 with us we're having a little technical difficulty yeah are you ready okay sorry for the delay chairman poland vice chairman Goldberg commissioner flake commissioner Boone councilmember Rodriguez chairman you have a quorum we'll get through this next item is communications from playing director glenn van nemwegen the only thing I have mr. chairman and commissioners is I do want to introduce our newest staff member Ayanna Reid who is in the back with the group of engineers back there Ayanna Reid joined us in May she's a associate planner and I'm sure in a future agenda you will see her upfront in person so that's all I have mr. chair thank you welcome Ayanna next item is public comment this is for items that are not on the agenda for today Jane is going out to get the list okay the first person is Michelle Bennett please come up you have five minutes please state your name and address for the record there we go good evening my name is Michelle Bennett and I reside at 203 Francis Street I came here today to kind of talk about emergency management and so I hope that you'll bear with my little visual scenario when I was a little girl I remember when the fireman used to come into the school and he used to teach us about home safety and you know what drop and roll and and that kind of stuff and and how many exits you need or how to get out of your house how to have a home plan maybe a map and I took that to heart and I think that you know goes for most people who have children that they're that they learn how to exit from their home in case of an emergency and so you know and if one exit doesn't work that there's a backup plan or a place to meet or place where you know that you're going to be safe until the disaster emergency is open so when we built a bedroom in our basement we followed a building code for an aggress window that would allow for a fireman and all his equipment to fit through that window in case there was an emergency in the basement did we ever have a fire in our home no was this important to know yes okay yes so my question is does the city have an evacuation plan have they educated the residents of what to do in an emergency we have all witnessed natural disasters such as fires and floods we know that mass shootings occur now to the point where we become numb to it understand that the management is a mesh of systems when there is an emergency I understand that and that a lot of people different people are involved but I don't think we're educating the community and we all know that fires floods mass shootings happen there exists in longmont which I just recently found out an office of emergency management in longmont that will educate citizens and how to back evacuate in emergency but most citizens the neighborhoods don't know about this the reason this concerns me besides the obvious is longmont seems to want to fill in dead spots with high density housing and event centers building upon existing infrastructures that can barely contain its own traffic problems let alone be able to exit in an emergency event the OEM needs to be more of a part of new development that are being placed inside these moderately dense neighborhoods what happens when there is a need for a massive evacuation when the developer squeezes themselves into these small dead spots without consideration for the neighbors that are around them what happens in an emergency then so in a massive evacuation can the firemen and the emergency units fit through the window of these new developments and the neighboring homes around them I think we need to all really start considering that and making OEM part of the development process thank you next person on the list is Chris Conklin a good evening my name is Chris Conklin I live at 234 Francis I know you are very busy you have a lot on your plates and maybe you're not even familiar with the proposed development at the bond farm 1313 spruce but you are familiar with the procedure which is the very first pre-app thing is this neighborhood meeting well we had such a neighborhood meeting exactly 21 days after the letter went out about it but bothered me was this meeting was held online why it wasn't held in here like you guys have it and like the city council has it is beyond me so 60 people plus were on the the screen you know in the YouTube out of those 60 people 19 I counted them got the call in because the the procedure to call in was very unclear a lot of people couldn't get good in I couldn't get in I don't have a hard number of how many exactly did but I know quite a few so my question and my concern is in the future why don't you hold these meetings in situ like in the chambers here and I would go further to request that you reconvene a meeting of the bond farm neighborhood because while you fulfilled the letter of the requirement I don't think the spirit of the requirement was filled because the spirit of the requirement would give voice to the very people that this impacted the most whatever they're you know whatever they have concerns approval whatever thank you for your time you Chris Conklin the next person on the list is John Loughran hello my name is John Loughran I live at 220 Sherman Street and I also wanted to just bring some concerns about the preliminary design from the bond farm neighborhood my house is built around 1900 and the street was designed around that same time I have a horse tie a stone and a steel ring in front of my house and I imagine that was the traffic flow at that time was not very much but it's expanded recently when there was a construction on 3rd people were detoured down Sherman Street and it was pretty fast and furious down there when I waved somebody you know like hey slow down a little bit I got the finger and the person sped up so that's the current reality that we live in the as the preliminary design shows that all the traffic flowing from the north end of the city would flow down Sherman Street into the main entrance of the design into the project the previous design for that site had the intersections offset so that the traffic flow would be more evenly distributed and that people would have to like slow down and maybe take a different route but right now the main egress would be via Sherman and also people coming from the west on spruce would be turning in at that intersection on Sherman and spruce which does not have very good visibility so there you're kind of one has a big wall one has a bush so and it's coming down the hill so how do you rectify those things so you could make a great beautiful lead building in there and have the latest technology but we're still dealing with the traffic configurations and structure that is pre-existing the so anyway I would just urge you folks to please to require that the developer address and make a safe and equitable traffic flow plan before you even bring that you know proposable further for further discussion thank you thank you the next person is Scott Stewart thank you committee members council members Scott Stewart 229 Grand Street actually here to speak a little bit about Westside Tavern and the impact that it has on the surrounding homes Westside Tavern the building sits on a residential is sits within a residential zoned area and is being used as commercial building as it has been for the past hundred plus years the building has an X has an X historical exemption to the zoning requirements the building and the business that have occupied it for over a hundred years have existed without conflict to the surrounding homes until recently recently being the most recent owner the building operator has modified the on-site parking which pushes employees and customers into the surrounding neighborhood this does not align with the intent of the zoning of all of the surrounding properties it is to the benefit of that single property the historical communication between the city and the former owner of this property illustrates an awareness that the property was under parked and it was unlikely that a seating expansion was unlikely to be approved this is between Richards and Eva Eva she was a previous employee of the city the increased seating capacity of the for the former owner or for the former operator are the increase in seating capacity from the former operator is not in alignment with the historical use of this property this causes business customers to be forced into the residential side streets I'd like to encourage you guys because you have the right to review what has been asked for and what has been approved and what is actually going on now there was just take take the drawing and go walk the property he gets approval and then does what he wants thank you thank you the next person is Karen Madafery did I get that right okay thank you does anybody else in the audience audience wish to come up and speak to something that is not on today's agenda if not I will go ahead and close the public invited to be heard the next item is approval of the minutes for the September 21st 2022 meeting do we have any comments questions motions thank you thanks chairman I'd like to move to approve the September 21st minutes okay we have a motion to approve I'll second the motion thank you commissioner boom we have a motion to approve in a second without any other comments or questions Jane let's take a vote oh vice chairman Goldberg yes chairman Poland yeah commissioner flag commissioner Boone chairman that passes unanimously 4-0 thank you Jane the next item is the public hearing item 6 which is the Villas at Springville Valley preliminary plant planner Zach Blazik presenting yeah thank you chair commissioners Zach Blazik environmental sustainability planner with the city here once again this evening to discuss the Villas at Spring Valley preliminary subdivision plant so the property we're talking about this evening is at the southwest corner of highway 66 and Sundance Drive it's currently vacant 3.27 acres zoned residential mixed neighborhood and designated by our comprehensive plan as mixed neighborhood residential the surrounding land uses to the west we have the Greek golf course and directly to the west is the Greek golf course maintenance facility to the south and to the east we have single family residential and to the north we have highway 66 and just beyond that is unincorporated County again we're zoned residential mixed neighborhood the original concept plan from 1999 called for 24 townhome lots and you can see that concept up on your screen that was with PUD R2 zoning or at the time what was medium residential in the current zoning district we allow a maximum density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre this project proposes eight dwelling units per acre again at 3.27 acres they're allowed up to 58 dwelling units under the current zoning this project proposes 28 dwelling units so the request is for a preliminary plot of 28 residential lots for paired homes so that'll be two lots to each one building the lots range from 2000 square feet in area to just under 3000 square feet in addition to the lots we're looking at 17,000 ish square feet for a street that connects to Sundance Drive at the end of that street is tracked a which is a connection to the golf course maintenance facility in addition to that there's an open space tract going down the center there's a landscape buffer area up to the north along highway 66 and there is an internal tract which is like the alley that they use for internal circulation public outreach on this project we had a virtual neighborhood meeting in September of 21 there were three attendees in November of 21 we sent the notice of application for development we did get comments from 16 members of the public on this notice most of the concerns the vast majority of them were specific to traffic impacts from the project we again noticed on on the public hearing in October earlier this month and with that notice we did not receive any written comments from members of the public development considerations from staff we did find that the project meets the review criteria for preliminary subdivision plant the minimum standards for lot width are met we don't actually have a lot standard for area in the zone district for this use the proposed density aligns with the zoning the comprehensive plan and again just to mention with the previous original concept plan on the site there's no federal or state protected species I did want to mention that there are a couple of raptor nests in the vicinity one is an inactive osprey nest the other is a red tail hawk that the species inhabit report didn't have any issues with or didn't expect any impacts the other thing is that there is inactive prairie dog habitat on the site so if they develop between March and November they'll have to provide a nest survey prior to coming in as always you have three options to vote on this evening the first is to vote to approve the villas at spring valley preliminary subdivision plant you can vote to