Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Jane, are we set? Okay. Go ahead, and we will call to order the Long Island Planning and Zoning Commission, June 17th, 2026 meeting. Let's do roll call. Chair Poland? Here.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Here. Commissioner Lange? Here. Vice Chair Earle? Here. Commissioner Arment?

Here.

Commissioner Boone? Here. Commissioner Jordan? Here. Council Member Popkin? Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Next is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the first people have with this land. It is our commitment to face the injustices that happened when the land was taken and to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. Next is communications from Greg Penland, Planning and Development Services. Good evening. Good evening, Chair. That's it.

I don't have any communications.

Okay, thank you very much. Next is the initial public invited to be heard. This is a chance for the public to speak to us on items that are not on the schedule for today and will not be quasi-judicial items coming before the commission. Nobody signed up for this. I will go ahead and give everybody a chance if they want to come up and speak. You get five minutes if there's something other than what's on the agenda today to speak to. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard initial. Next is approval of the minutes. First, we'll take the May 20th, 2026 meeting minutes. Are there any comments, questions, or motions? Commissioner Armand. A motion to approve those minutes. Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? We have a second. Any other questions? No, Jane, let's go ahead and take a vote.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Vice Chair Earle? Aye. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Armit? Aye. Commissioner Boone?

Aye.

Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Chair, that passes unanimously, seven to zero.

Thank you very much. Next is the May 27th, 2026 meeting minutes. Once again, do we have any questions, comments, or motions? Commissioner Jordan. I move to approve the May 27 minutes. Thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Commissioner Boone.

I will second that.

We have a motion. We have a second. Seeing that there's no questions or comments. Jane, let's go ahead and take a vote on that.

Commissioner Edgley-Wells? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Vice Chair Earle? Yes. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Arment? Aye. Commissioner Boone? Aye. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Chair, that passes unanimously, seven to zero.

Thank you very much. Next is public hearing items. We have one item on the agenda today. It is the Longmont Gateway Northwest Annexation Zoning and Concept Plan. Senior Planner Christine Cote presenting.

Good evening, Chairman Poland and Commissioners. My name is Kristen Cody. I'm a Senior Planner in Planning and Development Services, and tonight I will be presenting for your consideration the Longmont Gateway Northwest Annexation, Zoning, and Concept Plan application. The application before the commission tonight is the annexation of approximately 26 acres into the city of Longmont zoning to residential mixed neighborhood and approval of a concept plan establishing the general layout and development framework for the property. This request does not establish any entitlements and future applications and reviews are required to establish those. The subject property is generally located at the northwest corner of U.S. 287 and Park Ridge Avenue. The property is approximately 26 acres, is currently located in unincorporated Boulder County, and is adjacent to an existing single-family residential development to the west, which was developed in the 1950s to 1960s. Existing conditions, the property is currently vacant land with an abandoned agricultural farm site that exists. The site is west of US 287, which is a regional corridor with existing urban development located to the west, east, and south of the property. The site is also located within the Longmont Planning Area and Municipal Service Area. This exhibit provides a view looking from the south across the property. This is a depiction of the north extension of the property looking south. You can see the farm site and the adjacent residential development. This shows the gated Roseland right-of-way access in the Willis Heights neighborhood. And this is the abandoned farm site which exists on the property. The structures do remain part of the overall site context in reference to its historic nature and have been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission indicated through a motion that the owner developer shall prepare a plan for preservation of the historical aspects of the property with particular consideration given to preservation of the original farmhouse which may include relocation of the structure on the property. The proposed development. The proposal considers development under the residential mixed neighborhood zoning district, which allows a range of housing types and densities from six to 18 dwelling units an acre. Housing types may include single family attached, detached, duplexes, town homes, and multi-family residential. Excuse me. The concept plan identifies an anticipated density range of approximately six to 18 dwelling units per acre. Final unit counts and development intensity will be determined through future development review applications and must conform to any approved concept plans. If any proposals would not adhere to an approved concept plan, that would require a public hearing and a concept plan amendment. And this is a depiction of the concept plan which shows the proposal for lower density residential adjacent to the residential single family subdivision located in unincorporated Boulder County with higher density residential adjacent to US 287. And this is the subdivision plat of the adjacent Westerly subdivision which this area shows the plan connectivity at Roseland. Compatibility analysis. Compatibility with surrounding properties is a question that is proposed in the year review criteria. Compatibility does not require identical lot sizes or identical development patterns. The proposed concept plan contemplates a transition in residential intensity with lower intensity residential located adjacent to existing neighborhoods and higher intensity development located near to US 287. The mixed neighborhood designation anticipates a range of housing types and densities with transitions between lower density neighborhoods and more intensive uses, future buffering, landscaping, lot layout, and architectural design would be evaluated through future review applications. Neighborhood feedback. Staff received a significant amount of public input throughout this review process, including neighborhood meetings and written correspondence. Some common concerns that have been expressed have included traffic, access, pedestrian safety, density, drainage, and neighborhood connectivity. The commission has received copies of these comments with their packet. Boulder County referral comments. Boulder County comments generally focused on transportation capacity, roadway impacts, drainage, infrastructure coordination, and emergency access onto the right-of-way connection and access configuration. Because annexation is a high-level conceptual process, approval of the annexation would require continued coordination with Boulder County and their concerns would have to be reviewed and addressed through future development review processes. Staff evaluation. Well, in review, staff evaluated the application based on the applicable review criteria, which includes consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility and transitions, transportation access and circulation, urban service availability, multimodal connectivity, and public and agency comments received during the process. With the consideration that annexation is a high level review and important details such as access, water and sewer service are all finalized as the site proceeds through additional applications that establish entitlements. Comprehensive plan alignment. Staff finds that the proposal is generally consistent with Envision Longmont policies regarding growth management, housing mix, transportation connectivity, compatible transitions and multimodal planning. The proposal also supports development within the municipal service area adjacent to existing transportation, infrastructure and urban services. This map is the future land use map from Envision Longmont Comprehensive Plan. So this illustrates the city's long term vision for growth and this shows the 287 corridor which includes a very small amount of single family residential adjacent to US 287 at the very southern portion of the city limits. Commissioner's review and recommendation tonight is guided by Section 1502055 of the Land Development Code, which is the review including comprehensive plan consistency, infrastructure considerations, compatibility, transportation planning, and mitigation of impacts. In addition to the review criteria for all application types, annexation requests must also comply with the Municipal Annexation Act and additional annexation-specific review standards, which include being located within the municipal service area and Longmont planning area, the ability to integrate into the surrounding land in the city, and conformance with applicable state statutes. What happens next? This annexation request will proceed to city council for final consideration. Future subdivision and site development reviews would evaluate detailed roadway design, drainage, utilities, landscaping, architecture, and more if this annexation were to be approved. Decision options. The commission has three decisions before them this evening. Approval without conditions, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff recommends approval of the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation, residential mixed neighborhood zoning and concept plan application based on compliance with the applicable review criteria and standards of the Longmont Land Development Code. That concludes my presentation. The applicant team also has a presentation for you this evening and staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chris Niels. I work for Actis, address 755 Delaware Avenue, Longmont, Colorado, 80501. I'm here with several other members of our team, Frank DeSiena, we have Candace Burnett from Kimley Horn, who's the planner, James, who is our civil engineer, and Jeff, who's the traffic engineer. So we're all here to kind of give you a broader understanding of the project and answer any questions that you may have. I know some of you were here for our meeting several weeks ago, and some of you are new, so I'm going to kind of go through a little bit more robust presentation than last time based on some of the feedback we got. Thank you for bearing with me, those of you who were here, and for those of you who weren't, I look forward to giving you some of the details. I wanted to start with just kind of where we are in this process. And there's kind of three things that I want to take away from this. One is kind of I look at this project in three big chunks. The first is just establishing the land use and the concept plan. That's where we are. As we move forward, we'll go into the subdivision and the actual kind of infrastructure details. And then the third phase is actually site plans and building permits. And, you know, every stage we will come back in front of this commission. So tonight we're here to talk about the annexation, the zoning, the concept plan. With that feedback, which kind of establishes the rough parameters of what we do in the next phase, we'll put together the subdivision and the infrastructure plans, come back through this organization to talk at that level of detail. And then as we move forward, get into the actual site plans and building permits. And to the extent that it's a major application, which I think it probably would be, we would come back here again. There are a lot of opportunities for us to discuss the details of the nitty-gritty of this project going forward. A little bit of history. This project has been in the pipeline for about five years. It was originally brought in front of City Council for annexation by Meritage Homes, which is a national home builder. They had a presentation of about 99 single-family residents. Back in 2021, the City Council reviewed their application. They unanimously approved to move ahead with the annexation referral, but five out of the seven members who made comments talked about how they would like to see more density here, that given the location of the property and some of its nuances, that there was really an opportunity to do more and better than just 99 single-family homes. Following that, Meritage Homes decided the business that they're in is building single-family homes. This project didn't really meet the requirements of what they were looking for going forwards and they decided to walk away. Actis, a local developer here, saw the vision of city council and said, we really think that that would be the right thing to put here going forward and got into contract and purchased the project. And we hired Kim Lee Horn, who's here this evening, to kind of do the planning and really figure out what the right way to do a mixed neighborhood was, taking into account sensitivities to the neighbors to the west and the south, and then understanding that we had a major highway to the east and kind of figure out some of those details. So it went back in front of city council in 2024. I think at that time the council members expressed appreciation that their previous comments were listened to, addressed, and it felt like there was a really good alignment between the vision that we were presenting to them and kind of what they all had in mind. Again, it was unanimously approved to move forward with the annexation. Now, despite that unanimous approval following that meeting, given the public comment and the comments that were given to us by the county of Boulder, we took a step back and really rethought the way that especially the transportation connectivity worked in this project and spent another almost year and a half kind of retooling how all of that works, adding a stoplight at the north part of the project, which required a lot of coordination with CDOT, moving the RTD to the north part of the project, which required a lot of coordination with RTD. And through that, you know, we got all of those things addressed and we're ready to come back into the process and came in front of you guys this evening. So I'm going to turn it over to Candice to talk a little bit about kind of the goals of the project and what we envision.

