kind of sat there for five years while I set aside enough money to do this construction. I was meanwhile exploring a lot of different options like demolishing it or building something new. And it seemed as though every Every contractor I talked to had kind of a different idea of how to handle the garage. And then I have a friend who worked for Habitat for Humanity, and she came over, and she was giving me basically unbiased advice. She wasn't trying to sell me anything, so I was trusting what she was telling me. And she says, well, I feel like you could just take the hat off. and put a new hat on, and then it would be okay. And I'm like, okay, well, I can find someone to do that. And then I found someone who was willing to do that. It wasn't hard. It was just like one of a couple of people that I found. And he looked at the structure and he said, yep, this is possible. We'll do this. And he scoped the work. to not touch the walls. He was also gonna do work on the shed that is now just a studio space. And he scoped it for just the roof replacement. Then he brought someone on site and he was quite elderly and unfortunately he passed away. And so he had kind of all the spiel on what was going on. This was not the owner of the company, it was his guy that passed away. And he hired a new crew. I met the crew. They seemed fine. And they're actually very kind and competent people, but some mistakes were made. And they started work. And I don't think that they got the message on the fact that this is a historic property, that it's in a highly visible area, and that everything needed to be approved and above board. Often, I do work remote, but often I'll leave the house to work, and I came back at the end of a work day, and the walls were gone, including the back one that had been standing. And I decided with my neighbor, Mary Jo, that it actually looked quite nice from her side, and so we were going to keep it. We were going to keep all the walls. That was what made me think I was going to replace the roof only. And I immediately text messaged Mary Jo. I was like, oh my God. Because there was a clear view into her backyard at that point. Like we had a barrier and then suddenly I'm looking at Mary Jo's bees and flowers. And I'm like, oh my God, I'm so sorry that this happened. And then I had a talk with the contractors and they pointed out some things that were concerning. But at no point did I authorize them to take walls down without permission. There were structural problems, and had we discussed them together, we might have been able to reinforce them or solve them in other ways, but that didn't happen. And so then... Members of the building department came by, put the stop work order on it, rightfully so, and then I worked with them to separate out the two projects so we could continue work on the studio because there were some things that were exposed to the elements that needed to keep going. Yeah. And then, and then I think when I, when I bought the property, I remember at some point learning that this garage was over the property line, but it honestly hadn't occurred to me because it wasn't my plan to take the walls down. And then Jennifer and I were talking about it. And I was like, Oh, wait, the ILC says it's over the property line. So we also have to address that. So that's why I'm standing before you. Do you have any questions?

I am sure we will have questions, but because it's a public hearing item, we are going to open it up for public comment. We have the ability to call you back up for questions. So thank you. I'm going to pause just a second. Jane's getting the signup sheet. For anyone who is going to make a public comment, just the reminder that we'd like you to start with your name, your address, you will have five minutes to make your comment. Everyone's allowed to speak once, you can't give your time to anybody else, none of that kind of stuff. First on my list, I'm gonna go down my list and then anyone who's not on the list is also welcome to speak, but first on my list is Ronald Collins. And, Ronald, if you can just start with name and address, please, and then Jane will start the timer as well.

Great. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Ron Collins. I live at 535 Collier Street with my wife, Mary Jo Lustnick. We share the longest property line with 545 Collier with Lizzy Wolfe. And I can tell you we have zero concern about this. We're absolutely in favor of this variance. Two things that come to mind regarding this is this construction has dramatically improved the cosmetics of the area. And it's also improved the safety of the area. The previous structure there was in particularly bad repair. The previous owner to Lizzie. had not spent any money or time really making sure that that place was safe. So we see this as a very positive benefit both for us and the neighborhood there. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on my list is Sharon O'Leary.

There's your slides up there. You can just double click on them and they'll come up. Double click on it. Or you can just press Enter.

I don't know if I'm going to be able to, but I'll try. Sharon O'Leary, 534 Emory Street, co-chair of Historic Eastside Neighborhood. Rules, codes, and laws are basically designed for the 15% that don't adhere to them. It's a tool that's used in a democratic society. Rules, codes, and laws are only as strong as the enforcement of them. Otherwise, you've wasted everyone's time in establishing them. 545 Collier is that 15%. This is documented with a clear pattern of conduct that has been established throughout the owner's dealing with HPC building permits and city code. It's imperative that with all the violations that this project should only be allowed to proceed if it's being held to the current code and easement requirements. and not just a double fine. 545 Collier began with a pattern of conduct with window gates. In July 2024, the owner wanted to replace windows and went before Historic Preservation Commission and was denied. From there, it went to city council. Council sent it back to HPC and required additional information. The owner never submitted the requested information to HPC and a second appeal went to the city. Then the council denied the request. On February 18th, a handwritten application was turned into the city building department but was never paid for. It said to repair the roof structure on the garage shed, pour concrete inside the garage, closing the hole between two structures, insulating and drywalling the shade, replacing broken windows in the shed and on the main door. I'm going to do the pictures at the end. The first picture is the original structure. The next photos that I had was where almost all the roof was off and the property owner to the west, which was the white fence, and the property to the south, wood fence. Third one was only the back wall was left. The intention was to do a demo and rebuild without a permit. There's a May 15th, a building with a new west wall, May 26th, supporting back wall, and on May 27th, the original wall was completely gone and a new wall was put up. So there was requirements of mailings to go out to surrounding neighbors, and the notice has to be there 14 days before any meeting. The first variance had a due date of July 20th, and on August 7th, Things came in and it wasn't 14 days so planning had to extend the date. The second public hearing had a notice of September 2nd and it arrived September 8th and again, missing the deadline. When talking to the planner, he seemed to think it was the problem of the U.S. mail and I could tell right away he doesn't use U.S. mail. So I sent myself a letter every day and have included them in a photo. It takes two days to receive mail within Longmont and I have that documented. So late mailings are not a postal problem but a 545 Collier problem. Not again adhering to rules. The owner was not diligent in following the city rules and requirements in notifying the neighborhood. Countless numbers of city staff hours have been spent on 545 Collier, and yet 545 did not show the same respect. It's imperative that there's accountability. There were multiple opportunities to do the right thing at the right time the next time something came up. The person responsible for that entire project was the owner of 545 Collier. I am certain that as an educator, you would not want me to enable a student to cheat and not hold them accountable when I caught them. And when I caught them the second time, I should hold them accountable. This is the same sort of scenario. city employees have shown an abundance of grace and although they stopped work they did allow the builder to complete work as a safety measure i am asking that fines are not sufficient but rather enforcement of the current code easement this is the responsibility of the neighbors this is responsibility of the neighbors of 545 collier If you don't enforce your own rules, there will be others that take advantage, most likely developers. Historic neighborhoods are lost one home at a time. But with enforcement, we can save and encourage responsibility. Can you help me with these pictures just so I could?

