 First item on our agenda is roll call. Commissioner Height. How is it? Commissioner Tether. Here. Commissioner Poland. Here. Commissioner Shurnick. Here. Commissioner Volker. Here. Commissioner Flage. Here. Commissioner Honoran. Here. Councilmember Rodriguez. Here. All right. Next is Communications from Brian Schumacher, Principal Planner. Commissioner Zayi, I have nothing additional aside from what you have in your desk already. Okay. Thank you. Next is our public invited to be heard. This is for anything that is not on tonight's agenda. If you'd like to speak to the commission, we would love to hear from you. You have five minutes. No, that's a construction document. Thank you, John. Okay, so we do have two people signed up for items that are not on the agenda tonight. So Bowman and Chris Boardman, was that a mistake or are you speaking about the agenda item? Well, I have some comments that I originally was going to say and I want to say them. I don't want to run out of time. Is it about an item that is on tonight's agenda? I have additional comments that I want to say in the public hearings for my extended time. Okay, this is only for items that are not on the agenda. So I'll wait to call you until we're into the actual public hearing. Okay, thank you. Mr. Boardman. Same thing. Okay, anybody else from the public who would like to speak about something that's not on the agenda tonight? Seeing no one, we'll close the public invited to be heard. Next is approval of our January 15, 2020 regular meeting minutes. Any discussion? I'll move to approve the January 15, 2020 regular meeting minutes. So we have a motion to approve January 15. I'll second. I'll second from Commissioner Tedot. The motion to approve was Commissioner Pauling. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? No. Commissioner Goldberg and Commissioner Height and Stan. So the next is a public hearing item number six on our agenda, which is Riverset Annunciation PZR 2020-2 with Principal Planner and Advertisement. Good evening, commissioners. So diving into this project, just to give you some background. This is at the northeast corner of Boston Avenue and Sunset Street. Right here, it's approximately six acres. It's currently in unincorporated Boulder County's general industrial. It's adjacent to, trying to get my mouse going. It's adjacent to the St. Brain Creek here on the east side. In the Envisioned Longmont comprehensive plan, this property has a land use designation as mixed use employment. And they are requesting the same zoning mixed use employment. The properties to the south and the west, sorry, my mouse is funky here. Over here, our zone primary employment. These lots here are all in City of Longmont limits. The property east of the creek over here, also in city limits, that's some mixed use employment. That's the left hand ruling company. And then the properties north and west up here are in unincorporated Boulder County. These two lots are not in this city. This is lobster construction. And so this is the applicants concept plan. As you can see, there's no specific site development at this time. This is common with annexation applications where they'd like to bring the property in, but they haven't nailed down a project yet. But they know that they're going to zone it consistent with its land use category in the comprehensive plan. That's the case here. So they're trying to annex my mouse. Can you pause just a second? Sure. Take off again. So once again, they're requesting to zone this property mixed use employment. Some of the allowable uses that could be allowed on this property if it's annexed are manufacturing, office storage, flex space, some commercial and restaurant, live work units as a secondary use, meaning we'd have to be some other primary use associated and they couldn't all be live work. High density residential, same thing, secondary use and potentially a hotel as a secondary use. While the concept plan doesn't have a site specific plan on it with a project, their traffic study indicated or its contemplating for about 25,000 square feet of office flex space with 23 live work units. So that's how they based the traffic study. Just some background on the site, a couple things. As you saw, the property owner will be required to dedicate land for channel widening for the Resilience St. Brain Flood Control Project that's going on right next to it. We have Josh Sherman from Public Works Engineering. He's the project manager for that. He's available to answer any questions about that channel widening project. But in your packet, there was a graphic from the Army Corps of Engineers that kind of shows on the east side of the property where we would need a land dedication. So we put in a draft annexation agreement. It's not available for public view yet. It's still in the attorney's offices. But that is something that staff would require as part of the annexation. Well, as the agreement. And so this land dedication would occur upon development applications. So when they plant the property, they would give us the land dedication at that point. Some environmental background. It was in your packets, but there was a phase one and a phase two environmental site assessment on this property. The phase one talked about some anecdotal reports about this possibly being a former gravel line and possibly formerly a landfill. The report went on to say that they could find no state permits or records of this being either of those. And furthermore, the phase one report did soil sampling and said that they found no materials that would be consistent with landfill. We do know that the property to the south of this on Boston, the Colorado Materials Landscape Company, that that was previously a landfill. But there were no records to indicate this on this parcel. I know that we'll go forward in a minute, but I know there were some comments about an Army Corps study related to the Resilient St. Brain Project that may have alluded to this being a landfill. But what I put on your diast tonight was a confirmation from the Army Corps that that was erroneous information that's going to be taken out of the report. And it was not, there's nothing to substantiate that it was ever a landfill. There was, there's some storage areas on the back of the property. I guess stuff on the north side. And in the phase one report it said one of the storage areas stored pesticides and another leasing space, if you will, they did vehicle repair. So the phase two did some soil and water samples to check if there were any pesticide or petroleum contamination. There were none in the deep soil. There were some shallow where maybe some things had spilled over during, you know, something falling over. But when they boarded down, I think it was 16 feet or so, it's in the report. They found no evidence of any contamination. They just recommended that if construction dewatering is necessary for construction out here, that they do some groundwater treatment. The fire department has reviewed both reports. They don't recommend any additional mitigation measures. They said this groundwater treatment is already a city requirement and process through the construction process. So that would be something that we would require nevertheless. There was a traffic study prepared for the annexation. Again, they kind of based their study on a potential of 25,000 square feet of flex office, 23 live work. It came out to approximately 497 weekday trips and that would be at full build out of everything. The current level of service at Boston and Sunset in the morning rush is currently at level of service C. The traffic study said this project wouldn't change it. It would make it worse and it wouldn't impact it regardless of whether there was development or not. It would still be a C with the development or without. But nevertheless, they said if they submitted development application, a couple of mitigation items they could do are left turn lanes on eastbound Boston entering the site, which would effectively widen Boston to have that turn lane. They didn't think a right turn deceleration lane was warranted for if you were going westbound on Boston and coming into the site. These type of mitigation measures would be something that our traffic staff would look at when and if we get a development application if it's annexed. At this point, that's just sort of the general guideline. Lastly, there was a species and habitat report prepared for the project. Although no development is proposed, it was just sort of give us a baseline. The report says that this site, as you've seen from the pictures, is kind of not pretty. There's no habitat right now for federal or state protected species or plants. The report says that the creek adjacent to this parcel doesn't have a riparian habitat suitable for species. There's eagles nearby, but this property doesn't have any good nesting sites. Lastly, just as a reminder, the city codes require a 150-foot riparian setback from the edge of the creek. When and if they submit a development application, we'll be looking out for that. That edge of creek would be taken from the new edge of creek after the city's land dedication for the creek widening. So, in terms of community input, we had a neighborhood meeting in August of 2018. The information's in your packet. Some of the concerns that were brought up at the meeting were the lack of detail in the concept plan, making sure that this project, if it gets developed, is coordinated with the resilient save rain or how that timing is going to work out. There was a concern from the Native Roots marijuana shop across the road, across and up north. That's not in the city. They were concerned about being forced into an enclave annexation. If this came in, as you know, we took some, we took