 here. Commissioner LaCache, here, Commissioner Saunders, here, Commissioner Teta, here. Chairman, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Next is communications from Planning Director Glenn Venom-Wigan. Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything at this time. Okay, thank you very much. Oh, forgot to read this one item, sorry. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard, which are items four and seven, or during any public hearing items, which are item agenda 6A, will need to watch the live stream of meeting for instructions about how to call 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 speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to meet the live stream when you're called upon to speak. Instructions for, we will now go ahead and I'll open up the public invited to be heard. Instructions for calling in are provided. The toll-free call in number is 888-788-0099. Watch the live stream and write down the meeting ID when it displayed at the screen. For the chairperson to open the public comment and director's callers to call in. When the chairperson says to call in, dial the toll-free number, mute the live stream and listen for instructions on the phone. Callers will hear a confirmation that they have entered the meeting and will be told how many others are already participating. Callers will hear the confirmation and will be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted into the meeting. Once admitted to the meeting, callers will be called upon by the last three digits of their phone number and allowed to unmute to provide their comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Once done speaking, callers should hang up. Chair and commission, we are approaching the five-minute mark. Currently there are no callers. Thank you. Okay, once I see our commission back, I will drop our slide. Still waiting on a few commissioners, but there are still no callers. Yes, you're waiting for me. I apologize. Turn the video off. All right. There are no callers. Chair Poland, would you like me to close the public invite to be heard? Yes, we will close the public invited to be heard. Are we all set, Dallas? Yep. We are good. Okay. Next item is item number five, approval of the February 16, 2022 minutes. Do we have any questions, comments, or motions? Commissioner Haidt? We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Commissioner Saunders? I second the motion. Thank you. Any questions, comments? If not, Jane, let's take a vote. Chairman Poland? Yes. Commissioner Flake? Yes. Commissioner Haidt? All right. Commissioner Kohler? Commissioner Nukacz? Yes. Commissioner Saunders? Yes. Commissioner Teta? Yes. Chairman Poland, those minutes are approved. Six approvals, one abstention. Thank you very much, Jane. Next item is item 6A. This is the Habitat for Humanity Rogers Road Preliminary Plant, Site Plan, and Administrative Modification from Landscaping Standards. It looks like Planning Manager Don Perchett is presenting. Thank you, Chairman Poland. Dallas, if you could start the slideshow for me please. Chairman Poland, members of the commission, I'm here tonight on behalf of Ava who couldn't join us today. And I noticed that Commissioner Flake has her hand up. I don't know if we need to take that now. Sure. Commissioner Flake? Yes. I thought I should let you know that I am acquainted with Pam Hora who is presenting this evening. And I don't believe that will be an undue influence. We belong to the same faith community. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So again, I'm here on behalf of Ava tonight. So I'll do my best to answer everything that the questions and everything that you have and try to give you a good understanding of this project. With me tonight is also Chris Huffer, one of our engineering administrators who is here in case there's any questions about public works items. And then we also have the applicant and the consultants for the applicant habitat for humanity. So with that, Dallas, if we go to the first screen, please. Thank you. The property that you're looking at tonight is located on Rogers Road. The address is 42 and 50 East Rogers Road. It's comprised of two properties that are owned by Habitat for Humanity. The property is located along 3rd Avenue. As you're coming from the east and you pass Lashley, it would be on the south, the left-hand side of the road, and right before you get to Martin Street. And it's identified on the screen with the red box with the star in it. It's also bounded on the south by Rogers Road. 3rd Avenue is an arterial street in the city's comprehensive plan. And Rogers Road is identified as a collector street in our comprehensive plan. So the property does have two street frontages. And we'll talk a little bit more about that as we get into the site plan itself. The property is zoned mixed-use corridor. And as you can see to the north across 3rd Avenue, we have the park. And that's the Kensington Park to the north, to the south. As you can see from the aerial, we have some outdoor storage uses that, for example, to the bottom right are some motorcycle outdoor storage for parts and things like that. And then we have additional outdoor storage areas along Rogers Road to the south as you head over towards Martin Street. And then on either side of the property, we do have some single-family homes that are within that block that are existing and have been there since roughly the 1930s. And then as you get towards the end, towards Lashley, we have a future restaurant that has been going through our process. And then we have another commercial building at the end towards Martin Street. Next slide, please. As I noted, the zoning is mixed-use corridor. And Envision Longmont has that same designation for the property. The zoning of mixed-use corridor is a little unique in that it does not have a maximum density that is allowed in that district. It actually has a minimum zoning density that's required. And that density is typically 18 units to the acre. It's important to point out that this site, if this was not a affordable housing project, would have been required to have a minimum of 14 dwelling units on the property. The applicant has proposed nine and that is allowed underneath the land development code under section 1503080B3D. As noted on the screen, they are exempt from that minimum density requirement through the land development code so that they have a variety of density that they could try to provide in affordable housing on properties that are zoned mixed-use corridor. Next slide, please. So on the screen now, you have a copy of kind of a blow-up of the site plan itself. To the north is towards the top of the screen. To the south is Rogers Road. And as you can see, the applicant is proposing nine units on the property. They're arranged in three triplexes that are situated in a way that we have three units that face towards East Rogers Road towards the bottom of the screen, which again is facing south and take their access to their doors and things from East Rogers Road. The applicant is proposed to build a public alley that will provide alley access and allow for the garages to have alley access behind the units for the three that face Rogers Road. And then the three units or the, I'm sorry, the two buildings and the six units that face towards the north towards Third Avenue, they too will take alley access for their garages, but their front doors are located off of the alley itself. And then the backs of their homes on the north would front out towards Third Avenue and the arterial street. And that's one of the things we're going to talk about here in a minute with the administrative modification for the buffer. And so as you can see, the arrangement here is trying to make the best use of the property by situating the units in a way that front onto the streets as much as possible, using the alley access to prevent the garage domination of the street and to provide access to the residents and to also allow for some yards for them as well. So the administrative modification that is being requested deals specifically with those six units that are along the north along Third Avenue. The land development code has a requirement in it that when a buffer is required, any fencing that's proposed should be located between, or I should say behind the landscaping that is required from the use that it's trying to buffer. And so in this case, the landscaping is required because of the proximity of the property to the arterial street. So there's a buffer required there of 10 feet that needs to be landscaped. And then the applicant is proposing a fence. And so the fence itself, according to code, would need to be behind or between the landscaping and the home to create more of a landscaped frontage along the Third Avenue frontage. The land development code does allow for modification underneath the modification standard. And this is different than a variant standard. The standard itself is different. The evaluation criteria that were included in your PZ packet are different than a variance. And it is spelled out in Ava staff report about staff's review of this and that we believe that moving that fencing and allowing for that landscaping to be in the backyards of these six units and to help to kind of buffer the use is actual the residential units from Third Avenue. We felt was actually a better use of this area. The applicant's presentation will go over and show you some of the visuals of the existing conditions along Third Avenue and how we also feel that that meets and fits in with the review criteria for talking about some of the existing conditions that are adjacent to the property. So I'll let the applicant present a little bit more on that here in a minute. Next slide, Dallas. So as required for a major development application, which the preliminary plat is, we did hold a neighborhood meeting. The neighborhood meeting was back in 2020 and then the application itself was submitted in 2021. And as you can see during the neighborhood meetings, we did have five attendees that had raised some concerns with the increasing density in the neighborhood. They were also concerned with some of the property values and impacts to their homes, especially on those properties that were adjacent to this development site. And then when we did the notice of application in July and mailed that out to everybody, we did not receive any concerns at that time. But then we have received comments based on our notice for the public hearing that letter is included in your packet and expresses the concern with the increased density and some of the compatibility with having multi-story units adjacent to existing single family homes that are one story and that are adjacent to this property. We also included the neighborhood meeting minutes so that the commission could review those as well and ask any questions about that. Next slide. So Ava in the slide has provided a lot of information here, but I think the thing that I just want to try to end on here is that it's staff's opinion that based on the review criteria for the preliminary plat and for the administrative modifications, we do believe that the review criteria have been met. We've identified those findings within the staff report. Ava has pointed out a few of the things that we believe that it is in keeping with, for example, with Envision Longmont and with the zoning of the property. She