Category: Land Development Code

Action Alert: 1/11/22 City Council Meeting Rivertown Annexation

On Tuesday, January 11th, City Council will hear the second reading of the annexation of the Rivertown property adjacent to St. Vrain Creek and Roger’s Grove Nature Area and will determine whether or not to approve the annexation and concept plan. It has come to our attention that approving the annexation of this property ALSO approves the concept plan as it is currently drafted. There are a number of issues with the concept plan that need to be addressed prior to annexation and any development that occurs on this property.

Specifically, Stand With Our St. Vrain Creek is concerned that the concept plan does not comply with Longmont Municipal Code, particularly with the zoning of the property as well as with the compatibility of the proposed development with the adjacent natural areas. 

As Council meetings are now virtual, we ask that you send in comments regarding the annexation to City Council prior to the meeting (contact Council members here) and/or call into the meeting on Tuesday the 11th to express your concerns. You can watch City Council meetings live from your computer through the City of Longmont’s YouTube Channel or via the Longmont Public Media Channel at https://longmontpublicmedia.org/watch.

Anyone wishing to provide Public Comment must watch the Livestream of the meeting and call-in only when the Chairperson opens the meeting for public comment. Callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CALLING IN TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT:

The toll-free call-in number is: 888 788 0099.
Watch the livestream (instructions above) and write down the Meeting ID when it is displayed at the beginning of the meeting.
WAIT for the Chairperson to invite callers to call-in and then dial the toll-free number, enter the Meeting ID, and, when asked for your Participant ID, press #.
Mute the livestream and listen for instructions on the phone.
Callers will hear confirmation they have entered the meeting, will be told how many others are already participating in the meeting and will be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted into the meeting.
Callers will be called upon by the last three (3) digits of their phone number and allowed to unmute to provide their comments.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments.
Once done speaking, callers should hang up.

 

Rivertown Annexation First Reading at 12/14/21 City Council Meeting

On Tuesday, December 14th at 7pm, City Council will hear the first reading of the annexation of the Rivertown property adjacent to St. Vrain Creek and Roger’s Grove Nature Area. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed prior to annexation and any development that occurs on this property.

As Council meetings are now virtual, we ask that you send in comments on the annexation prior to the meeting and/or call into the meeting on Tuesday the 14th to express your concerns. You can watch City Council meetings live from your computer through the City of Longmont’s YouTube Channel or via the Longmont Public Media Channel at https://longmontpublicmedia.org/watch.

Anyone wishing to provide Public Comment must watch the Livestream of the meeting and call-in only when the Chairperson opens the meeting for public comment. Callers are not able to access the meeting at any other time.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CALLING IN TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT:

The toll-free call-in number is: 888 788 0099.
Watch the livestream (instructions above) and write down the Meeting ID when it is displayed at the beginning of the meeting.
WAIT for the Chairperson to invite callers to call-in and then dial the toll-free number, enter the Meeting ID, and, when asked for your Participant ID, press #.
Mute the livestream and listen for instructions on the phone.
Callers will hear confirmation they have entered the meeting, will be told how many others are already participating in the meeting and will be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted into the meeting.
Callers will be called upon by the last three (3) digits of their phone number and allowed to unmute to provide their comments.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments.
Once done speaking, callers should hang up.

Specifically, Stand With Our St. Vrain Creek asks that you submit comments on the following points:

Stand With Our St. Vrain Creek

Recommendations Regarding Rivertown Annexation Proposal

Summary of Recommendations:

  1. The development must comply with the proposed zoning designation.
  2. The development must be compatible with surrounding properties in terms of land use, site and building layout, and design.
  3. To address the impact of this development on traffic in the area, a traffic study which includes Mountain Brook and Riverset development impacts must be conducted.
  4. Development on this parcel must take into account wildlife, habitat, and specific species considerations.
  5. A complete, accurate, and impartial Habitat and Species Assessment must be conducted prior to approving any development along this or any riparian corridor in Longmont.
  6. Proposed changes to the river’s channel as a result of the Resilient St Vrain flood mitigation project would destroy nesting habitat for Bank Swallows, a Boulder County species of special concern, at Roger’s Grove. Therefore, a conservation easement on the Rivertown property so that construction bypasses this nesting habitat must be a condition of annexation for this property.
  7. The city’s environmental planner must be heavily involved with this development proposal.
  8. The impact upon existing Longmont residents, and their well-documented priorities, must be taken into account when planning developments along the river corridor.