Good evening. My name is Candice Burnett, and I'm with Kimberly Horn. We're part of the project team doing and preparing the conceptual planning, land planning, looking at really what the intent of your Envision Longmont plan is about, your zoning designations, working with some of your staff when you were going through part of your code updates and looking at some of your new opportunities for some of the urban planning designations. and really taking that as a great opportunity, especially as we paused after the first council meeting, and looking at how the site really should be designed to optimize those opportunities and design the site to really pull together those pieces, come up with a better vision, and come back to the table with this new goal in mind. And with that, we looked at the site, and we wanted to really create a project that provided a neighborhood that is not only thoughtfully designed, but really provide a mixture of housing opportunities and typologies. We knew that the city's goal is to create this community that has these unique housing types that really appeal to all different types of families, whether you're growing in or growing out of a house. and appeal to different income levels and different strategies as you go through the housing economics. So with that in mind, we also understood that we had some limitations in terms of border conditions, edge conditions with a major highway condition on the 287, and we really wanted to optimize how should the site be designed, and also accommodating the fact that you do have some great provisions in place with shopping opportunities in future transit, and how does that all work and align with creating a great walkable community and neighborhood that really fits in the context of what's already existing. Not changing it necessarily, but making it better. And so with that, we looked at how does this fit, how does it complement, and how does it create a new community within an existing good community. And so as part of that, the key outcomes we looked at how do we enhance the diversity in the housing opportunities that are here but also are not existing. And so that's part of what we're looking at in terms of the zoning and also in Vision Longmont and how do we take those policies that you have in your plan and capitalize on the existing planned and existing infrastructure, and then also the fiscal sustainability of the community, and deliver housing units that are not only more affordable, but in a sustainable way. One of the things that I also want to note that's really important is that this project not only is thoughtfully designed, but it will provide a variety of housing opportunities with access to existing shopping. The full project would create opportunities for new shopping, but also that's not only walkable, but within a short driving distance as well with existing transit and also future transit while still being sensitive to the existing community around it. So we looked at the land use, what made sense, what would work within the context of Envision Longmont. And so that's where this proposed zoning designation came in. What would provide a mix of housing types with the correct density range because you don't want to over plan it as well. Something with a higher density really doesn't work. So it's creating something that a lower density in that six range that really creates a nice community edge. where there's a single family neighborhood that's a detached product type, blending over to 287 where you could have something at a higher density range, providing that higher density at a different price point. And so there's that transition between the lowest density to the highest density across the site. Also, we looked at the new design standards, this urban neighborhood design that Longmont approved those standards in January 2025. And how would that be applied to the project? And so we really wanted to make sure that we were looking at the future of how this project would eventually be built out. So with that in mind, we also think about how is this going to live? What's the pedestrian scale of the community? How is it going to be built out? And so we want to make sure that we create a nice space that has parks, that's going to have community spaces and edge conditions, that's going to connect to future trails, and that will live well so people do want to buy and live in this community and stay. As part of the concept plan, we know we're only looking at the west side of 287 but it's important for context to see the entire concept plan at the higher level. We understand that there's not a lot of detail here but that's on purpose because it's really intended to be kind of a zoomed out scale of the project site at this point we know we're getting at the micro level eventually we're coming down to get in the weeds where we're going to design the site we're going to come back with the housing products we're going to show you the street layouts and where the parks are but at this point we're really looking at you know where's those transitional zones where are the edge conditions where will those kind of park and connections and future utilities. So with that in mind, what we look at at this point is kind of that higher concept. Where are those zoning designation layers? How do they live across the site? And that's what we look at today in terms of how the project feels, how it fits together. And then how it will actually transition across 287 to the east side as well. Because it's not just living as one component. It's actually a full project. The utilities have to connect. All of that infrastructure eventually has to connect. And then you also want to look at things like walk circles within, you know, half mile, quarter mile. How things will coordinate in terms of is it going to be pedestrian friendly? Do you have enough connections to other types of facilities? So those are all of the things we looked at when we looked at concept planning for the site. And with that in mind, we also really did dig into your Envision Longmont. We looked at your goals and policies, and we wanted to make sure that this plan will meet the intent of your goals in terms of, are we providing enough opportunities for housing? Are we meeting a demand and need? because eventually we're trying to provide for that missing middle opportunities that you currently don't either provide or that you just have a lack of in terms of the housing products. And so this is a project site that will provide some of that in terms of just providing a mix of size and scale and also just unique housing types, whether it's higher density, lower density, and or just a variety of density types. The other thing is we really did want to capitalize on the fact that we're close to transit and also future transit as the RTD site builds out. And with that in mind, I'm going to go ahead and turn it back over to Chris.

