 In echo, you must have a tab open somewhere where you're watching the live stream if you're currently unmuted chairman Poland or commissioner Poland. He's muted right now. Sorry, that's what I meant. Yep, I got it. I, yep, yep. I had that closed. Awesome. Thank you so much. I'll continue then. Commissioner McCutche. Here. Commissioner Boone. President, Commissioner Poland. Here. Commissioner Tedda. Here. Chairman, you have a quorum. Great. Thank you, Jane. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard, which is items four and eight, or during any public hearing items. Agenda item six, a B and C will need to watch the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. Instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen when it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. And each, each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. I'm sorry. I just went to full screen. For some reason. Lost my document. Sorry, folks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Here in this meeting. It is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. And each, each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you're called on to speak. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I've got a few discussions on the agenda tonight. Public hearing item 6A, which is the appeal of the short-term rental decision will not occur tonight. We will put it on the December 15th agenda and we'll complete the re-notice of that item. Also, because commissioner height was involved in drafting some changes to the electronic participation policy that is the last thing on your agenda, we're recommending that we put that off till December 15th as well. So he can participate in that discussion. And then believe it or not, that will be our last meeting of the year, which just to remind the commissioners, you've made a decision to remain virtual until the end of the year. So think about it or you can tell us right now if you wanna continue in a virtual mode into the new year. So that is the only thing I have to brief the commission on. Hey, thank you, Glenn. I think we'll, well, commissioner Pollan. Do we have to make any motions for 6A or 6C or is that already handled by the city? Right, you do not have to make any motions on 6A. It'll be just like it's not on the agenda. So 6C also is not a public hearing. So you don't have to do anything on that either. Well, 6C, is that the electronic participation? No, no, the electronic participation is item seven on the agenda. Right, 7A. Right, so 6C is a public hearing item because it's a PUD. Yes, that is occurring tonight, yep. But just to be clear, I think we'll save any discussion about whether to extend our electronic meetings into the next year until we get to item nine on the agenda, which is items from the commission. And that's when we can have a discussion about that. Good, okay. Okay, thank you, Glenn. Next is public comment. This is for anything that's not on the agenda tonight. So if anybody wants to call in and speak about anything that's on their mind that's not on the agenda, we'd be glad to hear that. And Dallas has put the instructions up on the screen. I'll read this for you. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home. Please dial 1-888-788-0099, toll free from the US. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 865-46705, 5309. When we're ready to hear public comment, we'll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and we'll be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you're called upon to speak. To do this, we need some time on the back end for the technicalities. So we will take a five minute break. We'll be back at 713. All right, Chairman, I'm not seeing anyone in the feed. We're about four minutes, 30 seconds. Okay. Okay, in that case, let's wait until the live stream catches up and then I'll tell you in just a second. And we are good to go. Thank you. Thank you, Dallas. So nobody has called in. So seeing no one, we will close the public comment. There will be another one toward the end of the meeting in case anybody's interested. Next on the agenda is approval of our August 18, 2021 minutes. Any discussion amongst the commission? Comments, motions to approve? Commissioner Pollan. I move that we approve the October 27, 2021 meeting minutes. Oh, yes. Sorry, my script here said August 18. You're right. It is October, it's the October minutes. So do we have a second or discussion? Commissioner Flig. Oops, you're still muted. No, you're still muted. Oh, no, Dallas. Given just once, oh, can we hear you now? Now it's on plug. Okay, thank you. I second the motion. Okay, thank you. We have a second from Commissioner Flig. Commissioner Lukach, you had your hand up. I was going to second. So thirds. Okay. So let's do this by roll call. Commissioner Pollan. Four, yay, yes. Commissioner Boone. Abstain. Okay, Commissioner Teta. Yay, yes. Commissioner Lukach. Yes. Commissioner Flig. Commissioner Flig, did you unplug it again? Because it should be up. I'm sorry, I'm not doing anything with my button, except trying to unmute when I need to. And it just is locking me out. I'll keep it on. Sorry about that. Yeah. You need to give her co-host. Oh, did it kick her? I see. There, you should be good now. Yes. Commissioner Flig, yes. And Commissioner Goldberg. Chairman, I need to abstain. Okay. And I will say yes. And so Jane, that passes. Five, yes, zero, no, and two abstentions. So we have passed our minutes. Now we move on to our public hearing items. As we all heard at the start of the meeting from Director Glenn Van Nimmelgen, item A has been moved to the December meeting. So we are skipping six A. We're moving to six B, which is the Longmont Climbing Collective CUSP, PZR 20.1-11 with associate planner, Zach Blazak. Zach. Good evening, everyone. Can you see me okay? Yes. All right. So Dallas, if you could pull up the staff presentation for this item, that's the applicant presentation. We need the staff presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. And with that, I will go ahead and get started. So my name is Zach Blazak, associate planner, planning and development services. And I'm here this evening to present on the Longmont Climbing Collective conditional use site plan. Dallas, we can go to the first slide. Thanks much. So this is in the yellow line. You can see the outline roughly of where the property is located. It's at the intersection of Peak Ave and State Highway 119. You've got burrito kitchens and smuckers up to the north and Sanstone Ranch Park to the south. It's about a 12 acre parcel zone, non-residential primary employment and currently it is vacant. Next slide, please. So here we have kind of a zoomed out. You can see the whole perspective of the site and the proposed development. The proposal is the construction of a commercial health facility or club, private use or development, providing facilities for exercise or sport. So this is a proposed rock climbing facility. And as you can see, the construction is proposed in the northeast corner of the site, just west of Pinnacle Street where Pinnacle and Colorful Meet. You can see there's two accesses from Pinnacle into the site with parking surrounding the proposed building. Next slide, please. Here again, we just have a more zoomed in version of what I just described. So we can go to the next slide. So on this and the next few slides, I'll give a rundown of the proposed elevations. This is the East elevation, which you'd see from Colorful and Pinnacle Ave. Next slide, please. Here, this is what we'll see from the south side. And that's pretty much what it'll look like on the north side as well. Next slide, please. And then this is what we'll see from the west elevation. So this portion here, you can kind of see it's a roofed in outdoor climbing wall enclosure type of area. It's all underneath that roof. And again, it fits the west. Next slide, please. So the proposed use falls into the category of commercial recreation facility. This can be permitted by conditional use review as the secondary use in the primary employment zone district with the use specific standard that shall not exceed 25,000 square feet. The review or the use, excuse me, subject to the review criteria in section 1502 for all application types, as well as 1504 for secondary uses. Next slide, please. For my part in the review, the project meets the land development code requirements for conditional use site plan in the primary employment zone. So reviewing things like maximum height, setbacks, design standards for the building and architecture, exterior lighting, photometric circulation and pedestrian linkage. We've been through three cycles of the review process. And at the conclusion of the most recent review, we do have some minor remaining staff comments pertinent to environmental sustainability planning, utilities, drainage and stormwater design. Now, none of the remaining comments are anticipated to affect the layout of the site or outcome of the overall project. So we're bringing it forward to you now with a few staff comments remaining. Next slide, please. As far as community input, we had a neighborhood meeting at DSC on February 4th of this year with no attendees from the public. We notified the usual list of referral agencies and only received comments from Excel with general comments in nature. On June 17th, staff sent out the notice of application with no comments received from the public. And I sent out the notice of public hearing on November 1st with again, no comments received from the public. Next slide, please. So with this conditional use site plan, it's a little different than we may have seen with previous USPs, where traditionally the Planning and Zoning Commission is the deciding body. Council passed an ordinance in March of this year, which states that any conditional use site plan review adjacent to city-owned property being taken to Planning and Zoning Commission actually goes for a recommendation rather than a decision. So this site being directly located adjacent to Spring Gulch number two, we're here this evening for a recommendation rather than a decision. Next slide, please. So with that, you have three options to consider. You can recommend approval of the Climate Collective CUSP application by the review criteria have been met. You can recommend approval with conditions or you can recommend denial of the CUSP. Next slide, please. With that, I bring forward the staff recommendation that you recommend conditional approval of the Longmont Climate Collective Conditional Use Site Plan with the condition that the applicant completes all outstanding red lines in the site plan and obtains approval from the DSC. Next slide, please. With that, I will go ahead and turn it over to Brian with the Climate Collective and he will present followed by a second presentation from the design team. Thank you, Zach. We'll go on to the applicants. All right, I think I'm unmuted. Do you need my video on or just unmute? Yes, please. You can put your video on, that'd be great. All right. So as stated before, my name's Brian Holinski. I'm one of the owners and founders of the Longmont Climate Collective, what we affectionately know as the LCC. Personally, I've been a climber since the mid-90s. I've traveled the globe personally for fun climbing as well as professionally as a sponsored athlete. I spent nearly a decade in South Korea. My wife and I started a nonprofit that fixed up local climbing areas as well as developing new safe climbing areas on the Korean Peninsula. And while building that nonprofit, I met my current partner, MacMair, as well as a gentleman named James Nomm, whom Mac and I started our first climbing business alongside, which was Butora Climbing Shoes. That business was based in a warehouse in Kimbark over from 2016 through 2020. The success of that business is what we are leveraging, started leveraging in 2017 to open our first climbing gym, which opened in March of 2018. So can you go to the next slide? So we launched our gym in 2018. There are three local families, MacMair, myself and my wife, Shauna, Aaron and Heather Tullier. We all live here in Longmont. Combined, we have over 100 years of climbing experience. My partner, Aaron, has 30 plus years and experience of marketing for Fortune 500 companies as well as our own businesses. And our team at LCC is sort of an amazing mix and compilation of coaches and root setters, yoga teachers, trainers and a variety of other folks. And right now we have about 25 people working for the LCC. Next slide, please. So our gym is now one of about 650 gyms in the US. The climbing is now in the Olympics and the passion and love for this sport is sort of growing daily across the country. So people need a place to train and get involved. We offer all of these options for the climbing community here in Longmont. And I'm sure if any of you have ever climbed or are into fitness or just love the outdoors, you've probably stopped by the LCC. Next slide. So our existing gyms only about 20 feet high. We primarily offer bouldering options, which is the ability to climb to 15 or 20 feet and then you've dropped down onto the mats. But this new facility is going to double our square footage. More importantly though, it triples our height. So we can be Longmont's premier climbing destination as well as its first full service gym facility. On top of the typical fitness amenities like fitness equipment, fitness rooms, yoga, we host a number of unique features, including hot tub, sauna, tap room and a seven acre event area off the west side of our business, which we'll be using for outdoor fitness challenges and various events. Next slide, please. So this slide just sort of highlights a few of the items on the site plan. We have a rear patio designed to host outdoor classes. As you all know, COVID having the ability to do things outside is quite helpful. We also have a big showpiece, which is our outdoor climbing wall, which faces west there. The west envelope of the building, as you saw in previous pictures, extends out the sidewall and roofline over the building, but it remains open so we can have a Western view as well as open to those seven acres. The wall will host events from USA Climbing for youth and collegiate athletes training to go to the Olympics, as well as offer daily climbing options for folks like you and me that are just trying to get a quick session in in between work, but want to remain outside. We also have additional room for either increased parking in the future or potentially another lot altogether. Finally, as many of you know, the public greenway goes right through the western edge of this property. So we're looking forward to working with other businesses