Longmont Development Code (LDC) application:

The developer must strictly adhere to the criteria and intention of Longmont Development Code, specifically:

  1. a)  The development must comply with the proposed zoning designation.
  • The proposed zoning for the Rivertown property is Mixed-Use Employment.
  • Primary uses for this zoning designation include light industrial, flex work spaces, research and development.
  • This zoning designation is to encourage primary employment.
  • The Rivertown concept plan proposes that only 10% of the property be used as commercial, which is a primary use, while 90% of the property will be used as residential, a secondary use.  Essentially the Rivertown developer is proposing to make a secondary use the predominant use on the Rivertown property, thereby circumventing the intent of the zoning designation.

A condition for annexation must be actual compliance with Mixed-Use Employment zoning.

SPECIAL NOTES:

The Planning and Zoning commissioners discussed the application of secondary uses.  Commissioner Hite, who objected to the application of a secondary use as a predominant use, said the following on page 8 of the August 18 meeting minutes:

“Commissioner Hite spoke about multi-use standards to allow residential as secondary use.  Staff interpretation is that it is to be applied on a district-wide standard and he disagrees with that interpretation.  He said in the multi-use standards, density is applied on a per acre basis, not within the whole zone.  Commissioner Hite also pointed to the Envision Longmont policy 6.3b referenced in the packet, where it states in the multi-use employment district you prioritize employment while supporting secondary uses that incorporate multi-family or live/work circumstances.  He cannot support this plan with only ten percent of the parcel devoted to the primary use.”

There was a follow-up discussion on 10/27/2021 by the commission on secondary uses.  Commissioner Hite said the following:

“We need guidance maybe a little bit or maybe we need to adopt guardrails as to how to implement secondary uses so they don’t become the primary use in these areas where we want to encourage primary employment.”

  1. b) The development must be compatible with surrounding properties in terms of land use, site and building layout, and design. (LDC item 15.05.030(G)(11)
  • The proposal must align with the Longmont Development Code, which stipulates: “Projects adjacent to natural areas including, but not limited to, those stream and creek corridors and riparian areas listed in subsection 15.05.020.F.1., shall be designed to complement the visual context of the natural area.” And“man-made facilities [shall be] screened from off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area.”
  • Because this development is bordered by Rogers Grove/Fairgrounds Lake and St. Vrain Creek, the concept plan as presented is not compatible with the area.
  • The proposed “high density” residential area of 320 units is not compatible with the parcel’s natural environment.
  • Any development proposals should honor and enhance the existing natural areas, not exploit and overburden them.

We recommend a multilayered buffer of native landscaping be placed between any development along the Creek and the river corridor to screen the corridor from light intrusion, storm runoff, noise, and other human disturbance. If this development proposal is approved as currently envisioned, a buffer is also needed on the west side to conceal the proposed duplexes from Rogers Grove/Fairgrounds Lake. 

  1. c) To address the impact of this development on traffic in the area, a traffic study which includes Mountain Brook and Riverset development impacts is essential. 
  • The Rivertown traffic study is specific to the Rivertown property. It does not address the overall traffic impacts of new developments, including Mountain Brook and Riverset developments, to areas near Hover Road, Sunset Street and Boston Avenue.
  • The top complaint by Longmont residents is traffic congestion due to uncontrolled city growth.
  • The Rivertown development will generate about 3,404 vehicle-trips on the average weekday, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period, according to the traffic study.

A more comprehensive traffic study which includes Mountain Brook and Riverset development impacts is needed.