this up to council last year. Council's not interested in taking properties that don't request to be in, so that's not really much of an issue right now. There was a concern about the habitat and wildlife adjacent to the creek corridor, and there was some concern about stormwater runoff from development. If a development application were to come in, we have a very tight crew of stormwater engineers who really enforce our regulations, so that would have to be enforced within any development. And there were questions about potential residential density. And then I, you know, we got the application in. I sent out notices, posted signs, I didn't get any comments. Then when I sent out the letters for the public hearing, I posted signs. And I did receive three letters, which were forwarded to you. Again, concern about the lack of detail in the concept plan. Concerns again about the impacts to the wildlife. There's a belief that the site was a landfill because of the Army Corps of Engineers report that there was like one page that was forwarded to you from a comment letter. And on your dios, I got confirmation, Josh Sherman is here. He's the project manager for the Resilient St. Frame. He reached out to the Army Corps and asked them for more detail about the statement that was made on that report about it potentially being a landfill. They cleared that up and said, actually, we heard it third hand from a third party. It's never been corroborated. So we're going to retract that whole statement about it being a landfill from our final report. Because the sheet that you got from the report was a draft. It wasn't the final. The other concerns raised, someone requested that we require as a condition of the annexation that they must provide the 150 foot setback with no possibility for a variance request. There was a request for a conservation easement to protect the bank swallows that was in your letters. And finally, there was a request to require remediation of contaminated soil. And so that's the input we got. We reviewed it against the review criteria. We put in the staff report our findings on how we thought it met the review criteria. So staff's recommending PZR 2022A. As far as next steps, as you know, you're a recommending body, not an approving body. So after you make your recommendation, this would go up to city council. I have to take it three times. I have to do a first resolution of statutory compliance. And that's verifying that it meets state statutes to be annexed the second time. And that's tentatively March 31st. And all of these, I put the asterisk that the city manager has to give final approval on what goes on each agenda. So these could be bumped, but these are tentative. First reading of the ordinance tentatively would go April 28th because state law says you have to wait 30 days and 60 days from a second resolution. So the second resolution and then the public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively May 12th. And so the applicant will come up next and do their presentation. And we're all happy to answer any questions. I also have Carolyn Michael. She's our traffic engineer. And so if you have any questions about the traffic study, we have Chris Huffer, our public works administrator. And then we have Captain Goldman, our fire marshal and Amy Hennian, our hazmat reviewer from the fire department. So really, if you have any questions about the phase one and phase two, they're here to answer your questions. So with that, unless there's anything specific for staff, I could turn it over to David. Let's go straight into the applicant's presentation. Okay. Thank you, Eva. Stand by. The eDrive, I think. Remember this one? It's PowerPoint. I don't know what the other one is. The other one's a PDF. I'm just going to queue you up and then I'll be out of your way. All right. That's interesting. You just want me to just hit the buttons for you? Hi. That's fine. Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name's David Starnes. I'm with Riverset LLC, the applicant. So I'm pleased to be here and present our application for consideration for you guys in terms of the annexation request for our six and a half acres site at Boston and Sunset. So I'm not going to regurgitate a lot, but Ava said a lot of the information here, but just to kind of locate you, you know, we've owned these properties since 2014. This property is one of two pieces that we own. This is the six and a half acres site of Boston and Sunset and we also own 21 South Sunset just north in Caddy Corner along the creek as well. And we're currently preparing our annexation application for that one as well. That will be forthcoming. So just to kind of reorient you, it's nearly six acres. And this excludes the right-of-way, the Boston Avenue right-of-way, which is part of the annexation application as well, because that Boston Avenue is in the county. And so based on the, you know, consideration with public works, we incorporated this right-of-way into our application. The site's currently undeveloped. Lawson uses it, rent space for most in terms of outdoor storage and for their trailers and masonry supplies and construction equipment. So our goal is to vastly improve what is there now. The existing zoning, as Ava mentioned, is GI in Border County and the proposed zoning is mixed use employment, which is the same as the land use as a nation consistent with Envision Online. So our proposed concept plan, as Ava mentioned, we're looking for mixed use. Primarily this site is considering flexible commercial and flex space. We're also evaluating the potential for live-work units. You know, it's going to depend on market viability. I know with the St. Brain Corridor focus area, you know, they are supportive of mixed uses. So this is something that we would look at that we're seriously considering. We're doing a similar product down in Louisville right now as part of our DLO phase two development. We think live-work is attractive. It provides opportunities for someone to live and work in the same place and reduces traffic impacts. But the primary driver for this will be commercial. There's a gap really in the city of Longmont in terms of high quality commercial space. You know, Longmont EDP, which is the primary business group for the city, has mentioned over and over again the lack of quality supply of commercial space for users and having to turn away businesses that can't find, you know, quality space here in Longmont. And so our goal is to kind of meet that demand with the right type of space that's attractive today to attract tenants and users to Longmont that, based on our discussions with Longmont EDP, are moving elsewhere. And then also in terms of the existing conditions, we expect as part of the redevelopment to vastly improve what's there now. You know, obviously with respect to the St. Brain Corridor, we work cooperatively with the city of Longmont and your partners in terms of improving this property, but also the public infrastructure that's associated with improving this property as well as along the creek as well. So the main thing I want to kind of emphasize too, again, you know, in vision Longmont is a driving vision for how Longmont should build out, you know, over the next 25 to 30 years. And our property is located within the St. Brain Creek Focus Area, which is one of four areas identified in the city to accommodate that have the greatest opportunity to accommodate this future growth and demand. And so as far as I can tell, we're one of the first properties here that are being proposed to be developed to within the St. Brain Creek Focus Area to really improve this industrial, in our mind, our property being very blighted. And so, you know, there's two major goals that they talk about, you know, in terms of within the vision Longmont for the St. Brain Creek Focus Area. One is, you know, revitalization of uses along the St. Brain Greenway is encouraged as improvements to the floodway are admitted and future risks are mitigated. And our project will be doing that. Secondly, the integration of high density residential uses and sort of support services are encouraged as well as part of the mixed use and employment designation to increase live work opportunities, expand housing options within the city and leverage planned transit investment. And again, our project will help to address that as well. I'm going to touch on a couple of the key goals that were in the packet in terms of our consistency with the vision Longmont. One is goal 1.1, which was embracing a compact and efficient pattern of growth. Again, our property is an infill development. We're completely surrounded by the city of Longmont, so we're an enclave. And so we're not asking for an expansion of services outside the city limits as part of the index system coming into the city. So we, you know, obviously hope to utilize existing infrastructure that's already provided. Policy 1.1B, again, you know, our project will support the adapter we use to redevelopment of underutilized sites and encourage higher density infill and redevelopment. You know, the property is vastly underutilized right now. We want to really transform something into a legacy-based project that will be very much an attractive to the city. Another goal in terms of promoting the sustainable mix of land uses, again, we're considering the mixed use component with the commercial influx being the primary driver, but also considering the live work option as well. Next slide. And another goal is the goal 2.1, which is integrating land use and transportation planning. So, Boston Avenue is along the State Highway 119 BRT quarter project that's being implemented or planned through Border County and the City of Loma and other jurisdictions. Again, we view this as something that's