also points out that the required surveys that were required from the environmental aspect as well as looking to try to provide for compatibility with the neighborhood, looking at the impacts onto the St. Rain School District, that from our standpoint we believe that the standards have been met for approval of this. We do recommend approval of the project that can be found in PZR 2022-4A and that is the end of staff's presentation. And, Chairman Pollan, I'm happy to answer questions now or after the applicant's presentation, however you'd like to go. Let's wait for after the applicant's presentation. Thank you. Let's move to the applicant's presentation. Thank you, Chairman. My name is David Emerson. I'm the Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity of the St. Rain Valley. Commissioners, I very much appreciate and thank you for the time tonight to show you this site. It's a site we're very excited about. I think we do have a presentation, although I'm not seeing it on my screen. Okay, there we go. So, again, we appreciate being able to take some time and talk to you about the Rogers Road site. If you can go to the next slide, please. Like I said, I'm the Executive Director. I've been in this position since 2006. We have Pam Hora is with us. She is our Planning Consultant. Geno Cornella with Rocky Ridge Civil Engineering is our civil engineer. And Steve Lane is here as our architect from BASIS Architecture and Design. If you can go to the next slide. So, very quickly, before I get into the technical details or we get into the technical details, Habitat for Humanities Vision is a world where everyone has a decent, affordable place to live. We provide permanently affordable home ownership opportunities in Longmont and have been doing that since 1988. Next slide, please. Just to be clear on who qualifies for a habitat home, there are four main criteria for individuals to qualify to purchase a habitat home. One, that there is a clear housing need that could be overcrowding, unsafe conditions, temporary, or someone's paying more than 30% of their income to housing. They must demonstrate an ability to repay an affordable mortgage. So, when we sell the house, it's sold to the homeowner. They assume a mortgage that's no profit and affordable and that gets repaid to Habitat that helps build more houses. And we are hitting those making between 35 to 70,000 a year approximately. So, your basic service providers in the community. They have to demonstrate a willingness to partner. So, they help build the house and they take training classes to prepare them for home ownership. We have never had a foreclosure in the St. Brain Valley. 85% of our homeowners since 1988 are still in their homes and about a third paid off their mortgage. And then finally, they have to be a US citizen or legal permanent resident. Next slide, please. So, recently Habitat for Humanity Colorado completed an impact study where they surveyed over 500 Habitat homeowners around the state of Colorado. And we just want to articulate that what we see is that home ownership is transformational. So, not only does it stabilize their finances, the family's finances, and provide a stable house, it has a variety of different impacts for that family. So, 98% of homeowners indicated that their children were either stable or had positive outcomes since moving to their house on education. 91% indicated an improved mental health and over $800,000 is estimated as savings on government programs. So, about half the government programs, assistant programs that were being used before they moved into a Habitat house, then after. So, a lot of different impacts than just the housing. Go to the next slide. One of the things we like to make sure our supporters know is it's very important that our houses blend to batch the neighborhood. These are all examples of houses that we have built in Longmont from single family detached to multi-family condominium ownership, town home ownership. So, we've built in over 26 different area neighborhoods, and it's a really, really important to us. And when someone drives by our homes, they look no different than market rate housing. And so, in this particular case, we're obviously looking to do the same thing is make sure it's something that if it stands out, it stands out because it looks good. Next slide, please. And these are just some quotes from, excuse me, some individuals in regards to our commitment to quality. We are always looking at investing in quality in terms of energy efficiency to make sure that not only are our homes affordable to buy, but they're affordable to own. So, we spend a lot of time on energy efficiency right now. All our homes are going forward are 100% electric. And so, we want to make sure that when a habitat homeowner moves into their home, it's a home that is of the highest quality. Next slide, please. And so, that's just a little bit about habitat. And I can answer more questions if there are any. But for now, I'd like to hand it over to Pam Hora and have her talk about some of the specific technical aspects of what we're proposing. Thanks, David. And good evening, commissioners. My name is Pam Hora. I'm a land use planner with Tetra Tech. This map is just a map of the site as Don had talked about. The property is located between 3rd Avenue and East Rogers Road to the east of Martin Street. As you can see to the west and east of the site, there are a couple of single family homes. And then to the north there is the park and some other single family homes. And then to the south are some commercial businesses with the outdoor storage. So next slide, please, Dallas. In 2016, when the Envision Longmont plan was approved, the land use under consideration tonight was identified as being in an area of change. And the land use as well as the zoning at that time became this mixed use corridor area. So that lavender color area on the map is the mixed use corridor area. As you can see, it extends from all along 3rd Avenue there from about Emory down to an area just east of Lashley. So this new land use and zoning was established in order to encourage a mix of commercial retail employment and medium and high density residential uses. The residential densities were encouraged to be up to the 18 units break or as Don talked about. Buildings could be up to four stories tall. And as Don talked about the density, when it's affordable, it can be less than that 18 units. But there's also language in the code that could potentially allow density to be even greater than 18 units breaker. The other thing that having affordable housing does is allow you to actually go taller than four stories as well. So there's a lot of flexibility in that district. Next slide, please, Dallas. There it goes. In 2018, recognizing that this piece of property would allow for affordable housing to be built, Habitat for Humanity acquired the property in coordination with the City of Longmont's Housing and Community Investment Division. So the city granted Habitat for Humanity an affordable housing fund loan so they could purchase the lot at 42 East Rogers Road. And then after Habitat purchased that, the city donated to them 50 East Rogers Road. When we set out to come up with a development plan to be able to replat this property to accommodate new affordable homes through Habitat for Humanity, there were some factors that we needed to take into consideration. First of all, we needed to come up with a plan that would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning and yet still be compatible with the existing single-family homes that were to each side of this piece of property. We also knew that we had to work around the fact that we could not obtain access to this site off of Third Avenue because of the fact that that is in arterial. All of our acts had to come off of East Rogers Road to the south and even then we were limited because of the fact that East Rogers is a collector and we're not allowed to have individual lots take direct access from East Rogers Road. Next slide please. So this is a copy of the preliminary plat for the site that we are proposing. We're proposing a total of nine lots which are accessed by the public alley that connects to East Rogers Road in two places. So those two orange arrows they're showing up on the map are the connection points of the public alley down to East Rogers Road and then the looped alley goes up and around lots seven, eight and nine to provide access up to lots one through six that are on the north adjacent to Third Avenue. As with any infill site we did have our challenges and so we worked very closely with planning, public works, long lot power and communication as well as the fire department to be able to come up with a plan that would work well for Habitat as well as all the city departments and I think we come up with a good way to lay out this piece of property. Next slide please. So this is a site plan for the property. It shows the building footprints for the homes that are proposed in the site. The plan is to have three triplex buildings. One of the buildings will sit on lots one through three. The other building sits on lots four through six and then the last building is on lots seven through nine. The two triplex buildings that are on the north of the site up adjacent to Third Avenue will have identical footprints. They're just a mirror image of each other. Each of the homes in these two buildings will be two stories tall. The homes that are on the end of the buildings will have three bedrooms and then each of the center units in these buildings will have four bedrooms. The triplex building that's down on the south side adjacent to each East Rogers Road is going to be a single story building and the reason for that is we wanted to be able to have some of the homes in the building so they could be constructed as accessible units if any of the homeowners need that. Two of the homes in this triplex will have two bedrooms and then one of the homes will have three bedrooms. All nine of the homes in this project will have a two-car garage that will be accessed from that loop alley. And then we also incorporated some guest parking spots off of the alley. There's two of the spots over to the west side and another two over to the east side along the alley. Between the two triplex buildings that are up on the north side there's a sidewalk that we put into a public access easement and that's provided there so that the residents can be able to have access up to Third Avenue without needing to walk all the way around the block. Next slide please. So these are some 3D color images of the triplex buildings that are proposed on the north side of the site. As you can see Steve Lane the projects architect did a nice job of using color to be able to add some visual interest to the buildings and give each unit its own sense of identity and uniqueness. Next slide. This is a view of the triplex buildings that are on the south side adjacent to East Rogers Road. Again Steve used color to be able to distinguish between the different units within the building. In this graphic you can also see in the back the triplex building that is Long Third Avenue. Keep in mind when you're looking at these images these are just simply to show you an idea of what the architecture is going to look like. It's not reflective of what will actually be seen because you're not seeing any of the landscaping or the fencing that's