  1. d)  Development on this parcel must take into account wildlife, habitat and special species considerations. 
  • Roger’s Grove contains one of the only known nesting sites in Boulder County of Bank Swallows. This nesting site is just upstream of the Rivertown property. Bank Swallows are a Boulder County Species of Special Concern. Furthermore, they are a declining species nationwide.
  • Current plans for the Resilient St. Vrain Project call for the placement of a split channel flow option right where the Bank Swallows nest, destroying this valuable habitat.
  • The city must require a conservation easement for placement of the split-flow channel on the Rivertown property as a condition of annexation in order for construction to avoid the Bank Swallow nesting area.
  • The City’s Natural Resources Department and Environmental Planner must both be involved in the development process on this property and any other property bordering St. Vrain Creek.
  1. The Habitat & Species Assessment was deceptively done in winter and not during breeding season. Therefore, little wildlife was observed during the survey.
  • A thorough breeding season survey must be conducted prior to beginning any development. 
  • The Osprey nest and Red-tailed Hawks near Rivertown must be buffered during the nesting season to prevent potential nest failure due to construction noise/activity.
  • Were Northern leopard frog surveys conducted in 2021 to determine their presence or absence on this property? On page 6 of the habitat and species assessment it stated such amphibian surveys would be conducted in spring or early summer. If they were, what were the results? If not, why not?  This question must be addressed.

Other Considerations

Including costs, process,  and consequences

  1. The history of eleven flood events is the best predictor for future flooding on this parcel regardless of the best engineered mitigation efforts. With climate chaos here, we WILL see another flood in this corridor-likely in our lifetime.  CC needs to be extremely cautious before putting people and property in harm’s way (to avoid another disaster like the mobile home folks experienced.)
  1. A huge investment of public money has already gone into the RSVP in order to remove properties along Saint Vrain Creek from the floodplain. Additional funding to complete the Hover Reach of RSVP will be acquired through the recently approved storm drainage fee increase, a fee that every utility customer pays each month (per Becky Doyle, Business Services of Public Works & Natural Resources). This will benefit the developer.  When weighing the merits of input received regarding the annexation, city council should remember who is paying for the project that will remove the Rivertown property from the floodplain which will allow the developer to build on it.
  1. The current 6-person city council should delay review of the Rivertown annexation until the vacant at-large seat is filled by a special election.  A full 7-person council should review the Rivertown annexation
  1. City council members should make it clear to planning staff that the development application for the Rivertown development, if the annexation is approved, will be reviewed by city council for final approval or denial or amendment.
  1. This property is directly adjacent to St. Vrain Creek, an important riparian corridor. The city’s new environmental planner must be heavily involved in any development proposal on this property and any other property along this stretch regardless of whether the developer has applied for a variance from the 150 foot riparian buffer. Such involvement may include “ground-truthing” wildlife surveys in addition to the ones conducted by the developer.  CC must make this a stipulation in the annexation agreement if CC approves annexation.
  1. There is nothing in the Rivertown annexation concept plan that suggests any respect for this adjacent natural environment nor any regard for the environmental value of St. Vrain Creek. Any development in this exceptional corridor should be exceptionally designed with residential areas set back, with aesthetically pleasing buildings built with green materials and state-of-the art efficiencies and low lighting/light fixture shielding (to reduce light pollution and lessen impact on wildlife –which uses the St. Vrain corridor at night). CC should require a concept plan that enhances the two adjacent natural areas and includes sustainability features as stipulations of the annexation agreement.

Letter to the editor: Shari Malloy, Protecting Longmont’s natural areas–Longmont Leader opinion

 By: Shari Malloy, Community opinion submission

Longmont City Council recently voted to make itself the deciding body on property development applications adjacent to Longmont public lands. This is an important step forward in honoring the environmental and conservation values of residents. The 2018 Longmont Open Space Survey found 74% of respondents rated “Protecting natural areas from development” as “very important.” Development proposals throughout the city are reviewed by City Planning staff before going to the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission for review/approval. P&Z is an appointed board and not elected by residents. Historically, City Council has had no say on any development plans and was only involved if a P&Z approved proposal was appealed. Appeals are very time-limited (30 days), cumbersome, and rare. Empowering City Council to be the final deciding body on proposals adjacent to our natural areas and parks will give residents a voice in the good stewardship of our public investments.

A recent development annexation application submitted to City Planning underscores why this ordinance is so critical. The proposed “Rivertown” development is on 20 acres along the south side of St. Vrain Creek just east of Roger’s Grove to Sunset Street. Roger’s Grove exists because Roger Jones selflessly donated 55 acres to the City for preservation when his wife died. He did this so Longmont residents might always have a place to connect with nature, to learn and to enjoy. There is nothing in the Dec. 2020 Rivertown annexation application that suggests any respect for this adjacent natural environment nor any regard for the environmental value of St. Vrain Creek. The proposed “high density” residential area of 380 units with restaurants and businesses is way too high for this sensitive area. Any development proposals should honor and enhance this special area–not exploit and overburden it.