Great. Thank you, Candice. So I'm going to take a few minutes to just talk about why this matters to Longmont. And so Longmont, like most communities in the Front Range, is experiencing some challenges with growth. We have rising housing costs. We have a housing stock that doesn't necessarily meet the needs of all of the community members. We have pressure on workforce housing, trying to get the people who work here the opportunity to live here. There's increased regional commuting and more desire for transit-oriented neighborhoods. And so we pulled a few stats that we thought were relevant to this project in that about 87% of Longmont's housing stock is either single-family or apartment. We kind of think about it as a barbell. It's one or the other. And there's a fairly large component missing in the middle, and that's what this project's trying to address. Within commuting, a route policy study done in 2023 that's actually getting updated right now said that 72% of the residents who live in Longmont and have jobs actually work outside of the city and that 66% of the jobs within the city are filled by people who live outside the city. And so there's kind of clearly this missing workforce housing opportunity to give people the opportunity to both work and live in this city. And then just the amount of money that's getting spent on the bus rapid transit system between up and down 119. As part of this project, we'll be giving RTD four acres. So we'll be the north terminus of the RTD bus rapid transit system. So we think that this proposal addresses a lot of those challenges. And by being a slightly more compact and connected development, it creates the opportunity to make naturally occurring more affordable housing, more convenient housing, less environmental impact from spread out housing and the regional commuting. And it gives us the opportunity to have less kind of outward expansion to meet the needs of the city. And again, kind of harping back to Envision Longmont, there's a section in there that says, how will we know if we succeeded? And I know it's really small, but as you look at kind of the left portion of the chart there, there's kind of the buzzwords of density successfully developing in areas of change, which this project is a part of, and achieving a mix of housing types. So we really think that this proposal addresses what Longmont needs. Just to dig in a little bit more on the mass transit proximity, there's a map on left side of the screen of kind of the broader connectivity under the new mass transit, and then on the right side showing kind of where RTD is. They are very eager to get their hands on this land and get going. They already have done an early concept plan and they want to build this out ASAP, maybe in two phases, just recognizing that the stoplight's probably going to take a little bit longer. They would concentrate on the right side or sort of the east side of the property just to get this in motion and get a little bit more robust. Station up there relative to kind of what they're doing on Park Ridge kind of right in front of Walmart today The Greenway proximity, you know, I think Longmont's done an amazing job of building out this Greenway There's still some chunks missing and I think this project's a big piece of that But this project will have Greenway on the northern piece of the west side and then the east east portion of the west side and the west portion of the east side, so along 287. And on the kind of right side of this screen, you can see how this connects into the broader network. And I think it's a really neat opportunity for the residents that live here to be connected into the rest of the city in a very pedestrian-friendly way. And then also, you know, the connectivity through this project gives the rest of the town an opportunity to connect further north once that is built out. So why this matters to Longmont from city budget implications? I know city council is definitely going to ask us this question, so we figured we'd address it tonight as well. But relative to single family, a more compacted development, I think, has some benefits to the fiscal policies of Longmont in that the build out of a more dense community is going to create higher upfront use taxes and connection fees. Longmont's really special and unique in that municipally owned power, municipally owned fiber connectivity, municipally owned water and sanitary. And all the connections here will contribute into that system. And I think everybody probably knows that development in Longmont pays its own way. So the development team will pay for all of the utility connections and turn those over to the city at the end of the project. Then just denser communities have a little bit lower infrastructure burden relative to more spread out single family. Just providing the emergency services, snow removal, infrastructure replacement, that type of thing is a little bit more efficient in this type of development. And then public benefits. So I think from our perspective, probably the biggest public benefit is reducing the deficit of workforce housing. And I think that matters to everybody. If you're a business owner, it's finding ways to be able to hire good people. If you're a consumer, it's being able to get good service at a reasonable price. for the city staff being able to hire teachers and firefighters and police that get to live locally. I think this addresses that need for more workforce housing. On top of that, increased public open spaces, the RTD, which we've touched on, and then an improved arrivals experience at Longmont's Northern Boundary. This is one of the things that the city council keyed in on in the 2024. discussion that we had with them about annexation and just providing a much nicer experience coming into town on the northern side. And I think on the screen here, there's a picture of kind of the way that the dual greenway frontage at Harvest Junction works, both on the north and south side of 119. And we've always kind of looked at that as a really great example of how that could look and what it would be somewhat like here. I think Kristen also touched on the fact that we've gotten a lot of feedback from Boulder, from neighbors, from Rough and Ready Ditch, from CDOT, and I just wanted take a moment to say all of those comments have been heard. They've been considered and addressed where possible. And we're not able to address every comment from every person, but we're certainly listening to them and thinking critically about how we can bring this project forth with as minimal impact as possible. And we commit to continuing to do that through this process as it gets into sort of deeper levels. so with that i will kind of part and say you know recommending the annexation and zoning here we think is a great next step in implementing the city's housing and land use goals while thoughtfully addressing the important nuances of this particular site our whole team's here to answer questions and we look forward to taking those.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda, this is a public hearing item. As such, the public gets a chance to go ahead and voice their comments to us. We did have a sign-up sheet. We do have 12 people on the sign-up sheet. And then after those 12 are done, it will be opened up if anybody who has not spoken would like to come up and speak. They will still have a chance to speak. And just to let people know what I'm thinking is that Given the number of people speaking and given where we are time wise, probably at the end of the public invited to be heard comments, we'll take a five minute break and then come back for the discussion of the commission. So we'll begin, I'll open up the public invited to be heard. And first on the list is Susan Felix. Once again, you have five minutes and please state your name and address for public records, thank you.