along the greenway to create some sort of cooperative experience involving running, walking, or biking along that thoroughfare. So that about wraps up my time. If you have any questions or if we want to move on to Matt, let him take it from here. Thank you, Mr. Heilinsky. I think we'll just go straight to Matt's presentation and then we'll do the public hearing and then we'll do Q and A. Okay. Great, good evening. Do you guys, do you have our presentation up as well, Zach? It's in the applicant presentation. We need to pull that back up. It's just the next slide. Oh, gotcha. Thanks. All right, that's it. My name is Matt Potter from Loadstone Design Group. I'm the project for the LCC. We worked with Brian to help design and develop his previous current facility. And he asked us to work with him on this exciting new facility here. You get a good view of the south perspective view of the building on the cover sheet here. So next slide, please. The design intent here is to bring the Longmont Climbing Collective or LCC, have them use this as a primary fitness center for all the members in the community area. The new facility is scaled and structured to help bring the LCC or bring regional events to the LCC as well as to Longmont and put Longmont's name on the map and climbing. Next slide, please. Here's the building elevation. South elevation there is the top one. Below is the west elevation. That's that open-ended portion with the climbing wall. And next slide, please. Again, the north elevation and the east, which is the primary street facing facade. And the review criteria analysis. The proposed use of this vacant developed land is for the health facility we find as consistent within the NBE zone district. We've made minimal site changes and are to make sure this property remains substantially consistent with prior plots or developments as well as the preserve of existing wildlife corridors and areas for the greatest extent feasible. We pushed the entire building into that northeast corner of the property there and left as much as we can undeveloped. Next slide, please. The new interior drives and utilities are proposed to tie into existing streets. You can see the main entrance there is off of Colorful Avenue. Adequate utilities are already provided on the property and interior drives are designed to facilitate free movements of cars, trucks and emergency vehicles. You can see the turnaround there down at the bottom. Utilities coming into the northeast corner, water, electrical gas and sanitaries who are running underneath the parking area on the front there. Storm drain collecting and going down to the south, there's a detention pond near the southern edge of the property. Next slide, please. In developing with the character of the neighborhood, we made a similar scale and building materials of... Thank you, sweetheart. Sorry, my dutters. The current development is proposed for the northeast corner of the property to provide the greater procedures in this development and preserve the existing wildlife areas, which would be along the western edge of the property line. There you can see the 150 foot riparian setback. We stayed clear away from that. And the site access lines with all the existing intersections. And burrito kitchens to the north there and smuckers building to the further north and then the church property to the east. Next slide, please. Here's an overview of the site in general. The red outline shows you the property outline. Burrito kitchens is slightly to the north and then the Whitefields Community Church to the east and then a smucker plant directly to the north there. We propose that we'll have no adverse impact on the natural environment, surrounding properties, city facilities or utilities. The site has been designed to help preserve wildlife corridors and areas to the best extent. Next slide, please. Proposed interior drives and walks are connected to the existing streets and pedestrian walkways along Pinnacle Street. Pedestrian crossings are generally perpendicular to the routes. Encourage highly visible and safe interaction between various transportation types. Accessible walks and parking areas are provided on site. At this time, no connection has been made to the Greenway trail, but we leave that open to any future development. Next slide, please. This application is being submitted as a concurrent conditional use and site plan review. And efforts have been made to ensure that the proposed development has minimal impacts on the neighboring properties or the native environment. No further conditions seem appropriate at this time. Next slide, please. Conditions for time limits review due to the minimal impact of the proposed use for this property. No further conditions of use seem appropriate at this time. Further no concerns were presented at the neighborhood meeting or by neighbors that would warrant a time limit or further review after initial approval. Conditions of binding approval binding, excuse me. Any conditions developed through this review process shall be recorded as required. So we'll take care of that. And if a conditional use is extinguished or discontinued over a period of year, the conditional use permit shall automatically lapse and be null and void, acknowledged. And same with the conditional uses. We'll take care of that, dude. Next slide, please. To take care of the secondary use, the proposed structure is in a similar scale to the Brito Kitchen's facility in the Whitefields Church and is significantly smaller than the Smucker's facility. The building design is highly compatible with the Brito Kitchen's design and the massing of the neighboring structures. So we determined that we'll fit in nicely with the neighborhood. The secondary use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purpose and intent. All of the proposed future uses of the facility on this side are consistent with a comprehensive plan and the intent of the zoning district. The secondary use as proposed will not substantially diminish the availability of land within the underlying zone district for primary uses or reduce the availability of land for primary uses below minimum level necessary to meet the intent of the district. The proposed use utilizes a portion of the 12 acre lot and allows for the future subdivision of the property along Pinnacle Street. This future use may be fully in keeping with the intent of the zoning and comprehensive plan. That's that small section just to the south of the building along the parking lot. Next slide. Here are some perspective views that we have created of the different elevations. Just nice pictures to look and get a good idea of what we're looking to do. Next slide anytime. A couple other of the western end and that open end part. Next slide please. In a couple of interior shots, you can get an idea of what we're doing on the inside. Bouldering walls, climbing. It's mostly a wide open building taken up by the climbing floor. And I think we've got one more slide in there. Yep, couple other interior views. With that, I believe that wraps up our portion. Great, thank you, Mr. Potter. We will go next to the public hearing. Public and better to be heard on this. So Dallas, if we could put the instructions up on the screen. Great. If somebody would like to comment on this particular project, now is the time to call in. Please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted, enter the meeting ID 865-4670-5309. When we're ready to hear public comment, we'll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record and we'll be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you're called upon to speak. To do this, we need five minutes. We'll take a five minute break and be back at 743. Chairman, we are approaching 743. I'm not seeing anybody in the chat. No callers calling in right now. Hey, thank you, Dallas. Let us know when the live stream catches up. And we are back. Alrighty, thank you, Dallas. No one has called in for the public invited to be heard. So we will close the public hearing part of this particular item. We'll go to questions and discussion from the commission. I'll kick us off with a question. I believe it might be for Mr. Potter or Mr. Hylinski. Can you explain a little more about the seven acres which was mentioned, which is going to be used as an event area and for fitness challenges? Is there any structures, any paving, anything going in? Or is it just, you're just gonna leave it natural grass? What's going on there? The idea here is to leave it as is for now. We're gonna start with some small events that we're comfortable with climbing on the outside wall, potentially some parking where we might have a gravel lot where we can park some food trucks. But at this point, we're gonna just take it step by step with simple event permits, just to see what the capacity is for that area. Because we know that people can park and walk there, they could ride their bikes, but having an event that's quite large or building- Hey, Brian, sorry to interrupt you. Do you mind turning your camera on for me? Sorry. No, that's okay, thank you. So we're just gonna take it in smaller steps. We know that there are some other facilities around there that might allow us additional parking. But at this point, we just wanna see what the capacity of the primary space is on its own. But we don't have any intention to build any permanent structures down there. There may be some temporary obstacles for say an obstacle course race, but those would be able to be moved and wouldn't affect the floodplain regulations. Okay, great, thank you for that. Other commissioners, questions? Oh, commissioner Lukacs. Thank you, chairman. My question is probably for staff. It's related to the spring gulch to Greenway. I know it comes from South, from Sandstone Ranch. And there was a plan to connect to Union Reservoir with the other part of the spring gulch to trail. So is that going to go around it through this property? I don't know who has more information about that. What's the plan? Is it still in the works? Is it different now? Looks like it's Steve Ranzweiler. Yeah, commissioner Steve Ranzweiler, project manager with public works and natural resources. We do have funded in this project, which is phase three of the spring gulch to project. It is funded for 2022. That being said, we're still working on finalizing the design. This trail would, but the eastern edge of the climbing collective property and would travel along that western edge connecting up to Union Reservoir. So I would imagine if things go right that sometime mid to late 2023 that trail would be open to the public. Okay, so it might, it might be built at the same time, probably or... Not knowing the climate collective schedule, I have no idea, but right now we're hoping to bid that project probably third quarter 2022, realistically. Thank you. And another question about the greenway with the connection with the underpass there. And in the presentation, there was a slide where it looked like there was a connection to the climbing collective, but then later on it was said that there was no connection to the trail in the works right now. So if someone could clarify that. Yeah, we had a conversation with the city. Initially we were gonna build just a temporary gravel path that allowed folks to access the trail, but there was a conversation with the city about the requirements on what we had to specifically build. And so we decided to just suspend that until we get open and then decide from there if we can attach to that or not based on the requirements. So you may have just seen a slide that was old that mistakenly got in there, but the plan right now is to not connect to the greenway. Okay, but there will be, you said there will be sidewalks right along a 119, right along Kim Pratt or you don't touch on that actually. We won't access that. I believe the sidewalks are already there, but they have nothing to do with us. We're not accessing those. So how would someone connect from the south from the sandstone range? Do they have to go to the light? They would go under, it wraps around up to the sidewalk and they would walk the sidewalk back down 119 and up pinnacle to our front door. Okay, so there will be a sidewalk going east from the underpass because I don't believe there is one right now. I think there is, but maybe there's not. I'd have to check. Somebody else would probably answer that, sorry. I know the trail that goes along 119 goes through the underpass, goes to sandstone ranch, but there is no, at least a year ago when I walked it, there was no connection going east from there. So that's what I'm looking for. What's the connection going to be? If anyone has an answer, maybe from staff who might know how the plan looks like right now. Chairman and commissioners, Chris Huffer with Public Works and Natural Resources, you're correct that the trail along highway 119 does not connect right now to what is pinnacle that was constructed with smugglers, but that will be a future connection that will be made at some point in time. We don't have a date for that yet, but right now the spring gulch trail that Steve mentioned is the main north-south connection. There is a secondary greenway connection north of Burrito Kitchens, which Burrito Kitchens is the property just north of this property that will connect. So there is a, until that connection is made on highway 119, there is somewhat of a securitist route to get through and around from the properties to the trail. Okay, thank you. Mr. Boone. Thank you, Chair Schoenig. My question I guess is directed towards Zach. Will the city have any restrictions, any lighting restrictions put on this project? Most specifically, the outside climbing wall, which is 60 feet high, according to the plans has a lot of floods, wall washing floods, et cetera. And the lack of a better description, I fear that it might look like top golf. Does everybody know what that means? In that it's just a really bright surface and it's overlooking the greenway. So perhaps Zach can answer. Yes, Commissioner Boone, thanks for your question and it's a great one. So I did perform the review and apply the exterior lighting requirements in section 150-140 Outdoor Lighting to the outdoor portion of the site. So I did have them direct their lights in such a way that it would not shine outwards at all because I shared the same concern in my review. So that will conform to our lighting requirements for exterior lighting. And will there be events or use at night? Obviously, I'm listening. Yeah, I'd put that one back to the applicants. Okay. At this point, we don't have any events planned for the evenings. We're starting with what we're comfortable with, which is some basic events in the beginning. But the hope is that as we learn more, as we build the building and as we get more into what event permits are required for what type of events will broach that topic. But right now we're sticking to mostly daily events that we understand and know. Thank you. Commissioner Flagg? Nope, okay. Actually, Zach, I have a follow-on question from Commissioner Boone's question about the lighting. So if the applicant is applying to the city for a temporary event permit or a special event permit, are things such as lighting considered for a permit like that? Yes, Commissioner Schoenek, we would, you know, that's something we'd take a look at. It kind of depends on what the proposal would be. So not getting too far into hypotheticals. You know, if they were doing something specifically on the wall itself and lighting it in such a way that was different from how it currently is planned to be, that's something I'd probably ask to take a look at. I'm also the planner who typically takes a look at those kind of permits. So that's probably something I'd go ahead and ask for. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Sure, Dan. Commissioner Goldberg, you're still muted. Let's try it now. Is that any better? Yep. Oh yeah, thumbs up, my favorite signal. Thank you, Chairman. Oh yeah, and thanks to the other commissioners, I appreciate some of the questions that they were kind of slowly checking off my boxes. But I didn't have too many boxes or too many questions. I think high level, I think this is a really neat project. I think it's a really neat project to have in Longmont. I think it's a really neat project to have kind of a gateway to Longmont and maybe drink a little bit more flair and character than, you know, the really large property out there, you know, on that side of town, who I value, if I'll give you wrong. But I think this is really neat promoting health and wellness and really could, as the applicants suggested, really put Longmont on the map for such a cool sport like rock climbing and just, you know, good health activity. So those are some of the reasons why I like it, but also, you know, per our city staff, you know, it meets the review criteria. It meets the review criteria as a secondary use. The applicants seem to continue to be responsive. I think there was three rounds of reviews and revisions and I appreciated the city and the applicant coming, you know, aligning and getting somewhere together. You know, I just think it's a cool place, a cool project and a nice, on a neat part of town that could use a little bit of character. And I appreciate the feedback from our city staff about connecting the dots and it's great to hear that there's planning or funding to connect the paths and the sidewalks down the line. I recognize those things don't happen overnight, but it's good to see that it's, you know, kind of in the planning. And as we've already discussed, concerns around lighting, we'll have to meet our code requirements. And yes, there'll be special events from time to time, I hope, and I'm sure they'll have to follow the special event permit regulations that, you know, they and every other business in town need to follow when they do, you know, a one-off special event. So I think for those reasons, I'm really supportive of this project and we'll open up for the rest of the team. Thank you, Commissioner Goldberg. I would also add that I appreciate the fact that the building and all of the parking has moved as far away as possible from the floodplain and from the Gulch and that even if there are events happening in that seven acre area, it's still well away from the floodplain. So that's good planning, in my opinion. Commissioner Pollan. Yeah, this sounds like a really good plan. I don't see any issues with it whatsoever. It seems to me the review criteria and it also seems to me the review criteria for secondary uses, 1504030A1C, especially when it comes to the fact that it doesn't take a lot of the secondary uses, it leaves a lot of the primary uses available and a lot of the primary uses that have been already used for that area. And given the fact that I think it fits in well with that area, it's across the street from the park. It just vibes really well with that area. So I would be for this. And matter of fact, what I will go ahead and do at this time is I'll go ahead and move that we approve PZR 202111B with the city's stipulation that set application meets all of the existing red line issues that they've noted in the conditional use plan. Okay, we have a motion to approve PZR 2021-11B which is the conditional version of our PZRs. Do we have a second, more discussion? Commissioner Goldberg. Yeah, I'll second that Chairman. Okay, so we have a second by Commissioner Goldberg. Any more discussion about this? There's only one comment that I'll make. I don't know if you all noticed that the parking lot is in the shape of the question mark. I'm not sure about it. I mean, I think it's gonna be great because that'll put us on the map on Google satellite images. But I mean, it's just an interesting artifact from the design and how they use the land. So, all right, any further thoughts? Let's go ahead and take a vote by roll call. Commissioner Pollan. Yay. Commissioner Goldberg. Yeah. Commissioner Boone. Yay. Commissioner Teta. Yay. Commissioner Lukacz. Yay. Commissioner Flage. Yay. And I will also vote yes. And so that passes unanimously seven to zero. And let me find my notice that I need to read. Okay. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you're unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before council, please contact the planning division for further information at 303-651-8330. Mr. Hylenski and Mr. Potter. Thank you very much for your presentation and for answering our questions. Good luck with your project. Zach, thank you for your presentation and walking us through the project. And we will move on through our agenda to our next item, which is. Thank you. Thanks again, which is item six C, which is the latent commercial 7-11 fueling station rezone, preliminary plat and overall PUD plan, PZR 2021-12 with principal planner Eva Pejewski. Good evening, Chair Schoenig and commissioners. Again, Eva Pejewski, planning and development services. Dallas, can you pull up the staff presentation please? That is the applicants presentation. It would be the one that says staff presentation. There we go. Thank you so much, Dallas. Great. So again, this is gonna be a kind of a lengthy item. We'll try and taper it down. I'm gonna give you the nuts and bolts of the application materials and then the applicant will do a small presentation as well. I believe they also have a video and they'll go over the review criteria and the details. Next slide, please. And so again, I'm gonna orient you. This is just next door to the project you just saw a minute ago. This is to the west of that. And this is located at the northeast corner, oh, excuse the typo, State Highway 119 and Slayton Drive, right? I don't have my mouse, but it's that highlighted part right there. It's an 11 and a half acre. Thank you so much. It's the 11 and a half acre parcel there. As you can see, it's an oddly shaped parcel. It was annexed in 1997 and it was brought in with a zoning of business light industrial. This general area here, sort of east of Countyline Road in Weld County had all been kind of annexed in slowly as sort of light industrial type businesses. And then again, as you may recall, we did a large rezoning of the whole city back in 2018 to align with our Envision Longmont Comprehensive Plan. And we rezoned it, we just changed the name to Primary Employment with the allowable uses were fairly similar. And it's also primary employment in our Comprehensive Plan. Again, we rezoned it to align with the Comprehensive Plan. And briefly some challenges, you know, through the years I've looked at a number of proposals on this property and this site is really challenged as you can see, it does have an unusual shape which makes it difficult for development. There's also topography issues, lots of slopes. The property is partially in a flood plain as well on the east side. And then we have spring gulch just to the east of the curved property line there on the east. And so our development code says that if you develop anything, you know, next to a city greenway, you've got to do some land dedication. And due to this property's adjacency to spring gulch number two, you know, once you cut out some of the property for the greenway dedication and you take into account the fact you can't build in the flood plain and its shape and its topography, needless to say this site has been difficult to develop over the years as a primary employment type of land use because of the challenges. Next slide. And so the first, there's three applications here you're looking at. The first one is a request to rezone the property. So what I've done, I have challenged topography skills here, but if you see on the map on the top, this is the gray and this is the primary employment zoning district. And as you can see, it's everything north of Chem Pratt and then right where you see the red and the gray kind of boundary there, that's County line road there. And so to the east of that is, you know, right there on the corner is the big McLean Western food distribution facility. And so all of this gray is zoned for primary employment. Of course, if you look on this aerial map below it, you've got the smugglers plant. You can't see it there on the aerial map because it wasn't quite built yet, but just south of smuggers is the new burrito kitchens, food manufacturing plant as well. And so if you look at the top, it's primary employment. They are asking to rezone this parcel, which you see on the bottom, the shape of this parcel to PUD, which if you can envision this map, it would be all gray except for this parcel, which would be pink. And I'm sorry, I wasn't able to draw squiggly lines with pink, so what you can imagine, that's where the rezone could take place. And the reason for the rezone according to the applicants materials is that while they are proposing to do a 2000 square foot restaurant and retail convenience store, both of those are permitted uses in the primary employment zone. However, gas stations are not an allowed land use in the primary employment zone. And so in looking at this site, we kind of tried to figure out how it could be developed. And one way to do that or achieve that goal is through PUD zoning, which doesn't have any limitations on any specific land uses, as long as it's part of an accompanying overall PUD plan that comes with the rezone, which we're gonna touch on next. And so when you look through the review criteria, PUD rezoning is allowed in instances to help the city achieve a balanced mix of land uses and tax base to really achieve our overall economic development goals. And so we kind of talk about in the staff report and I'm not gonna get into the review criteria here, but the applicant will. But my review criteria talk about those challenges with this site, I just showed you in the previous slide, the floodplain, the greenway dedication, the topography, the shape, it really only lends itself to about two acres of developable area right there along Highway 119. And that size of a parcel for development is not really consistent when you think of an office park or a primary employment type of campus. You really need more acreage. And so the site's been challenged. Next slide, please. So the second application we've got in, if it's, you know, so the reason for PUD, the second part of the application is a preliminary subdivision plan. And what they're hoping to do here is kind of break this into four pieces. The first part is the developable lot, which is two and a third's acre. And that's right there, as you can see at the corner of Highway 119 and Slate and Drive. And that's where they wanna build this development. The other part of this preliminary plan includes three and three quarters acre open space parcel that's gonna be owned by the property owner. And that is depicted on your screen in the light blue and the green. The green is part of it. It's just showing you where the floodplain is. And so that light blue really has some topographic issues. You really can't develop on this. So it's gonna stay as open space. The third parcel being created out of this is 4.7 acres. And that's the greenway dedication. As you see there on the dark blue on your right, this is the property that's adjacent to Spring Gulch number two and that'll be going to the city of Longmont. And then finally, just shy of an acre of right-of-way dedication. And that would be in that beige-ish area on your left side of your screen where's Layton Drive. Layton Drive currently, there's an intersection here but it's a gravel road and there's homes to the north of it and it just kind of leads up there. And so the proposal is to actually dedicate this right-of-way up to their property line to the city of Longmont. And the road won't be fully developed all the way up but I'll get into that in the next slide, excuse me, with the PUD. Next slide. And so this is their PUD application. I don't have the architectural elevations because the applicant, I believe, is going to put those up on their slide. But generally speaking, this PUD plan is for this two-and-one-third acre piece that's on the corner. And it would be for a gas station with a 2,000 square foot convenience store and a sit-down restaurant that's depicted in that sort of rectangular box there in the middle. And so the gas station will have 12 fuel pumps and it'll have 35 parking spaces to serve the restaurants and the convenience store. There will also be an electric vehicle charging station. There will also be some bike racks in front of the convenience store again to provide different types of multimodal access to this property. And as you can see on all sides, there will be landscape buffers on all directions and be a total of 80 trees and 250 shrubs in this development. One of the land development code requirements when you're next to a greenway is not just to dedicate the land but to also design and build the greenway improvements. The applicant in this case has been discussing this with the city's natural resources department because again, we've got some topographic issues out there. And so they are proposed to pay a cash in lieu rather than construct the greenway. And natural resources is on board with that and we do have staff from natural resources if you have questions about that. This proposal, this property has an old farmhouse and some outbuildings related to agriculture on it. Dating back, I believe to the 1800s. And so they would