You can just go hit this arrow forward.

Okay, so if you look up right now,

I'll let you draw it. You'll just need to click. There's an arrow right there when you hover.

That's the back wall. Everything was taken down. So where do I go for the next one?

Click on that. Go back to the arrow. There.

That's how it started. From the start. Just let me say, look at that photo. From the start. The whole roof was going up. The white fence is the neighbor to the west, and that's Mary Jo's house there. Can I just show the mail?

I'm sorry the five minutes are up, but thank you, Ms. O'Leary.

I have hand photos, if you want.

Next on my list, and I apologize, I'm probably going to mispronounce, is it Kyle Schutzschultz? Your handwriting's better than mine, but it's still a little challenging.

I get all sorts of things. But yeah, I'm Kyle Schultz. Hi, thank you. I'm at 601 Collier Street. So I am across to the north of Lizzie in the little greenhouse. I've known Lizzie for five years. We moved in roughly around the same time. And I'm disappointed to see such a deficit framing of Lizzie because really, since I've known her, she spent a lot of time thoughtfully and carefully restoring that house and making it one of the gems on Collier Street, inside and out. And so I don't think it's really fair to say that she hasn't thought of these things, and clearly she has, because she's worked with Jennifer, who I also thank for advocating for us. And looking across the street, I see that building as I wash my dishes, and it'll be really nice to see a functional garage and a shed. It's an art studio for Lizzie. And, you know, in terms of safety, like, it is really great to have a place to put your car. My car was broken into a few weeks ago. I know Lizzie's had her car broken into multiple times. We have small children. We need storage. I mean, I don't know. There just seems like there's a lot of reasons. If this is a single, excuse me, family neighborhood, like, why not make these improvements? And if Historical Preservation Committee has given their blessing, then I think it seems like a really great thing. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Sarah Levinson.

Thank you. Sarah Levison, south 49 and a quarter feet, lot two, block 25, Longmont Old Town, otherwise known as the Booth House, the home of the Longmont High School National Football Championship quarterback. Maybe the Broncos could use that guy, but he's long dead. reason i gave my legal description is what we're really looking at here is a legal description uh... i actually went to the county assessors website and interestingly enough we seem to be missing one foot the legal description of five forty five collier is uh... the east one hundred and twenty five feet of lot seven block forty two the adjacent to the west building is 327 6th Avenue and the assessor notes that as West 54 feet of lock 7 block 42 many of you may not know in Old Town the blocks are two increments of 180 feet and So 125 and 54 adds up to 179. We're missing a foot. This is why I would ask you to not choose any of the options, but you do have another option of punting it to October. The crucial thing here is really to know with a full stake survey where you locate the pins where this property line is. And then you can actually grant a real variance as opposed to saying zero to five feet. Interestingly enough, sometime down the road, 15 or 20 years from now, somebody may want to put an ADU on the top of this garage or convert the garage. And the current ADU rules require a five-foot setback. So now you've gotten yourself tangled, or a future Planning and Zoning Commission is now tangled up in trying to make all these regulations work. The point about the driveway being offset is really not a valid point. There are many variances within the neighborhood where, in fact, our parking space jogs off to the side of our driveway and it's really, you know, it happens almost equally in the neighborhood where you have to jog off to the side of your curb cut. So my request is not to grant any variance, get the real estate survey done, which is what staff said is required anyway, and then you can make a legitimate decision about how many feet. The other thing I would like to point out is that the adjacent property, 327 6th Avenue, does have an accessory building a small garage next to it. And if you grant this variance, when these people come and want to rebuild something, you're going to get into another tangled mess because they're, in order to rebuild something of a decent size, they might have to encroach on 545 Colliers, 125 feet, that east part of lot 7 or in that block. So my recommendation is punt it to October. get a real estate survey done, know where the property lines are. And that's really the simplest way to handle it. Because at this point, you don't know where the property begins or ends. And maybe you will find that last foot for the 180 feet of the block. The other thing that I will note is there's a lot of emphasis on the improvement location certificate. And I will note that the purpose stated in the certificate says it's not a land survey plot or an improvement survey plot. It is not to be relied upon for establishment of a fence, building, or other future improvements. If you're using your legal power of planning and zoning and basing it on a document that says this is not a legal document for the purposes that you're using it, it's kind of a spurious use of that document. In fact, I think it's probably not kosher to do it. The kosher thing would be to get the full stake survey and let's figure out where the property lines are. And what's another month? You know, Lizzy could have done this in the beginning and we wouldn't even be here and we wouldn't have wasted HPC's time and your time and all staff's time. The last matter is that somewhere buried in your paperwork is also an indication that that original cement foundation has been noted to may not be sufficient for what needs to be done. So ripping that up and actually laying a new foundation might actually be a better construction of a rebuilt garage. Lastly, I will note that we've had a lot of fun. When the garage was in a state of disrepair, there was a fox who had dug a foxhole, and one year we enjoyed seeing little baby foxes. So sometimes when things are derelict, you get nature moving in. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Levison. Next and last on my list, Dido Clark. I really hope I did. No. Dido. I'm so sorry.