proposed on the site. All of the homes that are proposed do meet the city's residential design standards. Next slide please. As part of our site plan application we're requesting an administrative modification and the purpose of the modification is so that habitat for humanity can be able to enclose that 10 foot wide buffer area north of the town homes with a six foot tall privacy fence. Doing this will help give those future homeowners an enclosed backyard and then also anybody traveling Long Third Avenue won't be able to see directly into those backyards and into those homes. Also another benefit of that fence is it helps to provide a bit of a noise buffer for those homeowners because the noise is generated by the traffic from vehicles traveling along Third Avenue. Next slide. So these are the images that Don had mentioned that we would have to be able to show you kind of the existing situation. The image on the top just shows kind of the direction that you're looking on the two views down below. So as you can see along you're driving Long Third Avenue both of those adjacent property owners already have six foot tall privacy fences that enclose their backyard. So having another six foot tall privacy fence along these habitat for humanity lots will be very much consistent with what's already out there along this block. So it makes sense for us to be able to have that fence located there. Next slide please. The privacy fence that Habitat is proposing actually goes above and beyond I think because it's it's more decorative than just your standard six foot tall cedar fence. As you can see from this picture the fence will be a combination of wood and metal to help enhance the aesthetics of the fence that you'll see as you drive along Third Avenue behind these homes. Next slide please. We know that it's important as we go through this process with the preliminary plan entitlement process to come up with a plan that will be compatible with an existing neighborhood and we also need to make sure that we're responsive to the neighbors. At the same time we need to develop a plan that's going to be consistent with Envision Longmont and the land development code. So back in November of 2020 we did have a neighborhood meeting via Zoom. All the neighbors within 1,000 feet of this site were invited. There were five people who logged in to be able to listen to the neighborhood meeting and listen to our presentation. One of those people did call in and that was Mr. Mark Brown who lives just directly to the west of the Habitat property and when he called in his he expressed concerns about the density of the development and he did share about having concerns about having a two-story home next to his single family home and how that would infringe on his privacy and then in an email that he also just sent to Ava earlier this month he reiterated that same concern and he also asked to see landscaping plans to be able to help address his privacy concerns. Next slide please. So Habitat has taken Mr. Brown's concerns into consideration and has worked on addressing those. Also David Emerson has been in contact with Mr. Brown because Habitat really values and wants to be a good neighbor. What I have on this graphic is just a copy of our landscape plan that is laid on top of the aerial photo so it'll just help me kind of explain some of the steps we're taking to help address Mr. Brown's concerns. So first of all Mr. Brown is concerned about the project being too dense as we've talked about at the beginning the presentation. For the zoning Habitat has the legal right to propose at least 14 units and even more because of the fact that these are affordable units. However out of respect for the neighbors and the neighborhood we are just proposing a total of nine units on this site so it's less dense than the code allows. Also when we laid out the buildings on the Habitat site we intentionally oriented those buildings so that the site of the building that is shortest in length would be adjacent to the single family homes. So by doing this when Mr. Brown takes a look toward the Habitat homes the structures that he will see will look comparable in size to just a single family home. Also when it comes to buffering and landscaping Habitat is going above and beyond per the code we're required to have a 10 foot wide landscape buffer between the Habitat homes and the single family homes and Habitat's proposing a 15 foot wide buffer so it's five feet wider than they needed to provide per the code and then as you can see on the plan that's the landscape plan so the circles on there are the trees and shrubs that are proposed within the landscape buffer. And then finally when it comes to building height Habitat's being very respectful to neighbors as we talked about based on the zoning they could have had four story buildings on this piece of property but what we're proposing is just one and two story triplex buildings and while Mr. Brown has a concern about the fact that you know the two story building next to his home I think it's also important to recognize the fact that a single story and two story homes next to each other are common in neighborhoods throughout Longmont that's that's not an unusual situation. So because of all these design considerations it really is evident that Habitat has been a considerate neighbor and that they've been responsive to the concerns that Mr. Brown has had about this project and the project that we're proposing really is compatible within the neighborhood. Next slide please. So just to wrap things up it's important for Planning Commission to know that Habitat has appropriately addressed all of the required review criteria. The project is consistent with Envision Longmont and the Land Development Code. The design's compatible within the existing neighborhood. There will be no damage to the natural environment as a result of the project. By working with city staff we found a way to integrate integrate the project into the existing transportation and utility service systems and the project will comply with building and fire codes. Next slide. So for these reasons we would ask you to approve the preliminary plot and site plan with the administrative modification for the landscape buffer as outlined in PZR 2022-4A because Habitat for Humanity is complying with all the review criteria. Next slide. We just want to first of all thank staff for working with us to come up with a great plan for developing the site to accommodate nine permanently affordable well-designed new homes for families here in our community and we'd like to thank you planning commissioners for your time and consideration this evening and we'd be happy to help answer any questions that you may have. Very much Pam. This is a public hearing item and unless anybody has any burning questions that they would like to ask right now what I would like to do next is go ahead and open this up for public comment. Okay. The information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home. Please dial 1-888-788-0099. When prompted enter the meeting ID 836-4821-8164. When we are ready to hear public comment we will 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 they will be allowed five minutes to speak. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. We will now take a five-minute break to allow people to call in. Chair and commission we're about 30 seconds out from the five-minute mark. Currently we have no callers. Once I see you all back online and we get to that five-minute mark I will drop the slide. All right we are at the five-minute mark. We did get a caller in that last second there. Looks like I think we might be missing chair polling. Yes it looks like he got kicked out of the meeting there so give me just a second while I try and chat with him to get him back in. His computer had a quick reboot there so he will be back in just a moment. He's in the lobby just waiting to see a mic on him. Hey chairman polling can you hear us? We can see you but not hearing you right now. Still can't hear you? If you're on a phone let me think here. There should be an option well no I'm not even seeing a mic option on your when your name here. No unfortunately can't hear you. If you have like the the bar at either the top or the bottom of your screen it should give you an option for microphones. Right now I'm not even seeing one available based on my side. I don't know if that's the case on yours. If it doesn't work there should be an option to call in as well. Okay I just saw we got the connected audio one on mute for me. There we go sorry about that. Hey there we go no problem. So while that was going on we did get one caller in if you were ready to go. Okay caller please state your name and address for the record and then you have five minutes to comment. Sure thing so caller with the last three digits three nine six caller three nine six please make sure your live stream is muted and hit star six on your device to unmute. Hey there caller three nine six I can see you're unmuted can you hear us? I can hear you can you hear me? Yes we can thanks. Let me mute my computer um so I am I able to ask questions about something that you did not just cover? No this is for the items that uh this is for the item regarding the habitat for Humanity Rogers Road preliminary plan. You can comment um you're not we will not be taking questions though from the public but you're allowed to comment. Okay um well where or when can I ask questions about something that I'm concerned about? After this item we will have another public invited to be heard at the after this item and at that point you can go ahead and address and state comments and items that are not covered specifically in this particular meeting so anything outside of the Humanity, Habitat for Humanity Rogers Road plan. Okay um well then I guess I'll call back in in a few. Okay thank you. Thank you. All right and that is our only caller. Okay I will then go ahead and close the public invited to be heard and open this up for comments or questions from the commission and we have a um trying to see who that is we have two uh Commissioner Kolar. Yeah my question was probably for Pam or the applicant um with the landscape buffer that's going to be developed who's going to be responsible for maintaining that is that the the the homeowner that's closest to it or is there like an association? Uh yeah all the landscaping is on the individual lots and so the owner of the lot will be responsible for maintaining the landscaping. Okay so the buffers that are on the western and eastern edges those are the owners of each side of those. Okay yes yeah so that's lots one and six that have the landscaping on them so those lot owners will be responsible for maintaining that. And they'll have irrigation established and all that already? Yes. Okay yeah thank you. Okay Commissioner Hyte. Thank you. I'm trying to confirm exactly why is the 10 foot buffer because I look at this as multi-family maybe Donna that's for you maybe Pam you can answer. The 10 foot buffer along the third avenue? Yep. Because of the fact I had to pull the code to make sure but I think that that one is based on the building setback um Don do you know off the top of your head? Yeah I'm gonna have to get the exact. It doesn't exactly that the buffer type is category A and the minimum width is the building setback which to me that's the building setback is 10 feet. Yes. So you're