I am a member of Stand With Our St. Vrain Creek, a growing group of community members who advocate for protecting our St. Vrain corridor and the wildlife that depend upon it from potentially damaging development. The Longmont reach of the St. Vrain has tremendous ecological value. Portions of the corridor are designated as critical wildlife habitat and have been identified as having immense aquatic conservation value to the State of Colorado due to the presence of rare, threatened native fish species. The proposed Rivertown development is in very close proximity to one of the only known nesting Bank Swallow colonies (a species of special concern) within Boulder County. The entire St. Vrain corridor is also a Stream Habitat Connector, which is how wildlife moves at night from one area to another. Evidence of wildlife movement includes the presence of mink and beaver at Golden Ponds and Sandstone Ranch, coyotes and foxes throughout the corridor, and bobcats and deer at Sandstone.

Many are concerned whether it is prudent to significantly develop along this corridor. The Army Corp of Engineers has identified 12 flood events along the St. Vrain in the last 120 years. Even with the best possible mitigation efforts, common sense dictates this corridor will flood again. Flooding is the third most common natural disaster. For the river not to respond to what’s happening with climate change would break the law of physics. We had 17 inches of rain in the span of 4 days in 2013, and extreme weather events across the world have only grown worse since then. Is it morally and fiscally responsible to knowingly put people and property in harm’s way and leave taxpayers on the hook to pay for flood recovery? Thus far, over Longmont staff estimates $400-500 million has been spent on flood recovery and mitigation. Due to this massive public investment and the additional public monies the Rivertown applicant intends to apply for in urban renewal dollars, the public’s voice and best interest deserve extra consideration. This holds true for all development proposals along our St. Vrain Greenway.

We are all learning how essential protecting the natural environment is to our survival. Again, any development proposals should honor and complement our St. Vrain Greenway and other natural areas—not exploit and overburden them.

https://www.longmontleader.com/community/letter-to-the-editor-shari-malloy-protecting-longmonts-natural-areas-3635126

Sustainable Evaluation System Tool

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019, Longmont City staff presented an update on the Sustainable Evaluation System tool they are developing to “score” development applications on their value with regard to profitability, environmental sustainability, and social equity.

Staff asked for direction from Council with regard to what “adjacent” to riparian areas means in terms of what properties the SES tool would be applicable too and what water bodies should be added to the 150 foot riparian setback requirement. City staff recommended that the tool initially only be used to evaluate development applications seeking a variance to the 150 foot setback. Staff also recommended that the 150 foot setback be initially extended only to those portions of the additional waterways mentioned in the Wildlife Management Plan update (Dry Creek #1, Lykins Gulch, Spring Gulch #1 and Spring Gulch #2) for which the setback would be easiest (cheaper, more efficient, best quality habitat etc.) to implement. In the attached slide show, those sections are marked in green on the map.

The current Longmont Development Code applies a 100 foot setback for development along all waterways not specifically mentioned in the Code. Any variance requests for development along these waterways, as well as the ones to which the 150 foot setback requirement apply, would have to go to City Council for approval.

City Council concurred with Staff’s recommendations.

Click on the picture below to access the link to view the full PowerPoint presentation.thumbnail of 11192019 SES PowerPoint Presentation