called Transit Supported Development. Again, it's development that is infill that will emphasize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. You know, we plan to make infrastructure improvements along Boston Avenue as part of our site plan application with us to help address those goals. And then lastly, and I kind of mentioned before, the Longmont EDP is addressing building space and infrastructure needs and other considerations of target industries in the workforce. So, you know, Loma and the EDP group had mentioned, as I mentioned before, you know, really lack kind of high-quality space. And our goal is to reinvest and provide space to really address some of the goals of Loma EDP, which is their Advanced Longmont 2.0, which focuses on the target industries, including smart manufacturing, business catalysts, food and beverage industries, and then R&D. And with the flexible nature of our space, it's not going to be like a class A office space. It's something that we want to develop as funky, that's adaptable, and is flexible, and is kind of current with where the workforce environment is moving today in terms of kind of that creative space that can be co-working in, that can be individual suite, but also it can also be kind of community-oriented space. And then I just want to touch on again, projects like this in terms of annexation really require public-private partnership with the city and your partners. So as I mentioned before, you know, the city, our parcel has been identified as an enclave parcel, so we're surrounded by the city, so we are an active, willing applicant that we want to be annexed in. And so that's something we hope can address. And also with our 21-acre site, 21 South Sunset, we're looking to have that annexed in as well. And so again, for that enclave annexation, we're going to address some of the issues that were raised by Brian in terms of city council about wanting to be in the city. You also need some of our property as part of the Resilient St. Brain Project in terms of the corridor improvement. So, you know, we agree to make available portions of the property for RCP as well as potential right-of-way and any easements along Boston Avenue and Sun Street Street as part of this project on Resilient St. Brain. Thirdly, as I mentioned, the annexation will be annexed in the Boston Avenue right-of-way between Sunset and the bridge as part of this application. Furthermore, we'll be providing upgrades to Boston and Sunset Avenue that are required as part of the site plan application in terms of infrastructure improvements. And also, we will be working with the city for the relocation of the 12-inch water main that crosses our property and a 36-inch surremain that will be need to be relocated along Boston Avenue and the bridge. So, we're willing to work with the city to accommodate that, which further opens up development, you know, opportunities within our site as well. And my last slide on parting thoughts, I guess I just want to reiterate that, you know, we envision our redevelopment as a cause for reinvestment within the St. Brain-Brain focus area. This is the blighted area. Our property is blighted. We are looking to reinvest and redevelop in something that will be a high-quality city of Longmont. It will repurpose the blighted property as well as potential live work consistent with the vision of Longmont and it provides an opportunity to make critical public infrastructure and we look forward to working cooperatively with the city of Longmont and the partners to improve this area. So, that's the extent of our formal presentation. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Mr. Starnes. Does anybody on the commission have any questions that require clarification at this time of the meeting? Okay, seeing none, we will go with the public hearing part of this meeting. I just want to explain why I was being a stickler to Ms. Bellman about whether her comments were related to this project or not. If she had made her comments during the previous public invite to be heard, they would not be and they were about this project. They would not be included in the public record for this project as it moves forward. So, I wanted to make sure that if she was going to make comments about this project per se, that they'd be in the record. So, we do have signed up on our list, Ruby Bowman. So, if you'd like to we're kind of figuring this out. If you come a little closer here next to Jane Madrid she's going to keep the time. And I just want to say I have Heather Houston from Burge Ecologies here. She was our consultant who prepared the habitat plan. So, please give us your name and your address five minutes for your comments. But we need to have everybody really speak up so that this central microphone catches you. Thank you. Ruby Bowman, 1512, left hand drive La Mon. I see several problems with the riverside annexation. It is a former Glen Hill site. It has a potential for methane to migrate from the Colorado materials property to the riverside. The annexation concept plan is incomplete and the habitat assessment report should be redone to address the St. Brain River and the wildlife species that use the corridor. The commission should not recommend an approval of this annexation. Instead, your recommendation should be it needs more work it needs more work to clean up the site prior to annexation especially considering the applicant may in the future request inclusion in an urban renewal or a district for its property. The consultant CTL Thompson identified a potential problem of methane gas migrating to the Colorado materials property from the riverside site. According to guidelines for landfill gas ad and airformer dumps the principal hazards associated with landfill gas are explosion and fire. The Colorado materials properties of former landfill that had high methane levels and that's why venting system was installed on the property. Migrating methane from the Colorado materials property should be looked into prior to annexation. As for the annexation concept plan, it shows nothing of what the future uses will be. I want to know what will be built on the property which is next to critical wildlife habitat of the St. Brain. Prior to annexation. I hope you understood in reading my comments how important the St. Brain is to our fish and wildlife. The applicant should provide a detailed concept plan with the development layout and include measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts on the environment as code requires. Apparently, my four pages of comments were a strong statement that sent a message that the applicant needs to do more work. City staff was so unnerved by the evidence I presented with the river set property that the form that was presented that the city the river set property was a former landfill that they had Josh Sherman. The city's resilient St. Brain project manager contacted the U.S. Corps of Engineers today to get the Corps to remove item one in the table that I referred to in my comments. The Corps complied but I stand by my comments especially the statement about the river set property being a former landfill. The U.S., the United States Army Corps of Engineers official told me that they reviewed aerial photos. The Corps came and the Corps came up with the conclusion that the river set property was a former landfill. It's an act of desperation for the city to work to discredit a legitimate concern about the landfill site. I've learned through this process that as a Longmont citizen I should hold my cards until the last minute in order to get a fair hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bowman. Next on our list is Jamie Cimo. Jamie Cimo, 525 East 16th Avenue. According to chapter 15.02 .140 of Longmont land development code, the city may require remediation of any environmentally contaminated property and annexation request as a condition of annexation approval. While the city may approve an annexation without remediation, if it determines it is the best interest of the city, approval of an annexation shall not act as a waiver of any requirement for previously established. As established in the environmental site assessment, ESA, provided with the annexation request, the riverside property may have been a landfill at one time. Even if it was not used as a landfill, however, there are other factors, including potential pesticide spillage and other hazardous waste, such as oil from car maintenance that must be addressed. There are many unknowns in the ESA and it is troubling that there is little concrete documentation of what exactly occurred on the riverside property over the years. There is no evidence of all contaminants before the property is annexed. It also concerns me that the concept plan provided with the annexation request is very general. While the potential mixed use zoning of the property may conform to the Envision-Longmont plan, how can the city determine whether the developer's vision for the property is otherwise in alignment with Envision-Longmont without additional details? If Longmont wants to have smart growth, it needs to know what developers spend aware rather than allowing for a mishmash that is incomplete. In Chapter 15.05.030 of the Land Development Code, species or habitat conservation plans must include, among other things, an analysis of the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on wildlife and wildlife habitat, or on important plant species on or off-site. The conservation plan does not analyze the adverse impacts of the development on off-site species or habitat. For example, the conservation plan states that the stone cat, the native fish that is on the state list of species of special concern does not occur in St. Brain Creek, which is not true. In fact, according to Boyd Wright, a native aquatic species biologist with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the area from the Beckwith Diversion and Golden Ponds all the way to Sandstone Ranch is precisely where the stone cat exists in the St. Brain. This is corroborated by Timothy D'Amico in his 2018 thesis, Stone Catechology in St. Brain Creek, Colorado. Before annexation impacts to native fishes, including the stone cat, should be evaluated. In addition, the conservation plan does not mention about the Banks Wallow nesting site that exists adjacent to the River St. property. Banks Wallows are a Boulder County species of special concern, and there are only a handful of known nesting sites within Boulder County. Furthermore, they are a declining species nationwide. Current plans for the Resilient St. Brain Project call for the placement of a split channel flow option right where the Banks Wallows nest, destroying this valuable habitat. Therefore, in addition to the required conservation easement for channel widening and construction staging for this Resilient St. Brain project, I very strongly urge the city to require additional conservation easement for placement of the split flow channel on the River St. property in order for construction to avoid the Banks Wallow nesting area. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Seymour. Sherrie Malloy. Hi, my name is Sherrie Malloy, 2013 Range v. Lane. I'm a member of St. with our St. Brain Creek. We are a growing group of community members who continue to advocate for protecting our St. Brain corridor from potentially damaging development by promoting policy and safeguards to foster riparian health in the wildlife that depends on it. 90% of all wildlife relies on riparian areas for survival. We are not anti-development. We just want it to not cause harm by being set back and being appropriate. The Longmont reach for the St. Brain has tremendous ecological value with important natural resources. Horses of the corridor are designated as critical wildlife habitat and been identified as having immense conservation value to the state of Colorado due to the presence of rare threatened native fish species. The entire corridor is a stream habitat connector, which is how wildlife moves from one area to another. Evidence demonstrating how wildlife moves in this corridor include mink and beaver, golden ponds, and sandstone. Coyotes and foxes throughout the corridor and bobcats in the earth sandstone. The economic benefits of protecting riparian areas are well documented. Longmont's 150-foot riparian conservation subjects are not only essential to protecting the creek's wildlife and supports, but also for protecting people, property, and infrastructure. Riparian setbacks sustain or increase property values by helping to keep community costs low, reducing infrastructure costs, and decreasing reliance on engineered solutions. The overall costs associated with the protection of riparian areas are considerably less expensive than restoration projects needed to repair damage from flooding. The Riverside Publications Concept Plan is very general and does not specify what development is intended to take place in terms of building, intended uses, etc. This proposal appears to fall short of what's required in the LDC Code Section 15.02.060, which indicates a concept plan shall include mitigation of potential adverse impacts on the environment. I say this because while the applicant hired Birch Ecology to complete an environmental assessment, thoroughness of the environmental impacts are not sufficient without knowing what the proposed development might entail. Before this annexation is considered, it should be stipulated that the 150-foot riparian conservation buffer be protected by designating this portion of the property to the city of Longmont. This property is still in the flood plain and was not developable prior to the massive public investment in flood mitigation. FEMA is not expected to change their flood plain maps for another three years. The mitigation price tag is approximately $350 million and counting. Because of our investment the public should get something in return for the big price tag our tax dollars are covering. The Army Corps of Engineers have identified 12 flood events in this corridor in the last 120 years. Even with the best possible mitigation efforts, common sense dictates this corridor will flood again. The lesson from the 2013 flood is give waterways space. It is morally and fiscally irresponsible for people and property in harm's way. Although Leopold said in the early 1900's whatever is in the flood plain belongs to the river and it's up to the river when she takes it back. This annexation application needs to be amended before being considered. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Maloy. Heather Houston. I am 4401 Bella Vista Drive. I'm the ecologist from Birch Ecology who prepared the report and I didn't have prepared remarks. I just wanted to sign in because I'm a resident and this is exactly the kind of project I want to see as a resident and as an ecologist I think it's a good place to do something. I'm not into the phase one side of environmental work. I'm an ecologist that focuses on plants and restoration ecology, but I think that for me, going out to a place like this, it is not a hard decision to think that this is the type of place where given the degraded conditions and what's proposed, I'm really excited as a resident. In terms of addressing some of the specific comments on the report it said there's no habitat for Stonecat because there's no water on the property and I think there are a lot of opportunities with this property. This is not the final chance to have a say on what goes on on the property. You all know that well. It's not common to have a full development plan at this stage so obviously I couldn't evaluate that. What I can say is the property right now is non-habitat and so I don't think it matters a lot what you do on it because that property is not habitat. The creek itself is habitat. The section that abuts this property doesn't have good habitat conditions. It will after the project, but I think there's a lot of opportunities to take that buffer area and right now it doesn't have native trees and vegetation in it and so this property can be developed and it can be landscaped with native species, cottonwoods and willows that go there. There can be things done with storm water management that can make things better than they are today. Right now we've got a lot of bare ground and that's not good next to a riparian area either and the bank is covered by crested wheat grass and a monoculture that's a non-native grass and it doesn't have very high cover there either. I know the bank is going to get reworked but I think it's true that the St. Brain corridor is an important habitat and at the eastern and western edges of town it's more important it's important to maintain it here and respect it but the quality of what exists in this industrial part and the central part of town is not the same as what we see at the edges of town. So to me this is a place where, like we said it's infill, you know the crimes against nature on this property happened a long, long time ago you know this is how can we make use of a property in a great way that benefits people that are residents along like me, you know I think what can we have along this creek corridor? I'd like to live there, I'd like to have an office there and environmentally I think in terms of the plants and animals it's not a concern. Thank you Miss Houston. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Please come forward and give us your name and address and what would you hear from me? Chris Borgman of 1512 left hand drive just wanted to add a little more on the Army Corps of Engineers angle what I get out of it is that they looked at it, they thought it was a landfill and now at the last minute we're hearing that they couldn't confirm that and to me that's not quite the same as confirming that it was not a landfill and it's pristine and it doesn't need remediation. We know it was across the street from Colorado Materials I don't know if the street was there when there was a landfill or a dump or whatever a Colorado Materials the whole place could have been a dump I mean it kind of reminds me of the stories about Belmont Butte and the Boulder Weekly a few years ago where they had low level radiation dumped on top of the Butte in the 60s and that's still within living memory but nobody knows where it is now so I think there needs to be more work on this and possibly probably environmental remediation and to determine suitable uses for this property nuclear next thank you Mr. Boardman anybody else who'd like to speak please come forward if you want to speak about this and I this is our only time to have a hearing from the public on this item okay so nobody we will close the public hearing and we will go to discussion amongst the commission I guess we're just going to have to do this by raising hands and thank you I was looking at the timing of the different hearings I think the first one occurred in July of 2018 the most recent one before this February 2020 hearing was in December 2018 that's 15 months ago is there a timing limitation on hearings from witness project I guess when it was initiated it was brought to the public and now it's being considered by us it's been a long time so we don't have anything in the code that says you have to have your neighborhood meeting and you have to file your application by X date our rule of thumb is typically within six months and then if it's been longer we usually ask them to redo it in this case if you look at the packet the neighborhood meeting was August 9th 2018 and on