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 {SVVSD) refers only to the discrete impact of this 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 ina 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 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 (303) 776-6486