City of Longmont Date: July 28, 2015 JUL 29 205 chy enon hoe Development services Center 10: 3oAM_ 205 Kiar eee Letignt 608004 City of Longmont City Clerk's ofice 350 Kimbark Street ‘Longmont, Co 80501 Description of APPEAL: Tears Wweting to appeal the decision ofthe planing and zoning commission to approve the proposed development a Airport Road & Clover Basin without more appropriate mitigation forthe twpac tes development Pan atiteonseighbors Weaskyouto take this appeal very seriously. Please note the lange attendees eter rea ominision mecing andthe level of pasion nthe rom. The cizens of Southwest Longmont want heard on ths matter hat we bleve isan rue for both alfey and education. Tis proposed recone reer ihe evil te canes orlou problems and impact our quality oflife. Weak that the city counell eonioes re ‘mitigation for traf safety and the impact of more students in our already crowéed schools cease ls section of Longmont slrendy dangerous, andthe proposed development ha the potential t cause Saab hs sutions. We are particularly concerned about the inpacton young pedestrians sed eylane, a Pedestrian underpass (or overpass for safe crossing of Airport Road. sain Lam Atonsalso cross Airport Roa further South near Dahli. Webley the proposed tae “milenton’ of adding third urtaneandan acceleration ane om Alport creates terre hear, me divers inthe city address this safety hazard by equi (Cossibly activated by push button). In addition tothe egregious stuatio of middle Schoo! children walking to and from school, do you wart Longmont ‘tobea city that ic cafe and friendly to pedesti and cyetsts? Weare involved citizens of Longmont. We are at payers, voters, educators volnters,profssonals parents and poles ofcers We take our involvement inthis community, Pease donot approve ofthis development wae everything in your power to mitigate Its impact on us Sincerely, Michael and Kathryn Whitt 3514 Larkspur Dr. Longmont CO 80503[With support from: (All individuals on thisst have read this etter and asked tobe added tof Tis has al {aken place within 10 hours ofthis etter being written. There is astrong feeling in SW Longmont that we nee to beheard by the city Council.) 1 Jonand Whitney Mires 1329 Lupin Ct. Longmont CO 80503 2 Timand Sheryl Miler 1627 Mountain Dr. Longmont CO 80503 3. Anne and Edward Tinkum 1309 Indian Paintbrush Lane Longmont CO 80503 4. Dylan and Jennifer Ha 4945 Eagan Circle Longmont CO 80503 5. Meidi Lawrence and Aaron Payne 5112 Lind Place 80503 6. Brockand Lor Myers 3677 Sunflower Circle Longmont CO 80503 7. Mia and Murph McCloy 3569 Larkspur Circle Longmont CO 80503, ‘8. Mike and Karen Cook 3512 Larkspur Dr. Longmont cO 60503 9. Anjanetand Chris Mort 3516 Larkspur Dr. Longmont CO 80503 10. Rich and Carrie Mandevile 1498 Wildrose Dr. Longmont CO 80503 14. Markand anette Fetter 1513 Wildrose Dr. Longmont CO 80503 12, Dawn Richardson Starkey $712 lover Basin Dr, Longmont CO 80503 18. Ryan and Heather Thompson 4644 Portofino Dr. Longmont 0 80503 14. Anna Wilson Rooney 4704 Bella Vista Longmont CO 80503 1S, Stacey Ward Horton 3711 Florentine Dr. Longmont CO 60503 16. lea Westphal 3451 Larkspur Dr. Longmont CO 80503 17, Natalie Baker - moving to Clover Basin Dr. in September 18. Kirk Christffersen 3577 Larkspur Circle Longmont CO 0503 19. Kim and Ted Bertele 1361 Carnation Circle Longmont C0 80503 20. Jennifer Kaufman 4123 Florentine Dr Longmont CO 90503 21, Katherine and Justin Atherton Wood 3622 Clover Creek Lane Longmont CO 80503 22. Ken And il Franze 902 Cranberry Court Longmont CO 80503 23, Noriko Fujiwara and Mark Yankelevsky 4115 Hawthorne Place Longmont CO 8050324, Alison and Ben Marchand 3760 Oakwood Dr Longmont CO 80503 25, Alma and Chris Medrano 1443 Wildrose Dr. Longmont CO 80503 26, Jody and Josh Morrin 5721 Blue Mountain Circie Longmont CO 80503 27, Tobey Bassoff 4148 Prairle Fire Circle Longmont CO 80503 28, Tonya and Peter Ambrose 1447 Wildrose Dr. Longmont CO 80503 29, Bobhy and Kate Kelley 4006 Da Vine Drive Longmont CO 80503 30, Jeffand Mandy Adams 4103 Hawthorne Phce Longmont CO 80503 31, Wendy and Dave McMillan 5625 Mount Saitas Ave Longmont CO 80503 32, Tony and Ellen Whiteley 3581 Larkspur Circle Longmont CO 00503, 33, Kristin and Nathan Hawley 4301 San Marco Dr. Longmont CO 60503, 34, Shane Vandermeyden 4019 Florentine Dr.Longmont CO 60503 35. Halle Harper Babcock 4013 Milano Lane Longmont CO 80503 ‘36, Kelly and James Dykema 5033 Bella Vista Drive Longmont CO 80503 37, Jennifer Ordway $832 Blue Mountain Circle Longmont CO 80503 38. Jason and Kelly Dodds 3582 Larkspur Dr Longmont CO 80503, 39, Martha and Steve Walker 1347 Carnation Circle Longmont CO 60503, 40, Phil & Tammi Holcomb 822 SnowberrySt Longmont CO 80503 ‘41, Melissa Johnson 3594 Larkspur Dr. Longmont Co 80503 42, Mike and Jenn Zavattaro 4641 Lucea Dr. Lengmont CO 43, Erin and Joe Bartko 1446 Wildrose Dr. Longmont CO 80503 ‘+4 Mike and Clarissa Tuthowski 5713 Mount Sanitas Ave. Longmont CO 80503 45, Cyndi Lawson 1915 Redtop Ct Longmont CO 80503 46, Holly Red S607 Pierson Mountain Ave. Longmont CO 80503 47. Matt and Tatum McKenzie 3441 Larkspur Dr, Longmont CO 80503 48, Shane Butterfield 