the following page it says the application was submitted in December of 2018 so that was four months the application for annexation for application in the time period I guess you would say the whole 12 months of 2019 there were days of back and forth between the applicant and staff and that as you know in development review they submit their annexation materials we send back review comments on the plans and then it's dependent on the applicant on their time frame when they want to resubmit and then we usually turn things back within 30 days I think there was some lag time on the applicant's end of getting things back to us commenting again on stuff and then them getting stuff back to us so it did take 12 months through the process but the application was filed in a timely manner from the neighborhood meeting I do know that 1502040F says that the city I think it's you can have the authority that the applicant doesn't respond within a 120 day period to terminate the application that's right and so we did do that and so then David resubmitted shortly thereafter this is very often the case in development review we have dozens of projects in our system and so we try and keep up with how long people are taking to resubmit if they're taking too long we will send them a time out letter we'll say it's been 120 days since we gave you comments we usually give them 14 days to resubmit David I think you need a little extra time I'm organizing the riparian corridor report so when someone's making a good faith effort and they say no I'm on and I just need my consultant needs a little more time we'll work with you, we'll be flexible and so it will take 12 months to get through the process next question I have for you David I'm sorry the concept plan there were comments from the public as well as well I have my own comments the concept plan has definition provisions that I see 150206 requires for any major development planning but we also have a definitional section at the end of the land use code that defines what the concept plan is and it seems to be a bit more detailed than the thing we're looking at here in particular with respect to identifying land use, development densities in relationship with other properties the utility systems and transportation systems I guess we've heard that there are utility system capabilities that the city can meet for this particular property and we've seen Boston Avenue possible BRT route and some bike lane issues but does staff have any concern regarding the open apparently not a lot of concern but would you like to see more of the church and commissioner height of course staff always likes to see more it's not required and I will tell you that this is very consistent with a lot of annexations that come in where they'd like to bring the property in and they don't have a tenant or a buyer or a specific project but they know they want to bring it in, get it zoned consistent with our comprehensive plan and then start fine tuning development plans and again if it's annexed and it comes in for development application we start this whole review process over we would ask for a fresh habitat report and geotech report and everything that's required with development review we start the whole process again. This time we'd have something to base it against and give it more detailed review so this is pretty typical like I said you have a strong man because that's my last question the environmental reports and I'll admit to everybody in the earlier part of my life for 20 years that's what I did was review environmental reports to advise banks and lenders and purchases of property what was happening on the environmental side of the issue. This is 2014 report it's 6 years old now and dovetail and into the concept plan in 150206 there has to be a commitment in the concept plan to address any potential adverse environmental impacts from my review of the phase 1 and phase 2 work that was done here the east side of the site was never investigated it was never sampled the sample that was done was on the west side of the site the east side of the site once upon a time was a pond there was clearly evidence that there was fill material added to that part of the site the work that was done in my humble opinion I couldn't recommend somebody buying it but in terms of the annexation of this property from the city's perspective I think the concept plan needs to address A possibly doing more investigation but be explicitly to the extent that there's anything out there that hasn't been identified from what I can see there hasn't been a lot of identification about the potential environmental issues out there the applicant has to be compelled to address those issues further and I don't see that so chair shurnay can defer to the fire department with captain goldman and Amy Hanyin from our hazardous materials inspector they I am not an expert on hazmat, don't claim to be so we refer those reports out to the fire department they refued both they found them to be satisfactory we did ask them in writing do you require any other mitigation measures they said no at this time we're comfortable with those reports so are they in the hall or are they in the hall are they in the hall are they in the hall are they in the hall I guess that was my cue right Captain Michelle Goldman fire department so when we review environmental reports phase 1, phase 2 both were done phase 2 by the Army Corps was done in 17 what we look at for is sufficiency they did do taps ground there are vents there they did identify staining this whole site was an infill project so not just upon your referencing the entire site and probably the other one that's all infill projects when we look you can jump in if I'm if I'm missing something but the phase 1 stated that based on the low levels of contaminants identified in groundwater under the adjoining landfill the site was unlikely to be significantly impacted by migration of volatile organic compounds VOCs or metals from the former landfill or gravel pits on either side so we look at the series of photos that were referenced we also notice they did put in a vent a vent system and public works identified that see you soon public works did identify that they are an EPA compliance they had air monitoring and air permits for those sites so we didn't think that anything else needed to be done there they did soil sampling there were some stained areas that they identified that would have to be mitigated so that would fall to the applicant as well so we thought the assessments were thorough and we were fairly comfortable that the hazardous materials were not at levels that were over any limits of the EPA or needed to be reported further on our historical documents did not indicate the the only we didn't have any documentation that that was a landfill on that side of Boston the only thing we found was the state of Colorado a landfill was south of Boston east of sunset it is not part of this annexation according to the state records now this was clear back in 1960 that this landfill was closed so if the parcels or the land wasn't accurately documented I'm not sure so all of the reports with the state indicate that the landfill was south of Boston east of sunset north of Boston so based on what we saw in the environmental assessments we didn't see a reason to require more testing other than when the staining part that would of course have to be mitigated which is noted in the environment so the things that were noted will have to be done by the applicant so we didn't see that anything passed that with the samples that they had taken required any more action from us so we deal more of course with response and so when we look at an event environmental site assessment we're looking at reportable levels we're looking at things that could if we leave a scene of a hazmat incident we make sure that it is mitigated and we are bound to report certain things to the EPA so that's kind of what we look at when we read a site assessment have they mitigated it to levels that do not require further reporting or mitigation that I thought they had clearly stated that um I'll add more to that my understanding of the sampling was that only one tremendously hot sample out of the batch and it was for petroleum and diesel petroleum again on the west side of the site the east side of the site did you see any evidence of sampling in your review? there's a sampling map but I didn't bring it with me is it in the Army Corps? it's in the ESA it's in the phase 2 report and it was all on the west side of the site I think they were directed to just take samples of where the ground staining was and also the ground water and when all those came back negative they didn't go back go further with more testing and maybe the avenue could clarify for me too my understanding was that the east side of the site is a concrete fence guy or concrete flat worker do you know what's going on half the site was one use do you understand that? you mean previously? yeah part of the phase 1 there was 12, 14 19 on the west side I had to review that one again because talking about the concrete plant I'm not sure it was concrete plant but he was a concrete worker it's on the other side of the creek it's the only concrete plant I saw on the other side of the creek that was Mason and he had large bottom ground storage tanks of some kind of caustic acid that he used to something says concrete plant on a map and it's on the other side of the creek I'm not talking about concrete plant ok our shift gears and talk about the methane because as I understood the report the Colorado material site to the south that was a landfill and the phase 1 investigation talked to the people who had looked at that site and collected or constructed a methane recovery system