all be demolished as part of this plan. And so that proposal went to the Historic Preservation Commission this summer, early fall, a couple of times to talk about that, that material is in your packet. And ultimately the commission recommended that the applicant provide an enhanced preservation plan prior to demolition. And then lastly, the applicant's PUD plan states that this cash payment, which was mainly toward the greenway improvements would also include funding for historic interpretive signage for that farm property per the HPC's recommendations. Next slide. So again, in terms of community outreach, we had a neighborhood meeting in July of 2020. It was virtual because that was in the midst of our lockdowns last year. We had two callers and those were from the adjacent neighbors who live above Slayton Drive, but north of this property. And their general concerns were regarding noise impacts, traffic and potential homeless congregation at the 7-Eleven store. And then once the applicant submitted the application in September of 2020, we again, re-notified all the neighbors and posted signs. And then we also received the same two callers also wrote in objections to this. Those materials are in your packet. Same concerns that were raised at the neighborhood meeting, noise, traffic, quality of life issues. And lastly, we sent out a notice of public hearing and posted signs two weeks before this hearing. Staff hasn't received any phone calls or written comments since we sent those notices out. Next slide. Couple of, I just wanna go over some of the concerns from the neighbors. The first one was concerns that this development would bring about some noise to what's relatively quiet area right now other than the state highway traffic. And so we had the applicant turn in an acoustic study and that's in your packet. The acoustic study concluded that this project would not create violations of allowable noise levels. You know, there's already a lot of loud ambient noise from the state highway. The study recommended a sound attenuating material for a fencing along the north property line abutting the residential home to the north. And so we've recommended conditional approval that this fencing material be added to the PUD plan on the north property line. It's just slightly thicker, a little more noise attenuating than say, you know, a vinyl fence. And lastly, there's the landscape plan in the PUD and it proposes going beyond the required 20 foot landscape buffer. And it provides more trees and shrubs than required by code to hopefully, again, provide a little sound attenuation. The applicants also have parapets on the roof for their, you know, AC equipment. And lastly, you know, this proposal includes undisturbed open space on the northern and eastern portions of the site. So, you know, there wouldn't be noise coming from those areas on this property. Quickly in terms of lighting, they've cited the building in the parking lot over 300 feet away from the north property line. The closest light fixture is over 300 feet away. The photometric plan does not show any light impacts to the adjacent neighbor to the north. No lights spill over. And then in terms of traffic, there were concerns that there might be cut through traffic, you know, once Slayton Street is sort of, or Slayton Drive, sorry, is extended north. However, if you look at the PUD plan, what they're proposing to do is only pave it up to the end of the convenience store building and then it stays gravel. So it kind of alerts drivers, you know, you really don't want to keep going north. There's nothing up here for you. And additionally in the PUD plan, we have signage in there that says no outlets that they'll be putting at the edge of the road so that drivers understand that's not a through street. Next slide. And so this was a little tricky. Preliminary plants are approved by the commission and they are the decision-making body, but rezoning and accompanying PUD plans, this is I think one of the first ones we've done since we changed our code in 2018, those go to city council for final approval. So we're recommending conditional approval. We're recommending that the condition commission conditionally approve the preliminary plan contingent on council approval of the rezone and the PUD and then the condition is the acoustic block fence, but also if the commission would like to add additional conditions regarding the historic preservation commission recommendations, you can also do that at your discretion. And then we'll put this on the city council agenda potentially in January. Next slide. And so with that, I'm gonna turn it over to the applicant, but very briefly, I do have our team here to answer any questions that you have. You recently just met Steve Ranzweiler from Natural Resources. He's here to answer your Greenway questions. We have Jade Kruger, who's the historic preservation liaison. And so if you have questions about the HPCs, recommendations, Jade's here. We have Hannah Mulroy and she does sustainability planning for us. So if you happen to have any questions about their conservation plan, oh, we lost the slide. Thank you. We have Caroline Michael from Traffic Engineering if you happen to have any traffic questions. And finally, last but not least, Doug Gostin and Chris Huffer from Public Works Engineering. If you have any questions about the floodplain or utilities, things like that, they can certainly answer your questions. Next slide. All right. And so with that, we will turn it over to Charlie or Apollo, who will be presenting for the applicant. And Dallas, if you wanna queue up, Charlie, do you wanna start with your video or with the PowerPoint? So I believe Alicia will actually be presenting. Okay. Alicia, do you wanna start with your movie or the PowerPoint? I would start with the movie first. I think it's important to kind of walk them through the complexities of the site. Sure. All right. So I'll introduce this is Alicia Reimer with you properties representing 7-Eleven. And Dallas, if you could queue up the video, it's the applicant's video. Give me one second. It's being a bit stubborn, but I'm doing it. I think you can put up the presentation and just move to the second slide. So I'm Alicia Reimer. I'm with United Properties and we actually have our full team here, our traffic engineer, civil engineers, environmental consultants and a representation of 7-Eleven. I'm with our architects. So to answer any questions that you may have, but Ava did a great job in kind of presenting the overall complexities or challenges of this project. And I'll dive in just a little bit further, but as she's indicated, this is an 11.5 acre piece of property and from the previous video that you can see, it pretty much stems from that concrete trail that you saw all the way east, or sorry, west until you get to Slayton Drive and heads north kind of in fingers up towards actually Smucker's Drive, as you can see there. So what you're seeing, this odd shape is actually the entire parcel itself that entails the property. And the blue area is really the spring gulch dedication that is required because that's the green way. And I think that really completes the missing piece that you guys were talking about and the connectivity of the trail that would be able to take place for the rock climbing facility that presented here earlier. The light blue area is actually the riparian, 150 riparian setback requirement that is required from the spring gulch. So it's non-developable area. The green is the existing flood plain area. And so as you can see, we're really left with over creating a 2.3 acre parcel. Actually only 1.57 of that is actually developable. So the primary employment designation on this property is challenging for this particular piece, which makes us really a prime candidate for the PUD. And so we believe that this really meets the review criteria where it presents a unique opportunity for the city for an appropriate site for a particular type of land use development to help city achieve a balance of land use or tax-based consistent with cities overall planning and economic development goals. So it allows us really to activate development and put the highest and best use of property and activate a prime corner in the city. If you can maybe go to the next slide. This just dives in a little bit deeper. So it kind of shows you here, more specific to the 2.3 acres that we're using really every bit of this development or the developable piece of property. With the exception of there is some additional spacing on the north side of the actual parking run, but that little square that's up there is actually Mr. Bullen residential. And so this development allows not only for us to utilize this limited space for development and this development to move forward, but it allows for additional buffering from the residential. If there was a primary employment user, they would really hug up to that residential property line, which isn't favorable for them. So we feel the QD zoning really provides a developer in the city of creativity to work through some of the unique challenges this parcel has while ensuring quality and value added development on this prime corner. We could go to the next slide. So this just kind of shows the overall development from an aerial dropped in in relationship to the site and what it will look like along Highway 119 and in relation to Mr. Bullen's property to the north there, as well as the riparian buffer setback and spring gulch. So this is an area that this is a site that 7-Eleven has targeted for quite some time. There's no immediate food or convenience services available within five miles in either direction for the surrounding development as well as the Highway 119 traffic that travels to and from in front of the site every day. And so we believe that it does meet the criteria because it allows for sales tax generation to activate this corner and it's complementary to the overall development within the limitations that this particular parcel has. Next slide. And United Properties has had a lot of success. So we've completed four of what we kind of kind of consider these next generational mixed use developments across the Denver Metro area in the past five years. There's one in Lewisville, one in Broomfield, one in Aurora and one in Stapleton. This particular project is an example of what we were able to do in Aurora, Colorado at 38th and Tower. So we created three pads of retail across the front. One of those was 7-Eleven and Iranis and a Slim's Chicken and Industrial in the back. So we were able to actually attract very national accredited top tenants like Sealy and Sprouts because of the immediate access to food and convenient services. So typically these types of primary employment users really like and value the immediate retail services for their workers. And there's a lot of synergy and complimentary between the two. So we found huge success in that and we feel like this doesn't take really away from the primary employment. It will be a value added actually act as a catalyst in order for that to sort of develop out. The next slide is just another example of what we did at Stapleton. So we put three and a half acres of retail on the hard corner there to support really the industrial development. And so the retailers benefit right from the workers and the workers really benefit from having those immediate 24-hour services. And so we've seen huge success in this and so we think that this is just a really unique opportunity for the city to allow activate development on this corner but in the meantime also encourage and continue to have the primary employment vision for us. Next slide. The staff was indicated and we agree. We believe that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan for many reasons. One of the primary reasons being that the city in the comprehensive plan intends to kind of create livable centers, corridors and neighborhoods that have a balance of mixed employment, retail commercial services and residential with the focus of trying to bring immediate services and amenities to those areas. And so we do believe that this is really complimentary and compatible with the community that's surrounding this particular site. You have UC Health Hospital that is obviously right there to the west at County Line, McLean and Smuckers and future primary employment that will be coming on the north, Walmart, which is retail to the south, the apartments and the sandstone baseball complex. So many of these users are actually more 24-hour type users are coming in very early in the AM and leaving in the evening. And so having those immediate food and convenience services right there in their community I think will be significant for everybody. Next slide. We also believe that it supports the comprehensive plan by creating and allowing for the Greenway dedication. So 4.7 acres will be dedicated to the city as Greenway. And you can kind of see that there. It creates an integrated Greenway and open space system as well, which also meets the criteria. Section 15.05040 of you guys' code states that the following existing natural areas should be preserved, reserved, or dedicated to the maximum extent practical. That includes floodplains, rivers, stream corridors, wetlands, and riparian buffer. And so this particular parcel encompasses all of those. We have it all. We have the spring gulch. We have the 150-foot riparian buffer setback. We have wetlands that are established, as you can see identified there in blue. And we have some topography issues. So we believe that we can activate this corner and develop what little area is eligible, but provide a significant and buffer, you know, more than what is required and well beyond that while preserving the natural state of the area. And so in addition to that, although we're asking, you know, we are dedicating the Greenway with photography purposes and challenges with the residential group there is to not wanting to really access or encourage access on the west side of the spring gulch. We feel that it's better served to make those improvements in the trail connection and focus on the east side of the spring gulch, where, you know, smuggers as well as the rock climbing facility can really benefit from that trail connection. And so instead of actually, you know, messing up this area, we want to preserve the native and natural state of it, not impact the wetlands. Stay away from the spring gulch on the west side. We are contributing and 140,000 approximately a cash contribution to the city as part of the project that can go towards the spring gulch improvements on the east side and completing that trail connection. And we feel it's better installed by the city with kind