approve with conditions or you can vote to deny this evening staff is making the recommendation to vote to approve PZ resolution 2022-10 a to approve the villas at spring valley preliminary subdivision plant and that is the end of my show I'll call on the applicants to come up and speak next and I will pull up their slides hello can everybody hear me my name is Joey real I'm here representing prosper land and development we are the developer we're okay commissioners thank you for letting me speak my name is Joey real I'm here representing prosper land and development we are the developer we're located at 428 Kimbark Street here in Longmont you'll have to bear with me a little bit typically I'll let the experts present for me but our planner is a little bit under the weather this evening so if she asked to get up here and answer any questions please go easy on her that's Karen Henry with Henry design group we also have Daniel Madruga here with Atwell engineering he's the project engineer just a little bit about prosper we are a small local development company right here in Longmont we've got a couple owners who own the development company jointly and we've got two employees so we're very small we're all local we're all Colorado residents we all live in the area so we really pride ourselves in doing small projects doing really high quality projects and just not really doing too many lots in a year so a lot of this is stuff that Zach has already covered so I'll try to make this as brief as possible for information we've already gone over as you can see here we have another vicinity map for the site located at the southwest corner of highway 66 and Sundance Drive again adjacent land uses incorporated Boulder County agricultural to the north across highway 66 on the west side we have the U Creek golf course and the minions facility and to the south and to the east our single family and Providence and Spring Valley so the existing site conditions at the location right now the site is 3.27 acres currently undeveloped property mostly unkept covered in prairie grasses as I said there was an inactive prairie dog colony that was found no mitigation was required except for the borough owl nest study if we happen to develop between March and November going into the property there's Arrow Court from Spring Valley to the south it dead ends at the south end of the site this has existing water and sewer stubs that we plan to use for this development current zoning is residential mixed neighborhood the proposed single family attached is an allowable use for this zoning and the allowable density is 6 to 18 units per acre jumping back to the site plan again we are proposing 28 single family attached homes the maximum allowable number of homes would be 58 units in the residential mixed neighborhood zoning each home is planned to have a two car garage for each unit there are 13 additional guest parking spaces along the north side of the alley which is the street be right away we have 1.08 acres of common area open space between outlots B and C so that's quite a bit of open space for the site area right now we have a planned walking trails and sidewalks all around the perimeter of the development all of the planned units will face east and west all of the units on the east side will front Sundance the remainder of the units will front open space either in the center or on the west side we also will have a large landscape setback from highway 66 this is part of the highway 66 corridor requirements again their existing water and sewer utility connections in Arrow Court and Sundance drive we also plan on making a water connection in Sundance to loop that connection the southwest corner of the site as previously mentioned will provide future access for the golf course maintenance facility so here's just a landscape illustrative concept plan you can see that we are trying to emulate what Providence is doing across the street as far as the open space concept we'd like to have the perimeter walking trails and path with the central open space area this is sort of a provenance but they're designed together and we like the aesthetics of that and the functionality so we're trying to emulate it with what we have you'll also notice that on the south end of the site there's an existing 30-foot landscape buffer between the rear of the existing lots in Spring Valley and the right away for Street A when you incorporate Street A there's an increased setback distance of 80 feet before you hit any lots this is an enlargement for the current plan Central Park right now the plan for the Central Park is really to incorporate some shaded seating areas between the tree the shaded pergola places to sit down a small open grass play field for kids to plan we really want it to be green and vibrant have a lot of pretty landscaping places to hang out sit walk your dogs just make it feel like an inclusive center space for the community again Zac went through pretty much all of this so I won't take too much time on this but as far as the review criteria goes we are consistent with the comprehensive plan zoning codes and ordinances the 28 homes at a density of 8.5 d per acre is consistent with the residential mixed neighborhood zoning up to 58 units would again be allowable at maximum density individual lot sizes and setbacks are consistent with the standards we have a 50 foot landscape gateway buffer in the highway six mixed used corridor and the proposed development is overall consistent with the comprehensive plan as far as compliance with the applicable city standards we do have a right and right out access proposed a Sundance that required an exception this was because we were just barely short of the the distance requirement from the collector street entrance we also have drainage and utilities the connections and proposed and usage are in accordance with city standards again the application is compatible with surrounding property in terms of land use site and building layout and design and access the paired homes provide a transition and density and land use from the highway 66 area into the surrounding single family this is we believe is a natural progression from smaller lots into the bigger lots to the south and even larger lots to the east an existing neighborhood buffer along the southern property further enhances the compatibility between the neighborhoods that provides a landscape buffer that's already in place the proposed access road to arrow court and sundance drive will provide additional separation between the existing homes and new lots and also direct the majority of the traffic flow coming out of the neighborhood directly onto Sundance so they don't have to use arrow court and go through the existing neighborhood to the south the homes are separated from all of the surrounding neighborhoods by landscape area we plan to have landscaping all around the perimeter of this site landscaping to the south the east the west and north this application will not adversely affect surrounding properties we've already talked about some of the environmental concerns the proposed preliminary plat was designed to have no adverse effect to any of the surrounding properties we believe it's compatible with the neighborhoods to the south and to the east the paired homes as preliminary platted will provide a residential use that's at the low end of the permitted density in the rmn zone district noise generated from highway 66 is miniscate and is mitigated by the enhanced landscape gateway buffer and the proposed lots are more than 70 feet from the edge of the existing roadway the application does comply with the sustainability evaluation system we don't have any repair in or environmentally sensitive areas on the location this application also includes a appropriate transportation plan we have pedestrian circulation around the entire perimeter of the site and the proposed access off of sundance drive an aerial court is actually the optimum configuration for the site as far as the preliminary subdivision plan review criteria the subdivision will not limit the ability to integrate surrounding land into the city the surrounding land to the east west and south is already in the city and already developed everything to the north of highway 66 we should have no impact on again the subdivision will not create lots that are undevelopable undevelopable or burdened with costs that would preclude development from occurring on the property the subdivision has been designed to accommodate the proposed paired homes this is a existing infill parcel and as such there is no opportunity to indeed impede the development on surrounding properties that they've already been developed again the proposed phasing plan for the development of the subdivision is rational in terms of available in infrastructure capacity and adequate public facilities this is such a small site with 28 units that there is actually no phasing currently being proposed and there should be no stress on the existing infrastructure and that's all I've got so I'll turn it back over to you guys for questions and comments thank you okay this is a public hearing item for that and Jane is getting the list we do give the public a chance to comment on this each person will have five minutes to comment once again step up to the microphone please state your name and address for the record Jane is bringing the list the first person is Paul stalls thank you sir Paul Stiles 2011 Sundance Drive long one thanks for your time this evening firstly two points on what I just heard that I wasn't initially going to discuss but I should share them anyways they're prompted by what I saw the noise to the development the setback from 66 I understand there's been other discussions about at some point widening that and making it two lanes each way so unless you're taking land from the north side that would reduce the gap back to the properties just to make sure that's in everyone's mind and secondly the enhanced traffic flow I did read all the attachments I don't fundamentally disagree with the traffic study and the fact that it's only 28 homes and the amount of extra traffic is minimal but I would say as to an existing problem that turning left out of Sundance onto 66 is already practically impossible to the point that residents go another way because there's no light there and it's not safe I'm talking about peak traffic hours the two points I came to discuss please one is directly related to this development the other I'd say is perhaps a little tangential but I'll throw it in anyway my primary concern is this I was very pleased to see all the correspondence from the golf course regarding the access rights and obligations any developer would have to recognize and to take on in terms of the maintenance facility being so close my concern is that is there any risk that approving this development is then used subsequently as an argument to relocate the golf course because the maintenance facility back to closer to the clubhouse which would be an issue which myself I don't I don't speak on behalf of all the residents of Sundance but I'm backing onto the golf course and I was one of a number of people who participated in our objections about 12 18 months ago into having that developed in the main area by the clubhouse as being an eyesore bad design contradiction of you know a whole bunch of issues so I was very pleased when that was revisited and plans I believe are currently underway to consider developing it in the existing location so just like to go on record of expressing that concern I wouldn't want this to become a reverse argument later that having built this development it is then used as an argument to move the the maintenance facility back to the other location that was proposed I think that would be a mistake and not good so if you guys could comment on that risk I would appreciate it the second point and perhaps slightly less direct is Sundance neighborhood looks like a children's kindergarten art project at the moment we now had three sets of all the flags put in for water electricity gas and some wooden stakes the work there is planned I believe to extend the gas vein with a wider pipe because after provenance was built there isn't sufficient gas pressure coming from 17 up to the north end and in the winter when it gets below freezing people's heating is crapping out because of safety features on low gas pressure so there's a plan of foot I understand it to what put a bigger pipe in clearly that wasn't worked through correctly when provenance was built we wouldn't have this issue so I'd like to make sure that's been considered under sufficient utilities etc that this development will be tapping into and as a side issue which is perhaps not directly relevant to this topic but you can perhaps direct me or get me some feedback subsequently later having mapped it out three times to do the work now and with winter around the corner there's been very