My name is Susan Felix. I live at 12890 Columbine Drive in the Willis Heights neighborhood, and I was here last time at the meeting. I'm an ex-realtor, so I know a lot about building and procedures. Some of you have not been here last time, and some of you have. Did you know about the letter that was supposed to be in your packet from Boulder County giving you the comments of why they do not really want to do this? Our neighborhood was never asked about any of this. We all found out about this in the last year or so. And I made a list of some comments. One of them is from the county sheriff in our neighborhood. He was in our neighborhood the other day because the residents were having problems with people sleeping in their backyards, and they're coming over from Walmart and the apartments across the road. is patrolling now every night at 2 a.m. And his comment to us, and he was the sergeant, he said that if they put this building in on this property, it's just going to cause more crime and more people sleeping in the neighborhood. The other factor is there's no sewers. There's no amenities. The traffic is awful. We have over 2,000 cars all day long, twice a day, three times a day, coming all the way down from Fort Collins, down 287, which is the state highway, in through downtown Longmont, and onward into Boulder. The accidents from the sheriff and what we've seen is terrible. Every week there's an accident at the corner of Park Ridge and 287. Just people coming out of Walmart, people coming down 287, or even us getting out of our neighborhood. It's terrible. So he wanted us to make that aware to you. We've already known that. I've reported that before. The other thing is, you're talking about an RTD service? Really, people. I live there. I've been there almost 27 years. You know how many people get off the RTD bus at Walmart or King Soopers? Maybe one or two. Nobody rides the bus. I mean, it's there, people to use it, but they don't ride the bus. They drive cars. We have a lot of cars on the road between Highway 66 and 287. It's just crazy, and it's going to get worse. The other thing is, I looked it up. I gave you guys pictures last time. Not only do we have the bald eagle in the area, we have, and you may not care about this, but we do. We have owls, we have osprey, we have red-tailed hawks, and I looked it up on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. It's a state and federal law. You cannot build within two football fields, 1,320 feet. So that starts from Hillcrest and goes all the way to 287 and more. And if you do that, you're going to disturb the birds that live in the neighborhood. That's just the way it is, you know. We like them there. We live in Colorado because of the views and the mountains. We don't want it to be New York City. So that's my comments.

Thank you. Next on the list is Bruce Felix.

Bruce Felix. I live at 12890 Columbine Drive. You people that are sitting here that are developers, how many of you live in Longmont? Put your hand up. One person. They don't live here. I do. These people do. The traffic is going to get worse. I just noticed a new intersection going in at 287 down on the corner, or diagonal when it comes into Longmont. It's going to get bigger. That's the main route, Hover, up to 66, 66 up to 287, 287 to Loveland, or 287 are 66 to 5. Those roads are backed up. Yeah, they're going to upgrade 66. I know that. It's in the plans. You put a light in, which these people want to do, and then they want to put, I estimate, about 2,000 people and about 2,000 cars. and this whole plan that they have, this puff piece that they're presenting you, that's gonna be put in that area with a light. What do you think's gonna happen to the traffic at five to 10 o'clock in the morning in Longmont? Those people are coming down from Loveland, they're coming from Highway 25, It's already gridlocked. When you do this, you ain't going to believe what's going to happen. You know what's going to happen? Walmart's going to move because they don't want it. They're going to use the street in front of Walmart for access. You think Walmart wants that? No. Got two minutes. I want to know a current traffic count and not one done on the 4th of July like they did last time. I want a week or two week count so we can see what is going up and down these highways. Do we have that? No. What's the latest count? It's got to be at least two years old. Two years ago we didn't have this kind of traffic. They're building thousands of homes in Loveland. What is this, the third version of this development? I've seen two or three versions of it. It looks like the third version to me. And they still have on there that they want to have access to our neighborhood. That's county. You're trying to convert this from agriculture to high density. I don't want to hear that it's not high density. It's high density. Did you talk to any of the owners in the neighborhood? No. Do you really care what these people think? No. I hate to be this way, but I didn't have anybody knocking on my door asking me how I felt about this. How would you like to have them build it next to you? The impact on this development is going to be crime, noise, and a lot of people going through our neighborhood. We moved there because it's quiet. We all have large lots. We saved our money hard to get into that development. That's not a typical development in Longmont. They're wide streets and big lots and big houses. And we want to keep it quiet. Not this, not what these people are planning. It's gonna ruin our neighborhood. You can forget about the wildlife. They're going to be gone. We're surrounded by open space. You guys want to take county open space and turn it into high density. That's what you're trying to do here. That's what this is all about. Come on. The roads can't take it. I want all of you to go down to that intersection at 6 in the morning, any day of the week, and see what it is. Okay, thank you.

Next on the list is, and I hope I pronounced this right, Philip Dutchess?