Hi. I'm Dido Clark. I'm co-chair of the Eastside Historic Neighborhood. Can you have your address as well? Oh, yeah, 534 Baker Street. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate that this Patterson and Partners Improvement Location Certificate says it was prepared by Elizabeth Wolfe. This is not a land survey plot. So we really don't know. We don't have enough information right now would say The other thing is I really want to know why the neighborhood meeting was waived by someone on staff apparently I saw that in the Slideshow earlier. It's like well who gets to decide because we all live in this neighbor neighborhood and we all care about it and We all want to get along You know, I didn't get notified about any of this and I'm the co-chair and that's a pattern, you know, so And there's a one little sign outside the house that you drive by And it's like is that a notification? It's not enough That's my opinion and thank you Thank You, Miss Clark

That's the end of those who are signed up on this sheet. Would anyone else like to come forward and speak? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public comment part of the hearing. Commissioners, who wants to start? Commissioner Wang.

Okay, thanks, Chair. I have a couple of questions for Planner Hewitt-Apperson. Thank you. Just trying to get a couple of clarifications about process. So if this variance was not granted, does the applicant need to go back to the Historic Preservation Committee or Commission to request for a new certificate of appropriateness for the setback version of the structure?

Yes, that would be the appropriate method of doing that.

Okay. There was a couple of questions about the improvement location certificate. Can you explain to us what an ILC is and how is that different from a full-stake survey?

Hi, Taryn Stewart, assistant building official. I actually have the Colorado revised statute pulled up for what an ILC is, but in nomenclature, it's an improvement location certificate. And the state designates this as a survey prepared document showing the boundaries of a parcel and improvements, but not a formal land survey plat. And CRS 3851-108 requires the ILC to state shall not be used for building permits fence permits, anything such as that. But this building also was not moving, so at that point we're relying on the certificate of appropriateness to determine the level of repair that it will receive.

Okay, but now that it will be moving, because we're going to move it back within the property boundaries, a full survey is now required as part of the permitting process, is that correct?

Yes, an ISP or an LSP or an ALTA survey. And that would be an improvement survey plat, a land survey plat, or an ALTA survey, which is much more in-depth. But those will all show accurate boundary lines for the property.

Okay, and when does that happen in the process? Because if this was granted, the applicant would go and apply for the permit, and that's when they need to have that information ready when they apply for the permit?

Correct. Prior to approval, and then that survey would be provided in the approved drawings with the permit.

Okay. Thank you. The other question I have is for Planner Hewitt-Apperson. Has there been any further efforts to access the hard copy of the Sanborn maps to determine when the structure was exactly built?

So this is a question of staff capacity. The Sanborn maps are available online for a long month through about 1918. To see them in hard copy would require a special trip to libraries in either Boulder or Denver. We do rely quite a bit on the cultural resource survey, which was included as part of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting packet. That cultural resource survey was an extremely detailed survey document of the building history, the full history of the site, any building permits that were pulled at any point, when things were built, who lived there, et cetera. Knowing the person who did that particular survey, he was an extremely thorough person. So if he had found indication of when these buildings were built, it would have been indicated in that survey.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. First couple of questions for you, Ms. Hewitt-Epperson, Planner. First of all, what we got as far as the garage reconstruction design with narrative, I guess I don't know what would normally be provided after something has gone through the Historic Preservation Commission. But given that this is a historic property and it's within a historic neighborhood, I'm kind of surprised to hear the garage is going to be built similarly to the one that was there. I would figure they would have very strict guidance on siting, proportions, dimensions, that sort of thing. And the plan that we get doesn't really look anything like the previous garage in terms of the massing and whatnot. It's a very different roof pitch and whatnot. The siding that's referenced or linked is much larger than the siding that was on it before. Is this something that was detailed in what the Historic Preservation Commission expects? Are there more detailed criteria that we just haven't seen or what?

So this is where we get into the nuance of landmarks and what is considered historically significant. So the original garage was actually not considered historically. It was determined to not be historically significant for a number of reasons. lack of documentation of when it was built, kind of some of the haphazard nature of some of the construction methods. So it was not determined to be historically significant. So we didn't need the same level of detail. What the commission was looking for was compatibility with the primary structure. The determination was that what was proposed was similar enough. Frankly, the original garage had what are lovingly referred to as shin knocker door a shin knocker door um so it's basically a piece of plywood that you lift up and push back um and it had been covered in vinyl siding so um any any work on that building had not been done according to any standards. So even if it had been significant at some point, it had been altered beyond that. So the commission determined that single story, the roof pitch is a little different. But a lot of that also has to do with current codes and how things need to be built. A garage door would be a modern garage door, but the lights, you know, would reflect modern standards, but are also still consistent or, you know, considered compatible with the historic nature of the building. You know, the indication, you know, the design as far as the materials, it was detailed, what was approved by the commission detailed, you know, Woodlap siding of similar size to the primary structure, which is the landmark. And then painted in a similar color as well. This is an interesting one because it was designated a landmark in 1985. And best thing I can tell you about some of the older landmark ordinances is they're just weird. This particular ordinance only identified the house, the two-story house as the landmark. It didn't reference the entire property. It didn't reference any accessory structures. So in terms of what the commission was looking at, they were looking at compatibility with the landmark house as opposed to identifying the garage as a landmark itself in its own right. Hopefully that is more clear than mud.