little communication about what exactly is going to happen and how this is going to happen is it going to tear up our lawns tear up our driveways it seems to be going up the west side of Sundance from 17 right up to the top to put this pipe in so if you can if you don't know now perhaps you can get me an answer on when's that work being done how disruptive will it be is there a good plan to make sure we don't have to put a wider pipe in later as we continue to add houses it looks like we've got a minute left so if I've not expressed myself clearly I'm happy to take questions if I've been at all vague or confusing in my haste to get this in in my time allowed I will hope that you understood me clearly then if not you can obviously watch the video so do you comment at all on my questions now or do I get feedback later how does it work during this open discussion or in private later okay thank you very much the next person is Brett I believe it's Lambert yes I'm Brett Lambert at 2401 Torhinyan Drive which is immediately a south and just one or two down the corner uh from the proposed development and I agree with most of the concerns that Mr. Stahl's raised and so I won't go through those my primary concern I guess is with the safety considerations the one thing I disagree with I guess is that the traffic study the traffic study as I is this better okay again I agree with all of Mr. Stahl's concerns about the expansion future expansion in highway 66 as I read the preliminary traffic study and I believe it may have been updated since then it seems like a nominal increase at that first turnaround on Sundance South and coming out of either Torhinyan Drive or the new access point the exception access point right in right out onto Sundance but in that traffic study you know there there seem to be two time periods of an hour one in the morning one in the afternoon that generate these numbers that don't seem un don't seem remarkable and yet we've lived there for two and a half years and have seen a dramatic increase you know this was done the traffic survey I guess you the account that they made to prepare their survey was made in August of 2021 at kind of at the height of COVID we've seen a very very dramatic I think increase in the traffic it is almost impossible to get on to 66 from Sundance right now with the increased traffic yet at more than just the high times of the day and so when I read in the executive summary that you know based on their preliminary account from August of 2021 that their traffic increase is 19.8 percent and you're not required to have C dot input until 20 percent it raises real concerns for me about safety because I've shortly after we moved in one of the first things I witnessed was a fatality and Ori commutes that way to the clinic and has for years she no longer commutes on that road I mean the traffic is becoming quite dangerous that's our major concern and I would think we would want some more input on the traffic we are close enough to that and I would suggest that the traffic study really needs to be updated to try to incorporate some more planning with respect to the impacts not only northbound at 66 but also redirecting most of that traffic back south all the way through the residential neighborhood down to 17th so I think said that I'll leave it at that thank you is there anybody else in the audience who would like to come up and comment on this we may have somebody okay uh with nobody else coming up to speak I'll go ahead and close the public invited to be heard on this item and I will open it up to the commission for questions comments motions I did have I'll start Zach the applicant mentioned that there was an exception for the right in right out but I didn't see that in the communication about an exception being required for this yeah that's a public works exception design request that's approved by the public works general manager we can have we have Rachel we have Chris with us who could come down and speak to that sounds good any other questions commissioner Goldberg just a second here yeah thanks chairman hey is that why don't we just get right into it I appreciate your kind of swift run through your presentation this evening but I think there's a lot of folks who have expressed concerns about several items on this project so I wonder if we could just talk through a few of those of those 16 correspondence you got before today's meeting most of them had concerns around traffic I wonder if we could just spend a few minutes kind of reviewing the traffic study how we got to the numbers of anticipated increase in you know flow through a lot of folks are frustrated or concerned that how could 28 lots yield only 20 trips during peak hours can you just help us find some comfort in why this isn't going to be a bigger deal for this neighborhood than it then it seems thank you commissioner Goldberg I would be happy to call on my friends in the public works department field that question we have Caroline Michael she's our transportation engineer hey Caroline hello commissioner Goldberg hey thanks for coming up um you're kind of the one in the hot seat today because a lot of concerns today are around traffic and I wonder if you could just kind of review how you interpret the traffic study what how do those traffic studies get to those numbers and why are we requiring more traffic mitigation and management and raising more red flags around them okay so the applicants are generally required to go through a process of scoping a traffic study where we cover um what exactly what we we want to see addressed on that study in this case um from a trip generation standpoint it was under came in and the 300 range like daily expected trips which is actually under the threshold for what we would typically on a technical level require for a traffic impact study which is 500 trips a day those numbers are calculated using the it trip generation manual which is a nationwide publication based on many years of research and how different land uses generate traffic so they will have different categories I believe they use single family detached housing in this case which and there's also a related use which is multi family low rise which might be more of a town home use um at the end of the day the numbers are pretty similar depending on which land use you end up using um there's also a comment about signalization at highway 66 and Sundance so it's been something that has been raised before as a concern in the traffic study did look at this um so what they do is they usually there's actually four hours of counts if there was confusion around that so it's seven a.m. to nine a.m. in four p.m. to six p.m. are usually the time period chosen due to those being peak rush hour times um and they evaluated those volumes to see if it would meet a signal warrant which in this case it did not okay thank you can you talk about um when it's not when we're not flagging any concerns or any increase in need for more mitigation um or evaluating whether this is the right number of properties in this space or not um does the traffic study also take into consideration the existing condition of the road so for example we've heard a few folks say okay so maybe the overall impact isn't very much but um boy this road already stinks so can we talk about how does this traffic study consider the existing conditions on that road so which road oh sorry Sundance I think Sundance drive primarily it seems like the heart of it is really between Sundance and highway 66 and Sundance okay um so we have conducted um data collection on sundance drive before um I believe it ended up being in the neighborhood of 1500 vehicles per day on that road um which is pretty typical ferocity collector um and there's also quite a bit of existing infrastructure on that road including the median just south of 66 and a few roundabouts okay the study was performed kind of someone commented during COVID or during the peak of COVID how has the industry responded to uh testing and you know um studies when many folks were staying home or or things like that so it is possible to apply some kind of like growth rate or um mitigating factor to that and it's something we could potentially ask the applicant to do or the the other alternative is just complete new data collection and can we require that can we require or request the applicant to do a new traffic study before the development continues potentially um it would have to be something we got to be pretty clear I think in our reasoning why we are requesting that additional analysis okay Carlin thanks for that um you know I think in the end in my service here on PNZ I've learned that you know the traffic studies never yield the results that the neighbors who are impacted expected to you know you think you expected to say that there's going to be thousands of new trips and that it's going to crush the neighborhood but the studies never show those numbers it's always 20 or 30 or a hundred or you know something that really does not justify the increased measures so I appreciate your feedback and maybe I'll pivot it back to Zach for a few minutes thanks thank you hey Zach there were some questions around this utility improvements going on the gas line running up and down and its impact on neighbors and whether it's the right gauge and thickness to be able to accommodate the increased growth in the neighborhood who on your team can tell us more about that hopefully it's not carolin who just sat down thank you commissioner goldberg it's not carolin i'd love to call on my other friend in the public works department rachel or if chris is here i think rachel's here oh no chris is here hey chris chris coming up to talk to you now chairman and commissioner goldberg chris offer public works national resources um so um what they're talking about is a an expansion of an excel gas line which is outside of the city purview we don't have gas service within the city so we work with excel and they will be required to come in and pull a work in the right away permit at a minimum and that work in the right away permit will have all of the information that's associated with where the gas line should go working hours the extent of the project and expected dates finish dates so if anybody would like to they can certainly call the public works department at 303 6518416 which is our general number and talk to lin marquez in our work in the right away permit department great thanks chris chris is it safe to say that excel was contacted about this potential development and is able to manage the increased burden from the new developments and no one some folks were saying that it was struggling in years past or you know there were signs of it not being appropriate sure i cannot speak to how excel is designing their their system but they are um uh contacted when new projects come in they are our reference they're a referenced entity on all of our applications and we do work with them closely i i do trust that they are designing it so that it will um accommodate future developments as well so zack did did excel confirm that they were able to accommodate this development yes commissioner goberg they did and that that letter is included in the communications attachment of your report thank you zack i'm not sure if this question is for you or for the um applicant um but there was some concern raised around buffers and specifically along the southern aspect of the development um excuse me there was requests for a six-foot fence put in trees or other buffers can you just kind of clarify for us on the record what is being proposed and maybe this is for the applicant what is what is the proposed buffer and how does that like it how does that fit into our review does it is it adequate what more can we ask sure commissioner goberg so i will say that there is a required landscape buffer directly to the south um it is specifically a matter of every 30 feet and every 700 750 square feet one tree and five shrubs that's the whole requirement i'm happy to let the applicant speak to how they believe that requirement has been exceeded i can tell you that the requirement has been met okay thanks i think i'd like to do that if you don't mind okay joey can i ask you to come on up and tell us a little bit more about that southern aspect of your property yeah absolutely um the comments when they were made were uh from the original preliminary plant design which was actually a different design um at that time we were planning a giant loop around the site basically all of the lots sort of backed to the south end of the site with an alley that was there the existing 30-foot landscape buffer from spring valley actually exceeds those current landscape buffer requirements and with the additional road right of way there now there's actually an additional 50 feet worth of space it's not landscaped space on the south side obviously because it's road but there will be some enhanced