1309 Carnation Cirle Longmont CO 80503,4, Marin Tindall Maya Ws Tindal 8641 Foro Lane Longmont CO 80503 S50, alge and Nate Hartman 616 Snowery St. Longmont CO 60503 51, Amy Wikns 304 Feather Reed Ave, Longmont CO 60503 52 tophanleGogin 1302 Carnation Cre Longmont CO 60503 52 DanandDenetha 137 Lupe Ce. Longmont CO 80503 54, Krsn Rourke 8688 Portico Lane Longmont CD 80503 55, Cauda Flores 3600 Pike Road 12-07 Fox Ridge Apartments LangnontCO 80503 56, Michael an Patria Dingman 28 nowherty St Longmont CO 6053 57 Mary and Andy Radeon 3974 Hawthorne Cirle Longmont CO 80505, 58, Diana and Dick reve 4218 San Maro Dr Longmont 0 90503 59, Zan and Patrice Powel $509 Steeple Chase Dr Longmont CO 80502 60, Rebecca Yanks Wethe 7094 Redwing Place Longmont CO 80503 61, Jessica Grn 4517 ela Visa Dr Longmont 0 0503 62, Stephane ad od Gould 1622 Amherst Dr Longmont CO 60503 69, Zackand Meloy Aime 4024 a intr LongmontCO 80503 ‘4, Dus and Ral Cale 620 Grandview Meadows Dr. #206 Longmont CO 80503 165, Al Yavar 1505 rose Dr Longmont 60503 66, Gaurav and Rash Kuba! 170 Roma Ce Longuont CO 00503 oF Tenaifer and Mike Turpin SG4 DeNind Dr. $0503 6h. Heather Harding (630 Mountain Dr. $0503 cA, Courtney and Branden Ballagh 624 fortofine Dr Basesuly 28,2005 iy oriaromene Cty of Longmont DBevsopret Serves Cater ae Ss aro Soeet ‘Longmont, CO 80501 id cy of Longmont Planning Services Shy ee oes 350 Kimberk Soot Longmont, CO 8001 DESCRIPTION of APPEAL: ‘This APPEAL is being submited in response tothe decison made bythe ity of Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission approving the PROPOSAL (beiow) by Acts, LLC. for the development ofthe 20.89, ‘act parcel of land a the southwest corner of Airport Road and Clover Basin Drive in Longmont PROPOSAL: Preiminary plat to subdivide 20 8%acre lot into two lots. Condilonal Use Site Pan to develop the western 14-acres ofthe property into a 276nl apartment complex wit 828 on-site parking spaces within 16 two and three-story busdings. The complex wil also have a clubhouse wth pool and 4179 acres of internal pockel park space, including dog play area and cites playground, Locaton: Southwest comer of Clover Basin Drive and Arpt Road. ‘The decison being appealed was made atthe Ciy of Longmont Planing and Zoning Commission ‘Meeting that commenced at 7:00 pm on Wednesday, Juy 22, 2015. The decision was delvered bythe Planning and Zoning Commission between 12.01 am and 1:00 am on Thursday, Jy 25, 2018. The locaton ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was the Cty Couned Chambers, Ce Center Complex, 3 and Emery Steet ‘APPELLANTS: lan Gapezzano 3558 Larkspur Ove DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: ‘The Ptanning and Zoning Commite's decision to approve the proposed development by Acti, LLC. Is not inthe best intrest of Longmont. “The decision makers exceeded thelr authority or jrsdlction as contained inthe Municipal Code or Chater. The most relevant secton bing 15.01.030.- Purpose and Intent. Specticaly sections: ‘A= This projet does not promote pubic heath, safely, convenience, comfort. or prosperty This project does not secure the safety of persons, specifically young pedestrians who need o cross ‘he already righ volume intersection. (© This project could negatively impact the valve of neighboring propery E—This project endangers an already established prare dog community. Many of which have been pushed 1 this comer lot because of other new constuction, F This project could negatively impact water and other envionment resources for an area already _adcing many new residences. Hal ~ Ths project contributes lage amount of new aff to already congested intersection. The \westem side of Alport and Clover was never meant to be the main road itis curently used as, A look at {he landscaping shows the intended use ls more ofan entrance and feeder oad, not a main oad thats supposed o handle what shouldbe four lanes of rac. The proposed car centric use ofthe egress points ‘also endangers pedestrians, many who are chien commuting fo school ofaSenice the neighborhoods, Many people baught homes In his part of fon because they expectod more Fetal to be ult “The allowance of residential only onthe 14 acres goes against the intended use designation. On top of that, most of he board members have never Been fo the st fora vist and could not possibly Understand the rue impact “The decisions not supported by any competent evidence inthe record and most committee members have not even visited the proposed site. The paperwork fied is based on questionable data mainly provided by the developer, The traf study dates do not account for peek usage times during the schoo! {Year or the eventual new raf that wil be eéded ror already approved to bull andlor under ‘nsiniction homes in Southwest Longmont “The decision is plainly inconsistent with the review ceria and was amended up untl the day of he Panning and Zoning Commitee meeting or July 22, 2015. The data provided bythe schoo iste only looked at elementary schools and cid not explain th impact on mile and high school Ths review also ‘id not sccountforimpacis from already approved to bud homes. The school