of a holistic comprehensive plan that, you know, is well thought out. So that's part of the overall benefits to the city as well. Next slide. We believe that application proposes development that is compatible with the surrounding properties in terms of land use site and building layout design and access. We believe that because it obviously meets the 150-foot riparian buffer setback requirements, but it goes far in excess of that. So we are enhanced buffering beyond 150-foot requirements, as you can see there. We have additional buffering from the residents. So we're over 300 feet from Mr. Bolen, and we have been working with him as well. You know, we plan to do some significant landscaping, which I'll go into that in a minute on the north side there. And we're dedicating .81 acres of slate right away to the city as well as building that out and realigning that intersection to make it more functional. And the development creates open space system, which is Outlaw A, that will remain that way to ensure and preserve the riparian setback requirements and spring gulch. Next slide. We believe that application complies with city standards, including street and utility design and layout, and that adequate utilities are available and we've provided. We also believe that it's compatible, as we said, with the surrounding properties and puts together a kind of a well vetted transportation plan and utility system. So we don't have any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighbors, but we're not only just mitigating those impacts, but we believe that we're truly improving the existing transportation facilities, utility services, and overall infrastructure. So we'll be adding, as you can see here, a dedicated right turn lane. So that'll be a huge improvement to traffic flow on Highway 119. In addition to that, we're going to extend the sidewalk connection. So we'll take from the existing eight foot detach sidewalk that runs along Highway 118 and we will run a six foot attached sidewalk all the way up into the development along the light and right of way. We're going to realign the intersection. So currently right now it's not lining up with what's happening on the south side there. And so we're going to be moving the traffic signal slightly to the east and putting it in a actual, you know, section there. And then we're going to create and be put at placings right away out, which will include a, you know, northbound lane, and then we'll have a left dedicated left turn lane and a through and right turn lane that's heading southbound. Where the development will also require and be providing bicycle parking and a bicycle repair stand. So those individuals that are biking along this corridor will have an opportunity to come into the development if they need to and make repairs as necessary. We have an outdoor seating area that is proposed that would like to encourage because of the restaurant component that and the workers in the area, not only can they come and get food, but they have an area to actually sit and eat inside the building as well as exterior for seasonal months. We are providing an EVR charging station. So we will have an electric charging station available to customers as well so that they can charge their vehicle while they're eating. And then we are preserving or proposing to preserves. There's 23 existing trees right now. I think we're maintaining 10 of them. Most of them are actually in the creek and within the riparian setback, but we're going to maintain there's three existing kind of evergreens that are pretty established and beautiful as well as a cottonwood that is along Highway 119. And so we are preserving those as part of our overall development. Next slide. I think something else that's kind of important to point out because this is something that actually shrinks the developable area as well as it's a high dollar cost to the overall viability of this project as well as a benefit for future development or for the primary employment on the north side. We actually have to water is not available on the north side to the city of Longmont of Highway 119 currently. So we are going to be boring underneath Highway 119 in two sections. As you can see there in the blue and we have about a 1,150 feet of linear water main extension that has to happen. A portion of that or a reason being is one that the utilities are on the south side of the street as well as because we cannot get access to Highway 119 because C.access code will not allow it for fire code because we have one point of egress off of late and drive. We actually have to put in a fire suppression system. And so that requires the completion of the loop which requires them to go across Highway 119 twice. We also have to go 1,695 feet as well as across Highway 119 again to get the gravity fed sanitary sewer option. And so as you can see the mains it further challenges or further limits the developable area for this particular parcel as well as it's a very expensive cost which requires to generate a high traffic user on this particular corner to make sense of it. And by pulling those to the north side of the development we are obviously also setting up future opportunity for primary employment to happen on that northwest corner as the city envisioned. So I think it's an improvement to the overall situation and a value add that this development brings. Next slide. We did complete an enhanced landscaping plan. It was important to us, you know, that this is a very quality development fits into the overall character and it's a gateway into the community as well as we're mitigating impacts to residents through the miserable into the north. And so 65% of the site is actually landscaping that's including the outlaw. So I think this is going to look really nice as you had, you know, westbound into the city for everyone. You have a 50 foot landscaping buffer along Highway 119. The development is going to provide 48 trees, 317 shrubs, 80 grasses and 16 perennials on site. As we discussed, you've got 200 feet of buffering from Mr. Bowlin to the north which will include a six foot wooden soundproof fence. So we've been working with him personally as to where he would like that fence located and working through some things with him on the landscaping side of things so that he feels like, you know, he's part of the overall design. It's important to us, you know, that we're being a good neighbor. And so you can see we have an enhanced landscaping edge along that northern property line in addition to that fence. Then we have significant distance of just mitigation. And then in addition, we kind of wrapped those parking spaces there with enhanced landscaping as well just to make sure that, you know, we're being a good neighbor. This just kind of shows you visually what it looks like, you know, at the corner. Next slide. So we've also enhanced the architecture of this particular building from what's kind of typical, you know, just one to kind of fit into the overall character of the community kind of taking a mix of what UC Health was doing versus, you know, Walmart across the street and just kind of trying to give it a more type sort of rural feel since, you know, we're out into that particular area. We just employed a 360 degree architecture. It has consistent cultured stone and fiber cement decorative panels and stucco. And it's going to feature, you know, some wood trusses and shed style roof awning over the customer entrance and other windows, which is going to enhance the depth of these elevations. The maximum height of the building is going to be 26 feet roughly in a standard parapet height of 18 feet. So it'll completely screen the HVAC units, which will help for sound barrier as well as just aesthetics. And there's a pitch in the parapet in the front elevation. The trash enclosure is going to be the east side of the site and it'll be constructed with similar building materials. So it'll be very complimentary and kind of tie in to the overall development. And then the fuel canopy will be located internal to the site in front of the convenience store. But the columns are going to be wrapped with a culture stone that will match the overall materials of the convenience store and really draw the visual eye to the building, which is really the intent here. Next slide. So we played close attention to the lighting design on the development for many different reasons. One, you know, it's a sustainability item for us and it's important. We wanted to minimize impacts, obviously, to the kind of native nature of the spring gulch. But more importantly, to miserable into the north and just kind of, you know, fit into the overall character. So we pay close attention to the lighting design to make sure that there was zero impacts to everyone. That includes LED energy efficient full cutoff lighting. We zero foot candles of lighting within 300 feet of the northern property line. The fixtures were intended to light only the area that they are focused on and nothing more. So the foot candles were reduced typically from standards and these photometrics, as you can see here, do not take into consideration the enhanced landscaping as well and the impacts or the benefit that will be from that. So this is a very clear picture of what it will look like at night. And as you can see, it lights only the specific area that it's focused on and then it drops off completely and it's dark. So everything north of those parking spaces on the north side of that building are going to be effectively pitch black. And that's not even taking into consideration, obviously the landscaping that I just showed you. And then you can see it drops off pretty much from the curb line there as we head east towards the spring gulch. So I think, you know, lighting here will be visually aesthetic so that it's feel safe and inviting, but not impactful in a negative way to any of the surrounding development. Next slide. So part of the criteria is that is a, you know, a lot of the areas that we're looking at, we're looking at sustainability requirements for the city. And so complies with sustainability evaluation system requirements and mitigates impacts in the event development of the city's riparian areas. So I think we've already kind of went over how we're effectively not only maintaining the riparian, but we are enhancing and kind of preserving that. Some of the additional sustainability items that the development is bringing is the integrated daylight harvesting system, the DEMS interior lighting levels when natural light enters the space. So we reduce the demand to keep the lights at 100% functionality. The bathrooms are equipped with low flow water efficient toilets. So that's important to us in water preservation. We did have the bike repair stand, kind of multi modular development as we discussed. We have a rain garden design is utilized in our storm drainage system. So effective, you know, natural form of water quality for the storm overall to sign low VOC materials to promote in your air quality and reduce construction emissions. The structural walls are actually a SIPP package, which is a structurally insulated panel so that it provides insulation barrier between the exterior and interior space. So it has a higher like higher R value in the law system. So it reduces thermal transmission and ultimately energy demand. For heating and cooling. In addition to that we have an HVAC units that are that are tied into an energy management system. So that is electronically managed and monitored by the tenant to optimize energy usage during seasonal fluctuation. So we're just ensuring that we're only using energy as necessary and needed at any given time. We are providing the EVR charging stations we utilize by customers and our design for landscaping was really the forethought was low water usage and native to natural landscaping design all throughout. So at this time I'm going to turn it over to Chase. And he's with 711. He's going to talk briefly about 711 and Laredo taco and their new concept. And then we can wrap it up for questions and answers. Hi everyone. Chase still with 711. We're really excited with the opportunity to potentially open our 711 store with Laredo taco here in Longmont. So really exciting fresh new concepts. Brief history on 711. We're the leader in the convenience industry. Our number one focus is to make the life easier on the customer. We're committed to making a difference in the communities. We have a grant called project a game where we reach out to local nonprofits and schools and provide a grant. Food and drink, you know, for events and things of that nature. Just a brief overview of 711 with Laredo taco company. Also known as LTC. 711 acquired the brand Sonoco in 2018 a little over a thousand stores and of those thousand there was about 350 stores with this concept Laredo taco company that has a big following in Texas and Oklahoma and now in Colorado. We're currently we're operating over 500 stores throughout the country and 10 today in Colorado. We opened three this year organically and remodeled seven. We actually opened up one tomorrow in Longmont. We also opened up 29 think our field will be our third location. We plan to open four in 2022 and six in 2023. This is kind of the new face of 711. No longer going towards the franchise location. So this will be run corporate. So the idea is to have 711 with Laredo taco company. And then we're going to open up a little bit of a downtown restaurant for the convenience of. Commuters or workers in the in the area. I believe this location will support the community as a small grocery store. I know that there's a Walmart across the street. But this will serve as a more quick and convenient. Service that also provides fuel. And our. We also pride ourselves on daily fresh food. So we have baked good sandwiches fruit salads. Coupled with Laredo taco company. So we have a lot of different options to choose from for the local community and employees. And the tortillas are freshly made and the tacos are actually very good. And I think it'll bring an exciting new concept to the community. Appreciate your time. Great. Miss Rimer. Mr. Say, I'm not sure if I'm getting your name right. That concludes your presentation at this time. It does. Yeah, we're just available for any questions or you may have. Great. Thank you. We're, this is a public hearing item. And so I'd like to move to that before we get into Q&A. And so Dallas, if we could put the instructions up on the screen. Please. And I'll read the information. So anybody who wants to call in about this specific project now is the time. Please call 1-888-788-0099. And prompted enter the meeting ID. 865-4670-5309. When we're ready to hear public