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 #0503, ee {Clover Creek Resident) 1450 wildrose Drive Longmont, CO 80503, Phone 817-543.5550 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: ‘The Planning and Zoning Committee's decision to approve the proposed development by Actis Lc 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. Eochresidentol development referred to the School District willbe ‘anolyzed to determine the student ye from the development over the course ofthe construction phase. These yields ore then edéed 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 opplicatons 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" alo inched in section 3.3.2 82 shown above) and must be added ‘baseline numbers before a new development projection is 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.