actually 20 feet setback as is with your design? No the the the setback and the buffer are the same so it's 10 feet total so that's what required to have so it's not both yeah. Okay and then to go further down this line because I'm looking at the administrative modification standards. You were explaining that Mr. Brown concerns and other neighbors concerns are making you squeeze in a little tight you're not expanding out to the east and west boundaries as far as you possibly could. Again your setback would have been 10 feet there and you're going to a 15 foot setback is that correct? Right we have 15 feet on each side right adjacent to the single family homes on either side correct. But you but you could go to 10 feet? We could but we didn't need the additional width we could fit the the houses within the space where we were more constrained was north south. I got you but when I was looking at your plan and I was looking at ways that possibly you could get around your problem with needing this administrative modification because of the buffer setback from Third Avenue I thought possibly you could go wider bring your footprint a little back to the south and possibly get around that issue but what I think I heard you say was yeah you didn't do that because you're actually being more considerate of the neighbors which I find to be somewhat of a unique design trick which meets the standard to grant this administrative modification so I appreciate that. And again too with respect to density you've said this four times I'm just going to say as well you could have gone four stories you've gone one story and two stories which is not uncommon in the area though possibly uncommon in this neighborhood which appears to have one story buildings on either side is that correct? Correct and I was looking at the width of those lots to the east and to the west and they look to be approximately half the size of the two lots that you are combining is that correct? Yes it is okay. Okay so I like the design uniqueness which is one of the qualifications about which we can grant you this administrative modification. Last question the Jim Morrison garage was that part of what you had to take down? I believe that's on the adjacent property and it's still up I think. Oh that's still there great thank you. Okay Commissioner Saunders. Well thank you for the presentations I like this project I like this partnership I like that the creative way of working with the lots in the alley in the driveway and the accessibility and the way Ava put it together and I was reading through the definitions and criteria and it was all going really well until I got to the landscape modification request I have some struggles with that and so maybe I can get some clarification and overcome those hurdles so if Pam or David can you tell me why in in the documents we got from Ava that you all I guess desire for the property not to have an HOA is that correct and can you tell me why? Sure Commissioner Saunders I can address that so these are townhound home ownership so there is a very simple legal instrument that's used in that case a third-party wall agreement um it is our observation and this would be true of both market rate and affordable not just affordable but it is very difficult to get professional management and of an HOA when it is only a nine unit subdivision there are little to no agencies that were aware of that would service and do professional management with small subdivisions like that so what we're seeking to do here is create lines of responsibility that are very very obvious when you have an HOA you you tend to need at least one if not three officers that have to run in an HOA there's a governance structure in an HOA that's required in order to make that work and it's our observation that in smaller subdivisions a townhome ownership style simply works better we're very appreciative that the city worked with us on the public alley oftentimes private streets that's where anytime you you get a common element it means you have to have an organization an HOA someone's got to be an officer of that HOA to write checks and so therefore there needs to be voting for that officer so there's not difficult things but smaller things that you have to have someone serve and in that governance structure and I think that's easier obviously market rate or otherwise when you have you know 50 or 100 units so that was our thought process at least and that's sort of thank you for that answer it's sort of aligned to what my thinking was too as far as this property and so my my expectations of the landscape plan had a set and standard for that and I don't feel that these landscape plans are meeting that for the low maintenance low cost for the homeowners to be responsible especially for every lot except lot two and three it seems like all the other lots have are carrying an extra burden for water you know the watering and replacement costs and maintenance costs and so um I have a couple other questions but on that thread I'm wondering and this question might be for Don what happens if these landscape buffers become sticks and stones like past that initial phase for the you know for the buffer on third and the buffer for the properties next door. Commissioner Saunders members of the commission you know this is something that I think is a common problem with some of our landscaping requirements in general is that even if there's an HOA you know the enforcement and of the site plan requirements ultimately falls back on the city through complaints typically to force the landscaping to be reinstalled and to be brought back up to code and we react to that on a complaint basis and so when we are notified that there's an issue we try to reach out to the HOA or to the business or you know the owner depending on the type of development application that it is and inform them that you know they are not in conformance and then ultimately it becomes really an enforcement issue at that point um you know we would have to if there's not the willingness to comply then you know we could look at trying to do some kind of a lean and force the work that we would have to pay to get done and then try to get reimbursed through taxes which we've done in one case since I've been here um but you know typically it would be a notice of violation giving a person a certain amount of time to correct the violation and then expecting them to make the the improvement if they don't then that takes it to the next level which would be enforcement through our prosecuting attorney who would have to make a determination whether or not to prosecute and to go to the judge to recross that we have help in getting that taken care of and I can tell you that that is something that I've never seen happen so and again that's not with an affordable project that's not with a market rate that is with every development whether it be a king super's development whether it be a large apartment home complex whether it be a large major employer in the city of longmont we just don't we do our best to try to gain compliance from them in an amicable way excellent good okay that is a what I was hoping to hear and then one more question for you don is this the final approved plant plant the plant list the actual plants that are going to be going in this is the that's okay that is that is my understanding based on my rundown of this with Ava uh Pam I think could confirm that this is the site plan that is subject to being signed off and approved and if so then this plant list is the final plant list currently okay and that's a thank you John and that's a great segue to Pam so Pam um wouldn't these um back lots because I'm really just that modification is really just about the ones on third right in that 10 foot um buffer and so um wouldn't they have landscape already in the backyard and so isn't it sort of double dipping where the backyards are just acting as like well I think it's a creative solution um I have some some issues with the the planting plan but I'm just wondering would they have already had landscaping in their backyards on the south side of the fence um um the the requirement to provide the landscaping is because the buffer requirement there's not a city requirement for rear yard landscaping like to put landscaping in somebody's backyard is that what you're asking well it because it sounds like well we're putting the landscape in the backyard to satisfy the landscape buffer a long third but I'm guessing the landscaping would have already been there first of all in the backyard I mean that the the way that the code is written the buffer is measured from the structure to the property line so that 10 foot area it functions as both a backyard and as a buffer and it's the buffer requirement that requires landscaping the code doesn't have a requirement that we have to provide any landscaping in a backyard so if you didn't have if if you had to go ahead and do the buffer you would take the landscaping out of the backyards and put it on the other side of the fence if if we can't the the landscaping is going there no matter what what what we're requesting is to be able to put a fence basically along the property line so that we can enclose the backyards um so what we're requesting has really nothing to do with the landscaping it's about can we put the fence there right and and I feel that it goes along with the the design continuancy of that space and the hardscaping can be a part of the landscape buffer definitely so um you wouldn't have had a fence if you didn't need the buffer I'm just trying to find out why we even need this modification because it feels like I don't I because I have some struggles with it and even even needing it I guess if all these the elements were already going to be in there so the the standard itself is is really trying to do it's a general standard it applies for any type of development whether it be single family multifamily townhome commercial industrial the the standard itself says if you're required to have a buffer based on the type of use you're adjacent to like a street for example an arterial street and then the type of residential or type of development that you're doing the code specifies the width and the type of buffer that's required the fencing is not a requirement for this development the applicant is asking to install a fence and their proposed location is on the property line and that is between the landscaping that's part of the buffer and the street to the north so code says it's not supposed to be on the inside of the fence it's supposed to be on the outside and so the again the request here under the modification because this is a non-numeric standard the administrative modification allows for this deviation as long as the commission finds that it's as as commissioner height was talking about an alternative that you know if there's benefit or you know there's in their criteria and I don't have those right to put my tongue but you don't have memory that's the that's the specific section then that we're looking at and so if this was for example a larger development maybe a single family project or a large townhome project and there was an HOA often this buffer would have been put into an outlaw and would have been owned and maintained by that HOA but in this case because of trying to make sure that everybody understands what their maintenance responsibilities are they're included with in the yard