landscaping on the side yards of those lots so there'll be additional landscaping on the other side of the road as well so that setback distance has been increased since those comments were made okay thank you is that i got one more topic before i let the rest of the commissioners chime in that besides traffic the other recurring theme in our communications from the public is around density i think technically the applicant could have built a more dense a denser project i think they're tracking at about eight dwelling units per acre but could have done a much denser project but the neighbors again don't feel like that would fit in or like you know are currently struggling with wrapping their head around 28 lots never mind you know what it could have been can you tell us a little bit about how do we calculate how many lots can fit into that space what are what's impacting that and um we just provide some clarity there and and then why their eight dwelling units per acre makes sense certainly so it's calculated by a ratio and the residential mix neighborhood zone district you have a range of allowed density so at the bottom of that range is six dwelling units per acre the top of that range is 18 dwelling units per acre so when i go to do the math i'm looking at 3.27 acres at between a range of six and 18 dwelling units per acre so to calculate the maximum allowed density i do 18 dwelling units to one acre times 3.27 gets you about 58 dwelling units and that's the most that they would be allowed to build on this site so for me when i'm doing the review i check to make sure that number is within that allowed range this time it is is there anything else that goes into your when you're when you and staff are recommending or confirming that this meets the review criteria do you take anything else into consideration or is it just the math do you kind of look at the surrounding properties and say well this one's sitting at seven dwelling units per acre and this one's at 10 so this is this fits in or are you are there any other factors or is it strictly a math question to determine whether the code is met it's strictly a math question now of course we do look at other items in our review residential compatibility being one in this situation we're looking at paired homes adjacent to paired homes in the mixed-use neighborhood adjacent to residential single family in that zone district that to me is a natural transition that i believe is compatible that's just another example of one of the things we look at but as far as that particular code requirement it's just a math question okay thanks let me yield the mic for a bit thank you chair thank you chair um i just have a few comments relative to concerns that the neighbors have had maybe not specifically in public hearing tonight but in the correspondence that we all got in our packet and a couple comments uh with respect to the traffic study um personally i think it was a bad traffic study it was done during covid it was done on one day it was done um during the summer when school was not in session which generates a lot of trips and in going through the details of it i found some inconsistencies with some of the tables to the point where i don't believe it and i don't find it valid um also the fact that um they said there was going to be a 19.8 percent increase when 20 percent would require um some input from c dot i think it's just splitting hairs and that they were looking for a number that would just pass i don't think it was um genuinely presented be that as it may the the intersection of 66 and sundance is a bad intersection you can't turn left there and the people that live in that neighborhood don't go that way because you can't safely turn left there all of the traffic is either directed to the east or you have to drive down sundance down to 17th street to get out of the neighborhood so the bigger issue is the traffic flow in the whole area not specifically um with respect to these few units that are going to be built so if i throw out the traffic study as not very good information um the other the other concerns one was compatibility and this graphic that was left up on the screen um i think really does show a good compatibility with the neighbors to the south if you look at the footprint of the duplex relative to the size and footprint of the houses to the south you see that they're pretty similar and these duplex buildings at least in their concept plan they're really cute they're nice architecturally and they're going to look pretty much like a single family home and they're going to fit in very nicely with the area um let's see i had another one um oh and just wanted to point out that many of the um many of the concerns that we received in writing from the neighborhood had to do with the prior configuration where the alleys were going the other way and now the configuration of the alley that loops around does not have any of the houses backing up to the south subdivision so that's been improved um the developer listened to the input and changed the plan and i think that's good so in general i really like this project um and i hope it goes through thank you thank you chair um i have a question regarding the alleyway and i'm not sure who to whom i should address this is it a private alley or is it a public alley how will it be maintained thank you commissioner flake it's a private alley and the portion of the street below it to the south is public and i assume utilities are within that alley area yes and if they're public at utilities by whom would those utilities be maintained since it's a private street the city the city hat will have um permission to go into the private alley to maintain the public services that's correct and what services aside from i assume sewer and water will be in that alley sewer water anything else just sewer and water sewer and water yes ma'am and so now since the a2a is responsible for the surface and the city is responsible for what's underneath how does that work in terms of funding the street maintenance problems may come up if the city decides they need to dig something up how will that work out is there an hoa in place that will pay for that i think the current plan is for there to be an hoa in place for this community that's the way we typically do developments but it was also my understanding with this alleyway that we are currently meeting all of the requirements to make this a public alleyway if i'm mistaken in that somebody behind me can correct me but i think it was our intent to make this a public alleyway and public works is on board with that yes commissioner flake the way they've laid it out it does meet the requirements for a public alley if it if they so choose to do that okay so then you have responsibility for the whole nine yards there and we're not looking for the poor hoa to correct maintain the street area yep thank you interesting um actually commissioner boone you made a statement that there were parts of the traffic study that you did not trust or the do you have those notes what you found that you do not agree with and can we have somebody from traffic come down to speak to these points ready okay well aside from the fact that 19.8 percent really is 20 percent the page i'm looking at in the traffic study it is page 20 of the traffic study and there's a table relative to delays during the peak hours we have the existing scenario in 2021 we have a 2024 background we have a 2024 background plus the project we have a 2045 background and a 2045 background plus the project and if you look at the first three categories um it pretty much makes sense that there's a little more um weight and a little more traffic with the project than there is to the background and there's a little more weight for projected 2024 than there is for 2021 and then you get down to 2045 and all of a sudden those numbers jump up to double what they were in 2024 in the background area and then they're half in the background plus project area so to me that data looks incorrect um do you see where i'm speaking yeah you're looking at that uh northbound yeah i see what you're talking about and when i see something like that in a traffic study i'm not a traffic engineer but i am an engineer so i'm used to looking at numbers and at data and if i see something like that presented i'm going to question the whole thing i can actually speak to that a little bit the numbers you're looking at at the bottom 2045 background plus project um if you look at the bottom the uh last column includes two eastbound and westbound through lanes this takes into consideration the uh scheduled improvements to highway 66 going from a two to a four lane that's why you're seeing a reduction in those numbers um i guess the question for you as well i was trying to look up were they assuming like long-term signalization okay because i'm like that's the other reason it might be lower but um regardless so it's um i didn't follow that so when you go from the 2045 background to the 2045 background plus the project the numbers are less than half that's because they're accounting for the number of lanes on highway 66 doubling from two to four it's the background plus project and you see the hashtag at the bottom and look at the note at the very bottom of the table this is accounting for the uh anticipated expansion of highway 66 that's supposed to occur in the next 10 years around 2035 okay but both of those cat those lower categories would have that so we'd have double lanes for both of them no they wouldn't only the one with the the hashtag at the end of it accounts for the four lanes the 2045 without it does not i believe what commissioner boon is saying is that that you can't compare those to the highway 66 improvements are not dependent on this project so they will do that regardless it's not something that would only apply afterwards which if it's an if it is an inconsistency it's something we can i can ask the traffic engineer to correct i'm not i don't remember who did this one Curtis Rao um and that's a comment we can make um and i guess i also wanted to i guess clarify further autumn signal warrants because there are multiple different signal warrants not all of them are applicable to every application in this case so a lot of concern has been raised about safety um and not being able to turn left so crash incidents is a criteria and potential signalization um and from the data i have it does not meet that criteria in terms of questions and it's the intersection of sundance and 66 that is it's because nobody uses the intersection because it's too hard to get across but okay i think that's answered part of my question i i still don't have a lot of faith in this traffic study it was done over so many so few hours during covid during the summer um also i did i was just researching it back there um to see well one there's no requirement that applicants have to perform traffic counts during the school year but um i believe if i'm not mistaken they actually were so it's yeah Tuesdays Tuesday august 24th 21 so that i believe that is at the beginning of the school year so maybe maybe so okay so i guess what i concluded is that you know there's traffic issues in this area this project minimally affects the traffic issues that are already in this area so just my my opinion and my my comment thank you all right thank you don't go any place thank you in regards to the traffic study and the numbers and the future possibilities of that intersection who hypothetically would be required to install that signal who would have to pay for it should it become warranted the city probably we're not the only decision-making body on that so we do have to present um that a signal warrant has been satisfied and then c dot so okay and so c dot may have the final word on whether or not that intersection gets signalized yes they would have input and what hypothetically what could happen to the intersection if say in 10 years or 20 and c dot has other projects that take more priority and they never widen 66 because it actually doesn't go very far it comes off of i-25 from the east and then it goes to just past what lions and boulder county is probably never going to invest in their part of it hypothetically so what would conceivably happen in that situation if the road never gets widened how do we get to a warranted situation because obviously it's a matter of safety even now at that intersection so a few things we do have so there is it was mentioned before there's um a highway 66 planning an environmental link into the study that c dot completed a few years ago right um we do have so the city has an active cip and design for highway 66 but it covers the piece from hoover to main so it's the west side um i haven't i don't know where that is in the design process right now um but as far as east of main street highway 287 i have not seen any design plus yeah okay so um but i guess further from that um it's typically