districts numbers are very low in regards tothe total number of new stidents. Given thatthe two elementary schools akeady have’ Potable tras to accommedate the large cumber of students, any poten inctease wil impact the Sschoo's and the qualty of eduction, ‘Accocting othe questionable dat, this projects within the thresholds fr both trac and school volume. But, this project's beneficial only tothe developer and does nt ft well nthe proposed Tecation. “This land was expected o be commercial innetur, bu the developer has found the mixed use alowing apartmens is more fancialy rewarding then ust commercial |1am requesting that he Cty Counel reject his proposal and encourage the developer to include ares residens to belter determine what this par of Longmont needs | understand that when paperwork in ‘order there i tle ]an average citzan can do, The rule of he lw is being folowed, but he sprt of he law i being ignored neu af shor term fnencial gains. x I yu truly care about he future of Longmost please reconsider the approval of this project. “Thank you for your time, Sa an Cspezzano. ordby 20,2015 en Cy of Longmont ee seskmoan sree Rignolng Sendiows tengmontCO 80501 4508 pm. iy of Longmont Gry Clen’s Ofice 350 Kimbark Steet Longmont, CO 80501 DESCRIPTION of APPEAL: ‘This APPEAL Is being submittadin response to the decision made by the City of Longmont Planing and Zoning Commission approving te PROPOSAL (below) by Rete, LLC forthe development ofthe 20 88 ‘20% parcel of land at the southwest comer of Arport Road and Clover Basin rive in Longmont The decision being appealed was made athe Cty of Longmont Planning aed Zoning Commission Meeting that commenced at 700 pm on Wednesday, July 22,2015, The decsion was delivered bythe Planning and Zoning Commission between 12:01 am and 100 am on Thursday, July 23,2018, The location ofthe Planning and Zoning APPELLANTS: Micha and Jennifer Schufer 4716 Boia Vista Dive — 500503, DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: ‘The Panning and Zoning Commitee's decision to approve the proposed development by Acts, LLC. bs notin the best intrestof Longmont. “The decison makers exceeded ther authority o jurscicton as contained in he Municipal Cage or Charter The most relevant secton being 18.08.090, - Purpose and intent Specialy sections ‘A This project does not promote pubic heath, safety, convenience, comfort or prospenty 8 This project does not secure the safety of persons, specicay young pedestnans who need rots the aioady high volume intersection © This project could negatwely impact he value of neighboring property. E This project endangers an aleady establched prt dog cemmunity. Many of which hhave been pushed to this corner Io because of cher new eensructon,F This project could negatively impact water and other environmental resources for an already adding many new residences, Hl This project contributes a large amount of new taf to already congested intersection “The western sie of Apot and Clove: was never meant tobe the min road 6 current used as, A look atthe landscaping shows the intended use is more ofan {entrance and feeder road, nota main road tats supposed to handle wnat shouldbe four lanes of trafic. The proposed car centric use of he egress points aso endangers pedestrians, many who are chigren commiting fo echoal P&G This project does not adequately manage growth or encourage a balance of residential {and nonresidential use. The orginal intent of hs land was only commercal. There are no ‘sores that ar west fo service the neighborhoods. Many people bought homes inthis part cof town because they expected more retalto be but ‘The alowance of residential only on the 14 acres goes against the intended use designation, On top of that mast ofthe board members have never been tothe ste for 8 wat ane could not possibly understand the true impact. ‘The decison isnot supported by any competent evidence in the ecard paca “The paperwork ted fs based on questonable deta mainly provided by the developer. The raf study dates donot account for peak usage times dung the choo! {year or the eventual new traffic that willbe added fom alfeady approved to Bul andr under Construction homes in Southwest Longmont ‘The decison is plainly inconsistent with the review eta an was amended up uni the day of he Panning and Zaning Commitee meting on ly 2, 2018, The data provided by the schol iit only looked at elementary schon and ld not explain the impact on missle ang high schol. This review also ‘ed not account for impacts from already approved-o-buid homes. The school disvcts numbers ae very low in regards tothe total numberof new students. Given thal the two elementary schoo aieady have Potable trates to sccommedate the large numberof students, any potenti inease wil impact he Schools and the quality of education ‘According othe questionable dat, this project fs within the tiesholis fr bath trafic and school volume, Bu, this projects beneficial ony tothe developer and does not wel in the proposed ection This and was expected tobe commercal innate, bul the developer nas found the mixed use alowng _apartmentss more francialy rewarding than jst commercial | am requesting thatthe Cty Counc reject ths proposal and encourage the developer to include area residents to better determine the needs of tis pat of Longmont. | understand that wnen paperwork in ‘fda, there i tle an average cltzen can do. The rule ofthe lw is beng folowed, but the spit ofthe law i being ignored in leu of short term feancial gains you truly care about the future of Longmont, please reconsider the approval ofthis project.RECEIVED JUL 29 2015 ‘To the City Council of Longmont: LONGMONT CITY CLERK | wish to appeal the approval made on July 22, 2015 by the Longmont Planning and Zoning ‘commission of the Renaissance Village Preliminary Plat and conditional use site plan, | am appealing this approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission onthe grounds that the submited plan falls to mee: the commen review standard per the Longmont Land Development Code described in 15.02.04 Section & (bxtps://www.municode comibrary/co/longmont/codes/code of ordinances ?nodeld=PTICO (OR TITASLADECO_CH15.019EPR 15.01.020AU) by the fllure of ll Interested parties to provide any multimode transit studies to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section Es ‘quoted below in Courier font: The application includes an appropriate transportation plan, including multi-modal transportation access, and 1s integrated and connected, where appropriate, w:th adjacent development through street connections, sidewalks, trails and elmilar features. During the July 22 Plan 10 call back the speakers for additional questions, Commissioner Josh Goldberg recalled Tyler and Zoning meeting, in the portion dedicated for the commissioners ‘Stamey, Longmont civil engineer concerning traffic for more questioning. Commissioner Goldberg asked Mr. Stameyif the traffic study for ths project contained any data for mode traffic included inthis stud.” ‘A this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission should have realized that it would not have pedestrians or bicycles, Tyler answered “There is no mul ‘enough information to discern whether the design plan of the Renaissance Village project could bbe approved. No specific exception was given forthe missing multmade study during the July 22.review meeting. The fac: that Commissioner Goldberg inquired about this item specifically Indicates that he expected « muit-mode traffic study to be available. Since no one else on the Planning and Zoning Commission corrected Mir. Goldberg to inform him that an exception had been granted for the Renaissance Vil se development project, there appears that this application doesn’t have an exception to this requirement. The base standard of review forapplications is, quoting "15 02.080, - Common review standards for development applications” (ibid) betow in Courier font No major, minor or administrative development application shall be approved unless it wets the following review criteria, except that individual types of applications described in this land development code specifically may include exceptions to these criteria or impose additional criteria ‘Note that the Development code requires thatthe development application “is integrated AND connected with, where appropriate, with adjacent development through street connections.” ‘The key point here is “integrated with.” Itisnot enough, according to the code, that the development plan should lay concrete up to existing sidewalks and roadways and simply provide “access,” the development must “integrate” with the exsting multimode traffic, Including pedestrians and eyclists of all ages. One must assume the modifying phrase “where appropriate” translates tothe Section A Purposes and intents ofthe Land code 15.01.0380 "Promote the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare.” Without a multimode traffic study, the Renaissance Village plan should never have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22. ‘Why would a design application require a study of multi-mode transit? In the following paragraphs, | will detail how the lack of multi-modal traffic studies from both the design team, ‘and the city relating to thisproject causes this development project to fall to meet the minimum standards of approval related to four ofthe Longmont Land Development Code’s General Provisions, specifically Purpose and Intent items G,H,|,and M when reviewed against the headlining Purpose and intent ofthe land code, Item A: to “Promate the public health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare” (bid) Requirements for the Approval of this project to meet the minimum standards of the Longmont Land Development Code‘The minimum standards tobe met by this development project for compliance with the ‘Municipal Land Development Code are plainly described in 15.01.050, Section A of the Longmont Land Development Code which fs quoted directly below in courier font: ‘Minimum standards. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this development code shall be held to be minimum requirements necessary for the promation af the public health, safety, and general welfare. Below, Ilistthe sections of the Purpose and intent of the Longmont Land Development Code here the approved plan has not met the minimum standards as described above: How the approved plan fails to meet Purpose and Intent of the Longmont Land Development Code section 15.01.030 Sec. G, quoted below in courier font. Facilitate the efficient provision of adequate public facilities such as transportation, water, sewage disposal, drainage, electricity, public scheols, parks, and other public services; How ths fails the minimum standards ofthe Development Code: ‘The current developreent plan falls to meet this minimum standard as the approved plan doesn’t consider, even in passing, impact to the existing student traffic via foot and bicyele to schools on Clover Basin, This failure to consider existing student traffic and hhow increased traffic will affect ther safety and public sidewalks, crosswalks or bike lanes violates the requirement forthe development to meet minimum standards of “safety, and general welfare.” How the approved plan fal to meet Purpose of Intent of the Longmont Land Development Code section 15.01,030 Sec. H, quoted below in courier font. Coordinate transportation and land use planning, including the evaluation of transportation impacts from proposed development, to provide a safe and efficient transportation syatem in Longmont and to improve air quality: How this fails the minimum standards of the Development Code: ‘The City of Longmont is unable to coordinate traffic or evaluate transportation impacts when no multi-modal traffic study has been accomplished. There isno baseline against which to compare data. The transportation plan submitted by the developer (of Renaissance Vilage only includes a study of car traffic and a plan to ameliorate the Increased auto trafic which this development project will create. The submitted plan ‘completely ignores thatthe Clover Basin/irport intersection is heauly used by elementary and middle school students who travel by bike and foot as well as the Constant use of Cover Basin by cyclists and other pedestrian traffic. Without a mult:‘mode traffic stud, the city planning department has filed to provide adequate information to the planning board to make an informed decision concerning the Impact ofthis development. This failure to consider existing student and adult pedestrian and cycling traffic, violates the requirement for the development to meet, ‘minimum standards of "safety, and general welfare.” How the approved plan fails to meet Purpose of Intent of the Longmont Land Development {Code section 15.01.030 Sec.1, quoted below in courier font. Minimize congestion in travel and transportation, reduce community dependence on automobile travel, encourage trip consolidation, and facilitate development of alternative modes of ‘transportation consistent with the multi-modal transportation plans How this falls the minimum standards ofthe Development Code: ‘The approved plan fais to measure or scope any traffic type except automobile traffic. By reason ofits narrow scope of options, this development plan makes no effort to reduce automobie traffic by enabling (or considering the conditions to enable) trip consolidation or tips via alternate means of transportation, This failure to attempt to plan for alternate transportation is especially disconcerting asthe approved plan is for 2 relatively high population density compared to the surrounding housing. By this fallur, the plan effectively locks all users ofthese apartments into automobile-only ‘transit. Gathering zero data on multi-modal traffic fails the purpose ofthe Development Cade geared toward the diversification of traffic. As the development’s traffic plan only considers the impacts of automobile traffic related to this development, it aso fas this requirement completely. itis impossible to meet any of the required goals to “reduce community dependence on automobile travel” oF “encourage trip consolidation” or to “facilitate development of alternative modes of ‘transportation consistent with the multimodal traffic plan” when there has been no baseline study ofthe existing multi-modal traffic NOR any aspect to the approved plans that considers means of encouraging multi-mode traffic. Ths failure violates, the requirement ‘or the development to meet minimum standards of “safety, and general welfare.” How the approved plan falls to meet Purpose of Intent of the Longmont Land Development Code section 15,01.030 Sec. M, quoted below. Encourage pedestrian and vehicular connections between residential neighborhoods and surrounding employment and shopping centers and community facilities such as parks and schools: How this fils the minimum standards ofthe Development Code:The approved develosment plan as it now stands falls to attain the minimum standard of this purpose of the Development Code by falling to consider where the traffic {generated by the Renaissance Village project will be exacerbating already heavily traveled connecting roads. The plan presented by the developer concerning the Renalssance Village project makes no reference to traffic generated (or even estimated to be generated) by the Hover street mall project (a “surrounding ‘employment