it was a methane recovery system because it was high for methane on the south with groundwater and migration to the north to the site the phase 2 report specifically did not look at methane not this site does that cause any concern for you I'm not sure they did not look into that further and I forget why he said so as far as the venting system that's there is pretty far south I know there's vents there as far as methane goes what they talk about unclear whether the landfill venting system has eliminated the presence of methane that came from the phase 1 is that right in the subsurface that may be migrating toward the site based on the potential for methane to migrate onto the site joining the landfill is considered reportable that was in the phase 1 and in the phase 2 did not say they did further testing on that that specifically did not does that cause you any concern no because when I looked at the EPA reports there was nothing that was out of their levels so they would have to report that and the vents would have to be reported there also so I thought with the EPA results I was comfortable with what they had done to conclude my dominating draft Jack for the applicant would you be willing to let's not into recommendations right now to the extent that there are concerns that we discovered on site yes and the EPA site I'm talking about is compliance data they are required to report those things so they were in compliance and the EPA report showed nothing that was above or abnormal levels so I was comfortable at that point in reviewing the methane treatment on the site correct thank you I had some questions on the zoning so although I'm looking at the riverside annexation and vicinity map and of course it's in concept because I don't have any dimensions on this but just for the sake of discussion on that eastern and if one were to look at the 150 foot riparian setback that would be measured from the property line correct after dedication after dedication if it comes in and they want to develop they'll have to plant the property and at that time will require the land dedication so then after you've planted the property then there are setbacks that apply to the zoning correct and if you can think of possibly the most liberal zoning use that could happen that property after if it should then be annexed what would be the setback from that 150 feet after it's applied could be 5 feet, 10 feet could there be buffering required? it depends on the use in a lot of industrial-ish zones there is no setback building setback except a landscape buffer if you have a parking area it's like a 10 foot landscape buffer okay in the 150 foot setback that all has to be landscaped though and what kind of landscape would that have to be in that 150 foot buffer back from the edge of the whatever is in our development code for landscaping standards okay so this is as measured from the river refresh my memory where is that measurement started there along the river hold on I'm grabbing my code here because I want to be precise where that setback comes from it used to be top of bank I just want to make sure that's still there it's still there it's either from riparian vegetation or if there's not a riparian vegetation which is further away I guess it's the greater the two distances plus 150 feet to where any development could occur from the site and as you're as somebody is getting ready to develop it if in fact council approves the annexation what would be the next step after everything is approved if it was annexed what would be the next step for the then it's up to the applicant to decide how they want to develop it come up with a site plan and that would go through the DRC and a site plan and that would go through the DRC and if for any reason they couldn't meet the 150 feet city council has changed the regulation so you would be a recommending body on variants not the final decision maker and council would make the final decision on whether to grant the setback variants if one is requested and it would have to go through our SES sustainability evaluation system evaluation system where we have this checklist and it has to prove up the merits of the case of why that would be an appropriate thing to do and they'd have to plead their case before us for recommendation and council has final decision on that and that has to all be done before they can basically run the site plan through to approval yes thank you very much Eva you mentioned something about this before but I just want to get it clear in my head so we have these environmental statements from 2014-2015 it's been plenty of time it's passed and my concern is that these reports are relatively old but I think you said something previously that if the applicant goes forward with a site plan application and they go in front of DRC then another environmental statement or another environmental study has to be done to ensure a species and habitat report and a geotech report maybe not another phase one and phase two on the timing of that as David mentioned they acquired the property in 2014 that's when that was done remember that before they even started this whole process and did the neighborhood meeting in 2018 they had to go to council for referral I think we did that in 2017 2016 it's been a long time I did that but I don't remember how many years ago it was so just keep in mind that that report was fresher when they started through this whole process and as a team of our city staff when they submitted their formal application we took into context that nothing's changed on the property since 2014 we've been observing it over the years and there's been nothing significant that would warrant us to say you need to go back and do more soil samples because we saw X activity going on in the last couple years since that report was done nothing has happened differently on that so we started this down this process I think 2016 with the annexation referral to council so at that time that report was fresh and it just kind of stayed with the application materials you just said something so the use of the site now in my understanding is that it's being rented to loss and construction portion of it they're storing some equipment have there been observations made by staff to see whether that has actually changed the conditions what if they have like a truck there that's just like oozing oil do we not because there's been a change in who it's been to are we sure that there has not been a substantive change in terms of what's happening on that land interesting I can say no one has been going out and inspecting through the years the site and the soil to see if anything has been spilled out there we do know it's been storage of one form or another for contractors vehicle maintenance landscapers and so forth so it's consistently been that type of land use you mentioned the industrial ish use of the area if in the request for annexation could the applicant have requested with any other zoning other than what we've designated in the Envision Plan and is it typical in that we designate property that is outside of the city within that Envision Plan? good questions so chair commissioner teta to answer the first question so we have our comprehensive plan we do designate land that's not in our city but it's in our municipal service area and we do that because we just want to let other property owners know if you want to annex this is what our expectation is if you come to our city this is what our expectation is of how you develop this land and that's set by city council of course it's part of the policy and so typically it's our expectation that someone who wants to annex will choose a zoning that's consistent with their land use designation and to answer the second question if someone wanted to come in bring a property in and zone it to something that's not consistent with its land use designation they would also have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment first with city council and explain up why they think that there should be a different land use designation on that property and go through that whole process thank you well I'm going to step back and look at the big picture a little bit I personally support this proposal and in general I support urban growth within the corridor if you look at the pedestrian shed that is walking distance north walking distance south of the whole Samberian corridor you're going to see that there are a lot of amenities and services already provided so in terms of the land use point this is a very convenient place for urban growth now there were a lot of environmental concerns in the correspondence we received there are a lot of good examples in the whole nation as well an extreme example is actually Central Park in Manhattan a very high density urban edge facing a very diverse and well managed park which is one of the best in the whole nation in the world so there are ways to provide that edge there are ways to provide density still keep the environmental and riparian corridor there were a lot of references in the correspondence to resilience and what's going to be the future you know climate change etc so far with that I ask the question if we don't encourage and allow growth within the riparian corridor or within the Samberian corridor what are we encouraging we're encouraging growth we're encouraging growth in corn fields any unit that doesn't come to this particular area will go somewhere else and that's going to have much more serious consequences in terms of the habitat conservation and our energy conservation now in terms of the resilience one of the very important principles is the adaptation and creating pockets of cell sufficiency building in corn fields is entities of that that is why using this potential within the