ACTION ALERT: Comments Needed on Left Hand Brewing’s Cultural Event Center

Lefthand Brewing Company has put in their development application for a “cultural event center” adjacent to St. Vrain Creek. (Supporting documents for the application can be found here.) This facility is planned to consist of a beer garden and temporary stage that will be designed to accommodate up to, but not limited to, 1,500 people per event. Though this development is not planned to encroach upon the 150 foot riparian conservation buffer, Stand With Our St. Vrain Creek is concerned about the noise pollution resulting from this facility.
The acoustic study done for the proposal anticipates that concerts at the venue will likely be 95 DBA at the back of the audience, or occasionally 100 DBA for larger events. This is based on volume readings done at Lefthand Brewing concerts currently held at Roosevelt Park. While sound tapers off the farther away from the source, it is anticipated that the noise from the facility could be as high as 77 DBA for residences across St. Vrain Creek to the south. Per Lefthand Brewing’s own acoustic study, 77 DBA is louder than a large dog barking 50 feet away. Lefthand has not provided any proposed mitigation of this noise pollution.
Water carries sound and, with most of the vegetation being removed from the river channel as part of the Resilient St. Vrain flood mitigation project, the noise pollution from the unspecified number of events at Lefthand’s proposed event center each week will carry up and downstream. While residents nearby are likely to be annoyed, such noise pollution could be much more damaging to wildlife using the river corridor. Wildlife tends to move at night, when it’s most likely that concerts will be happening. That means that the area around this new facility could become a bottleneck along a proven wildlife movement corridor. For resident animals, such as birds, studies have shown that noise pollution increases stress levels and shortens lives.
As mentioned, Lefthand has not provided any proposed mitigation of their noise pollution. We expect they will try to get new code requirements instituted that will allow a higher threshold for noise pollution. The Longmont municipal code currently restricts noise in residential areas to 55 DBA during the day and 50 DBA at night. Because the decibel scale is logarithmic rather than linear, this means that 77 DBA is over 4 times as loud as 50 DBA.
Please send your comments to Brien Schumacher at Brien.Schumacher@longmontcolorado.gov, the Longmont City Planner assigned to this project and tell him that Lefthand Brewing must mitigate the noise from their events rather than changing the rules to suit them.

Draft Wildlife Management Plan Update

Longmont City staff have completed a draft of the Wildlife Management Plan update. This draft can be read here.

Because the Wildlife Management Plan directly informs the protections for wildlife and habitat and riparian and stream protections within Longmont’s Land Development Code, it is crucial that the Wildlife Management Plan update “get it right.” Therefore, we’re asking that the following changes be made before it is adopted by Council. Our full comments can be found here.

We strongly urge you to consider writing to City Council in support of the below recommendations and/or to speak during public invited to be heard when the Wildlife Management Plan update is scheduled to be discussed at an upcoming city council meeting. We’ll announce when that is as soon as we hear when that will be.

Table 1. Suggested Changes to the Draft Action Table
 
Draft Action from Wildlife Management Plan Suggested Change Rationale for change
1.1.c/2.1.g For any project in which the City is the applicant/proponent (e.g., road or utility crossings of streams, construction of greenway trails), design the project to avoid or minimize habitat loss to the extent practicable, even if such loss could be permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (pages 95 and 97 of WMP) Currently the action type for this recommendation is BMP (best management practice).

 

We recommend codifying this language by placing it into the Land Development Code.