and shopping center") nor the already existing King Soopers or Sprouts ‘grocery stores, the Kohi's clothing store or numerous restaurants between Airport and Hover on Clover Basin. No attempt to estimate the effect of the combined trafic was attempted by the city planning department. Without any estimate or measure of automobile, pedestrian or bike traffic to/from that mall or any consideration of the already heavy automobile traffic East on Clover Basin to existing shopping, this project does nothing to encourage” pedestrian or cycling connections to that mall By not encouraging any transit solutions except car-centric solutions, and those ‘measured only tothe immediately connected corner, the approved development locks the City of Longmont into a mono-transit intersection ata highly-traveled road junction that is only a short distance from multiple common transit destinations, [Approving the exéting plan i a violation of the minimum requirement to the “general welfare” as the Cy of Longmont wil have to fund the future deconstruction of this comer and investin new infrastructure solutions that allow multimode travel access through this busy intersection. The failure ofthe developer’ plan and the failure ofthe city planning department to provide any multi-mode traffic studies ofthe areas immediately adjacent to or affected by of the proposed Renaissance Village construction causes the July 22 approval ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission to fail to meet the basic Code Review Standards criteria E under section 15.02.04, Sec.€ (ibid. ofthe Longmont Land Development which requires a multimode transit study to be associated with any development application. This appeal has aso shown, hhow the failure to meet this requirement causes the application to fal to meet the minimum standard of multiple goals of the Longmont Development Code. The Renaissance Village application fails to meet the code review standards and should never have been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 2035. ‘My name is Andrew Couch. | appeal the approval on July 22, 2015 of the Renaissance Village development plat and plan for the above stated reasons; Lam a party of interest as live across‘the street from the planned Renaissance Village development and willbe directly affected by poorly designed development. ‘Thanks for your consideration, Andrew Couch 4 fos rs 3723 Florentine Or. / Longmont, CO 20503,July 28,2015 ‘cy of tongmont Development Serves Center 385 Kimbark treet Longmont, CO 80502 Clty of Longmont Cty of tongmont JUL 29 208 Gi cers oFfce Planting Services 350 Kimbark treet. 3!35pm tangmant CO 001 DESCRIPTION of APPEAL: This APPEAL is being submitted in response tothe decision made ky the Cty of Longmont Planing and Zoning Commission approving the PROPOSAL (below) by Acti, UC. forthe development ofthe 20.89 acre parcel af land atthe sosthwest commer of ‘Airport Road and Clover Basin Drive in Longmont PROPOSAL: Proiminary plat to subdivide @ 20.8920 lot into twolots. Conditional Use ‘Site Plan to develop the westom 14-acres ofthe property into @ 27¢-unitapariment complex wih 628 on-site parking spaces within 16 two and tree-stybultings. The ompllx wil iso have a clubhouse with pool and 179 acres o intemal pocket park _sp8ce including dog pay area and chicrens playground, Location: Southwest camer of Clover Basin Dive and Airport Rood ‘The decison being appealed was made atthe Cty of Longmont Planning and Zoning ‘Commission Meeting that commenced at 7:00 pm on Wednesday, lly 22, 2035, The decision was deivered by the Planning and Zoning Commission between 12:03 am and £00 am on Thursday, July 23, 2015. The location ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was the Cty Council Chambers, Civic Center Complex, 3rd and Emery Street‘APPELLANTS HAVING RECEIVED NOTICE AND WISH TO APPEAL: Ezabeth Powell (Cover Creek Resident) 1458 Wildrose Drive Longmont, CO 80503 ee{Clover Creek Resident) 1450 wildrose Orive Longmont, CO 80503, DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: ‘The Planning and Zoning Committee's decision to approve the proposed development by Actis LUC isnot supported by any competent evidence related to school capacity planning. ‘The Proposed Development capacity calculation methodology does not comply with Drovisions defined by Longmont City code Appendix E-7 Section 3.3.2 82 (below): Evaluation. Eochresidentiol development referred to the School District willbe ‘analyzed to determine the student ye from the development over the course ‘ofthe construction phase. These yields are then added tothe five-year projected enrolment numbers for the applicable school corresponding tothe timing of ‘the development. Thi information i provided ta the Cty os part ofthe referral rocess. multiple opplications were submited for « particular feeder, those {led fist would be given preference over later projects. fa bond election is successful thot includes facies forthe applicable feeder, the numberof seats ‘andthe date of competion ofthe new faites shal be considered in the caleulation. "These yields are” inthe section above i plural statement