corridor is actually very resilient for the future so it would be very short-sighted for us to look at certain concerns and kind of categorically reject growth within the corridor that's my personal opinion commercial problem Eva there is a concerned part of above the stone cat fish stone cat fish so anyways it appears to me if I look at the diagram that the property does not go into the creek currently that the applicant isn't part of the creek so technically I guess I can see if I have a question with that then go to Josh Sherman about what gets done when the channel gets widened with those fish to answer your first question the study would not that this property wouldn't involve because they don't have like she said there's no water but it's close to it so I'm just wondering when the channel gets widened what does the city do in regards to the stone cat fish good evening Josh Sherman City of Longmont Public Works National Resources civil engineer and project manager on this one of the project managers on this city is with regard to the channel cross section if you will for the improvements and widening we have any exhibit but we create a tiered multiple tiered section and it has a pilot or a low flow channel within that that meanders through the low flow we size that low flow channel for historic base flows and try to provide a depth that allows for the native aquatic habitat so that for instance maybe the water doesn't get too hot during the summer whenever we're in some of those low flow periods and so that in other areas not specifically this reach but if we need to we have drop structures then we'll create fish passage through those areas so that they can migrate upstream and downstream so those the the project has early on and continues to work with our own natural resources department Colorado Parks and Wildlife others with regard to not just aquatic species but all habitat through the corridor then I have a second Eva who can speak towards the bank swallows and the concern that was brought up about the bank swallows in that area we have Dan Wolford from Natural Resources who might be able to answer about bank swallows there was concern brought up by the public that there's bank swallows in that area that they're I guess a protected species well they're a migratory species so from that perspective they would they are protected during their migration period along that would be coordination with our engineering staff and the contractors for a given project make certain that none of that disturbance if they would move in during that time then their nests won't be disturbed so if we have the ability to move in there prior to them moving in or migrating then we don't have a problem once they're here then it's hands off until they migrate likely in October and then there was a study done and did the study show that there was currently these the bank swallows was that shown in the study that they're in that area the report that I wrote yes no because that's not on the project site I mean there's no my study is within the red boundary of the project site so I didn't look at offsite impacts we discussed the ball legal because it's in the corridor and it's a bird that flies around that's not so tied but we didn't look at impacts to bank swallows that aren't on the project site there's no habitat for them on the actual river set property okay I don't have any questions tell me about the area where the bank swallows most where it's habitat mostly is typically what we see is a lot of the bridges that we have throughout the city and underpasses a lot of our trails we do get quite a few swallows that come in and nest in those sites a lot of cut banks if you would go out to the same brain at well county road one and look west you see where there's a cut bank and you see quite a few bank swallows in through there we see quite a few swallows that are in those cut banks along the same brain again to the east of well county road one but again on a regular basis I mean even our park staff has to be very cautious in the early spring to make certain that old nests are removed even in our shelters where they get tucked up in quarters and do those kind of things we see them pretty regularly throughout the city but in terms of habitat in the whole scheme of the larger area say of the United States is Colorado a primary I would say yes definitely so there are probably more bank swallows in other counties as well again I'm not that expert on the individual species but as they migrate up and down we suspect it on our front range and some of those movement corridors in fact have a number of swallows thank you I have a question I think you might be the right person for it remember I think it was Ms. Maloy had in her statements the question how can an environmental assessment be made without knowing what will be built um could you speak to that from that perspective as we're looking at this being an annexation we're not seeing any kind of real development going on it's just political boundaries being shifted really from our perspective as we looked at the habitat assessment you know there were issues and just identification of species wasn't a big concern now as a development plan comes in and looking at what what's going on and especially in that riparian corridor what the intentions are then we might have more significant concerns but at this point in time this is really more of an awareness you know for our perspective we know generally what that property is being zoned as based on those I think we've got at least enough information to believe that we have a sense of what's going to happen alright Commissioner Goldberg thanks Chairman thank you yeah I'd like to thank the rest of the commission for slowly striking off all of my questions that I had listed so with that then I guess I'd like to just revisit a couple of the key concerns that we heard in the feedback from the public today maybe we can get a step closer towards making a decision today Ava I just want to be abundantly clear and I know you said it already that there was multiple concerns about how can we approve something before we see a more developed plan but just to be abundantly clear where we're at today with this annexation proposal and concept plan review before us this is typical we're in a normal place during annexation review and yes sometimes projects are further along sometimes they're less but there's no red flags raised by the city here for the project that we're reviewing today Commissioner Goldberg I'd say all those are accurate yeah you know Miss Simo Miss Maloy at least those two echo those concerns additionally Mr. Boardman, Miss Simo Ms. Maloy here today echoed concerns about this being a former landfill site maybe but the reporting that we were given today from the Army Corps of Engineers our kind of governing body if you will said we don't have any evidence of this being a former landfill site again Commissioner Goldberg that's correct and more importantly they didn't do a detailed study on the anecdotal remark that they had heard that they had put in the report we did get a phase one they did soil samples there was no material there consistent with the landfill with their boring the rumor being that it was once a landfill not that we did the reporting and that we got that all back today it is also like the burden falls on the developer if there's any of these tainted soil treatment tainted soils or stains concerns with methane might be revisited concerns with soil will all need to be addressed in that correct there have been I think multiple species and habitat assessments done and you identified I think and I'll turn to Chairman Strick's question as well that there may be an opportunity for an additional habitat assessment as this project moves along the feedback we've received so far suggests or confirms that there's no existing issues relating to habitat or wildlife let me stop there that's a question to you is that how the reports have read so far so typically with annexations the species and habitat reports serve as kind of a baseline of what's there to have a site specific plan in the concept plan then we're just saying the baseline here's what's existing when and if the development application were to come in that's where they have to start really digging deeper into the impacts of adjacent species and making sure that those aren't being impacted great obviously this is a very critical issue for those of us who love this city so much and protecting those habitats is really important of course also identified in our packet was there's no concern about impact to eagles some of these more provocative animals that live in our town this isn't an issue but certainly as the project moves along we'll continue to track that I would actually say to add to that is this could actually be better because they don't have any trees anything out there that would provide nesting whereas the development plan were to come in they'd have to have landscaping plans trees especially adjacent to the creek so that could provide habitat where none exists at the moment now also during this discussion I heard the applicant confirm although part of the process anyways but confirm that if any additional concern issues arise between now and development that he would own the addressing of those issues is it also true that we just highlighted some of some of the values that this project could bring to the table as far as serving our goals in our Envision Longmont and General Comprehensive Plan using infill developing developing using infill you know growing and then also providing creative, unique living spaces, workspaces and really just addressing some of the goals that came out of the Envision Longmont plan cool so I think maybe I'll stop there