comment, we'll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number. Each speaker must state their name and address for the record. And we'll be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you're called upon to speak. We need another five minutes. So we will reconvene at 856. We are approaching the five minute mark. I'm not seeing any callers in the chair. I am going to stop sharing and I can let you know when the live stream is caught up. Thank you, Dallas. And we're back. Okay. Thank you. We had no one call in for the public hearing part of this. So we're going to start with the public hearing and we will go to questions and answers amongst the commission. Commissioner Poland. Yeah. I guess in looking through the packet. And going through some of this. It appears that initially in October of last year. Mr. Bowlin had written in a letter. Stating that he was against the development. It sounds like since then the applicant has been doing work. He's been working along with Mr. Bowlin, at least trying to address some of his concerns. Eva, do we have any updates as to. What Mr. Bowlin's of this and his thoughts. Commissioner Poland. I have not heard from Mr. Poland since that initial letter. You are correct. I think the applicant tried their best to mitigate any impacts. But I haven't heard from him since that initial letter. Okay. Thank you. And then Eva, I do have another question. And I did go back to, wow, the original packet, the original information I received when I first started on this commission, whatever, seven, eight years ago, whatever it was. And it has the 2003. Longmont planning. In it. And I'm just wondering. How this group of individual residents. Mr. Bowlin and then the other group to the north. As I go back through the way, at least the history that I have going back to 2003, it always looked like the city was always considering that as some kind of industrial economic development. In 2003, it looked like they actually have them as maybe some kind of special destination just for those two little, I'm going to call them enclaves. Can you give any kind of history as to the zoning for this area and how they seem to be kind of like isolated. Sure. Commissioner Poland. And we could pull the old map up from my slide, but I think your question was these sort of remnant parcels. If you will, north of this. They are also zoned primary employment. So for example, Mr. Bowlin's parcel is actually zoned primary employment. It's not zoned residential. It was his parcel was annexed in with the, this parcel. In the concepts direct annexation and Mr. Bowlin at the time was one of the signatories on the petition for annexation. So that property owner was presumably aware that they were. Well, obviously requesting to annex in, but that they were annexing in as some sort of industrial zone. So what was the city's thoughts about what would happen to these. Residents in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. I mean, was the plan just to be eventually for these properties to be part of a developmental. And I guess I'm looking at this. And if we don't approve this. It goes back to the way it was, which is it's still part of the primary employment zone, which kind of means that the only thing left is almost for somebody to come into the West. And build something. Big enough. And then almost like totally in circle. I'm trying to imagine what other options are going to occur here. Okay. And I don't see anything better than this. So I'm just kind of trying to get my head wrapped around of. Of what other options could there be here? I mean, I guess. For secondary uses. You know, outside of the fact that we have to approve this because or we have to change the zoning because they want to put a gas station. I guess the only other thing is it would be something other than a gas station, like more restaurants. Yes, commissioner Poland. So there are allowed secondary uses in the primary employment as you alluded to. And yes, a retail convenience store, a restaurant could be allowed. That would be an allowable secondary use. And it's because of the gas station requests that, that you're here tonight with the rezoning. But I can't remember what your initial question was. But it had to do with those parcels up north. And I, you know, again, you know, when we plan city planners, we do comprehensive planning. We have our, our master comprehensive plan. Now it's envision long lot before it was. The long line area comprehensive plan. And we do try to give land use designations for whole districts or areas, right? Cause we want to be consistent. And so. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Yeah, yeah. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Because the city has a lot of, a lot of different areas, right? Cause we want to be consistent. And so, um, you know, when we brought in this property over in Weld County, the intent was always up North of highway 1 19. That this would all be sort of an industrial zone. And as parcels come in and the annex in, you know, we say you gotta be consistent with what we're designating you as. station, it was requested for business light industrial, which is, you know, what this, what the previous zoning was until we changed it in 2018. I hope that answered your question. It more or less does. Thank you very much. Hello. So my questions have to do with the historic significance of the site. And I'm a little bit unclear because first of all, we had a couple of things in the packet indicating that the historic preservation commission would like to not move forward until more assessment was done. And I'm assuming that means looking at the integrity of the buildings, basically, to see if there's structurally sound and see if there's asbestos and those kinds of things. I don't feel like the applicant addressed that, although there was one statement in their initial letter saying that the buildings are unsound and full of asbestos, but there was no backup to that. And then in Eva's presentation, she indicated that some of the money that was going to be given for the Greenway presentation was to be dedicated to signage relative to the historic nature of the site. Is that correct? I'm just not clear how the historic nature is being addressed. The Dickens family obviously was an important family for long run, but they gave up the property a long time ago. So those are my questions. So I guess they're both directed to Eva and to Jay Kruger. Sure. So I'm going to turn it over to Jay. She's our Historic Preservation Commission liaison. She'll talk about what the commission discussed and recommended. Thank you, Eva. Krishna Boone, those are great questions. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed this project three times in total, I believe. The first memo written back in July had requested some additional information. And the applicant did come back with some of that additional information. They came back with a more detailed cultural resource survey and had some archaeological testing done, but they did not do the in-depth kind of structural assessment that the commission was looking for. It's kind of costly, so it would make sense to do that at a later time. In terms of historic significance, as the memo reads, it is significant. It reaches all four criteria for eligibility on the national register, so it is unique. The applicant had mentioned at our last meeting that there would be more than willing to continue working with the commission to come up with a better Historic Preservation Plan for the property. But after three times reviewing it and kind of being at a stalemate, we really needed to move this forward. So that is a possibility to make that a condition of approval, as to continue to work with the commission to come up with something better than just signage on the property. I hope I answered your question, but please follow up if there's more. Well, I would hate to just see the historical issue be dropped and then nothing happened. And certainly would hate to see the buildings demolished before at least extensive photos and things were done. But that's my concern. And maybe the applicant would like to respond as well. Ms. Reimer? Oh, you're still muted. Sorry. We actually did complete a pretty thorough structural assessment. I don't know if it made the packet or not. Okay, so we did and there is a significant amount of asbestos that has to be abated in these buildings and all of them were determined to be structurally unsound in any sort of renovation or restoration type thing. It would never coming up to code and dealing with structural issues. They won't look anything like what they are currently today. In addition, some of these buildings are in the flood plain. So that is also problematic. So I think the quote if we were to restore these is going to be somewhere between three and a half to five million dollars and they won't look anything like what they are. And that's just known cost. That's not what you're going to get into right once you do that. So along with the asbestos abatement, but we did actually reach out to the museum and we've had it with Eric Mason and we actually had them come out to the site to walk and look at the buildings and see if there's anything that they would want to try to salvage or maintain from them. Their response was no, there was nothing that they saw that they wanted to have at the museum. However, they did ask that once we get into the site and prior to demolition they would come out with respirators and there may be something inside the house that they may want that's of smaller nature. But we have looked for historical pictures as well that actually look better. It's not going to photograph well. I think you can kind of see from the videos there's been quite a bit of vandalism and graffiti and things like that. So we can try to take some pictures or provide those pictures, but I don't think if we can find something historical that would be better. So our thoughts where we would just put a placard kind of along the trail that's going to be built that kind of communicates to the public what the area was and that it was owned by the Dickens family at one period in time and try to preserve it that way. But we are open certainly to ideas if that doesn't get us there. Well, I think that's a that's a good solution as long as it's actually part of the plan and will be implemented. Sure. No, I appreciate that. Okay, that's all I got. Thank you. Commissioner Flig, I'm just going to jump in with a quick follow up and get to you. Ms. Reimer, when you were meeting with the museum representative, were they at all entered in in the reports and the studies and the documentation that that you've already done? Because it's pretty extensive in what was in our packet with like title reviews, etc, etc. That's not easy to recreate. No, it was a very expensive venture for us. They did not seem to be they were actually kind of, I guess, didn't really view this as a particular like historical relevance or really understood the connection for this particular property. They value more the Dickens barn that's in town and, you know, the upper house and some of the things that's being more significant towards the family. I think they viewed it as just as this is a far one of many farms that the family actually owned. And they, you know, sold it a long time ago. They really don't want anything to do with like larger type items and things like that. So, you know, they they appreciated the phone call and obviously the ask and that we were working with them but didn't seem like they viewed it as I guess historically relevant as, you know, the report may have indicated some. Okay. Commissioner Flake, thanks for your patience. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I still have more questions regarding the buildings and the locations on the site. Now, I assume it assumes that those buildings will come down. Is there a way to make it more interesting? You're going to have a trail that comes along there and you're looking to provide a place where people can stop and eat and so on. And just in terms of historic preservation of the site concept, would there be a possibility of actually kind of, I don't know, painting on the parking lot or the buildings in such a location that you could do the foundations or leave something that represents them and provide a place where people can actually walk on the land that isn't in a floodplain area. Well, even if it isn't a floodplain area, but it would give people a chance to walk around maybe or crush your fine path. I'm just thinking that it would still increase the interest of the site. You'd still preserve the homestead without having to retain the buildings and still with your plaque, perhaps that's a way of calling attention to the importance of the site such as it is. Just a thought. Oh, it's a good idea. I mean, it's a good idea. I actually kind of tossed that around, could we provide some sort of, I don't know, use the beams and maybe provide some sort of mural or something, like a painting or something of what the barn was. The challenge that we have is when Mr. Bullen would like to see them all go away because of vagrant issues and challenges and concerns that we've had. From a structural standpoint, there really are a liability. So, we don't have any options there, but I mean, and we don't really want to encourage people walking on that side west of the creek because of Mr. Bullen's property because of just the native preservation. That's why we feel like the trail is better suited on the east side where the connection is with the industrial. But we could maybe certainly take some of the beams or something from that or maybe some of the, I know you saw the video, there's certain smaller aspects of the farm that maybe we can incorporate in that area just out near the seating area. That certainly is a good idea. Just trying to find that balance between safety and the historical relevance. Yeah, I think my concept of plaques is that they're great for the people that are really into history. But if you have something visual, then you draw more people into that concept of taking a look at why this site might have been of interest. We can certainly do something out by the seating area and probably incorporate something and we could come up with some ideas. I mean, we're open to it for sure. Thank you. I also have another question for traffic. I'm wondering what changes are going to accrue to that intersection and what kind of, will it be a full movement intersection out there? What other kinds of changes will be done because the applicant just say they would shift it in some way? And I'm trying to hear from that. I'll let, I'll have my Roca kind of a, I can just talk high level so that they're, the south, like south, I guess northbound traveler coming out of Walmart that would effectively essentially cross over. It's not lined up currently with what's happening on the north side. So we're going to expand that right away, build that out and actually create that alignment so that the two are, you know, safely talking to each other and which will require us to slightly move that traffic signal to the east and put it in an island. But I can have Mike, he's on here, our traffic engineer may be talking a little bit more detail about the functionality of the intersection. So Mike, if you're still out there, I'll turn it over to you. I'm here. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My name's Mike Rocha. I'm with SM Rocha LLC, we're traffic and transportation engineers located at 8703 Yates Drive, Suite 210 in Westminster, Colorado. So to answer, to kind of expand a little bit more on what Alicia had said, you know, we just, there are some planned improvements at the intersection on Slayton on the north side of 119. These improvements are intended to better the operations of the intersection in terms of the through movements. If we do have some through movements, we want to have them to align as best as possible. And then also to assist in the operations of the intersection, some of the improvements are envisioned, which will all be coordinated through the state. And they're permitting procedures is a right turn lane off of 119. So if you're headed westbound on 119, you're turning right at Slayton. You will have a free right turn lane dedicated to help that maneuverability for access onto Slayton. And then ultimately into the site. And the site has two proposed full movement access points onto Slayton. So I hope that that answers your question. If it does not, I'm still able to expand. So one follow up question. So there would be a dedicated left turn lane from 119 north. So from 119 going eastbound to turn left. Yeah. So those are already in place. So those are existing. There is an existing left turn lane on 119 eastbound to turn left to go north on Slayton. And there would be a light that governs that motion. Yes. There's already an existing traffic signal at that intersection. Right. I was just concerned about the actual dedicated left turning because the traffic gear is quite fast. Yeah. Yeah. We've kind of had that similar conversation with the state. And so the state has this signal. They have the left turn arrow. And that's all under their operation and their review. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Flig, I just wanted to add we do have Caroline Michael, our traffic engineer here as well. But there is an existing traffic signal at this intersection. There is an existing left turn lane at this intersection for eastbound 119 into this site. I have questions. Caroline's here as well. Well, my concern really was more about is there the dedication of an arrow or something that allows the left turn to happen only at certain times? There is an arrow. There is a dedicated left turn arrow. I use it often when I go up that road. And into that street. Thank you. Commissioner Bowlin. I just wanted to stay on this topic and since Caroline actually popped her head up. Caroline, what are the future plans for Slayton going north? I know that there were some concerns expressed by the public about maybe somehow it going up to, I guess, it's County Road 23. But what is the city's plans for Slayton going north? So right now, what the applicants proposing is basically to build Slayton and pave it up to their property line. And at that point, they would add sort of no outlet signs and the road would remain gravel. And on our Envision Longmont plan, there's no further extension to the north beyond what's already existing. Okay, thank you very much. Caroline, a quick follow-up on that. So the paving, so it would go up to the applicant's property line. No, where does the paving- Sorry, I'm jumping in Caroline, but that's incorrect. That was an incorrect statement. It's paved up to, if you look at the PUD plan, they have a driveway into the convenient storage just south of it. And then there's another little driveway north of the building. And the paving stops right there so that you turn into the last remainder of the parking lot. And if you see on the PUD plan, the paving stops and it goes to gravel everything north of that up to their property line. And that's to keep visitors from keeping going north, thinking that Slayton's a through street. Right, so the paving will not even reach Mr. Boland's property line, his south property line. Yeah, no. I apologize, I misspoke. I know the property, I realized the property and it actually goes further north, but it's really just serving the northernmost driveway at the property. Okay, thank you. One of Mr. Boland's concerns, of course, has been the people camping out on the property and in the abandoned buildings. And Ms. Reimer, you said that by demolishing the buildings that helps solve some of that problem, Mr. Boland is in favor of that. But then we also saw in our packet that some members of the public said that, okay, well, great, you help deal with people camping there if you get rid of the buildings. But then if you build a 7-11, it will attract people who are panhandling and and shall we say being vagrant. How does United Properties and maybe Mr. Adila who say can answer how 7-11 deals with keeping that sort of situation at bay? Yeah, and I don't know. I mean, I haven't met with Mr. Boland quite a bit. I haven't heard him express that concern. So I'm not sure there was another individual that was north of him that I think shared that concern, but has actually since moved and is no longer owner of that property for my understanding in our last meeting. So I'm not sure that he's concerned about that. I know he was with the barn and if that was to remain and any of those assets would still be standing. However, my response to that generally is 24-hour open vibrate business where it's a wash watchful eye and it's lit. So they're going to kind of deter that. Obviously a lot more things happen when it's dark and at night and when there isn't an operating business there because people feel like they can. So I think it'll actually alleviate the problems that are happening currently and be much better for the community. Chase can maybe add to that as far as protocol from 7-11 and what they do to try to mitigate that. But that's kind of my response. Mr. Dela, is it? To add to Alicia's comment, we won't allow it to happen but legally there's only so much we can do. We have to do the humane thing and we can't force anyone off the property but at the same time we'll do our best to make sure it doesn't happen. But to Alicia's point, with having lighting and operating, I think it'll deter. I think some people kind of think of 7-11 as the old dimly lit franchise non-gas store where they just loader and hang out or even if it's in downtown Denver, that's just not our store base anymore. But we work our best. We have cameras running around 24-7 so we work our best to make sure that doesn't happen. Great. Thank you very much. More questions? Commissioner Lukash? Thank you Chairman. I just needed a clarification because we've been talking about the the greenway and the trail for a spring gulch too. My understanding is that the plan for phase three of the spring gulch to trail is that it's going to be on the east side of the gulch, correct? Not the west side where 7-11 is going to be. Correct. I think you could see on the video how it's coming under and it's there and then it's not connected. You can sort of see it on that wetland kind of exhibit that we had but it is not connected. There's a gap between that and up by smuggers and I think the goal is with our greenway dedication that we will be providing as part of this development as well as the cast contribution that that whole connection will be made which makes more sense for it to be on the east side and serving you know the you know smuggers the industrial primary employment and now the you know climbing group and facility especially if they're having an exterior you know whole development and kind of you know contributing to that versus it being on the west side where we're not really wanting to encourage people back there because of the residential you know and the topography. Yes yes that was my concern as well. Yeah and then in the video it looked like there was a power line like some old poles power poles maybe they were crossing the gulf or not but are they going to be addressed I don't know if they were power or telephone poles I don't know if I think it might be power to to the like that will go away that servicing those existing buildings or you know set up for the existing buildings but that is what I think and yes that will be kind of renewed and I'll be all underground you know and coming off from highway 118 is part of the development but Charlie correct me or Jeff if I'm wrong in that. Yeah that's correct Alicia you know with this since this is PUD process sometimes the coordination with the different electric departments occurs during the construction document process so we'll definitely for sure investigate to make sure there may be the case that some of these overhead utilities are actually providing electric to the residents to the north so that's something that we'll just need to take a look at and confirm. Okay thank you. Thank you Robert. Yeah thanks Chairman. I don't have a ton to add there's been some real good discussions so far I think I'll start with a quick plug to both the city and the applicant for taking what was the pretty complicated you know application the with the zoning the POD the preliminary plan and kind of laying it out nice and easy and logically so thanks to Ava and to Alicia and both parties but you know I created a lot of desirable qualities with this project in front of us you know we've the very solution driven style to a problematic lot you know you can tell there's been a lot of intention by the applicant to maximize the the lot given some of the confinement and challenges that it brings it sounds like Ava's been you know working to find a functional use of the space for I think you said years and here we are with something that seems to work and not only does it work but it's serving a need you know what did we hear there's not a gas station or convenience store for five miles either direction you know right at the again at the gateway to our city so I think there's a need for that and that again is maybe just indicative of how the east side of town is going to continue to grow you know that's that's kind of in in our cards here I think we've heard that this was the maximum use for the land you know given the thought and intention behind it you know we're getting a lot out of a problematic space and beyond that of course is meeting the review criteria and you know meeting the core review criteria the criteria for rezoning criteria for the preliminary subdivision plan criteria for the PUD request so it's kind of slowly checking all the boxes and then of course we've been going back and forth on some of the concerns from the neighbors the responsiveness with the noise dampening sensing along the north side and ensuring that there isn't any lights bill over you know we've seen some acknowledgement of the concerns and then and then addressing those kind of one at a time you know and then again kind of meeting the burden with paying for the greenway improvements I I find the discussion around the historic building to be compelling you know the historic nature of it although it seems like we've largely settled on a you know a cash payment and some upgrades acknowledging our you know the historical relevance of the location and the properties and the given kind of approval and acceptance by the city of the traffic studies so you know I think there's a lot of reasons to be supportive of the project and barring any concerns raised by the commission I'll be supportive of it. Thank you Commissioner Goldberg, Commissioner Flig. I agree with everything that Commissioner Goldberg just said and I've looked through the various criteria under let me get it right here the number is PZR 2021-112B and I would like to offer an additional condition having read through the submittal of information and memos from the Historic Preservation Commission I think that the following would be appropriate to add and I certainly accept any wordsmithing that somebody may offer if mine are not clear so I would add a number two under the number one under 1.10 said application conforms the applicable requirements as set her down to with the following conditions and number two in my mind would read develop a plan for preservation of the site's history through incorporation of appropriate references on the site. Can you please read that again? I hope I read it the same way develop a plan for presentation for preservation of the site through incorporation of references to the site. I think I left out a word. History. Thank you. Do you remember where I put that in? I said the site history with appropriate reference on the site. Thank you. Okay so we are not preserving the site we're preserving the site history. Correct because the buildings have been found to be in a rather decimated condition. We have a new possibility of site development that should be an improvement over what is there now. I would rather not lose the aspects of histories. I like to see references historically in various communities and in my mind Longmont may not have enough of those but we could start here and start identifying things that we ought. Right. One question I have would be if this were a condition and maybe Eva can chime in on this as currently stated develop a plan meaning the applicant would develop a plan but with whom and who would that plan go to? Chair Schurnick we could add some language such as with implementation in accordance with HPC and staff or something to that effect if you'd like. I think that sounds good because it puts back on the staff and it's not coming back to us to mull over the detail. The idea being that the development of the site is not held so tightly that it's not possible to do something but given enough encouragement to make it so. Right and Jade you had your hand up did you want to chime in on this? My words were along the lines of what Eva just mentioned that historic preservation commission would be more than happy to work with the applicant in addition to staff to better create and implement a plan for preservation so thank you Eva. Um so Commissioner Flague are you making a motion to yes PZR 2021 12B with two conditions? Correct. Can