Yes, it is. And so I guess I just have a couple more questions sort of in the same vein to Ms. Wolf, if you could come up here. And so just sort of in the same vein, uh, let me just jump to it. The garage reconstructed design narrative. It lists as a four inch wood lap siding to match the main house edition and the neighboring house. But what is linked down below is an eight inch wood siding. Um, is which way are you going with that?

think that was probably the wrong link I wasn't working with a you know a professional designer on this so the the for instance the trusses that were purchased and now not usable but were modeled after the exact shape of the roof that was already there but I think the discrepancies are probably my fault because I'm not professional and yes that that link was incorrect the siding actually um the siding that I'm proposing to use on the garage is already on the studio okay um it looks really nice the other thing and this is just the the wall height is listed at almost 12 feet high

would expect based on what I saw in the pictures it's probably the pitch yeah maybe that's the top of the okay yeah cuz that that's not quite clear in the in the drawing that's quite a large building I would be like well the historic preservation okay I guess a lot goes for site buildings these days maybe I'm putting a an RV in there or something okay I guess That's all the questions I think I have at this point. I'll yield to some other commissioners. Thank you, Ms. Wool.

Thank you. Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. Okay. I'm going to make a couple of comments, and then I probably have some questions. And if my comments are incorrect, please... Please correct me. So my understanding is that the garage is not really part of the historic structure. And as such, my opinion is that we should not be as lenient as we would be with a historic structure. I feel that setbacks are really important and The main reason is for fire concerns. And anyone who has watched the fire disasters in our country this year, should understand that that's a real issue. There are a number of problems with the drawing. And you said that it was not done professionally. That's obvious. There's really nothing on here about the foundation. And there's a mention of a one-hour firewall on closest to the property line. I believe that any wall that's that close to the property line has to be fire protected on both sides. And if it's within three feet of the property line, it cannot have any openings unless it's a fire door. You show a door on the backside, which, by the way, is labeled north when it should be south and the other one is south. should be labeled north. So the door would not be allowed. And on the same line of thinking, as you go around the corner to where the front garage door would be, that garage door and especially its windows are within three feet of the property line. And that is not allowed. I feel that this was a hardship created by the owner. And I'm very concerned about us giving any kind of a variance to a new structure that is not a historic structure. We have looked at others in the city where we've had to make some consideration. But I don't think this falls into that line. And there are other ways of getting a garage on this site. This is a big lot. It could be a one-car garage. The whole thing could move to the north. It's a long driveway. You could move the whole thing north. You could make it an oversized one-car garage. You could make it a tandem garage. There are ways of getting a garage on your property in an attractive way, in a usable way, that would still meet the requirements of our current building codes. And not only does the wall do walls have to be fireproof, but the overhangs too. And none of that is addressed on the construction drawings. So, you know, I have no confidence that this contractor based on these drawings, you know, would perform properly. And if some of my assumptions here are incorrect, I would like to be corrected.

You are correct.

Thank you. So as such, I will not be supporting this variance. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Boone. Other commissioners? Commissioner Edgley-Wells.

Thank you. I think my only concern regarding this project is currently that the permit wasn't approved before, I guess, the building of the structure was proceeded. I did see some of the letters from the community, and there is a lot of support for this project, but one of them does indicate that they would like to see this project move forward if the fees associated with not having a permit approved were applied. So I'd kind of like to hear maybe other commissioners' thoughts on that. Anyone? Okay, well, those are my concerns. So if it is approved, I would actually like to see those applied.

Thank you, Commissioner Edgley-Wells. Anyone else here? Commissioner Lang.

Thanks. I had a few questions. What is a shear wall?

A shear wall is the exterior sheathing of a building that prevents wind from toppling it over. So the prescriptive path of the current residential code is 12 along the field or along the edges and then six inches along the middle. And this almost acts as like our skin as a human being versus the skin of a building. It prevents uplift into a roof for the roof to come off. It prevents wind resistance.

So what's standing there right now are shear walls?

So currently whenever we issued the stop work order, there were just a two by four by 16 inches on center walls and without sheer walls applied to the exterior of the building, a wind could come over and easily knock it down if it wasn't applied to all four walls. So that's what's holding the structure together. A lot of times when you're driving and you see construction with diagonal braces along these stud walls, that's a temporary shoring mechanic that prevents the walls from falling over due to their own weight because we put the stop work order on while there were no plywood or osb attached to the exterior we requested that that be installed to prevent the building from falling over due to our high wind speed in longmont okay and is it those those framed walls are they sitting on the old footers correct how deep are those do we know i do not know okay

What's that? OK. And then I was wondering, I don't know much about the Historical Preservation Commission, but didn't you say it was approved by them?

So what they approved was the design in terms of the exterior appearance and what I call the general orientation of the garage on the site with the condition that a variance would need to be approved by this body. So basically they said, we think this is okay, but we know we're not the ultimate deciding body on the location.

But was missile Leary representing the HPC when she was up here or just a neighbor?

Ms. O'Leary is a neighbor.