 We believe the City of Longmont should be held to the same standard as private developers.
5.2.a. Adopt a BMP for City lands that establishes a minimum setback of 150 feet and a preferred (where practicable) setback of 200 feet or greater for trails, roads, and other facilities within or along riparian corridors, including ditches that support riparian trees and shrubs. Exceptions may include crossing points of bridges and portions of soft-surface, pedestrian-only “nature trails” that may approach more closely in limited areas for wildlife viewing. Lighting shall generally be discouraged on trails near riparian areas or other high-quality habitat areas. However, if there is an expressed community need for lighting, the city should install lighting that meets the community’s needs while also being as “wildlife friendly” as is feasible given the trail location and project budget. (page 112 of WMP) 5.2.a. Adopt a BMP for City lands that establishes a minimum setback of 150 feet and a preferred (where practicable) setback of 200 feet or greater for trails, roads, and other facilities within or along riparian corridors, including ditches that support riparian trees and shrubs. Exceptions may include crossing points of bridges and portions of soft-surface, pedestrian-only “nature trails” that may approach more closely in limited areas for wildlife viewing. Lighting shall generally be discouraged on trails near riparian areas or other high-quality habitat areas. However, if there is an expressed community need for lighting, the city should install lighting that meets the community’s needs while also being as “wildlife friendly” as is feasible given the trail location and project budget. Artificial lighting disrupts animals’ breeding and foraging behaviors, increases the risk of predation, impedes navigation and migration patterns, and may even lead directly to death (some evidence suggests artificial lighting may increase mammalian roadkill; insects become disoriented by lights and may die in light fixtures). Because of this, artificial lights should not be installed near our wildlife habitats.
5.2.d. As funds and staff resources allow, gather baseline data on wildlife presence and use throughout Longmont. This may include, but is not limited to, species inventories, presence/absence surveys, habitat suitability assessments, citizen science BMPs, pre- and post-project monitoring, etc. With such foundational data, the City will better understand wildlife and habitat conditions prior to impacts by a project or a natural disaster and will be able to use these conditions as a reference or baseline for restoration. (page 113 of WMP) 5.2.d. As funds and staff resources allow, gather baseline data on wildlife presence and use throughout Longmont. This may include, but is not limited to, species inventories, presence/absence surveys, habitat suitability assessments, citizen science BMPs, pre- and post-project monitoring, etc. With such foundational data, the City will better understand wildlife and habitat conditions prior to impacts by a project or a natural disaster and will be able to use these conditions as a reference or baseline for restoration. Baseline data are crucial to understanding what wildlife are in the city, where they are, and when they are present. Without these data it is difficult if not impossible to manage and protect Longmont’s wildlife. Therefore, we recommend prioritizing such data collection and striking the phrase “As funds and staff resources allow.”
5.2.e. As funds and staff resources allow, map and assess riparian corridors throughout the Longmont area to define “reaches” based on similar vegetative structure and composition (and thus wildlife habitat quality). These designations can be used to guide restoration projects or inform the approval of and requirements for variance requests. (page 113 of WMP) 5.2.e. As funds and staff resources allow, map and assess riparian corridors throughout the Longmont area to define “reaches” based on similar vegetative structure and composition (and thus wildlife habitat quality). These designations can be used to guide restoration projects or inform the approval of and requirements for variance requests. As stated above for action item 5.2.e., baseline data collection should be prioritized. Therefore, we recommend striking the words “As funds and staff resources allow.”

 

We also recommend striking the words “or inform the approval of and requirements for variance requests.” Even if one “reach” of a riparian corridor contains poor wildlife habitat, it may still connect two higher quality wildlife habitats upstream and downstream to maintain a functioning wildlife movement corridor. Allowing variances within such areas may fragment wildlife habitat by destroying the movement corridor. This could lead to local extirpation or even extinction.
5.3.b. Create a new staff position of Environmental Planner. This individual would be responsible for attending permit hearings, reviewing applications, and coordinating with Natural Resources staff to ensure field verifications of reported conditions are performed as needed. (page 115 of WMP) We recommend that the Environmental Planner position report to the Natural Resources Director, but be housed within the Planning Department. Having the Environmental planner report to Natural Resources, but having them be housed with Planning will allow better communication across departments. The Environmental Planner position is a cross-departmental position by nature.
5.3.c. Prepare a “toolkit” of mitigation strategies (specifically wildlife avoidance and habitat enhancement and restoration techniques) that can be incorporated into the Longmont Development Code Administrative Manual. This will provide developers with basic strategies that can be implemented to fulfill habitat and species conservation requirements. The existence of this toolkit will not absolve the developer of the requirement to retain a qualified individual to prepare the Species or Habitat Conservation Plan. (page 115 of the WMP) A link to the Development Code Administrative Manual should be provided in the Land Development Code. Incorporating the Development Code Administrative Manual by reference in the Land Development Code rather than including the entire manual within the text of the Land Development Code saves time on updating the code, but this manual should be easily available online on the city’s website (and the LDC online should include a link to it) so that developers/the public can find and review it. This increases transparency and will help facilitate compliance.
5.5.h. Consider expanding the current requirement for a Species or Habitat Protection Plan by establishing a process by which a developer is required to pay a wildlife or habitat mitigation fee to the City for loss of important habitats or wildlife that cannot reasonably be avoided by the proposed development. The purpose of the fee would be to assist the City in acquiring new or maintaining existing habitats that represent the same type of wildlife use. Examples include native plant communities, wetlands, riparian corridors, and areas of mature trees (if desirable species). (page 118 of the WMP) This recommendation should be removed. If a development cannot avoid the loss of important wildlife or habitats, it should be rejected outright. This is a loophole by which a developer can pay a fee and buy their way out of ensuring their development does not negatively impact habitat and wildlife. No amount of money paid can get those habitats and/or wildlife back.
Table 2. Rationale for Amendatory Language Changes
Location of change Change Reason
15.05.02(F)(3) Variances from the Setback Standards Removal of increased setback standards and reduced setback standards and replacement with tweaked standards from Fort Collins’ Land Development Code

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addition of Public Works and Natural Resources as an advisor to city council in its decision regarding a reduced setback request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addition of a 2/3 vote of city council being needed to approve a reduced setback request.