you restate the conditions please? Well the one is already there okay number two and I think I said it best the first time develop a plan for historic preservation of the site excuse me let me rephrase develop a plan for preservation of the history of the site through incorporation of the references to its history. I'm sure I said it better before. Okay but but but we are close and then did you want to add language about it being implemented with the HPC and city staff? That would be appropriate um I thought Eva came up with wonderful language may we borrow from her? Yes um actually Jane can you chime in please do you have Jane do you have enough from this to understand what the condition would be? Yes I can I can go back and rewatch this video tomorrow morning um with a clear head and piece it all together and I'll work with Eva also and we'll get the wording um straight on it. I appreciate that and and Commissioner Flague if if this were to be approved would you want to see that wording first before I were to sign off on the PZR? Yes okay all right I will be available okay super um does everybody on the commission understand what Commissioner Flague's condition additional condition is okay I see nodding heads um do we have more discussion or is there a second to this this is just a motion at this time Commissioner Goldberg? I'm not sure if this was the right moment to ask or one step ahead of the game here but can we just discuss enforceability of Commissioner Flague's condition? I love it I think it's proactive and solution driven um I just want to make sure we're not setting up Eva and team and the historical preservation committee for and more equally important Alicia Reimer and team for failure is what Jane will wordsmith tomorrow morning enforceable and um um something that Jane and team um Eva and team can act on and therefore not um hold up development or get into some weird gray area where we're wondering if that box was checked or not. Yes Commissioner Goldberg good question um it's definitely enforceable um the planning department oversees you know the site plan the final approval before it goes to building permits so we would enforce that um the language at the end talked about um you know coming up with this plan and its implementation in accordance with HPC and staff so you know once the 7-11 team comes up with something we could take it to the HPC if that's an acceptable alternative we would then have them put that um you know information or what their plan is into the PUD plan and that's really our teeth um then for site development you know we obviously wouldn't sign off on you know certificates of occupancy if you will if until all of those things in the PUD plan are constructed. Cool Eva thank you that's helpful did I think the only uh phrase in there that kind of kind of send up a red flag is if once the HPC determined it acceptable um I guess my question is is that um are they empowered to have that um ability to prevent a project from moving forward if otherwise approved I just I'm not trying to deflect the condition I want to make sure HPC has the power and that that ability and the city has it and we can move forward responsibly you know so that no one is putting the position where they we can't move forward right a commissioner Goldberg so the HPC is a recommending body whereas the planning and zoning commission well you're a recommending body in this case too actually um typically you'd be the decision-making body ultimately it's up to the city council they could take your um requested conditions or recommended conditions that you're sending up and they can at their discretion say no we're not going to do the HPC one or we're not going to do the fence one you know that's it's at their discretion they're the ultimate decision maker but the HPC is really just a recommending body and I don't know if Glenn wants to weigh in or Jean I don't know if I'm overstepping here well I was um uh commissioner Goldberg and and uh uh chairman Schernack I was just going to echo what Ava just said HPC recommends to the city council and in this case that's just what you're doing so um we hope we would reach a consensus um with HPC and the applicant but ultimately it would go to council for a decision chair and commission by Eugene May city attorney I'm looking at the code on powers and duties of the HPC and one of those duties is to make recommendations to the council regarding the following plan use development applications that affect historic properties so I think it is well within their jurisdiction to make such a recommendation great I appreciate everyone's feedback here um that's provided comfort to me so thank you um commissioner flight well one of the reasons I chose the word references was to make it a little easier to comply I'm not we're not going after a building our structure or a well head or whatever references and then that gives I think the developer lots of mobility some room to operate within that and I think it could be really interesting and creative don't know thank you um Jade could I ask you to clarify something you said a little earlier you had said that there was a stalemate between the HPC and and the applicant and um can you explain what's gone on there um yes commissioner I'll try to give a little context um an issue I think the first time uh this application came forward we just asked some additional questions and then the second time um more more information was brought forward and we asked for an archaeological survey um a very simple one not not too in depth which the applicant provided um as well as a structural assessment and the applicant did provide I don't think it made this report as Alicia alluded to um I think the commission had hoped to see the land use tied a little more to the historic structures um but they're aware that it's expensive to rehabilitate um the buildings as they currently are sitting so I think the sentiment was that a plaque was not enough um and that it just needed to be more detailed and more in depth okay um Ms. Reimer um I have seen you shake your head a couple times um would you like to comment on on uh on this um potential stalemate uh that or or what's what's been your experience so far with the HPC and and their approach to the project I mean our experience hasn't been that positive I mean we had to spend $20,000 you know to get to where we were and we you know it was a long process of delaying us getting to planning commission and city council just because of the availability of their actual board and when the board meets right so it was um really what slowed up a lot of the development application um they're pretty stuck or were stuck on this whole idea of restorating the existing buildings and not tearing them down was my take um and that just isn't a viable option and will never be a viable option and we communicated that we've asked for ideas we've thrown out ideas we threw out you know the plaque or we threw out some sort of mural you know on the side of the building or some something inside the space right that memorialized what it was um and none of it was received well or or I guess accepted or acknowledged that those were good ideas but when asked for ideas we we couldn't really get any out of them so it's I'm not hopeful that if we go back to the HPC you know that we provide them ideas that it's going to be a positive response or get us there so we have we've struggled with getting some sort of commonality and ground there I feel a lot better if we could just work with staff on a solution um that you know and and move to council but you know ultimately I'm not opposed to presenting something to HPC I'm just not hopeful that it's going to be what they envision and um and that they're going to provide any sort of you know positive feedback or something that we can do anything with other than keep the buildings right which we know we can't do so that's just my two cents okay thank you um commissioner Goldberg uh you brought up the the question of is this uh condition would it would it basically be solvable um given what you're hearing what's your opinion I think what I'm hearing chairman is that um this is well within the authority of the HPC and we have um uh protocols and organizations in place to manage situations like we have here and then include HPC making recommendations the P&Z making recommendations to the council in the end having final approval uh I'm a believer in the system and if Eugene and uh Jim both uh Glenn excuse me Glenn both say that this is exactly what HPC is here for then I'm supported and I'll lean on the team the city staff and HPC to work with the applicant to find that middle ground okay um we don't have a second yet on this do we have a second commissioner Goldberg well I'll second it chairman okay so don't ask me to repeat it but I'll second commissioner Flaggs um motion to proceed with okay which is for with the two conditions okay the PZR 2021-12b with the two conditions which we've been discussing discussing any further discussion otherwise we will take a roll call vote on this motion seeing no further discussion let's take a vote uh commissioner Boone yeah commissioner Likacz yay commissioner Pullin yay commissioner Flagg yay commissioner Goldberg yay commissioner Tetta yay I will also vote in favor so that passes unanimously seven to zero that is unanimous approval seven to zero so um I need to read a statement here let me get to it this item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action if you're unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before council please contact the planning division for further information at 303-651-833-0 Ms. Reimer and all of the team with United Properties in 7-11 thank you very much for being here tonight really appreciate all of you coming and spending time with us explaining the project and walking us through all of your thoughts and concerns and plans and uh good luck to you all as this uh moves forward through our process appreciate it Ava and Jade thank you thank you to all of the other city staff who've uh been here to answer questions on this this was a complex one so I really appreciate you being here we do have more to our agenda um so uh if some of you want to bail out now now's a good time great thank you thanks everyone thank you okay on our agenda um item number seven was the electronic participation policy discussion and back to um what we had talked about when Glenn gave his announcements um we because commissioner height is not here um the suggestion is that we uh move this forward to our December meeting um we probably should make them if if people approve of that we should probably make a motion and vote on that just to be thorough um any discussion about whether somebody wants to discuss this now or if if people are willing to uh move this to a future to our future meeting commissioner poem considering we have only one more meeting um and I know that I saw that the city councils actually debating whether or not they're going to go back to remote um I would like to just kind of hold this off even if only for another month just to see what really happens with COVID what where where it's heading is it heading worse is it going to get better um I I think at this point we have the one month let's just go ahead and bring this you know talk about it then in December I think yeah you know see if anything changes um that's my opinion I mean personally I would like to be in person because uh I do believe we get better participation from the public but I think we can wait to make that decision just see what happens and and also see what happens with the city council see which direction they go okay um I'll go ahead and make a motion that that that we move our discussion about the electronic participation policy to our December meeting do we have a second on that commissioner polo commissioner polo I'll second that okay yeah just I need seconds verbally so that jane has it in the record rather than thumbs ups okay so we have a second let's uh take a roll call vote commissioner boon um yes commissioner polo yes commissioner flag yes commissioner gollberg just kidding yes commissioner teta yes commissioner lukacz yes and I will also say yes so that passes seven to zero we will uh uh move our discussion about the electronic participation policy to the December meeting uh next on the agenda is our final call for public comment um so dallas if we could put the slide back up um I'll read through this if somebody is out there who would like to make a comment about something that was not on tonight's agenda we'd love to hear from you right now please dial 1-888-788-0099 when prompted enter the meeting id 865-4670-5309 when we're ready to hear public comment we'll call on you to speak based on the last three digits of your phone number each speaker must state their name and address for the record and we'll be allowed five minutes to speak please remember to mute the live stream when you're called upon to speak we'll take a five minute break to do this and we will reconvene at 9 59 chair we're about 30 seconds out from the five minute mark I'm not seeing any callers in the chat right now okay thank you dallas okay I will stop sharing and I will let you know when the live stream is caught up and it looks like we're back great thank you dallas so we did not have anybody call in so we will close the public comment on section of our agenda next is items from the commission um as always I want to thank jane and dallas and susan for running the show behind the scenes um and making everything go smoothly for us tonight any items from commissioners commissioner goldberg for some reason we're not hearing you we can't hear you you're you're not muted but we can't hear you how about that is that better okay double muting um I think what I was saying is I think I owe planning director glenn van nimwegen an apology because I chickened out and I just call them glenn because I haven't said his name very many times out loud and so planning director van nimwegen please accept my apology for calling you glenn during the meeting and you said that very well thank you anything else all right um our council representative is not here tonight um and then our last item is uh items from the planning director glenn van nimwegen anything glenn um the only thing I was going to say is again thank you to the planning commission for all your work uh this evening um made some good decisions and wish you all a happy thanksgiving well thank you appreciate it and same to you and all of the staff and uh everybody else hope you have some uh some good times at thanksgiving um next item on our agenda is adjournment so have a great night take care