I thought she referenced the HPC. Coach, okay. I don't know who my co-chair is of my neighborhood. Okay, and then, geez. So back to Mr. Wang's question, and I'm trying to get the timeline down. If the variance... approved they have to do another permit application which will include a detailed survey correct yes so what we're here to say yes or no is are we that's not really going to change much maybe a foot right I mean you're missing foot who knows but we're basically saying If we grant the variance, we're saying the walls of this garage, the west and the south walls, will be essentially on the property line wherever that is determined to be from a survey and not an ILC. Yes. Does that make sense? Okay. Okay. That's a tough one. I mean, I get the point of, yeah, you don't want to – do a variance for one house and then, you know, another house is going to, and then maybe get a pile on effect. But on the other hand, the fact that she has support from her adjacent neighbors, I mean, if those to me are the primary stakeholders, what, where do you live? I'm sorry. You're right. Well, I made a little drawing. I thought we were talking about Ron and Mary Jo lived to the South and then Who lives to the west? Oh, renter. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought we heard from the person who lived to the west. Okay. Thank you. That's right. You did say across the street.

So I'm so sorry. We can't have the interaction, and I know that the commission is somewhat encouraging that, and so I'm going to shut that down. No, we're all to blame right now for this, but I would appreciate it.

Sorry. I was kind of loving the give and take, but yeah, you made a good point.

The give and take is wonderful, but it's just not allowed in our rules.

Right.

So noted. All right. That's all I got for now. Thank you, Commissioner Lang. I've got a couple. I know there's a few in the queue that we'll come back to, but I'm going to at least do a first round really quick. One, I really want to give a shout out to the Historic Preservation Commission. Their packet was phenomenal, so both kudos to staff for that, their minutes, the discussion they had. I found that extremely enlightening, and I really appreciate the work that they did. And I hope that you'll pass that back to them, because it was really helpful to kind of frame the issue for me. So I appreciate that. I do wanna dive in, and we've talked about survey timing a lot here. I recognize it's an issue that both the commission is concerned about, the public is concerned about. I also recognize that it is not a requirement for us to issue the variance to have that survey in place. Is it something that is potentially appropriate for a condition on the variance since it's something that has to be done anyway?

I'll defer to our legal counsel on the appropriateness of that.

Could you repeat the question? So we know that a detailed survey, not the ILC, has to be done as part of the building permit. Is it appropriate for us to have it as a condition on the variance that a survey has to be completed?

Good evening, Vice Chair Earle. Jeremy Terrell, Senior Assistant City Attorney. You could. I don't feel strongly about saying you shouldn't. It's not one of the criteria that the commission is to consider for planning zoning commission. The commission is supposed to consider variances. However, the building service department already indicated it would be required, and it is required by city policy. So it's one of those things, like if it ends up in the condition

fine if it doesn't it's still going to happen so well jeremy well you're answering questions then on the variance itself um we have you know an application to reduce the side yard setbacks we have the packet does this variance only apply to the garage in question here or is this a variance for anything that happens on this lot

No, it would be a variance only for the garage in question. So normally our PZRs would indicate it's a reduction of the required five foot setback for a garage to zero feet. I don't know if the PZR drafts contain that language. If not, I would certainly support the commission adding that.

I'll move on to another question in a second, but do you mind looking at that? Yeah, I'll take a look. Okay. Because I think that would be really helpful and potentially address some of the comments around what this means as a future. future precedent for this lot as well.

Yes. Thank you. It's limited to the structure at issue, not for the lot development generally. So if another accessory structure like a greenhouse, assuming greenhouses are also subject to a five-foot setback, which I'm not sure they are, so don't quote me on that. But assuming they were, that wouldn't apply and wouldn't extend to the greenhouse.

theoretically theoretically well theoretically that this garage the variance is approved the garage is built it's permitted everything else at some point in the future the garage is demolished and someone wants to rebuild do they need to set a new variance for that

It depends. Because I would say yes, most likely yes. We have a whole nonconformity section of our code, which allows for repair and rebuilding of structures under certain circumstances. So it's hard for me to say. Let's say the setback changes to one foot.

Yeah.

That would make the garage a nonconformity, but there's a variance in place. But if it's demolished by natural causes, I think they would be allowed to rebuild even under the nonconformity statute in our regulations. So it would all depend on the circumstances of which it happened. It doesn't apply to demolishing it yourself. So they would need a variance in that situation. Okay.

Thank you. Sorry to dive over a hole, but I appreciate that. And I will appreciate future comments on the PCR. And then I want to explore the building code for a second. And it's really commissioner Boone's comments that I am, I defer to her expertise on that. And I believe there was acknowledgement that her interpretation was correct. And I'm concerned about basically the design we're seeing for, I think you said specifically, the door and the windows. Does that mean that there's a different design that is part of the building permit? Or how should we try to reconcile that for us if we're asked to grant a variance for a design that is not within the code?

So the building department is going to follow the certificate of appropriateness that was approved in the design conditions that are listed there, but our code is still going to apply. Such as the windows, if it's closer than three feet, they can't have any portals, which is how the building code references it, or a one-hour fire-rated wall if it is closer than five feet to the property line and the projections that...

you know miss boone had spoke of okay so to interpret if i can the design that we see is not what can be built because it you you wouldn't issue a permit for this as is no not right now okay and so you would have a much more detailed set of plans you would you know some of this would change we are we are talking about the variants i recognize that i recognize hpc is you know approve the kind of overall design that's not the design you're approving no And nothing we're doing in any way touches not following the code, doing anything that's outside the building code. There's nothing about historic structure. Nothing else is going to be built to the current code as it exists today.

With the proposed variance of a zero-yard setback, it would be fully two-code. Okay. Thank you.

Last, and I'll reserve this for a little bit later, we heard comments about notice and signage. I know this is a topic that's come up in the past. I will bring it up at the end because I just want to talk about it because I think we've had it as a future agenda item as well, but want to acknowledge that I did hear that. I will go on to others for right now. Commissioner Jordan, you're next up.