Good evening. My name is Philip Duclos. Oh, Duclos. Sorry. I live at 12968 Hillcrest Drive. I've been there about 28 years. We experienced an increase in traffic through our neighborhood when Walmart was built. And it brought additional crime. It brought additional traffic. It brought both foot traffic and car traffic. This development will do the same thing. Hard to say to what extent. But you can't build it in isolation. It has to be associated with the neighborhood. And bringing in high density housing, as was done on the east side of the street, You know has brought more traffic Additionally through our neighborhood people going to Walmart or going to the apartments now the The traffic patterns are such that you can't actually drive across either way at Park Ridge It's left turn only right turn only but people don't care There was a lot of discussion about pedestrian traffic There is no pedestrian access on the west side of 287 from Park Ridge down to 66. And so any pedestrian traffic would have to occur on the east side. So you'd force people to either walk on the dirt, which is what some of us do, or cross over, which is what some of us do. There's not a lot of pedestrian traffic Today, even going up the east side, even heading from the west side of Main Street south of 66, new apartments there, there's not a lot of traffic, pedestrian traffic. There is a lot of car traffic. Everybody drives to Walmart. Everybody turns on Park Ridge east of 287. A lot of talk was made about RTD. Nobody rides a bus. Sorry. It's a great concept. I'm supportive of it. I've ridden it myself commuting down to Boulder. But nobody uses it. You can see the bus is over by Walmart today. It's not an official bus stop. They're just parked on the side. There's plenty of access down King supers down on 23rd. We don't really, in my opinion, need a new RTD lot. Maybe there's studies that show ridership supports that. Maybe there's predictions that ridership would support that. Could be. I haven't seen them. The new light. So Boulder County's objections were primarily concerned with access through our neighborhood. And believe me, that is the number one issue, is more cars. I don't know if you've looked at Willis Heights. The roads are really, really wide. And what that means is people put the pedal to the metal. And it's not safe when people come screaming through our 25 mile per hour neighborhood at 40, 50 miles an hour. If you connect our neighborhood to the subdivision, as you probably would be required to do just for fire access, you're gonna direct all that traffic through the county roads that we pay for and Boulder County fails to maintain, which is a separate issue, You know, you're gonna direct more traffic through our neighborhood and we're not in favor of that, not in favor of that. We're talking about density. Willis Heights is one of the least dense neighborhoods in the Longmont area. So there's two to about four houses or dwelling units per acre in Willis Heights. The number that was presented here was six to 18. Well, that's... That's a step function, jump in density. The high density, various high density, the very highest density was all along 287. 287 is a noisy road. So we're going to build high density housing right along that just 50 feet, 100 feet from that noisy 287 corridor. I don't see a lot of demand for that. All of the development on the east side, all of the high density development is all set way back. It's all directly north of Walmart or to the east of Walmart. And the noise distance helps with noise. The traffic light's a great idea, but we don't need the development. Thank you. Thank you.

Next on the list is Tim Schaff.

My name is Tim Schaff. I live at 12707 Hillcrest. Yeah, I'm mainly here to talk about the traffic. I've got grave concerns. I mentioned that a month ago when I was here. I've run some numbers now. Look, it looks like Copper Peak 2 is going in. That's 200 to 400 units. It looks like the Beaupre Farms is going in. That's 400 to 800 units, if I'm doing my math right with the numbers. That's just 31.4 acres that they want to put the housing on, so that's 400 to 800 units. So that right there is 600 to 1200 units within a mile and a half of each other. We're smack dab in the middle of both of those. And that's if they don't even add on 25% if they put in affordable housing. Um, so my thing is, like, I'm hearing what they're saying. I appreciate the new urbanism. I was doing landscape work for Kiki Wallace in the mid-1900s when he built Prospect Newtown, so I understand it very well. Um, I, and I agree with it. I think it's a great way to build new housing. Um, I agree with the affordable housing. We need that. Here's the thing. We're in Longmont because we got priced out of Boulder. That's life. Housing in America is a right. It's not a privilege. I'm sorry. I got that backwards. It's a privilege. It's not a right. You got to have money in order to have housing. Unfortunately, not everybody has enough housing. That's why we need more affordable housing. I'm all for that. So when I hear people say, oh, the housing prices go up as a homeowner, I'm thinking, that's not a bad thing for me. This is part of my retirement savings, my house, right? So I realize that sounds a little selfish, but you know what? We bided our time living in Boulder. I had a five-minute commute, and we saved our money. And when we could afford a house in Longmont, we bought it. And then for the last six years of my work life, I had a 30-minute commute. Sometimes you just got to do what you got to do, right? Having said that, I don't want to make it sound like I want to just exclude all these people on the low end of the socioeconomic scale. It's hard for people that are coming in to work minimum wage to be driving 30, 40 minutes up and down a highway, especially I-25 is a nightmare at times. So to get back to the traffic, we know CMEX is not getting shut down. We just found out from the county a couple months ago about that. That's 100 trucks going through that intersection at 287 and 66 every day. That's CMEX numbers. That's not my numbers. That's CMEX numbers. And it's been estimated at even higher. Rocky Mountain Park opened up. Now we got all, this is, 66 is the main traffic that goes up to Rocky Mountain from this side of the highway, right? So you got all this additional traffic. I've been in my backyard every hour of every day, and there's always cars on 66 and 287. There's that much traffic even at 2, 3, 4 in the morning. I knew it when I bought the house, I accept it, I'm okay with it. Same with the train. I know they're not gonna move the train tracks just because I don't like the train whistle at 6 a.m. But the bottom line is, you guys got all this housing that you're building, and now you wanna add another, what was the number here at the end there? 156 to 468. So that brings the total, the low end, 756 to 1668 within a mile and a half. And that still leaves us as an island of the county in the city. So the only benefit we get from the tax revenue is like if we were tourists going to Rocky Mountain Park, we're driving through the city, we get the benefit. Otherwise, we don't get the benefit of the tax revenue that I know you guys in the city council really want. And the other thing is we have no political power. We can't vote the city council out in the election because we can't vote in the city election. So we're stuck in this island where we got no power. I looked at your map when you put it up again. I looked at it last month. There's other places to build. You're already building bow prey farms. You're already building Copper Peak. Why stick this one right there in the middle and add another 500 units? It's just a lot of pressure on us. I'm running out of time, so I can't even talk about it. I won't even get into the whole safety issues that people have already been talking about. I'm standing out on my front sidewalk, and people are going by me at 40 miles an hour. People come off of Park Ridge and they don't even stop at the stop sign. They just blow right into it because they're trying to get around. I watch it all the time. When the traffic's backed up from 287 westward on 66 for a quarter mile or more, people turn on to Hillcrest because then they can get around that corner. They can get up there and cannot wait for the light. I'm telling you, it's too much in one area. I get the idea. I appreciate how you guys want to build. I really do. I agree with new urbanism, but it's too much in one area. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Rebecca Schaaf.