they would like the fence inside the yard and I can say from what we have seen in other developments where we have fences that basically block access or can restrict access to improvements on the other side those often get overlooked and neglected more than if they're in the backyard and in this area we believe this is a good alternative right and I applaud the efforts for making that work for this property so my problem is as the as the commissioner looking through the criteria I do not think that it meets one part of the criteria if the landscaping is part of that buffer because the way that the the the um the plan reads so it's the the administrative modification request and my specific problem is with um D of part two under a the requested administrative administrative modification for that subsection two and then all the way to D represents a creative and quality design without detriment to surrounding properties or neighborhoods natural environment or to the city's ability to provide services and maintain public facilities looking at this landscape plan there are some problems that I'm having being on the north side of this property and on the south side of the fence so if it's just the fence I don't seem I don't have a problem with that except for that the model the buffer has to have a combination of fence and landscaping the problem with the I'm seeing with the landscaping some of the sizes are inappropriate like the the pinion pines are like half the size that they're going to be and it's an evergreen so I have concerns about shading on that side of the sidewalk which it's not an intersection so it's probably okay um and they're full sun plants and the irrigated turf will not see any sun especially if it's under trees so I have concerns about the maintenance of it and homeowners over watering it and the water getting to the sidewalk and then it being shaded by the two stories of of buildings and the trees which you can see at the cannery which is just down the street and they have two trees on the south side with the same setback okay so maybe we can move around with that maybe remove the trees a bigger problem that I have with the sitting of the plants are in that drainage easement with the um that concrete pan one two three five trees are planted on it or so I'm not sure that's going to meet a drainage requirement having them planted in that concrete pan because it will obviously not do its drainage job and um or near it it will also uplift it and then it starts to become this problem of maintenance and and I just I feel for these homeowners incurring this huge cost and going back to the HOA which is not part of what we're supposed to to look at as far as the criteria my problem is with the accuracy of the plan and I don't feel that it meets that representing the quality design component as I'm looking at it right now unfortunately because I like this I like this property in this project but I don't feel that it meets that modification and I have concerns about it being put in like this so I don't I don't know how to fix it and the only thing I could come is maybe take out the trees but then you lose the the attenuation buffer for the homeowners with the sound but you can't put it in that drainage pan and the shadiness of it I just I don't feel that it rises to the approval criteria for me for the landscape modification unfortunately I think the fence yeah we can find a way to do that but otherwise it doesn't meet the criteria for the modification I see there's other hands right so maybe I can let that sit for a minute well commission commissioner Saunders do you have a question then regarding that layout to the applicant yeah I don't I don't know how it can I mean because it's tricky and I know that everybody's been working really hard to satisfy all these requirements it just I can't I can't approve it seeing it with the trees in the drain pan and being part of that landscape buffer so I don't I don't know how because I'm not I'm not in it as much as you guys are so I don't know how to satisfy a landscape buffer without trees especially since I mean a big part of it is to buffer the sound from the street to the homeowners but at the same time this isn't it's not it's not a quote I horticulturally there are some challenges here for this landscape plan to go in so I don't feel it rises to the standard that I would expect for homeowners to be able to maintain it on their own but again that goes off to an area that it's not part of the criteria so I don't have a solution I'm sorry I wish I did maybe someone will come up with one in a in this conversation well I mean I think the landscaping that's proposed on here is the landscaping that the code requires as far as the types and numbers of trees and shrubs so I mean based on the feedback that you're providing we could potentially try to to work on a different plan and have the landscape architect look at different you know trees or shrubs or that sort of thing to address some of of your concerns related to making sure that we make modifications to the landscaping to address the long-term maintenance kind of concerns and shading and some of those things that you're bringing up that are specific to the plants yeah and where they're sitting because they're sitting in the drain pan it's a concrete drain pan so it's not going to drain if there's a tree right in the middle of it which is pretty outstanding to see and I like what you're saying but I just want to draw your attention to the alternative buffer requirements where the director may approve an administrative modification under subsection 1502080B for alternative buffer requirements based on the consideration of the scope and scale of the proposed development and mix of uses the proposed building placement design the quality of the proposed landscape design and decorative screen wall as applicable the width of the buffer and site perimeter conditions in there I don't see anything where it says one tree per 750 square feet so it seems like that may be where the glitch is where you're trying to put it in those one tree seven shrubs for per square footage of the volume of that 2000 square feet and maybe it's just if it's just the the fence maybe the director can approve an administrative modification under subsection for just the fence and then you guys take the the plants because I can't say yes to these plants as I'm looking at it so that's just me though so I mean and maybe that's more for Don and maybe it can be rolled into it that way I don't I don't really know so because this this application is a part of a major development application the planning commission has purview on whether or not to grant the modification or not my recommendation unless we're going to continue with this discussion would be to make a motion that would represent what you believe either is a fair way to address the issue as a condition or deny it and see if you have four other votes in favor of it or look for something else the applicant could also at this point withdraw the request for the modification and then we would deal with that if and when they ever come in for a fence permit and then it would be at the director's discretion so that's kind of where we're at at this point I really don't know what else to add it looks like there's others with their hands up so that's just one quick follow-up can we take that modification out and just approve the other components that the oh shoot I forgot what they were the the commission can make any motion and vote to do whatever you would like if you plan and the site plan okay okay thank you I think you're in the modification yeah I'm gonna I think let's see where this is going thank you John yep okay thank you commissioner who did you call commissioner height I heard flake my apologies you know you were muted but you weren't I would just to soon go now because what my question was can we see this map that we're talking about well I'm gonna follow up anyhow because I'm looking at the landscape plan I think um page 18 of 20 looks to be in our packet it's uh item number six I couldn't pull it up just now so if it's well you're in and out for me commission for now you're unmuted in any way I'll follow my question map that okay I'll let you go I'll stay muted if we could see the map to which commissioner Saunders is referring that would be helpful and I do have a question um so we're allowing the landscaping that otherwise would be visible to the public behind a solid fence that's six feet tall because it's required what if is there a way the commission can say we will simply accommodate it by not requiring that land 10 foot landscaping is that the way out of this Don can we do stuff like that so off the cuff I would say you could not waive the landscaping requirement again the fence is the issue here the location of it the fence is not required by code to be there okay the applicant is choosing to install a fence and shoot and asking to put it between the landscaping and the right of way so that's the issue is the fence um I think you need to look at the landscaping and understand the request for why the fence in the place that they're proposing it either does or does not make sense with the criteria but I I just want to make sure of understanding the request is based on the request for the fence okay so if I were looking at it I would say they have to have the fence it's against an arterial and it maintains the sight line for the whole entire block that's already there to me that makes sense to have that so we're discussing a drain pan somewhere and I'd like to see the the landscape plan so I can see what that is if I have a other questions that are a little different from that we talked about the pedestrian access through that said fence and how is the access going to be secured is there a gate will the gate have a key will be locked from the inside what are we doing and I think maybe just a question for Pam um I think at this point we have it the fence shown so it would just enclose the backyard so it would be open that pedestrian connection out to the street I don't know that anything has been planned at this point as far as a gauge or anything like that I know habitat humanity did have some concerns about having it just be open for anybody to be able to come and go from there but we did not propose any kind of a gate to close it off so at this point that's it's just it's open um I have noticed just a comment in other neighborhoods they bring that kind of a fence they do a perpendicular attachment and bring it down at the length of sidewalk enough that people can't see into the backyards of the adjacent buildings and that creates sort of a security channel there the next question I have is in regards to the lighting on the site one of the things that can happen with new builds is that there is going to be a light of course by the entrance and then people are going to want the lights over the garage and my concern always is that when these lights go in there the modified colonial version of a candle kind of a thing goes in which spreads the light all over the place and with the adjacent neighbor being concerned about having an invasion of his property that's one of the big concerns well you put in lights that will do adequate lighting but not then also share the light beyond the lot line which I understand is a requirement that lights come to zero at the lot line and how do you make sure