I think Commissioner Wang was up for me, but maybe I got them wrong. Anyways, thank you, Chair. I'll just go quick. The question I had was about the survey. Chair Earle, I was thinking that kind of to your question about conditional, putting that as a condition to put the survey in and what Council Tyrell said. What if the survey comes back and it's actually where they design it, they have extra clearance. Maybe they would only need a two-foot variance or maybe a three-foot variance. One of the things I might be in support of as a conditional approval is saying, hey, after the survey, we don't go any more, you know, the least possible for the designs that are there. Because they have a building width, and we have the shed, which I think still stands. using that as a say, hey, you can't go any further from this. So in other words, if it comes back, it is what it is. You have a zero foot variance, fine. But what if the property line is five feet to the west? Well, now we don't need a variance. So the conditional approval, I think, could say, hey, grant the least necessary variance to accomplish the plan and the record. The problem is what you just described, but the plans are not good enough as they stand. Anyways, just a thought. I thought I'd toss it out there.

Thank you. Commissioner Wang. Thanks. There was a question mentioned earlier this evening from the public invited to be heard about the waiver of the neighborhood notification. Can you explain why that happened?

as far as the neighborhood meeting requirement. So planning director Penland can expound more so on this. But in the past, we typically have not required them for setback variances, particularly on smaller parcels such as this. And the director does have the discretion to waive them if determined appropriate.

Yeah, just to expand upon that a little bit, I think the past practice based upon, again, requests for variances such as this to waive is primarily based upon the very discreet request. Obviously, there's an opportunity and what we generally determine the most appropriate and efficient opportunity to participate at the public hearing.

Okay, thank you. Okay. No, one more thing. So I just want to give my thoughts on this. So Commissioner Boone did mention that the design and the design narrative that we've seen is very rudimentary, I guess. But it sounds like that this will not be what is built because when you go through the building permitting process, you need to have actual plans with the foundation and everything up to code. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Okay. And given that this has the support of the neighbors directly to the east, sorry, to the west, to the south, to the north, and a couple of other folks on the same block on Collier and 6th, and the fact that this is trying to rebuild to the historic designation or the feel of a historic neighborhood of what it was like, Because I feel like if you put the variance back in, then it's not going to be the same feeling as a historic neighborhood anymore. So I am for this approval.

Thank you, Commissioner Wang. Commissioner Edgley-Wells.

Thank you. I just have a follow up question regarding sign postage and permitting. So and this is just a question because I'm a new commissioner and I'm trying to learn the ropes here. There seems to be a correlation between approval of a permit and posting of signage, which Is that correct? I guess I should ask that in a question. Is that correct?

Are you referring to the notice signage for the variance? Yes. So building permit and variance in planning processes are separate.

They're separate.

So what was posted on the site were notices of application under review and notices of public hearing. And those notices were also mailed as well. Okay. All right. Just clarifying. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Commissioner Forbes.

All right. I have a question for you, Lizzie, the owner. Okay, so definitely going through what you've talked about so far and then reading through the packet and everything, it sounds like you've had a lot of bad luck throughout this entire process. Let's throw some more bad luck in the mix. Let's say that you go through this whole process and then we go through the... um like that we go through the platting and then it finds out that the the actual property line is a foot further in how would that affect um like how how would that affect this

Well, I imagine, so we're already having to move the wall that was constructed over the property line. I imagine we would just move it the further distance in and then recenter the garage door. It'd probably be a custom garage door at that point because that's probably a strange size. But the... The east side, I'm not good with directions, the east side wall already has, well, they both do, have this section that's on the front that frames out the door already done. We would just bring it into the property line. It's already moving, so we just move it more.

Then my other question would be, how would that compare to if you actually had to move like what would the hardship be in comparison of like of that versus like having to actually move it the whole garage to be within to not have the variance yeah so

Thank you for asking that. This is a single income house with two children in it. And so when I say I set aside money for this project and found someone who would do it for a price I could afford, I mean it. And if it's already surpassing kind of, it's obviously surpassing what we scoped originally, and it's definitely going to surpass the The cost and part of the reason why we don't have a survey in hand right now is I didn't want to spend $2,500 just to get denied so In addition to getting someone to actually draw the plans I don't I wouldn't do it I would tear it down I would scrap the project because I was just far surpassed my capabilities Okay.

Thank you. Thank you

I see no other commissioners with comments. Does anyone have anything? Oh, Commissioner Lange. Follow-up for you.

I'm still not clear. So let's say the variance gets approved. They have to apply for a permit with some pretty detailed plans and a survey, not cheap. What are the odds that they can keep up those studs right now that they have and those footers? I mean, those footers, what if they're like a foot deep? I mean, is part of the process, do you go out there and actually measure how deep they go and say whether they're going to work or not and know they're only one foot deep, they need to be forward, get rid of them and pour some new ones? Or how does that look?

So I visited the site and I didn't exactly measure the width and the length. But within chapter four of the IRC, it allows buildings that are less than 600 square feet to not be built or their foundations not to be built to frost depth, which are adopted frost depth here is 30 inches. At that point, you know, Miss Wolf is already beyond the required setback, which means she would have to have what's called a cold joint, which is where they would drill into the existing footers and then fill that with epoxy with rebar to connect the new footer to comply with the setback. That would be the easiest way to move forward with this, but the code does allow this to be 12 inches deep if that's what it is.

Okay. And so... you're kind of almost getting a talking about just general home improvements. You're almost, you'd be issuing a permit kind of, you know, the other way around where it's, you know, after the fact where you're going out and looking at it and saying, okay, but it, but it sounded like they could salvage what they have up already. Could you say, yeah, that, If the variance is granted, I think we can go with this and move on from this. You're not going to make them start from scratch, right?