Hey, I'm Rebecca Shaft. I live at 12707 Hillcrest. Okay, so I got a bunch of stuff. So I looked at the Envision Longmont plan and strategies to support a safe, healthy, and adaptable community. Two of the things are strategy 4.1, ensure the city has an updated emergency operations plan. This is under the responsibility of public safety. It talks about city departments and partner entities during large-scale disasters and emergencies. Strategy 4.2 also included is public safety. Boulder County and other stakeholders on initiatives to make slash keep our community and neighborhoods resilient. I'm assuming that comes under the heading of safe. And then also, let me find this other one that I wanted to mention. strategy 117 align the city's capital improvement plan with the goals and policies of the plan to ensure that the proper level of service for infrastructure is in place before new infill or redevelopment projects are approved so it doesn't say specifically emergency services, but it does say service. So I just wanted to point that out. So I just found that. So I just want to focus on addressing basically traffic and safety. And I'm going to talk again about traffic a lot. Since the Walmart expansion, there's been an increase in non-resident traffic at excessive speeds on Park Ridge and Hillcrest. The sign at eastbound Highway 66 at the left turn lane onto Hillcrest that reads, no access to Walmart has stopped nobody. The light at eastbound Park Ridge at Highway 287 where drivers are required to turn either left or right. is used regularly by scofflaw drivers as a throughway to Walmart. Some of you were here last time. I regularly have to sit behind drivers when I'm making a right turn who are going to go straight through to go to Walmart. It's illegal. I have never once seen anybody be pulled over for that. I've lived here seven years. And I've talked to many of my neighbors who have lived here ever since that Walmart went in, and nobody has ever seen anyone get pulled over for that. So this means that the traffic mitigation that was promised to the neighborhood before that Walmart was built, that has not worked. And so I'm really skeptical of when these guys are saying, oh, we're going to mitigate this traffic problem. Oh, we're going to make sure that it's fine. I don't believe it. I don't believe it. I don't think it... Okay, so... So yeah, so the point is we have a lot of non-resident traffic going through. We don't have many patrols. We don't see people getting pulled over for these things. And a few people have mentioned there's that stop sign on the corner of Park Ridge and Hillcrest. A lot of people do not stop at that stop sign. We got a lot of elderly people and children in our neighborhood. They're out walking their dogs. They're walking together. They're trying to enjoy the neighborhood. People are speeding through our neighborhood. And it's dangerous, OK? Anyway, so I want to talk about, I want to know what you guys have, what these guys, what she, what people have come up with for ideas for how to handle the expansion of need for emergency services for fire and for police because I talked to my neighbor, she's the public information officer for fire for the western United States for the federal government. And she told me, I didn't even know this, but Mountain View Fire is for Boulder County and they kind of ring around us and Wait, I wrote this down. So Mountain View Fire is our fire district for Boulder County. Station 5 in Meade is the closest to us, but we rely on what's known as, it's called closest resource, which in our case is Longmont Station 4. It's on Main and 23rd. And so when this increased population goes in, if it goes in, the calls for emergency service at Longmont Station 4 are going to increase, right? So has there been any discussion of how much that's going to increase? What's that going to be about? And how are you going to respond? And have you guys studied this? What do your studies show? And so I was really concerned about that. and what the change in response time is going to be. So I started searching about that. And I found this article in The Times Call from May 20 that says, Longmont City staff on Tuesday warned the city council that rising public safety demands and slowing revenue growth could force difficult budget decisions in the coming years, including a possible public safety sales tax increase.

OK. Thank you.

Yeah. And then I searched on what would happen if the voters do not approve it.

And it's a big problem. Thank you. Next is Durya Falcons. Did I say that right?

It's just bad handwriting. My name is Devin Falcons. Oh, Devin. And I live at 12958 Waterbury Road. And I'm about 26 years old. I've lived at this neighborhood almost my whole life. I've seen every nuance. I've seen every single change that's happened. I saw the Walmart go in. Me and my friends kind of enjoyed that. We made quite a few trips across the way. But let me tell you, making that trip now, it's a death sentence. And I'd like you all to take that very seriously because crossing that highway in any regard, the amount of people that just blow through the right turn only lane for us merging. I mean, I've almost been rear-ended several times. But, you know, me and my friends used to all be able to walk wherever we wanted to go. We used to be able to walk to the old fish and trout place that was right next to the... Even the nursery home that's across the way, we were able to walk to that. I mean, the amount of traffic that is increased, it's impossible to get out of our neighborhood walking. I appreciate the sentiment and the thought of us having the ability to walk to shopping centers and all that stuff, but the reason we're in this neighborhood is because we're away from the shopping centers. We don't want that right next to us. know we have walmart that's inevitable that happened sure whatever okay but have has anyone noticed the amount of traffic decreased that's going to walmart even though they have apartments living right next door because that walmart is full of crime i mean i have several friends who work there and they can tell you it's the highest crime store in longmont There's a lot of poverty in the area. I understand low income apartments kind of have some residuals of not the nicest people hanging around, but we've pretty much gone from having, you could leave your door unlocked to you have to have locks on everything. I can remember back in 2014, we've had our trailer stolen. Things happen. You know, replaced everything, got a new trailer. Now we keep it in the garage. It's just one of the things that we got to live with now, right? You know, we've seen several changes of people walking through the neighborhood all hours of the night. You know, I have camera systems. I can see the people that are walking around and it makes you wonder, you know, How did we get to the point of having so many people walking around and so much unwanted traffic through the neighborhood? And where is it really coming from? I work for Mobility Plus, which is in Longmont. So I live in Longmont, work in Longmont. That might be the rarity in this situation. But I drive probably 250 to 500 miles a day, depending on where I'm going. I drive from Cheyenne all the way down to Pueblo. You know, I see every part of this state. But what Longmont is turning into looks a lot like Colorado Springs, Arvada, Denver, places that people in Longmont don't want to be near. It's the reason we moved here. Some of us came from Boulder. A lot of us don't want to be near Boulder. You know, a lot of us have... really come to love this place as home and a lot of people my age are going to inherit these homes eventually or they'll be sold and for you know x amount of money and things will move on you know i can't afford a house in longmont not by myself i have to have a girlfriend who makes the same amount of money than me and then we can move in together that applies for house apartment townhouse anything build a house whatever Well, you know, one of the things I noticed in the past commission was one of the things they were worried about was how much money they could get from this project. You know, one of the things that they switched from single family to multifamily is they were worried about how much money they could get from it. I understand that as from a business perspective, but a company that makes $3 billion in annual revenue is worried about something as trivial as what, 10, $15 million at Longmont. It just seems a little concerning to me that there's a different motive for this project. You know, I appreciate the fact that we have town, you know, Longmont's expanding. I like that as a young person. I like being able to hang out in Longmont, you know, going around to pool bars and bowling alleys, you know, movie theater, whatever. But, you know, we used to have a mall. We don't have a mall anymore. You know, if you want to go have fun, if you want to go out, you go to Denver, you go to Boulder. You know, there's not a lot of people my age hanging around in Longmont because the only thing here is apartments, townhouses, restaurants. You know, where's the entertainment? Where's everything else? I agree we need some, but I just don't think it needs to be here. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Next is Diana Doherty. Diana. Diana.