and just kind of flip it back to the rest of the commission at this time given there's we've addressed some of the concerns raised by the public any issues raised by the by the city in reviewing the packet and given the fact that the city's recommendation is to approve it I'm leaning favorably towards approving it so I guess looking to see any feedback from the rest of the commission can I share there's some I have a question to Commissioner Goldberg's point for Ava but maybe for Josh with regard to the dedication for widening of the creek which sounds very attractive to me if we were to deny or the council were to deny the annexation would how would that proceed would that be would that still be possible or is this our opportunity to get the creek widened in that spot so again Josh Sherman so the language that's currently in the annexation agreement is kind of very typical of what we put in annexation agreements when we know we might have an impact on a property based on some master plan or other piece of information that we might have and so it requested they dedicate that land to the city at time to final plat or upon our request but to answer your question if they weren't coming in for annexation we've already talked to them just like we talked to all the other impacted property owners about the project to say when we get a little further along with final design and we know what we're going to need to do with regard to actual boundaries we're going to talk about acquisition of either land or permanent easements or temporary construction easements whether they're annexed or not annexed and so really it's a timing issue if this annexation goes through or doesn't go through it could still take some time and if we get to a point where we need to acquire land before that annexation is complete and we can request it we'll talk about acquisition if it's the other way around then we'll just ask for the request and so we had to do acquisition or easements on previous phases and to be honest most of the properties adjacent to the channel experienced the 2013 flood and to date we've been in a very fortunate situation of it's been a willing seller, willing buyer situation because you know the goals of the resilient St. Brain project to protect this community from future flood risks those that are at most risk are oftentimes those that are immediately adjacent to the creek it's related with debt you said there's an easement option as well so if you know that annexation is going to happen but you need to act further fast you can create a temporary easement right and then the land is going to be delivered after the approval anyway there's probably a way to work that out but typically and in this case actually we have some utilities that we need to relocate ahead of any channel improvements proceeding in this corridor if we move forward with those ahead of this annexation we would need some easements typically permanent easements for our utilities because there's never a guarantee that they take the next step but the situation depends if the situation were one that a temporary easement was sufficed because it's essentially a value so I'm going to be in favor of this with this proposal the annexation with some caveats my first concern was the rate of time that it passed between the initial concept and this hearing this is an annexation we've had a robust public participation so that concern doesn't really seem to be borne out in reality people are paying attention to this thing the concept plan is a little thin I understand that you know except the concept plan is a little thin with one caveat and that caveat gets to the fact that our code requires for annexation 1502140 that the applicant shall perform all necessary environmental site assessments I don't personally deem that securing environmental assessment meets those requirements 1502060 requires that the concept plan explicitly state that the applicant will mitigate any adverse impacts on the environment from the project so what I'm going to thinking of proposing is with respect to our resolutions the Part B resolution that we approve subject to condition the condition being that a new environmental assessment will be done and that the applicant takes care of environmental conditions is that an emotion I'm going to open that up to discussion if anybody wants to talk about it or laugh at me I will move for approval of PZR 2020 to be a resolution planning and zoning commission recommending condition approval of the river set annexation finding that the application was submitted against DRC procedures etc but that with respect to meeting the conditions of approval 1502055 and 0206082 that it meets the development code with filing conditions one that an updated environmental assessment investigation be performed and two that the applicant agreeing that it will follow through on recommendations for testing and or remediation identified in that ESQ report so we had a motion on the floor to approve PZR 2020 to be the conditions that an updated ESA be done and that the applicant agrees to do testing and remediation if necessary I'm going to second that motion because any land that's in an infill position within the city of Longmont we would just assume that the city of Longmont has the review authority over that parcel because it's of more interest to us as the city of Longmont than it ever would be for Boulder County so I second the motion Commissioner Goldberg yeah I'm favorable to the motion just on the condition that neither one of these conditions that have been added by Chairman Hyde are not already implied or presumed in as it reads or based on existing DRC and just existing processes so maybe Ava can you confirm that is it duplicative, is it redundant to add the requirement for a fresh environmental assessment or to add that the applicant must be willing to address the environment issues that arise you play with my words there for a second is that necessary or is it well it's up to the is the commission's prerogative I mean we have said here and publicly testified we've seen a phase one and a phase two our fire department is comfortable with it they don't recommend any further mitigation you've said we don't see any significant changes on the site that would make us want to get a more updated environmental report but it is the commission's prerogative to make recommendations to council so yeah I'll add on to that too because respect to what I heard and with all due respect the fire department has looked at the reports that were provided and they didn't see anything that required additional investigation I disagree with the security investigation things have changed on the site there's a new set of tenants at least and most specifically you know the concept plan doesn't contain that required language to take care of any environmental impacts sounds good to me Commissioner Todd speaking to that I think um in fairness to the applicant would at the time of a concept plan would these environmental assessments need to be done anyway and would they're doing it now satisfy those requirements if they were necessary in other words would that could that take the place of some additional environmental assessment that might have to be done at the time of the presentation or the concept plan right or the site plan is that so if they were to come in and come in for development review we would not require a new phase one and phase two because they've been accepted by the fire department at time of annexation we would not require a geotech report and dependent on the findings of the geotech report we may require some medication but that would be dependent on what's submitted to us thank you again I'll add it's one shot to get the appropriate environmental assessment at annexation now I'd be in favor of that any further discussion okay let's take a vote on the motion that's in front of us Jane we'll just do this by hand should we roll call it we could do if I roll call I mean it doesn't really matter I mean it in effect is a roll call is it easier for you that way it doesn't matter so how about does it matter if we do nose first or the a's first alright all those in favor raise your hand all those opposed any abstentions so that passes unanimously and this item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action if you're unfamiliar with council procedures and intend to appear before council please contact the planning division for further information at 303-651-8330 Mr. Starns thank you very much for presenting your application Ava thank you for taking all of our questions and thank you very much to the public we appreciate all of your feedback it helps us make better decisions so thank you for being here on this snowy night we do have some more items on our agenda which we'll try to get through so that our gentleman next door can start Jack Hammering next is a final call public invited to be heard for anything that's not on tonight's agenda does anybody want to speak about anything that's not on the agenda today seeing no one will close a public invited to be heard any items from the commission no items from the commission any items from the council representative I just wanted to say that a lot of the correspondence that the commission received the council also received and has spoken about amongst ourselves to a certain extent and that the council was definitely very interested to hear what the deliberations and recommendation was from the commission and I'll be glad to obviously add some commentary to what will obviously be provided to us in our packets and as always thank you for your service thank you council member Rodriguez any items from Brian Schumacher from the whole planet no seeing none our next item on our agenda thank you very much