No. And we have a building consultation inspection, which is pretty relevant among a lot of municipalities, where we go out there and give them the prescriptive requirements of what the code allows that we've adopted. We're not going to say, you have to design it like this, but we'll give them the information. And if they provide a drawing that reflects a prescriptive code compliance method, We're going to approve it. We want to, you know, give the citizens and the applicants the tools that they can to succeed, but we won't create this for them.

Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate the route you're taking with, you know, getting the variants first. I think putting something there, you definitely have to flesh out those plans. Looks a little AI generated to me, but... If we can get at some actual construction plans and get some good thorough specs on that thing and hopefully salvage what we have there already, I'm in favor of the variance.

Commissioner Boone.

Thank you, Chair. Well, it looks like I'm going to be outvoted. So with that in mind, I think we should have a condition that this accessory building cannot have an ADU built on it in the future.

That's all I got. Before you turn off, basically you can't convert this existing structure.

You cannot convert, you cannot make this non-compliant accessory structure into an ADU.

What's the concern?

Setback and fire.

And I just want to make sure I unpack that briefly. So effectively, if the applicant wanted to at some point put an ADU on the property in this location or not, well, in this location, it would need a separate variance to do so.

Yes.

And another location compliant with the code is compliant with the code.

And a habitable space I don't think would ever get that variance.

Thank you. Jeremy, can I come back to you? The wording on the PZRs, please.

Yes, so the draft PZRs do mention the request for the side yard setback, but I would recommend making it a little more specific to add a sentence to whatever PZR the commission chooses. Well, if the commission chooses PZR A or B approving in some form, I'd recommend them to add a sentence saying a variance of five feet to allow a zero-foot side yard setback for the rebuild of a garage in the subject property.

Is there a rear yard or just side yard?

It's a rear yard.

Both. Both?

It's a corner lot, so we consider those to have two front and two side.

So I'm just making sure the sentence that's being proposed has to be a side yard, rear yard, from five feet to zero feet. Is that what you're suggesting? If we want to adopt A or B, you'd suggest that be included in the VCR? Correct. Any commissioner want to make a motion or have further comments? But I see no one right now. Commissioner Jordan.

I would like to motion. Well, first a comment, then a motion. I guess I'll say, all in all, I think it's a raw situation. I know some things go south sometimes with contractors. I think that given the concerns about fire and whatnot, but it is a large lot, I think this can be mitigated through the fact that there is a good amount of space between the garage and the house and with the condition that you've suggested, Commissioner Boone. I'm in favor. I think that following the guidance of the Historic Preservation Commission and knowing that a boundary survey will be done and that any building that is put in there will have to meet code, all applicable codes. I would motion to approve PZR 202617B with the condition that this variance does not allow for it to become habitable space as part of an ADO with, and I'll defer to council to see if we should maybe

Hold on one second. We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Forbes. Jeremy, go ahead and we can tweak the wording and then re-motion in second.

Thank you, Vice Chair Earle. I would just remind the commission on its scope for applicable conditions. So it needs to be tied in narrowly to the conditions that are in the variance section. So yes, I would just reiterate that point.

Noted. There is a motion in a second. Is there any discussion of that motion or amendments to it to possibly include the extra sentence that we talked about previously as well?

I would invite any discussion with people who have perhaps better ways with words than I.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells.

I just have a comment based on what Jeremy just said. Maybe it would be best to adhere to fire code instead of talking about keeping an ADU from being built in the future. That's just my suggestion is we can comment on the code at hand in the variance, but not necessarily designate future plan for the property or the garage. Sorry.

I think that's a good suggestion, Commissioner Edgeley-Wells.

Commissioner Edgeley-Wells or somebody else, do you want to amend the motion that's given?

I think it could be a friendly amendment request, Vice Chair Earle, that perhaps Commissioner Jordan could accept and then restate his motion.

I appreciate it. It's been a while for all those rules. I'd like to motion PCR-2026-17B, approval with conditions, the condition being that the variance also includes conformance to all applicable fire codes.

Commissioner Forbes, you were the original second, correct? Do you second the amendment?

I second.

Okay. Commissioner Jordan, can I suggest a friendly amendment as well? Of course. And that would just be to add the sentence in there that we are... The variance that we're talking about is a side yard and rear yard reduction from five feet to zero feet.

Yes, I should have pinned that. I am totally okay with that language in this.

Okay. We have an amended motion. We have multiple seconds on the amended motion. Any other commissioners wish to comment, discuss the motion that's on the floor right now before we go to a vote? Do you have anything? Jane, can you please call a vote?

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Commissioner Forbes? Yes. Vice Chair Earle? Yes. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Commissioner Boone?

No.

Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Vice Chair Earle, that passes six to one with Commissioner Boone dissenting.

Thank you very much. This item now enters a seven-day appeal period. During this time, any aggrieved party may appeal the commission's decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision should be amended or reversed by City Council. All appeals must be in writing and must be received in the City Clerk's Office and the Planning Office within the seven-day appeal period. The appeal period begins Thursday, September 17th at 8 a.m. and ends Wednesday, September 23rd at 5 p.m. Thank you all. That will close the public hearing portion. We are on to our final call, public invited to be heard. Again, I have no one signed up for this, but if anyone would like to speak about things not on the agenda, you are welcome to. And although we remember who you are and your address, if you could please start with that for the record. Can either you hit the button or one of the staff help? Thank you.