something that we would do we would continue to monitor the intersection we've done it with other intersections on state highways as well so we're like 66 and alpine we get a lot of similar comments and we've completed recent counts there and it's just a matter of quite frankly just keeping track of it over time and also the crash data right okay all of that gets looked at so what would need to happen to motivate any kind of a study or consideration by the city i mean this has got to be part of the capital improvement project budgets so it has to be budgeted what would it take for the city of longmont to decide to pursue that because you need more than one light between pace and the county line road there has to be another one it's the distance does that require perhaps a slowing down of the speed in that area do the speed limits come down because that would also contribute to greater safety on the road so we can we can request uh lowering speed limits to see ultimately that circle what would it take for the city to do that i can do that i can't make any guarantees i understand but the quit if we don't start asking questions of people that have money and have decision-making possibilities we don't get to where we need to go and that would be my concern i know i can't ask you to do a job your supervisors decide what you will do but in my mind that seems like an appropriate step to take thank you very much all right thank you well the eugene was just saying we do have a specific criteria for approval and um this is adjacent to highway 66 but it's not the total criteria for approval so it is an overall issue for the community thanks chairman carol may i hit you which one or two more questions and then we'll get you off the hook here um i appreciate uh commissioner boon bringing up questions around the legitimacy of the traffic study because i think it's really important that we're here making decisions and um we can only you know make those decisions based off of the information we have and i think the discussion showed some clarity and helped helped us better understand the chart and bring some comfort um but in the end it's kind of your job i think to approve the traffic study and you know put your stamp of approval on you and your team and staff um would you just clarify for us how did you review the study and what in turn gave you in city staff the confidence to say cool this is a this is an adequate traffic study hear commission make decisions off of that so i mean i believe i so before going into this i was already aware of many of the previous issues that have been raised particularly about highway 66 and sundance so that's the first thing i looked at sure to see if they met the traffic signal warrant and they did not yes um so yeah are you asking i i don't know how we review it sure sure commissioner boon pointed out some discrepancies in the numbers or or at least to her understanding um i just could you just review for us how before it gets to us and eventually to city council how how do you use your team look at it and you know kind of say cool this is good or no no this doesn't meet the grade you need to provide a new one okay so we typically look at so i know there were some confusion over some of the specific numbers um so there's a few things we look at we look at um the level of service benchmark criteria in this case our benchmark criteria actually only apply to signalized intersections so there's not a lot so when i'm looking at something like that even if it's a failing grade there's not always a ton of i don't know recourse to take if something is and it's like you said a lot of times that collector approaches to highways do perform at a lower level of service and that's how it is um ultimately we would look at our standards and see is this meeting what's in the standards now at the same time i'm not perfect and perhaps i did miss something i will be looking at this like after today's meeting and it's still a comment i mean where i'm preliminary so we can potentially also ask the applicant to clarify okay items so thank you the in on that chart and we've heard in our discussion they reference the improvements to highway 66 widening it but from two to four lanes can you just remind me is that confirmed is that happening is that maybe happening i've heard references to it happening within the next 10 years what's the reality on that improvement and is that in our control or is that a c dot project it would be c dot and i can't speak to their schedule they have completed i can tell you they've completed that um planning and environmental link into a study they've also completed an access control plan along highway 66 okay but i can't speak to any timing on widening projects at this moment so okay glenn or zack is there anyone else who would have more visibility into you know projections c dot for an improvement like that thank you commissioner olberg i mean for that question if it were posed to me caroline is the first person that i would ask okay okay all right caroline get your feedback here i think in the end you know the commission needs to make the decision based on the data that's given to us that's been reviewed by staff and you know kind of in the end make our recommendation off of that or require or request a you know an additional traffic study um what i've heard from you is that you and your team have reviewed the study um there's a big kind of open ended situation here whether 66 will or will not be improved it seems like the applicant study takes both into consideration so i'll put it away from traffic questions for a second thanks thank you all right thank you commissioner gober hey zack excuse me one of the applicants had questions about the future plans for the golf course maintenance facility do we have any purview into that and can that weigh into our decision at all thank you commissioner golberg um so the golf course maintenance facility is currently under development review by staff it's in its own site plan review process at the time um one thing that i will mention is that they were able to provide their own referral agency comments as part of this development all of that is in your correspondence packet um as far as whether or not i'm not sure what you're getting at as far as like whether that development will affect this one and your ability to make a decision i don't know if you can clarify that piece for me sure yeah i think one of the members of the public was concerned that our approval of this project could then impact where and when where that golf course facility maintenance facility goes i think my takeaway is that really can't measure into our discussion today or how we vote today you know i just think that's really not a matter that we can manage i would i would agree that it doesn't fall under the review criteria that we used to make our analysis a recommendation in your approval um the one thing that i would just say to kind of close the loop on your question is that there was a previous application for that facility to go somewhere else um they had a neighborhood meeting there was quite a bit of feedback and the maintenance facility then returned to making improvements on the site that they're currently on um glenn if you have any other context on that feel free to pipe up okay thanks and i don't think there's any impact on this one and they have gone through review i think it slowed because of a lot of city projects with inflation the price iraq but as they possibly can build the rec facility at this location okay thanks glenn zack quick question in looking at the subdivision to the south do we have like an approximate how density for that development uh there may be a uh an actual density located in your packet with with the attachment that i included from that original spring valley concept plan i'll tell you that since it's residential single family it is going to be um pretty much one dwelling you know it's one dwelling unit per lot and the actual density will be less than four per acre i'm just going to quickly give my thoughts on this um as far as it it seems to meet all of the um right review criteria um really the major issue seems to be the traffic when we look at the traffic study um and we look at 2021 through 2024 including the project plus it looks like there's minimal decreases to level of service there's just a couple categories where they decrease um i do agree i i think i understand what happened in the 2045 area be kind of nice if there was a 2045 background hashtag so you could do a comparison but i understand that that that's not in there showing that without anything it's going to be really bad but because there's going to be work done it's it's going to be actually better than what it is now so um in looking at that i do have confidence that this isn't going to drastically decrease the traffic and and actually it's not going to put it into uh at least as of 2024 any failing grades um it does seem to fit with the other area uh the other developments in the area it does look like it has the proper landscaping and the does seem to be compatible subdivision to the south um so as of right now i would be in favor of this but look forward to hearing from the other commissioners and commissioner thanks chairman okay yeah um i largely agree with your sentiments chairman um i too feel like this um development or project before us meets the review criteria both the standard review criteria and those for the preliminary um subdivision plat request is that am i saying that right yep thank you um so check in those two boxes traffic is hard traffic is really something that impacts you know residents every day and um and the traffic studies never show the numbers that we expect them to to show us but at the end of the day we have to um you know approve or not approve a project based off of the kind of industry norms city standards uh and you know using that information that we get then determine whether it's you know going to overly impact a neighborhood and for better you know in this situation those studies show that this won't be an increased burden or an excessive burden on the neighborhood and so with that um i'm able to move past the concerns with the traffic knowing that it won't be me it'll be you know my neighbors you know over on those streets that are impacted but we just have to use the metrics provided to us additionally uh there's you know it's no question that there's a need for housing and diverse housing in our town and i think bringing in these paired homes is a great way to increase housing opportunities in a city that's struggling to provide enough housing for our workforce and everyone else in between who want to work, live, and play here um finally you know just reaching out to the residents i just i find comfort knowing that this could have been a much more dense project that the applicant technically could have made a more dense you know with more lots and really make this less compatible to the neighborhood and they seem to have found a balance there so recognizing that it could have been more dense sure it's not single-family housing but um it could have been but that's not really what the market's calling for right now i think this makes a lot of sense uh so with that and recognizing that they exceeded the buffer requirements um i feel comfortable making a motion to approve uh this pzr so with that let me put it in real quick the with that i'll move to i recommend that the planning and zoning commission approve the villas at spring valley preliminary subdivision plat application as reflected in pzr 2022-10a uh commission uh eugen may city attorney so in pzr a and actually throughout the pzr's in section three it says that the pz recommends approval for a preliminary subdivision pz is the decision-making body so i would suggest that we amend the pzr to take out the recommend and grammatically commission approves the villas at spring valley preliminary subdivision plat uh you should amend the pzr to correct that and make a motion to amend and then approve if successful approve the amended motion yeah forgive me i'd like to recommend i'd like to amend my my motion thank you um suggesting that um the planning and zoning approve the villas at spring valley preliminary subdivision plat application as reflected in pzr 2022-10a is that is that safe or correct i'd remove the word recommend and remove removing the word recommend from section three in the and i think yeah i think the intent is clear i second the motion with the exclusion of the word recommends in section three thank you so back so we have a motion it has been seconded is there any more debate any more comments if not jane let's go ahead and take a vote vice chairman goldberg chairman pollin commissioner flag commissioner boone yes chairman that passes unanimously four to zero thank you with the passing of this uh this item now enters the appeal process uh this item now enters a