I'm Diana Doherty. I live at 12692 Grandview Drive. We've lived up there now for 20-some years. We moved up there because we had elderly parents living with us, and that was one of the few ranch-style homes available in Longmont to us that we could bring my parents into. We've loved the area. I don't know what the plan is because we are all on septic tanks for our sewer. If we're going to be expected to join this annexation, are we going to be forced to join this annexation for that purpose? I noticed on your maps that Roseland is probably going to be opened up to this annexation, which would mean much traffic coming through our subdivision. There really are no straight streets through our subdivision, so they would be winding through And again, people are talking about speeds, yes, especially when they come off at 66 or off at 287 and go around that intersection right there because it is... Traffic gets bound up there all times of the day. So people are looking the fast way to get around that. And they come through our subdivision, which is dangerous because most of us don't drive that fast up in there. how fast we can go and we know what the speed limit is. And I just, I don't want to see my life change. I don't want to see high density in that part of town. I mean, we've got so much high density that has been built down in the south part of Longmont. I mean, you've taken up just about every spare vacant land and put condos or apartment buildings. The apartment buildings down at 119 and Hover look like criminal places. I just don't want to see it. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Frank Dougherty. Okay, thank you. Mary Brown.

My name is Mary Brown. I live at 12933 Columbine Drive. And first I want to thank you guys for being here. I know that you're all volunteers showing up to hear us. So thank you for that. I was born in Boulder. and I can't afford to live in Boulder and don't really want to and I feel like what's happening around us is looking like Boulder. I keep hearing in a lot of these presentations future application to the proposed plan. So there's a plan they proposed, but on almost every screen she had up there, there was going to be a future application to those plans. Changes, changes, changes to what they're even proposing. One of the things that was on the list of things that they like to see for annexation is the ability to integrate surrounding land into the city. So this land they want to annex is surrounded. The north is a land conservancy and the rest is surrounded by Boulder County unincorporated land. So I'm not sure how they're going to integrate all of that into the city. Access through Roseland Avenue, as Susan said, is not approved nor wanted by Boulder County, but yet it keeps being referred to as access. Somewhere along the line it was said it would just be emergency access. Now I'm just seeing the word access. And Roseland seems to kind of dead end on private property back in there. I've tried to kind of look back in there to see how that could happen, and it It doesn't look like it goes through to the annexed property. Tonight I'm hearing shopping, shopping, shopping, shopping. And I'm not sure if that's also being proposed on the west side because this plan is so poorly presented and poorly laid out. I haven't seen the same plan at any of these meetings that I've been to. So it's very confusing. And the first thing you do when you buy a piece of property is you make sure you have legal access to it. And I don't think that's happened here. They want in the beginning. So now they've created this stoplight to get access to it. And that's, you know, one access. But if there was a disaster, emergency or anything, you know, how are you going to get all those people out of that area with that one access and one little road that, you know, I don't see Roseland being viable. Um, lots of benefits to the city. I get that. Lots of tax revenue, lots of benefits, very little benefit to the community and really I would say to the area, the city at large because of the traffic issue. Um, it doesn't appear like they have their ducks in a row. I'm not even sure that they know what the ducks are. And the pictures that we saw tonight were beautiful. They were just gorgeous pictures. That's not reality. And I tried to take my granddaughter to summer school the other morning at 8 o'clock in the morning, and I tried to exit our subdivision onto 66 off of Hillcrest. And there were three lanes of traffic coming down 66. Well, there aren't even three lanes there. But there is so much traffic, people are making their own lanes coming down that highway. So there's no way I was going to endanger myself and my granddaughter by trying to pull out onto that highway. So I turned around and went back to the light. And then, as somebody said, took my life in my hands trying to get out onto 287 at 8 o'clock in the morning to get her to summer school. So just to reiterate, it's a bad idea, it's a bad plan, and thank you for listening and thank you for being here.

Thank you. Next is Laura Wally. Thank you.

My name is Laura Wally, and I live at 10572 Hillcrest Drive. And I've been a resident of Willis Heights for 40 years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight regarding the proposed Longmont Gateway North annexation. I'm here because I have serious concerns about the long-term impacts of this annexation. that it could have on our neighborhood, as well as local infrastructure and the character of our area. Over the past four decades, I have watched our community grow and change. I understand that growth is inevitable and that communities evolve over time, but I'm not opposed to development in principle. However, I believe the growth should be thoughtful, balanced, and compatible with the neighborhoods and residents who are already here. The residents of Willis Heights, many of which I spoke with over the last week, already experience increasing development pressure, and you've heard from them tonight. We have concerns about traffic, road safety, water resources, and the ability of existing infrastructure and public services to keep pace with this additional growth. Expanding Longmont further north through this annexation appears likely to intensify these issues without providing clear benefits to the existing county residents. I'm concerned about the increase in traffic congestion and the impact on the roads that many of us use every day. More vehicles means more delays and greater safety concerns for residents, families, pedestrians, and our cyclists. I'm also concerned about the strain this level of development could place on infrastructure and public services, which you heard about as well. Growth has consequences, and those consequences are often felt most directly by the people who already live in the surrounding area. Another concern shared by many of my neighbors is the potential impact this development could have on our property values. Many of us have invested our life savings into our homes and properties. We chose Willis Heights for its low density rural residential character and for the quality of life it offers. The introduction of large mixed use development including higher density housing adjacent to our neighborhood on larger lots raises understandable concerns about neighborhood compatibility and how future buyers may perceive our community. For many residents, our homes represent our largest financial investment, and we believe these concerns deserve careful consideration. Water availability is another concern. In Colorado, water is one of our most precious resources. As development continues, we have a responsibility to ask whether proposed projects are sustainable over the long term and whether adequate consideration has been given to the cumulative impacts of continued expansion. I'm also troubled, as are my neighbors, by the precedent this annexation could set. Approving this proposal may encourage further expansion into unincorporated Boulder County and gradually erode the open spaces and rural character that have long distinguished this area. Perhaps, however, my greatest concern is that many of the residents of Willis Heights do not feel that our voices have been heard throughout this process. Many of us have attended meetings, submitted comments, asked questions, and participated in good faith because we believe deeply in our community. Yet there's a growing sense that our concerns have not been acknowledged and have not been meaningfully addressed. For me, this community is more than just a place on a map. It's been my home for 40 years. Today, I'm caring for my parents in their home here. Willis Heights has been a quiet, safe neighborhood where generations of our family have lived, worked and supported one another. The decisions you make tonight will directly affect not only my future, but my parents' ability to continue living comfortably and securely in the community they have called home for decades. I recognize that the decisions before you are not easy. and I appreciate the responsibility you carry and the many competing interests you must consider. But I ask that you remember that behind every application and every development proposal are real people whose daily lives, financial security, and sense of community will be shaped by the choices you make. I respectfully ask that you can carefully consider the concerns of the residents who already call this community home before supporting this annexation. Please ensure that the voices of Willis Heights residents are giving meaningful weight in this process and that any decision reflects not only the desire for growth, but also the values of compatibility and respect for existing communities. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration.

Thank you. Next is Ted Wally.