Sharon O'Leary, 534 Emory Street. I just think it's really important, why don't you just, like, Why do we have organized neighborhoods and have rules and regs that we have to adhere to? I think it's pretty important. I got to tell you, it's hard going on and accessing the website, the city website. It's kind of a sticky wicket. And a lot of time is put in. I think maybe... City staff should come to NGLA meetings and explain why they don't have to bring something in front of a neighborhood that they can make a decision on the side. I think we have organized neighborhoods to make the city of Longmont a stronger, safer place to live. And then there's this whole city side nebulous thing going on. And then this whole PZ thing going on. Maybe people need to start coming to NGLA and educating all the leaders so that they don't wind up spinning their wheels on various things. To me, if a requirement says the rule is you pay double fines and you have to adhere to something, I believe it. You know, and if it says there has to be a neighborhood presentation but staff can override it, You know, like, just don't make it so nebulous. And then people can back off and give time to their family rather than the neighborhood. I just think creating understanding. It will be interesting to see down the line. I'm kind of waiting for this whole thing with accessory dwellings and enforcement. You know, this whole lack of staff thing is a reality. It's a reality. And Pandora's box has been opened. I don't see many hotels on the horizon, yet we're going to open up people's homes and people are going to create spaces. This is where enforcement comes in handy, and this is where potential mishaps can happen, whether there are fires or flooding in the home. because strangers are living there. Just some things to think about. Don't dismiss the public. And really, don't dismiss neighborhood group leaders. We spend a lot of time getting a top-down view of things, but that's all we get. And then we have to go out and spread the seeds and educate. You know, I just feel like tonight... has just been another demonstration of either miscommunication, a lack of understanding on how the rules are really played within the city system. Let's work together. Don't waste city group leaders' time. Don't waste it. I'm so disappointed, and I think it will be very interesting to see the future. I do appreciate all of you being on a board. I myself served on a board for 10 years. It's a lot of time. It's a lot of dedication. The learning curve on the front end feels awkward because you're looking at your mates who know more. But with time comes great understanding. And you do make a difference. You do make a difference. So thank you for serving each and every one of you.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to? Of course.

Me again, Dr. Dido Clark, 534 Baker Street, Longmont, co-chair of the Historic Eastside Neighborhood Association. In case you haven't heard of it. Sorry, I'm a little pissed off right now. I was in the Marshall Fire. So, you know, fire is real. It spreads quick. It's a thing. The whole planet is warming up. We've had the hottest July ever recorded here in the United States and I believe we've had the hottest year on the whole planet and I appreciate Jerry Boone's input because fire is a huge threat. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else like to comment? then I will go ahead and close our final call public invited to be heard. Um, we're onto item nine on our agenda items from the commission commissioners. I teased it before. Um, Grant, we have talked about notice. We've talked about the ways that the public find out. We've talked about specifically in terms of signage, mailings, that kind of thing. We had talked about trying to have it on a future agenda or study session probably for us to talk through and kind of get a good confidence on. Is that still on the list for something that can come up?

Yes.

I will take yes as the answer there. I hope that is something that we will see sooner rather than later because it is a concern that we're hearing multiple times. And so want to make sure that we're as transparent as we can be following the rules and regulations and making sure that folks understand when they can comment and weigh in. So thank you. Other commission comments? Council Representative Popkin. Anything for me this evening?

Good evening, Commissioners. Thanks for your thorough consideration, as always, of these proposals. I don't think I have too much for you all tonight. I'll note that some of the last night the Urban Renewal Authority approved additional tax increment finance development agreements for some of the urban renewal areas that this body has reviewed. So just connecting the dots between kind of the plan areas that you reviewed at a high level and then the implementation of that at more of a tax and current financing negotiation and development financing level. We approved an agreement for the Twin Peaks area, urban renewal area, for one final piece of the, what is that called? I believe it's the enclave at the peaks or is it retreat and enclave that that was the one that that one was for thank you there's two at the peaks um potentially and um also the last uh tax increment financing agreement with for the south uh southeast urban renewal uh area plan um or slurp um for the first main transit station which has already started construction um so that broke ground a couple days ago And just noting that is you're going to see that you're going to see that move forward. I think the only other thing I want to note, just on a broader board's comment as fellow board members, just note that the application for boards and commissions for additional folks, whether there's a seat on this one available or not, for all the boards and commissions in the city is now open for the fall recruitment cycle. So if you do know people who are interested in serving in different ways, that board process is now open online. You can find the available positions or seats on our website there for that. I will also note that we have continued to make a few, Council has continued to make a few changes to the board structures, one of which most recently was direction to dissolve the golf board, partly based on recommendation from the golf board as well. In an effort to consolidate that, we'll be consolidating the responsibilities of the golf board within the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and doing so. uh... going forward here and presuming council continues with the approval direction that were on Currently, we're in the middle of first reading to second reading right now for a new technology policy advisory board that would be created next week. We are starting recruitment for that in the event, assuming that that passes second reading next week. If you have questions about the scope of that, there's plenty of information on our agenda portal about that, or you can just talk to me after. So I think that's all I will note for the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight, and I believe I'll probably see you next week too.

Thank you very much. We're on to last item. Well, second to last item. Items from the planning director.

Mr. Penland. I will try to be brief. As alluded to, we do have a next week, September 23rd. I believe the agenda and packet has been already distributed, but we do have a conditional use site plan. And then looking into October, we are going to try to get at least several items that have been kind of put on hold in October provided we don't have an additional land use item that takes the place of one of those. We're looking at the single family attached in residential single family districts concepts discussion as well as contractors offices expanding those uses and then a little bit more dialogue on i'll call it the early stages of entitlement review kind of a study session format depending on what those presentations look like we may try to break them up but hopefully again if there's no other land use items we may try to get those on in one night one of the questions that i Wanted to pose to the commission was if we do want to try to put three items on the October 21st meeting, if there was any appetite for starting at six so that we could cover more items.

Commissioners, any feedback? Director Penland on the 6 p.m. for the October?

I'll probably miss that one, so I wouldn't say yet.

Is anyone opposed to that? Okay. I'll let you take that as your informal feedback. I appreciate it.