seven-day appeal period during this time any agreed party may appeal the commission's decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning 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 october 20th at eight a.m. it ends wednesday october 26th at five p.m. that is our last public hearing item we do have other business and everybody's invited to stay along with it um we have let me bring up the communication on this we have brian schumacher presenting uh for mixed use and non-residential design standards amendments well brian setting up i'll just say this is uh generally there's a a group of ordinances that we've been bringing to council um this is something you haven't seen before so we thought we'd give you an update and certainly take your input on it um on the design guidelines for particularly your industrial buildings well that's to your benefit then if i only have five minutes i can't wear those well thank you commissioners i'm brian schumacher with city planning staff it's been a little while since i've talked to you all but uh good to be back um so we're here this evening uh to talk about some potential amendments to the land development code related to um you know appropriate design standards for industrial buildings and this agenda item uh particularly pertains to those types of industrial buildings that might include things like light and medium industrial buildings i'm going to give a few examples as i go through the presentation slides warehouse distribution buildings public service maintenance buildings and other similar flux type of industrial buildings or storage buildings and so these buildings we're seeing a significant increase in demand for these types of buildings in our community and you know they help bolster and the long months economic vitality for our community so the current design standards that we have in place that were originally uh created with a code update that actually i hate to admit this but i was involved with back in 2001 um and they were amended over time and most recently uh with the 2018 code update they were amended again but the current design standards focus more on mixed use and retail office and commercial buildings uh design and less so on industrial building designs and so the goal is to create standards for industrial buildings that allow more flexibility given the building's form and function while still providing quality design that meets community goals and design standards purpose and intense statement so we can figure out how to move the slide around so this slide just uh shows and i'm not going to read through all of this but this shows in the kind of the beginning of the mixed use and non-residential design standards section some of those uh purpose statements and these purpose statements are consistent with the goals and policies that are enumerated in the Envision and Longmont Comprehensive Plan obviously it includes things such as enhancing character visual interest uh protecting property values balancing communities economic and aesthetic goals things of that nature so this next slide these are just some of the current graphics that we have in the code and these help to address key standards when reviewing mixed use and non-residential design standards they address things such as site layout building entrances building articulation both horizontal and vertical articulation roof and parapet design transparency building materials and colors and the goal obviously is to have buildings that are engaging to the pedestrians as well as provide architectural interest and variation so you've probably seen these buildings around town these are just a couple of examples of vertical mixed use developments that have incorporated most of the standards that were updated in 2018 a couple of these projects were uh constructed or at least started constructed construction before 2018 but obviously for the most part they incorporate those those types of design standards creating more pedestrian friendly urban style design and this is just an example of some of the more recently constructed commercial development in our community that also incorporated most of the standards that are part of the mixed use and non-residential design standards you've got the harvest junction commercial center village at the peaks so then we move into industrial building design standards so industrial buildings on the other hand tend to require different design features in an environment that is less pedestrian focused typically industrial buildings are larger with different functions than mixed use or commercial buildings buildings on their front do include offices and customer entrances but window and door openings are typically more limited because of storage and manufacturing operations that occur in a large portions of the buildings these buildings are typically located in industrial park settings that are serviced by trucks with limited amounts of pedestrian access this in the next image are renderings of an industrial building project that was recently constructed in southwest longmont so this rendering shows the backside of the same building and obviously the backs and sides of industrial buildings not facing the street or other public areas or residential areas or mixed use developments often often provide less architectural variation due to the more intensive use of the area for manufacturing loading storage and other uses in this slide this just shows since i took the time to go out and actually look at this building that was constructed this just shows kind of the finished product and it's very similar to the renderings that were provided as we went through the review process so i'm going to talk a little bit about the proposed amendments you have in your packet so staff has received some input from industrial building developers as we've gone through the review process for reviewing industrial buildings and looking at our current standards you know we've come to the conclusion that there's frequently requests for modifications or variances to particular types of standards or design standards for these industrial buildings and so you know we've come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to consider amending the code to create some more flexibility for industrial buildings so the intent of the amendments are to acknowledge that industrial buildings have a different form and function and that typically dictate more flexibility in terms of building design so staff discussed the preliminary draft amendments with city council this past august and council proceeded to direct staff to proceed with the amendments and that's why we're here this evening to talk with the commission to get your input see if you generally concur if you have any suggestions we're certainly open to any input that the commission may have before we finish drafting the ordinance for council's consideration so a lot of information on this on this slide certainly not going to go into it in detail but if you have specific questions i'm certainly happy to to talk with the commission about that so it reflects most of the changes that are proposed with this new subsection c11 for industrial building design they're also just wanted to point out they're also locational criteria when industrial buildings are adjacent to for example residential zoning district or an existing or planned mixed use development and in those instances we want a higher quality standard that might not apply to an industrial building an industrial park that's surrounded by other industrial buildings so in that instance you know the buildings when they're nearby residential or they're nearby mixed use development they need to meet most of the mixed use and non-residential standards so just to highlight a few of these changes that are enumerated on this this slide so in terms of horizontal articulation the current code requires variation in wall planes materials textures window design on all all elevations is foresighted architecture the proposed change would allow more flexibility in terms of only requiring wall plane variation on facades that include customer entrances and offices that are front on a public street or other public area or perhaps face towards a residential area a all other variation standards would still apply such as changing materials textures window design things of that nature in terms of building transparency the current standard is that there's a 50 percent transparency standard for building facades that face towards a public street a public area residential area for example for the industrial standards this standard would be reduced you notice that in in the pictures that I showed obviously just because of the function of the industrial buildings not all facades are able to provide as much transparency as that we would require for other types of other building types such as mixed use developments or commercial retail developments and so there's a lesser standard there although it's still required for particularly frontages that include customer entrances and office space frontages along public streets other higher visibility areas but you know the back sides of the building obviously would not require nearly as much transparency and then there's also allowances for different types of glass material whereas in a mixed use or commercial development we want clear glass to have visibility into the the buildings the activity spaces within the buildings whereas an industrial building we could allow tinted glass or spandrel glass on areas that aren't worth you might not have an office or a customer entrance area a few other things of note building materials so the current code standard is the primary materials are brick stone glass and stucco just because of the way industrial buildings are constructed what's been added into the draft is precast or tilt up concrete of quality composite or and quality composite or insulated metal panels with compatible finishes and colors add that are also allowed as primary materials and you know there's been a couple of good examples where you know they actually when you do a tilt up concrete building with a good quality finish it almost looks like stucco material or even an insulated metal panel that can look like a stucco material and then I think a good example of kind of a composite metal panel which you may have noticed before is the uc health hospital as you're coming into town on the east side along large expanse of the primary hospital building at the entrance they've they're utilized almost like a wood grain finish on their aluminum composite panels which is a high quality material and then in terms of roof lines obviously the current code requires projections or recesses dormers changes in roof and parapet height distinctive detailed architectural features or cornices to break up you know continuous roof lines and the proposed amendment would allow more flexibility on that but it still be required on those higher visibility areas where you might have customer entrances or offices fronting along a street so I don't want to bore you with too much details there's one to give you a few examples of some of the proposed changes happy to discuss in more detail oh yeah sure it's I'm flexible whatever you whatever you prefer to do sure thank you um Ryan looking back under general design standard c one site layout and I wouldn't make this comment except that I noticed that all the way through the document you're you're updating and changing and modifying so I thought I would discuss this part under b compatibility with adjacent development and I noted that under roman numeral four areas and access for refuse refuse and recycling collection and I thought as long as you've gone that far and for loading docks particularly adjacent to residential development because sometimes we aren't clear enough and we end up with funny situations where you have a loading dock and then they figure oh 150 feet is enough and then there's a residential development area and it's never enough because loading docks don't operate under normal hours ever and you got the lighting and the noise and everything so ideally I would say they must be in a 90 degree change with a buffer wall type of screen wall yeah additional landscaping whatever the building usually if it's out that way and then it's facing you know away in a different side sure then the residential area is far more protected they're not going to be totally protected right those things are noisy and bright yep I certainly can be give it a shot no I appreciate appreciate that feedback thanks thanks Brian I appreciate your attention to the the weeds here am I just am I can you kind of keep me straight here what we're doing here is proposing a new section titled industrial building design standards because currently industrial buildings are being held up against the same bar if you will as what's listed as current here which is mixed use that's