that going forth the residents of the new builds realize that they are not allowed to put in spotlights to light up the world so those are my concerns on that part of it and I guess you were in the process of pulling up the landscape plan so we can take a look at that Alice if I could just jump in it was page 18 of that and if I could find it I would do that yes page 18 of the applicant presentation correct section six or attaching six of our meeting packet I do not have access to the packet I just have the applicant presentation and the staff presentation if it's on one of those two I can pull it up for you guys I have a version of it in our presentation sure I think I found it you can confirm if this is it or not give me just a second does this look correct or is there a different one okay great that shows it or no that's not showing the plants because it's right underneath that plant 10 foot wide landscape buffer um so fight 19 I think might oh thank you Pam and I know that um you're concerned about those trees being in the concrete pan and actually they're not it looks like it there but they're not it the they're planted off to the side I can see what you're saying as far as as they grow they could you know the vegetation grow into that area where the concrete pan is but um I know that they're not physically planted right in the the pan and this is Dave Emerson if I may just interject one thing to keep in mind is what is different from a market rate development is keep in mind habitat has a lengthy period um in which our homeowners are being educated on the community in which they're going to live so in a market rate community if this was built person would have a household they move in there's really no education period with the developer or the builder so if we put I'm reacting to the comments about you know you put in these lights and and uh being sensitive to floodlights and things like that we have the benefit of being being able to specifically educate those homeowners as we're building the houses they have to put in sweat equity part of that sweat equity is not just building the houses but uh learning about the neighborhood in which they're they're going to be buying a house so while that does not guarantee excuse me a homeowner from making a poor decision I think it raises the odds that they will be much more educated and sensitive to some of the issues that are idiosyncratic with that specific site different from a traditional market rate product and the lights that we're proposing on these homes are included on the architecture sheets that are part of the site plan that we show some light sconces that would be on the side that directly you know make sure the light stays down and isn't shining out um onto other properties so thank you commissioner height bottom of the ground has been covered um but Ms. Horrell wanted to confirm to in the response to commissioner Saunders observations um I just wanted to clarify the the center point of those trees is somewhat of an approximation or as you just said that's not exactly where the trees are well I'm looking at a copy of the landscape plan and I could see it better on my screen than what you're seeing in your packets probably and I can see where they're planted the it's not in the the concrete pan so I mean they would they couldn't be planted in the concrete pan they're they're shown off to the sides but the way that they're gone and then just to stay with you Pam um I think the observation Ms. Saunders was or commissioner Saunders was was making was that the that the trees created a north face snow ice patch on the third avenue sidewalk right of way and out the further to commissioner Saunders in a second do you find that to be a problem um what's your opinion of that observation um yeah I mean definitely I need to I'm just gonna look and see what the tree species are that are I see that there is it looks like one pinion pine I think most of them are several of them are deciduous trees um and so we could look at switching out I know the reason specifically why the evergreen trees were on there is because there's a county I mean a city requirement that 25% of the trees on there have to be the kind of first trees and that's what's kind of driving what's being proposed but on this particular site um perhaps there's a way to modify that to not have those on the north side there where it could cause that problem on the sidewalk and swap out for a deciduous tree um to address that particular concern with the landscaping there and the other comment I had um commissioner flag hit which was that this pedestrian walkway is it public it's not meant to be public is it it it is in a public access easement it is yes so that but any of these homeowners could be able to use that to be able to walk up to 3rd avenue and they don't have to go all the way around the block to be able to get to 3rd avenue well I'm more interested in me being able to walk into that alleyway off of 3rd avenue is that the intent that it is truly public oh yeah I mean it there's it is truly public I'm legal for you to do that but so you so you wouldn't want to gate it no yeah all right um and then Dave um Mr. Emerson the the only other comment with a three unit um triplex not only a common law agreement but you're going to have to have a roof agreement too right um that I mean there are some common elements that you can't get around with this type of ownership regardless I was just going to point that out why why I don't that's right I did okay no that's right and that's that's covered in the um the legal agreement the third party wall agreement that's common with uh with townhomes again what we're doing a couple things to again keep in mind um that period of time as we're building the homes that education period is really a time we're using to prepare homeowners for the product that they're going into the second is um remember that habitat is not just the builder we're the lender we are ensuring that the mortgage is at 27% of their income and because these are permanently affordable the property taxes are going out in a more graduated uh constrained way so that doesn't get out of whack and that's important not only for the mortgage but it's important for those other ownership costs that every homeowner has um so again that doesn't um that does not guarantee 100 success but that educational component and the fact that we control uh the mortgage and the cost for their housing puts our homeowners in an excellent position um we have done condo ownership both where it was pretty much 100 habitat and part of a condo uh situation where that association is covering those costs but again though that that association is still the homeowners so no matter how you govern those things it will come back to the relationship of those homeowners and how they work together whether it be through a condo vehicle an HOA vehicle or a third party wall uh vehicle so it's it's really critical um and and I think we do a really good job of educating those homeowners that they really need to be working together when it comes to things like um you know the roof and and and so forth so okay thank you Commissioner Lukak thank you Chairman Colin um but I would chime in with with some clarifying questions on on the fence um it looks like currently that there is a fence there it's not a six-foot fence and all the other neighbors around have a fence have they all applied for an administrative modification or how come now there is a fence and you know in the future we require a modification for the development their existing fences would not need any kind of variance or modification because of the height uh because they've existed they were legally allowed previously to the land development code changes that occurred um in 2018-19 when we adopted the new the most recent version of land development code so this is a new standard I got just so it's a new code and then so that the new fence um would that would it be in alignment with with the neighboring fences with a line is that the property line where it's currently is and and continuous contiguous with the with the neighboring fences would we kind of maintain the status quo of where the fence is now yeah so the this fence would be located in the same alignment as those neighboring fences yes because they have it sitting on their property line um outside of the right away there so this one would be in the same location okay uh thank you commissioner flag I I did not have my hand up well you did a few minutes ago sorry at least it showed sorry commissioner saunders um thank you chairman so i'm going to try and see if i can resolve this so I agree that you know landscape plans they they get you close but still um for the accuracy of this commission I'm still struggling with accepting it based on the size and the plant list that is going to be put in on the north side of these two foot buildings or sorry two story buildings I just don't think that they are appropriate and that's the only thing that I can look at for this landscape part because it's part of the design criteria so um my suggestion and I think we might be ready since I've seen hands go down is to let me ask this of Don real quick if you don't mind um planning manager um if we just approve the modification for the fence only if I can make that amendment to that then everything can still go about it we're just not approving the landscape plan for that northern buffer so I just I just don't see it reaches the criteria but the landscape portion aside from I think the fence is fine I think it meets that continuous design I think it adds that sound buffer I think that based on the modification you can then director can just approve just the hardscape for the fence to be that buffer I'm all for that I'm just not for that landscape strip is that appropriate so you have the ability to apply condition to your approval you would need to decide what the condition is yeah if the condition is that you want the applicants to reduce the amount of planting in that area if you want them to look at alternative species and types that would better work on the north side of the house and in a more narrow area you could apply that as a condition of approval for the modification for the location of the fence but if it's not in our buffer it shouldn't matter right because it's not going to be considered part of Longmont's criteria for the landscape buffer for third and just the fences then they can do what they want through um because it's their private property they can do what they feel is necessary and goes through development review because I don't want to harp on this for for them but I just I can't I go ahead sorry so I'm really having a hard time following you so I I mean no disrespect in that but I'm really having a hard time understanding the concern so again the code requires them to have a 10 foot buffer that has a certain number of trees and shrubs in it by code the the the code does not specifically say the types of plants or trees other than we have a list of approved materials for trees in the city and it requires a certain percentage of those trees to be coniferous species so the fence itself the only thing that we're looking at on this modification is the location of the fence if you have concerns with the types of species and you believe that those are should not be used if you think there should be other things looked at in that buffer