requiring the summation of ‘new development impacts. Currenty, each development application i calculated by the Schoo District without regard to previously approved development applications. Itis stated thatthe projections from Renaissance, Meadow Mountain Villas, Somerset ‘Meadows, Tramondo, iver Meadows, and West Grange, “would be glven preference ‘over later projects" also included in section 3.3.2 82 shown above) and must be added tobaseline numbers before a new development projection i made.Failure to compile the necessary data in addition to multiple mathematical erors by SWVSO has caused current enrolment at Blue Mountain, Eagle Crest Altona Middle, and Siver Creek tobe well above even the high level projections nade by the school district {year ago. (htp//won scribd.com/doc/235112728/StVrat-ValleySchool-Distrit- Enrollment-Projectons-2014). The errrsin these profections area result of @ ‘development approved many years ago (Renaissance Fill 4 and Meadow Mountain) ‘begun about a year ago and now nearing completion. These 167 single family homes within waking distance of Biue Mountain were projected toad 53 new students Curent enrliment at Blue Mountain s 114% of pacity. These new students cause the 125.1% capacty imitto be exceeded. Additional, WestGrange, which adjoins to ‘Ive Mountain playground, is approved and curently under construction. There are 76 Single family homes are in the inital buld, wit the standard 3 veld, this would result in 23 more elementary students and result 130% capacity inthe near future. Also to be ‘added are the Blue Mountain students projected to attend frem Tramonto and the Somerset Meadow Fling 384. Inaccurate and incomplete datas being used as prounds for the School dstrct to endorse the Renaissance Vilage projct despite their lst ‘minute redistricting to Eagle Crest. As the schoo! strict na lenger plans to build more ‘elementary schools inthis rea, itis critical that we ensue the capacity limits are not breached. ‘Should overcrowding occur, the schoo district options include: adding portables (which do not have lavatories, necessitating students to walk unsupervised tothe main ‘builing), changing bulding configurations, instituting split orstaggered schedules, oF changing attendance boundaries (we have documentation showing that the district ‘identified this as an option as far back as 2013). Many ofthese options would have a ‘negative impact on the quality of our children’s education The school district's plan forthe anticipated growth sa new bond to fund expansion of the existing schools. The bondi expected tobe $17M -$20Mto be voted on in November 2036. If passed, the additional capacity would notbe avaiable until the 2017-2038 school year. Passage ifr from certain, especialy inthe year following our large property assessments increases, and projected property tax increases, Further, ‘the city code stats that a bond must fist be succesful before considering those seats Into the Schoo! Distr’ calculations ‘More than a quarter of Blue Mountain and Eagle Crest students attend through open enrollment, most from poor performing elementary schools across Longmont. We ‘applaud parents who are wing to transport thelr children every day so that they might attend a better school, it would be tragic to curtal this opportunity ae a measure to reduce overcrowding.INSUMMARY: MOTION FOR, ily, changes were made by the St. Vran Planning Department to the school capacity broject analysts for Renaissance vitge ust hours befor the July 22 meeting to correct '8 major error in the document submitted January 15,2015, This ustates the lack ofa well thoueht out and comprehensive plan. ‘Asa community, the education of our chilien must be a top priority. As evidenced ‘above, the information that was used as the basis forthe approval of Renaissance Village was incorrect an incomplete in regards tothe issue of school capacty We further request a moratorium on approvals af new developments starting with Renaissance Vilage until such time as a comprehensive plan whichis complant with ‘Longmont Cty Code requirements for school concurrency is implemented. This plan ‘mus address the increased student enrolment frm this proposal, other projets previously approved. and previous developments provincly approved now under construction within the Silver Crek Feeder System. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: \We propose estabishing a panel consisting ofa St. Vrain Planner, a teacher from {each schoo in the Siver Creek Feeder system, a member ofthe St. Vrain School ‘Board, @ Longmont City Planner, a member to represent the Developers interes, {and a fow concerned residents of Souttwest Longment.Inis pane wll develop @ ‘Comprehensive plan that addresses increased student erroiment from Renaissance Vilage, as well as other new developments within the Siver Creek Feeder System previously approved, and inthe planning process.July 28, 2015 City of Longment City of Longmont JUL 28 2085 Mayor and City Councit me c/o Development Services Center 385 a et 385 Kimbark St A IYO Longmont, CO 80501 City of Longmont Mayor and City Council c/o City Clerk 350 Kimbark St. Longmont, CO 