correct got it the reason why admittedly I think it was just in our last meeting or two months ago we had a like a light industrial building come before us I think it was going to be behind home depot and I was like that's a good looking industrial building you know and I you know I applauded it and I think I even called it out during the meeting that I applaud industrial development but that looks good you know that looks like you know the projects Roosevelt apartments in first and main so what I see here in the proposed versus the current is a little bit more a laxed approach to it okay not 50 percent 25 percent you know okay we're requiring some premium materials here we're loosening up you know what that means in an industrial setting which I think is fair you know especially given what they're doing in an industry industrial setting but you know I feel like industry has evolved a bit you know when I used to think of industry I thought I don't know what was there before first and main street you know I pictured you know metal and hot metal and hammering things and building stuff and now industry seems to take place a lot in you know smaller more curated places so I guess I just want to I'm wondering a is this a trend that we're seeing across other municipalities loosening the requirements for an industrial development or are we saying well weird this is more like correcting something that we've been off on we've been requiring we've been too strict for these industrial needs so let us correct a little bit and make it more feasible uh commissioner goldberg I think it's more the latter where our standards were pretty high and and are pretty high and trying to fit an industrial building into a granted we want I think we all want quality development in our community and I think the fact that we have locational criteria built into this where if it's adjacent to a residential area or it's near a existing or planned mixed use development that it has to meet a higher standard but if it's in an area where that's an industrial park and there's other industrial buildings around it then I think it's reasonable to consider a reduced standard for these types of industrial buildings and I think that other communities have that I've seen anyway have specific standards for industrial buildings that we haven't had that we haven't had and are we are we losing business because of these standards do we know you know I don't know if we need Jess Eric it's sitting up here or something I don't know if we do I mean I I know we've kind of gone back and forth with uh potential developers about the standards and it has created some issues in terms of uh timing on approvals and the length of time that it takes to get for example a modification or a variance request and so that might have a deterrent on somebody willing to look or relocate into Longmont okay thanks actually Brian nailed it um that's what I said there we do have tools in our code that we can make some adjustments up to a certain degree but it adds time to the process and it adds some uncertainty as well so that's what we've heard over and over is I need to get my project through and um we're trying to use a standard for a high pedestrian area um and adapt them to a industrial building thank you um first of all Brian this is great I think you've done a great job with it and I think it's a piece of the the code that's been lacking so good job and Mike I just have a couple of questions what is and I'll ask them both and then you can answer them together um first of all what is the anticipated timeline for getting this enacted and I'm assuming that in this interim period that you're kind of in between the existing and what's proposed as new because we as a commission have not seen projects coming through that that need our review because they don't meet the current standards so you must be doing those in-house and um that's got to be laborious so this would certainly help that and make it a level playing field and also encourage these types of developments to happen which is certainly one of the trends so I applaud it well thank you Commissioner Boone to respond to your questions one I think our ultimate goal would be to complete this by your end if at all possible I'm not sure if that'll be achieved but we're going to certainly try to do that if not first quarter next year um and then the second question is that there may have been a few items in the past I'm not sure in the recent you know recently there's been any applications that come before the commission but I think there's been some some applications within the past so when the update was could update was done in 2018 there may have been a few applications that came before the commission for variance requests in terms of design standards relative to industrial buildings but you're right for the most part staff has looked at this and tried to negotiate work with the applicants to come up with a design that could fit within what staff has the ability to under the current code to approve as a modification um a couple questions and I'm going to state them both and then I'll turn the mic back over to you the first one is with the roof line the prior intention was to break up roof lines basically now it seems a little more relaxed so can you speak as to what you're looking at for that and the second one is more of a general question um kind of piggyback off of some earlier discussion who did we get who did you get input from from this did you go out to the public did you go talk to the economic board who did you kind of bounce things off of to try to get some of these um proposals in from thank you so uh in terms of the roof line question um let me go back actually to one of those pictures this is pretty good so um on this particular example um which is in southwest Longmont um you know the um the higher visibility area obviously has more transparency where they have office space customer entrances uh they've also tried to incorporate some variation in terms of roof lines particularly for the areas that front onto the public street um but as you see on on this design um as I don't know if I can oh I guess I can uh as you kind of look on the the side of the building that goes towards towards the back uh this is the north side of the building uh it faces towards an electrical substation so there isn't really anything to really buffer create a design to that that other adjacent use um and obviously that portion of the roof line is more continuous without breaks in that roof line and then as you look on the the back side of the building of the rear where the loading docks are it also backs to another industrial lot um obviously uh you know I guess staff didn't feel that there was really a need for uh you know roof line variation since you know it wasn't facing a kind of a public street a residential area other mixed use development it was another industrial lot it was a loading area so that's kind of the intent obviously the the areas that are visible um and need um good design that's where we want to encourage you know that roof line variation and the articulation both the vertical and horizontal um so that's that's kind of where that that came about in terms of looking at that particular standard uh in terms of input I know that there's been some uh local um developers have done a lot of development in Longmont that have provided obviously they've gone through our review process a number of times and are currently going through our review process now and so uh they've been somewhat vocal and provide a lot of good input on this particular topic I think our staff has also had discussions with Longmont economic development partners uh regarding this particular topic as well and I don't know Glen if there's anybody else you care to mention yeah on that uh I have made a presentation to I think a real estate subgroup of the ledp um they have also done a study that's looked at our process and this was an area that was identified as there's a high demand for it we're building a workforce yet we have a few barriers in our land development code that's slowing things down so um yes on all those that's really what where we've gotten the input probably our customers the most yep tends to happen any other questions before I proceed on I don't have too much more I promise all right thank you so uh in addition to the draft industrial building design standards there is also a new subsection c12 alternative design compliance and so this has been added into the draft and council in our discussion in August I believe Glen correct me if I'm wrong because you were at that meeting and I wasn't uh I think council's also interested in allowing more flexibility for appropriately quality design alternative designs that could be approved administratively provided the design meets the purpose and intent of the design standards that is consistent with the building design use orientation placement and location context and in addition to the subsection c12 for alternative design compliance we've also um added in the draft some clarifying amendments regarding the administrative modification section that was a tail end of the draft that was in your packet so I think this was a question that was brought up so next steps moving forward you know we're like as I mentioned before we're hoping to complete this year-end if at all possible never know what the holidays in council meeting schedules but you know the next step is to finish up the draft ordinance and review that with our legal staff and then once that's completed we would introduce the ordinance for first reading and then there would be a public hearing and a second reading two weeks after that and let's see I've got one more slide a few comments so I appreciate the you know the comments questions and input you've provided so far this evening it's been really helpful um you know we're not asking for necessarily specific language changes but thank you commissioner flag for your suggestion um appreciate that I just want to note staff will continue to explore options for making the code as intuitive and user-friendly as possible I think we've also talked about opportunities to include additional graphics wherever possible just to help explain particular design standards so with that that concludes my remarks happy to respond any more questions input that the commission may have this evening thank you I just have one more question is c12 going to add to the workload of our planning director is everybody going to see that and say ah ha have I got an idea and I want to talk to him just a thought quite frankly we're doing that now so um there because there is a bit a bit of flexibility we are spending a lot of time on these buildings that I think um at least from the projects I've seen they're not far off and I think um it would help streamline um a lot of projects through so yeah and I guess one alternative I'll just mentioned um there is a building that actually it's been put on hold but it was a recreation building had a um sloping roof that was one continuous line and we have something about every 30 feet there must be a couple of feet difference well it it just totally made that an ugly building but that is a good example of an alternative that would be an easy yes on our end so it just gives us that flexibility because we we don't know every architectural um design that's going to come in front of us so you kind of know it when you see it I guess and in spite of the alternative compliance section um you know we're hoping that with a little bit more flexibility in the design standards for industrial buildings that maybe we won't get as many requests I'm good thank you appreciate it thank you commissioners okay uh that is the other business next item is final call public invited to be heard anybody in the audience do we have do do we need to check the sign-in sheet okay no sign so looks like I will go ahead and close upon the call public invited to be heard next item is items from the commission commissioner golberg oh thanks chairman uh hey glenn um at the beginning of our meeting we heard from some members of the public about a few items that weren't on the agenda um Michelle Bennett called out well recognize that that we have an office of emergency management and express concerns about how much our residents know about oem and you know is it on our radar and maybe do folks know to turn to oem during disasters and how do they find out how to safely evacuate our town if there's another flood now given the fact that I was a resident during our flood I was pinned to the oem twitter handle you know all day for days right like that was where I went but this person was concerned that maybe that education isn't out there do we do any like marketing for the for oem do we raise how do we inform residents that there's this resource here that's kind of got your back in the case of a disaster and we're going to help you we're