or removed you could make that as a condition you would just need to adopt the B resolution which is a conditional approval versus the a and you would need to spell out what those conditions of approval would be and then I would also recommend that you make a finding for the record as to why you believe what you are requesting as the condition right how that meets the standards for approval so that that's entered into the record in case this is appealed to city council so thank you and so my problem is that as a private owner they should be able to choose whatever plants whether or not I think they are fine or not but if because it's part of the landscape buffer requirement for the city of Longwatt which it would normally be on the outside of the fence where we would see it and we would access it as a community it's now on the inside and so now it seems like it crosses over into a different space and I don't want to be responsible for that I I think the fence in that landscape modification is fine but I'm not as comfortable of owning that landscaping part the softscape part of it when I don't feel that it meets the quality and standards of the landscape buffer requirement so all I'm seeing is if it's fine to just accept it and amend it without the plant I mean and that's just me so I maybe I'm just brass tax and it doesn't matter because you know one vote is one vote so it seems like everybody else is on board with it so Commissioner Saunders you keep saying like our buffer or the city's buffer it's not just to just be clear the the the buffer is a requirement of code but it's not owned by the city it's not correct yeah and I don't mean to say that we own it but we're proving it right we're proving it as far as a modification to go in with this city code and then why even why does it matter you know so and maybe you know and maybe I'm just not understanding well I don't want to hold this whole thing up based on on this it's it I do think overall it's a great project I just I'm stuck on it it just not meeting the standards that I would think it would with the modification so I'm just gonna end it there thank you for your patience Commissioner Flake um Don I have a question for you was that I understand there is someone on staff who does review landscape plans and did that happen in this situation so due to budget cuts we do not know we have no longer have a licensed landscape architect able to review those for us okay so but basically what has been planned there and I guess Pam you can answer this better than anyone so you've met the requirements that would be for that 10-foot strip regardless of the fence correct and you've managed all the plants and whatever that's in there and so basically it's not the landscaping we're really moving on here it is the location of the fence correct and and so if we are fine with the location and existence of that fence then we don't need to amend this we simply if we approve of it then we move to approve is that's my understanding would that be a correct statement that's my understanding thank you okay Don I have a question um just kind of give me a little bit of historical information was there anything ever on this on these lots before because right now it looks like it's just a lot of dirt um so I can't speak to the lot um along the the west the one that excuse me is on the east that was actually owned by the city and it was a commercial type of building that we used to have a clothing drop-off uh site excuse me sorry I've been talking too much um and so I can't remember if that was our center that was in there previously it's been a long time it was okay and it was a clothing drop-off and I think almost like you know you would go in and you could get clothing I think they had some other services in there too but it was a community facility and then after the hour center ended up moving into their most current building across from Georgia boys and remodeling all of that uh closing and selling their building to Georgia boys that was on the north side of third the city went in and we we shut down as I recall or didn't continue with the lease of that building and then ultimately we demoed that it was getting pretty blighted in that area and that was part of the reason why we tried to clean that up and remove some of the old structures that were out there I think and can you give any kind of brief history of what the zoning was in that area before this um because it sounds like in 2018 that's when we went ahead and made it mixed use corridor do you know what it was before that I'm just trying to get a background of it seems like a kind of an odd neighborhood you have those single family houses yet um when we went ahead and zoned it it's it's requiring uh 18 units per per acre so I'm just kind of trying to figure out what was it before what you know is this a drastic change or you know that kind of stuff yeah I can try to see if I can find a map real quick while we're talking um but I don't remember for sure um let me look and then also uh Mr. Huffer had said that the there was a house that was on the other lot that was demoed and so Pam I and Dave I think that's correct I think yes that's correct and I know on the Envision Longmont plan this was identified as an area of change I think because of a lot of the um you know like you mentioned like that when the our center quit using that building and that building so maybe a little bit blighted and it was removed and so just a lot of changes going on and I think the it seems like the thought was that this area is undergoing some redevelopment and change and so the plan was to see that as the land started to redevelop that it would begin to have more density is my uh understanding just based on the review of the Envision Longmont plan and I have the zoning map from 2011 let me just zoom in here real quick and I can answer your question chairman so it was R2 so it was residential medium density before the zoning change and the update with the Envision Longmont code so that would have allowed for um some multifamily development on the property uh as well as some single family the commercial uses that would have been there previously and in that those areas would have been non-conforming uses okay and then what are other uses in mixed use corridor outside of residential so it's it's probably one of our largest uses medical office retail daycare services it's it's a it's a broad category actually that really allows for a large variety of mixed of uses including assembly uses like churches um um trying to think of some of the other ones but but in general it is when you when you look at that you'd probably think more of like our north main north of uh say mountain view okay the north okay thank you very much um I'm just going to add my two cents in here um I really like this project uh is I just want to confirm what could have gone in here um I think would have been harder for uh to be next to single family homes I think it's a good project for that area um when looking at this uh issue with the landscaping and stuff I believe that in the past we've not really gone too much into trying to nitpick over what goes into certain areas I think we take the landscape landscaping as an overall effect and from what I see from the landscaping plan here that overall it meets the needs for this area and so I don't have an issue with it and as was pointed out once these houses go in place and we have the fence up there really what happens behind the fence happens behind the fence and the city really doesn't have a say in it anyways the fact that we just have certain trees going in there in the beginning I'm not going to worry about nitpicking about what type of trees and whether or not I we feel that they would be survivable or not I'm going to trust that the applicant has done their research and is putting in suitable landscaping for the area so uh next we have commissioner height thank you I want to take a full on stab folks want to move approval of pcr 20224 a which is um finding that the project meets the applicable standards I'm going to say for the record um but I think it's clear the damp dinners identified that the 1502055 the general review criteria have been met for this project that section 1502060.e preliminary plat review standards have also been met and then I'm going to add in specifically that the standards for approval of administrative modification 1502080.e.7 with respect to the landscape buffer issues and where a fence can be located in the landscape buffer under section 1504040.f.1.c moving the fence to be contiguous with the right of way on 3rd avenue is an appropriate alternative design presentation under 1502080 it meets the code and comp plan purposes and goals it is a creative design and it doesn't impact the neighboring properties so I find that the record is established and it meets the criteria for approval um pursuant to the the language is set forth in pcr 22020 oh pcr 20224 a that's my motion okay thank you uh before we go to commissure Saunders um I am wondering if anybody if we have a second for the motion if not I will go ahead I'll go ahead and second the motion and uh I guess we can continue on some discussion here commissure Saunders so you jumped the gun on me a little bit and chairman thank you I was going to and actually commissioner height jumped the gun on me too because I was going to um motion after I walked back some of the landscaping criteria and I'm sorry to go down that path and maybe get myopic about it um that is my professional field and we do have certain standards and I am sorry to hear that there's not a professional at the city of long line so um I I do think if I probably took it to a little bit more of um a place that was overbearing to the rest of the project and I apologize for that it just seeing how this plays out and seeing and seeing the the functionality of these plants which you know playing manager bruschette makes the great point that the only thing for um species for a landscape materials that they be compatible with local climate and intended purpose and other trees and plants on the approved materials list are dressed in the city standards and I believe all of these are on the city standards I just have trouble with the location in the problem it's going to be on that area of north um of the property on that public area with the the sidewalk but by no means is a reason to have the whole project come to a standstill or be denied so I don't want it to come off as that and I really do um want the homeowners to be able to to like you say take that ownership and investment in the property and I just don't know if this is at that level of where it's going to be um this is success that I hope for I mean I hope I'm wrong I totally hope I'm wrong um so I appreciate the conversation and I appreciate the feedback and the patience um for me on that and so now I can't make the motion and I cannot second it but I'm really um happy that you guys are um putting this project together and I'm sorry to give you a hard hard time about it but again we all have those criteria and standards that we're trying to trying to meet and so I do wish everyone the best on this project and with that I will leave any other discussion to the rest of those deemed commissioners thank you commissioner Saunders and and this is the forum where we all question can question and put our our own comments and thoughts out so it was