 On May 20, 2019, Stand provided staff and council with a document advocating for the update of the criteria for a reduced variance as the current criteria are vague, ambiguous, and set a low bar for developers to obtain approval to build within the 150 foot setback. Despite this, the same poor language has been kept in the Wildlife Management Plan. This is the primary reason we believe council should go with option 2 so that Fort Collins’ more robust language can be incorporated into our code.

 

Despite the fact that the recommendation to have Public Works and Natural Resources involved in riparian setback variance applications was included in the draft action table (5.3.a. on page 115 of the WMP), they were left out of the revised amendatory language in 15.05.020 on page 124 of the WMP.

 

Despite the recommendation in the draft action table (5.5.l on page 119 of the WMP) that a 2/3 majority of city council approve a reduced setback request, this was left out of the revised amendatory language in 15.05.020 on page 124 of the WMP.
15.05.030(E) Habitat and Species Database Revision of the sentence “Any site-specific studies undertaken by the applicant and accepted by the city shall be used in place of any of the cited maps or data” so that site-specific studies may be used “in conjunction” with cited maps or data.

 

Removal of the words “Colorado Division of Wildlife” and the use of “Colorado Parks and Wildlife” in their place.

 The city has previously accepted poor quality site-specific studies undertaken by the applicant in lieu of studies using data provided by reputable sources such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This shores up that loophole.

 

 

This section contains several places where the old name of Colorado Parks and Wildlife is still used. Replacing Colorado Division of Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife is consistent with current terminology and with revisions made later in the amendatory language cited in the WMP.
15.05.030(F) Review Procedures Removal of the words “For applications referred to it”. The sentence would instead begin “Colorado Parks and Wildlife…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addition of the words “Boulder County Parks and Open Space,” after the words “City of Longmont Public Works and Natural Resource Department.”

 As stated in our May 20, 2019 document, the review procedures have already established that these measures shall apply accordingly, necessitating Agency involvement. This language was in the previous Land Development Code and likely was simply copied and pasted so this is a simple fix.

 

Boulder County Parks and Open Space is another qualified Agency that we believe should specifically be called out in the amendatory language as an Agency that may review development applications.
15.05.030(H)(2) Species or Habitat Conservation Plans Plan Content Removal of everything in the opening paragraph after the first sentence:

 

15.05.030 H(2) Plan Content. A conservation plan shall include the following information, at a minimum, and as applicable. The director may waive specific requirements due to the development’s location, previous use of the site, the size and potential impact of the development, the absence of particular species on a site, the prohibition of a reasonable use of the site, and other relevant factors

 

 This is a potential loophole that could be exploited to allow an applicant not to complete a species or habitat conservation plan.
15.10.020 ‐ All Other Terms Defined Add “Boulder County Species of Special Concern” under the list for the definition of “Important Plant or Wildlife Species” The list of Boulder County Species of Special Concern is a useful reference that should be able to be consulted for those interested in what species are considered important plant or wildlife species.

 

Action Item: Wildlife Management Plan Update Public Meeting

Longmont’s Natural Resources Department is holding its first public meeting open house regarding the update to the City’s Wildlife Management Plan (WMP). The WMP was first adopted in 2006 and it’s due for an update.

This first meeting will focus on Land Development Code changes with regard to the new prairie dog policy, the work being done with the Resilient St. Vrain flood mitigation project, and riparian setbacks. Other meetings will follow.

We ask that you please attend this meeting if you are able. This meeting will help inform updates to the Land Development Code regarding the 150-foot riparian setback and how Longmont deals with wildlife in general.

The meeting will be held at the Sunset Campus (7 S. Sunset Street, Longmont, CO) on Thursday, March 7 from 6-8pm. Snacks will be provided.

If you need translation services or other special accommodations, contact 303-651-8416 or service-works@longmontcolorado.gov

For any questions, contact Dan Wolford at 303-774-4691 or dan.wolford@longmontcolorado.gov

thumbnail of WMPU First Meeting Flyer