going to be your resource for information sure I'll look to my compatriots if they if they're aware I've got two years at the City of Longmont so thank god we haven't had a emergency but I think they're always making improvements to the process as far as and I think she kind of brought it back to a specific project and I'll just assure you that every project goes through police and fire for review for things like exiting and access and access to fire apparatus that sort of thing but as far as from a global scale I don't know that I'm the right one that can give you a good answer what we do Commissioner Goldberg and Planning Zone Commission I don't have much to add I do know that Office of Emergency Management has an all hazards plan but from the public facing side I don't know what sort of marketing outreach that they do yeah thanks I don't know either but somehow during the disaster I find out you know I found out and that was certainly my resource I just wonder you know what is the planning there on raising awareness for it the last comment I have came from Chris Conklin who asked about why and where we host neighborhood meetings I think he was frustrated in particular because it was held online I'm guessing that was the result of COVID when everything was online but can you talk about where do neighborhood meetings actually occur are they in the library are they here since COVID we have not had a public neighborhood meeting we've done everything online and we've kept it that way for a couple of reasons as it's easier for staff it's the developers meeting we are really the facilitator of it sir and quite frankly we've gotten very good input through them I think the one that he mentioned I think we had like 60 participants in that meeting so I think it's actually quite an efficient way for a neighborhood meeting that is prior to any public hearing that would happen in this case and that there would be a minimum of three public hearings that would occur on any project like that that they're referring to so I think it's a system that kind of works now we could certainly gauge if it's something we think that there may be a couple of hundred people that may want to operate then maybe we go to this mode and we meet in this room and perhaps use additional rooms but neighborhood meetings it's it's a first here and it's they're looking at a very rough project and then there's actually the code dictates that there has to be a period of time where we take that input seriously and the developer tries to incorporate as many changes as possible so it's really a working session I think it works good virtually yeah I guess I'll leave it at that yeah I largely agree I think we probably have decades of precedent where they were actually held in person you know Brian's probably hosted them before Brian where did they where do they typically occur in a library setting in a library room or something typically they were held in any public facility that we could find so whether that's a meeting room at a fire station or a library or wherever that wherever that might be so great awesome thank you but you know we do have the ability you know we do have the pre-submittal a neighborhood meeting requirement if there was you know we felt that it was appropriate and necessary we do have the ability to require additional neighborhood meetings yeah I think maybe that's where I'm getting things feedback Brian you know we pivoted to virtual for both city council meetings P&Z meetings and I'm sure many other meetings because of COVID and we did the best we could and we got really good at it you know but even here in this meeting we saw previous drop in public invited invited or public engaged because it was less in your face it was to try to call in the process to be in queue was kind of clunky city did a great job but you can tell that we're back in now because we see the value of being in person and so I hear you that it's effective that's great and you know and it's easier for staff and maybe it even increases access for those who can't drive or get around easily I think all those are great but I wonder if there's a world where we say this is an unusually you know contentious project you know anyone would have guessed that bond farm was going to be a contentious topic hot topic I wonder if in those scenarios we maybe see what participation is like in the virtual and then oh this thing really does warrant a follow-up I don't know anything about this the process I don't want to be inserting you know my opinion specifically but I wonder if there's a time when we say how this this really you know triggers that benchmark or something that we should meet in person yeah I'll just pay back on to that so I assume that for those meetings they're zoom and webex do you know do they have all in on a separate number if they want to comment that to me that's the biggest issue that we've had is the fact that the the call-in works I think people get frustrated I can even see especially something with the bond farms if you get 15 people trying to call in the waiting in queue you know the last four digits of your phone number really may not be the best way to prompt somebody I mean I think that kind of gets lost on people that's my major concern with with doing a meeting like that remotely is just how easy is it for somebody to voice their opinions so that for something as you said something like bond farm maybe that's something where we we may need to look at maybe being in person just because the amount of people just be able to make sure that everybody can get their voice heard I want to chime in on the other side of that because COVID was such an extreme thing and there were lots of us that we're dealing with elderly family members and we needed to not be exposed ourselves so if we should end up with the same kind of situation perhaps what we do is most everybody is on zoom but we choose a space a meeting hall space that has distance that can be applied like I think the athletic center I don't know if I'm calling it the right thing down there that's near the senior center seems to have a large area floor area perhaps we allow people who want to speak and chime in at the meeting to sit in those areas and have the seats spaced far enough that they feel safe enough we can run fans I don't know what it takes but then they still have a way of having input so we're doing a bow fan kind of thing and maybe that's what we do the next time but we cannot force people or even condone people to meet in a place where they could be at risk health wise that's not fair to anybody I don't think any other the the other item that was mentioned was and I don't know if this is under a purview or not was the west end tavern and parking I know that's come up before and I think it's come up before just city council I don't know if there's really anything for us to discuss about it but just kind of tie up the loose end there um I'm a little nervous to talk about it because it could potentially end up on your docket but what we're dealing with there is a nonconforming use it is allowed to stay within certain parameters if that changes and it expands it would potentially be a planning commission issue okay any other items from the commission items from council representative Rodriguez thank you very much chair polling first of all I apologize for my absences post-covid has been a very turbulent time for probably all of us and has definitely been a turbulent time for the Rodriguez household it's very good to be back here I am eternally grateful to consider myself an alumnus of this this body so as always thank you so much you are probably from my experience anecdotally the most thorough body that I have had the privilege of sitting in on during decision-making processes including the city council really anyway yeah and so thank you very much for your service you know I've known most of you for many years and then commissioner boone only just recently you know have you been you know probably a good while for you but you know I think 2015 was when I started and you were the three of you were here before me so still here so thank you very much and thank you very much to staff I know you've you've all done great work Glenn is fairly new so it's always nice to hear what he kind of has to say say bring that fresh perspective if you will just on a couple items that were brought up tonight the council is obviously very much aware of the concerns of the neighborhood surrounding bond farm not just in the bond farm development proposal that is still obviously working its way through but also the concerns about west side tavern and we've heard plenty about that thank you so much for your input as far as the industrial design standards that are going to be brought forward and yes hopefully we can get them done this year that'd be great we'll see we'll see anyway thank you all so much and I'm sad to see that there's a few of our colleagues not able to join us tonight but it was very nice to be back with you tonight so thank you okay items from planning Dr Glenn Ben and Wigan good I just want to let you know about a couple other ordinances that are going to be appearing on the council agenda in regards to implementing the Main Street corridor studies so as you know there was some very specific recommendations we're bringing those forward one of them has to do with the land uses within the mixed use commercial and mixed use downtown that basically puts more restrictions on auto related uses and drive-throughs that sort of thing that's coming a little bit later I think in the beginning of November but on Monday's agenda we'll be first reading of the parking code amendments in those two districts that basically says for residential development we are now going to a maximum standard versus a minimum standard so I think that's kind of earth moving in a lot of ways and it'll be on first reading on Tuesday evening with City Council so that was some good work with that Main Street program and and we're finally getting to implementing it now so wanted to let you know about that ah we did want to talk about that didn't we that completely escaped my mind so yes very good input and the council would like your input I think what we haven't done with the planning commission yet we did do it with historic preservation in that instance we only had two applicants and we did it in front of the full body however I think what we've seen was some of the other advisory board meetings that they've identified a subcommittee of two members um with the with the um liaison or the secretary I don't know what the formal term is with the liaison the staff liaison to do those initial interviews and then bring them back to the full board for recommendation do we know I know it was delayed do we know how many candidates we have we have four and a lot of them are some of your some of the members that are being asked to be reappointed so um one thing you could do is um if you want to go that subcommittee route is identify a couple of the planning commission members um and then it would probably be me that would do those initial um interviews and we'd have a little bit more flexibility then with when we actually do that interview but then ultimately we had come forward with uh December it has to be done by December right Jane so by now your November meeting we would have to come and um get a recommendation of the full board so what would be the proper way to create the subcommittee I think it could be as simple as I think you could do it right now if you want volunteers or does the chair want to appoint or I think it could be that easy you know and make a motion and now pick the ones who aren't here that would be fair so I'll ask the four well the three other members of me over here if anybody would be interested in being on the subcommittee I will I will say I'm I will be yeah I was just gonna I feel it appropriate to nominate our chair to be the our representative for um helping select our newest members if we don't get a second one now is there a procedure to do this off and or should we I would nominate commissioner Teta I think he'd be good and that's why not not because he's not here I just have a question I think there's five openings and we have four applicants that's it we're still going to be short one person without additional applicants right okay I move that uh chairperson like poland and commissioner Chris Teta for me subcommittee to handle the interviews for the applicants for the planning and zoning commission for next year should we get a second on that then yes I will second that motion okay we have the motion we have a second as there's no further discussion let's call for a vote vice chairman Goldberg yes chairman poland yes commissioner flag commissioner boone yes chairman that passed us forward to zero very good I think that has completed our business nothing further glenn okay then I will put us into adjournment thank you