appropriate for you to do that um so we have a motion we have a second um if there's no other questions or comments let's take a vote chairman poland four commissioner flag four commissioner height hi commissioner polar hi commissioner kuch hi commissioner saunders four commissioner teta hi chairman that passes unanimously seven to zero thank you very much uh this item now enters a seven-day appeal period during this time any agreed party may appeal the commission's decision by submitting a written appeal letter stating why the planning zoning commission's decision should be amended or reversed by city council all appeals must be in writing and must be received in the city clerk's office in the planning office within the seven-day appeal period the appeal period begins thursday march 17th at eight a.m and it ends wednesday march 23rd at five p.m thank you to the applicant and let's move on to the next item next item is public to uh public to be heard final call the information is being displayed on the screen for those viewing from home please dial 1-888-788-0099 when prompted enter the meeting id 836-4821-8164 when we are ready to hear public comment we will 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 will be allowed five minutes to speak please remember to mute the live stream when you're called upon to speak we'll now take a five-minute break to allow people to call in chair and commission we are about 30 seconds out from the five-minute mark currently no callers in the chat a few more seconds just because i know we had that one person called in during the exactly yes yep you let me know when you'd like me to drop it you can go ahead and drop it sure and close the public invited to be heard it is closed thank you very much we'll move to the next item item eight which is items from the commission and first of all i would like to apologize for the little computer mishap i had earlier um those things that sometimes is beyond your control so um hope it didn't cost too much of a disturbance anything else from any of the other members to make sure we'll catch thank you chairman poland um just like we have you know sometimes opportunities to go to conferences and opportunities for the commissioners and staff for professional development and networking i want to bring a an item to everyone's attention including the public that is watching this meeting tonight there is a happening in colorado there's going to be a state walking college program and it's open to community advocates and also professionals from all sorts of walks of life that are interested in getting a deeper dive into livable communities and that is something that america walks that's a national organization is putting on a yearly at the national level and i've been a past fellow years ago and i'm currently a mentor and i've been a mentor for the last couple of years for those fellows and now through a partnership with arp they're bringing this especially to folks in colorado so there is this opportunity out there if anyone is interesting to you know take a look at what this is they could go on the america walks page or the colorado arp page and find out more and apply it it can be competitive sometimes some of the years have been really competitive at the national level um and i'm really happy to see it here in colorado thank you anything else from the commissioners okay uh council representative rodriguez is not here today items from planning director glenn vandemwegen thank you mr chairman i just have a couple of things i wanted to go over um number one i think it was back in august we talked about voting of whether we're going to be in person going forward or are we going to try and return to um the council chambers or or stay virtual i should say and then you saw a survey go out by the clerk's office so they are gathering data on that i don't know that we need to really decide what our preference is at this point but we're just kind of waiting on what they learn from surveying all the boards and commissions and perhaps there's going to be a some direction from that so i just wanted to mention that if you have any questions about that the council is going back in person starting march 29th um and um that's that's what uh i wanted to give you a little bit of background on um number one um number two let go ahead sir commissure lucach is this in regards to that item yes i had a question if if i can ask the planning director um you mentioned the august meeting and i don't know if i was at that meeting or i just watched later but i remember there was a concern about the ventilation in the chambers um and when i was in october in the chambers at a city council meeting you know i was in the audience and it didn't feel it didn't i didn't feel the ventilation so i don't know if that was something that was fixed or will be fixed or how what what's the change on that side yeah and nor do i know if it's an issue i i do know chairman churnick brought that up um and i don't know if the amount of volume is been increased um from then i i i don't have an answer for you on that but uh i can check into it see if if there's been a change in the vent ventilation or turning over the the amount of air that's in there i think yeah i mean the cdc is you know recommending all buildings you know businesses and organization to increase their ventilation so i don't know if this was something that was um was done um and i can see you know as commissioners i think we we might have enough space between us and and other people the audience but the audience you know depending how big it could get and we've seen you know uh our chat rooms here you know with plenty of boxes so that means a lot of people might be in in the chambers in the public area so i'm more concerned about them okay we can certainly ask the question that's a good point um and number two mr chairman um i think we proposed to you or or the council has asked that the um planning commission get a little bit more involved in interviewing new um applicants so that process is proceeding and i wanted to go over a couple of dates um and how from staff standpoint we think it'll work so they're in recruitment right now um which includes um at least one of our um full time positions on the planning commission it started the beginning of this week it'll end on april 22nd um the clerk goes through and sees who's a valid candidate and then they will send it forward to um staff at uh uh basically the end of april on april 30th so that gives us basically the month of may to interview and the council changed things up a little bit they want the whole board to be involved versus a sub board or a you know an interview committee so they want everybody to kind of do be part of the interviews and be part of the recommendation of who moves forward for council interviews so the way staff sees it is um we could do it a couple of different ways if we don't if we um we could do it on may 4th actually all have a special meeting where we only do interviews um and then we can think about it and then actually vote on it at your regular meeting on um that would be may 18th um that seems to me is maybe the lowest pressure um and then but maybe we could do it all on may 18th if we don't have a big heavy agenda so there's that possibility and not require a special meeting but those are kind of the things we're thinking through i don't know if you have any other input i think we do have commissioner flag my input would be i know i won't be around that weekend and that previous week not necessarily we couldn't go ahead and do it but um i just won't be here i i will be in alaska may the may 4th time period right yes after the 6th i should be back okay well i don't know what is scheduled for may 18th so maybe we have a light agenda and and we could do we could do both commissioner colar yeah i had a couple questions one i guess is do you want the alternates at the interviews and then my other question is so when we're interviewing applicants is that all going to be open to the public yeah we would advertise it as a public meeting because technically we'd have a quorum um there i think we could do it as a study session if we're not going to take action on the interview night um whereas you um you know it wouldn't be a public hearing for instance so that would be a possibility i don't know as far as alternates um i think council's really focused on the voting the voting members you could certainly participate i would think but ultimately the vote would be by the the regular members and any alternates that had to be called upon and there are votes i guess for the applicants that's also public well what was that i'm sorry so our votes the votes that the the applicants that we vote on that's also open to the public yes any other thoughts question i guess for me the fourth is open um i i really i would probably prefer probably to do it on the fourth i mean is there any anticipation for how many candidates there's going to be we won't know until the 23rd but you're right if we just have a couple of uh uh candidates we could probably do that on the 18th it wouldn't take a whole lot of time yeah but if you're getting upwards of even five that's going to be you know i think if i remember right there was like five to eight minutes or or even longer uh on the interview process with the city council so you're talking like 30 40 minutes worth yeah right do that was hard thinking of yeah do we want to revisit this at the next meeting uh put it down as an item and then revisit it at the next meeting to decide on a date for this does that sound good to everybody sure in our april meeting yeah absolutely so i think people start planning ahead see if uh may fourth which is a Saturday if that will work for you uh and if not uh just keep open may 18th i guess is the second one i had a question actually may fourth would be a wednesday is it a wednesday we're going on a wednesday okay can we start um yeah my question was um so are we making the the final decision or is this a recommendation to the council and and they'll have the final approval right you'd be making a recommendation to council and then they would go forward with their interview basically with with your input so there will be a second interview for the applicants right right in fact they even left the door open if if there's one slot and you think you have two really good candidates they want to hear you can certainly recommend two candidates for one slot and this this slot what's the term when does this term end doesn't it end at the end of this year so this person will that's a good like six months uh no that was jane well that was commissioner shernick's slapping this year i took commissioner shernick's slot and i think this is commissioner owner on slot it is it is but i thought it was commissioner shernick's slot ended this year i believe he only had the one year left on his so unless they both expire at the same time they do yes that's correct chairman poll and this is a vacant position that expires this december 31st so we'll be filling this or it'll it'll be up again for recruitment at the end of the year okay so commissioner lucat you're correct you took chairman shernick shernick's position and then commissioner honor on turned in his resignation and we have that position open that's it for me mr chair okay then with nothing else i move i will go ahead and call this meeting in adjournment thanks a bunch