80501 RE: Appeal to the July 22, 2015 decision by the Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the Renaissance Village Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Site Plan Honorable Mayor and Member of City Council, 1am appealing the approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (the "P&Z Commission”) of the above referenced project at the July 22, 2015 meeting of the P&Z Commission for the following reasons: 1. Te proposed development is not in conformance with Strategy LUD-3.1(0), Plan commercial and industrial neighborhood planning areas that are functional, identifiable areas with a positive impact on the City and compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed development is not architecturally compatible to the surrounding neighborhoods. While the Planning and Zoning department in its summary to the Planning and Zoning Commission characterizes the development as one that"... utilizes a variety of architectural and landscape design ‘measures to create a visually interesting product...” the creation of a “visually interesting product’ is not the same as compatibility. ‘Therefore the approval by the P&Z Commission is notin conformance with Strategy LUD-3.1.2. The trafic study is incomplete. Drivers departing from Eagle Crest and Altona schools at the end of the school day who are destined for this development will travel east on Clover Basin Drive and will face congestion on Clover Basin. These drivers will be incentivized to use Milano Lane and Da Vinci as short cuts to access Renaissance Drive and to then enter the development off of Renaissance Drive. I previously suggested to the planning and zoning staff a feature that would mitigate the attractiveness of this route which would be to eliminate the ability to enter the proposed development off of Renaissance Drive via a right turn when heading northbound on Renaissance. Dr. That suggestion has not been adopted; the entrance to the proposed development has not been modified and the P&Z Commission offered no discussion of that issue or basis for rejection of the recommended solution. Therefore the approval by the P&Z Commission is not based on a complete record and reasoned decision- making. 3. The design of the internal pocket park is not consistent with Code Section 15.05.040 that pocket parks frontto a public street. The ‘main street through the project is defined by the applicant in its June 29, 2015 memo included in the meeting packet under the heading Access as a “private” street. All of the pocket parks in the surrounding neighborhoods front on public streets. Indeed the open space across Renaissance Drive to the west that is maintained by the Renaissance Community Association will provide recreation opportunities to the residents of the proposed development by its proximity and its attractive openness while the internal pocket park of this project will remain far less visible and inviting to the rest of the public. The project should be redesigned to place what is now an internal pocket park on the periphery of the project rather than hidden away in the center. Therefore the approval by the P&Z Commission is not in conformance with Code Section 15.05.040. 4. ‘The impact of this development in conjunction with the other planned developments in the area on neighborhood on the capacity of local schools has not been adecuately assessed and the record is insufficient to reach a conclusion of no significantimpact. The letter from the St Vrain Valley School District {SWsD) refers only to the discrete impact ofthis development. Indeed, the January 15, 2015 letter from the SVVSD (Ryan Kragerud) included in this packet does include the statement that ‘managing the increased attendance from just this project may require year round schools or the passage of a bond issue by voters to fund additional construction. Since the passage of bond issues cannot be assured, the letter highlights the risk of analyzing ‘one project such as this in a vacuum. Without an analysis of the aggregate impact of multiple developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot make a reasoned decision based on a complete record. The project should be denied until such time as an analysis of the aggregate of impacts of other previously approved projects is reflected in a record that demonstrates sufficient and reasonably assured school resources. Therefore the approval by the P&Z Commission is not based on a complete record and reasoned decision-making. In summary, the project as proposed does not meet the objectives of the development code, does not adequately address specific neighborhood traffic issues and the record does not adequately address reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts on schools created by other developments in progress. The approval by the P&Z Commission of the proposed development should therefore be rejected and the project returned back to the P&Z Commission and the developer for correction ‘of the specific deficiencies identified above and the development of a ‘complete record in this matter. Sincerely, A Brian Jeffries 4027 Milano Ln Longmont, CO 80503