Ditto.

Okay, another ditto. Okay, thank you. Ellen Broder.

Hi, I'm Alan Bruder. I live at 12886 Columbine Drive. We've been there for almost four years now and part of the thing that drew us here was the openness and more space and not being surrounded by what seems to be developing around here now. uh i'll try i have to agree with all my neighbors all the common safe sets i'll try not to repeat all that but i'll just bring up at the last meeting there was a comment that the city council previously several years ago didn't want the previous developer to put single family homes in this parcel and they wanted higher density. I just don't know how valid that is anymore because just in the last few years, there's been several apartment buildings built at the southwest corner of 66 and 287 and then at the northeast corner by Walmart. There's been the big Copper Peak and Notch 66 developments. You know, many apartment buildings there and they're probably gonna build more in there. I just don't know that it's necessary to have high density apartment buildings in this little parcel. I'd actually be okay with some development there if it were something like Twinplexes. If you drive down 66 towards Pace from Main Street, You'll see some twinplexes over there as they transition into apartment buildings. I think that might be appropriate for that area. But multi-story buildings I just don't think would fit. And like one of the previous people said, I think it would hurt our property values. And a lot of us feel like we just don't have a voice. And some of this high density, or I'm not sure what they mean by medium density, but high density like they've got over on the other side of 287, would absolutely affect property values in our little neighborhood. And I think, you know, some of the comments about more crime, I think they're very valid. And I think, I've lived in apartment complexes before and they're a lot of times are more criminal elements there, even if it's like property crimes, not violent crimes. But I think even businesses in our area think that there's more crime. If you go to Walmart across the way there, you have to go through turnstiles to get in and out. If you go to the Walmart out on 119 near I-25, They don't have turnstiles there. Most Walmarts don't have that. So Walmart's kind of telling us that they think that their customers are criminals and they're stealing from them. Even the King Soopers, now you've got to go through turnstiles there because they think their customers are stealing from them. So that doesn't make me feel real good about that. Like I said, I'd be okay with some development, but I think the appropriate level of development would be something like the twinplexes you see, like single-story twinplexes that you see along 66 as you approach Pace. They've got twinplexes, and then they transition into the higher level.

multi-story apartment buildings thanks thank you we are through the list but as I mentioned if there's anybody in the audience who would like to come up and make comment who has not spoken to us you can please step forward to let your comments be known once again we just ask that you give your name and address for the public record and you'll be given five minutes

Hi, my name is Wayne Winkler. I live on Hillcrest. I've been here a number of years. One of the things, I've listened to all this, but one of the things, talking about affordable housing, and what is the target price on these apartments that are going to be built, if they build them, and also the homes? This is going to be expensive to build this development. Any new development is expensive. And what's the target to get the cash flow out of those apartments? Currently, if I look at Longmont, the average price is around $1,600 a month for one bedroom. And there's a lot of people working as wait people, various jobs like that, that can't afford that. So one of the benefits of this program would be to have affordable housing. But let's see what those numbers are. The other thing, there's a lot of traffic up there right now. And it's not in Longmont's control, really, or these people. It's really from building a lot of houses in Loveland or Mead with no jobs. And I don't think, when Walmart first was proposed, I come down and listen. There was a lot of objections to it. But in a way, we're lucky because now we've got that traffic light at Park Ridge. Otherwise, we'd be trapped like a rat. And I shop at Walmart, so now I feel like a hypocrite that I was mad about it. But anyhow, and at the Copper Peaks and those apartments, I really at first thought there'd be a high volume of traffic in and out of there. But I don't see that. I'm surprised at the number of units and a small number of cars that actually come out westbound out of that. But anyhow, I think my concern is to look at the action. Is there a low-cost housing going to be provided here or something that will help people making $17 an hour? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to come forward? I see somebody coming forward. Okay, thank you.

I'm Roberta Tanner. I live at 12761 Woodland Drive in Longmont, in Willis Heights. My comments are very small and focused on our neighborhood and focused on this development. Someone stated that when Walmart went in, the city and the county made certain promises for traffic through our neighborhood that it would be limited, and it has not been enforced. And we have not heard any real substantive responses from the developers about how to mitigate traffic going through our neighborhood if this development occurs. I live pretty close to Park Ridge, near 287, and we have currently many, many cars coming through our neighborhood to avoid the stoplight at 66 and 287. If a development of this size is built on the west side of 287 north of us, what's to stop people from coming down 287, turning into our neighborhood, through our neighborhood, and down 66? I can just see the traffic increasing substantially, as well as the going home traffic coming from 66 to Hillcrest through Park Ridge to avoid that stoplight at 66 and 287. And I've not heard any comments on how that could be avoided. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kim Falcons, lived at 12958 Waterbury Road. I've lived in Willis Heights about 27 years. I've lived in Longmont since like 1975. And I have seen good changes and bad changes. Longmont talks a lot about its character and its agricultural history. And that's not going to show very well. I think by building these high density things when you're coming into Longmont, it gives an impression of just apartments everywhere. I don't like it. I agree that we are going to have some kind of development happen there, and I also would go for single-family housing versus high density. I can't remember what else I was going to say. I'm not a public speaker. Never. The argument of people living and working in Longmont, I think, is irrelevant. I've lived there for 40 years, and I've always driven at least 30 minutes to work. Boulder, Niwot. wherever, Denver, South Denver. I mean, I don't think that's a valid argument. I think a lot of people do that. I think people chose Longmont because it was more affordable and a bedroom community of Denver so that they could work at other places and live in Longmont. Thanks.

Thank you.

I'm Janine Hopping and I live at 12953 Hillcrest Drive. And I don't know, I wasn't going to say anything tonight, but what she just said and another comment made earlier made me think, you know, I'm just going to come up and say it. One of these people mentioned how we were going to have a really nice entryway into Longmont and they're going to design something that probably has a really cool sign and And it probably has some really nice landscaping. And it probably will look pretty nice. But... Right now, as you come into Longmont, and this is a Longmont issue from those areas, it's kind of like beautiful, right? I mean, honestly, fields, a few farmhouses, and it is pretty cool. We like that in Longmont. Well, it reminded me of when I got a chance to be in Hungary many years ago. And the man that was driving me into the town, or the city of Budapest, we were driving along, and he couldn't speak much English, but I could speak less Hungarian. And so we really weren't talking much. But as we were driving into the area, there were these really tall concrete buildings with windows, and then there was another one. and another one. And all he said was, Soviet. Because those were the buildings that had been built. And I have to tell you that as I go down south now, because I have that memory and it was kind of funny to me but also kind of cool, I go through Longmont now and every once in a while I look at my husband and I go, Soviet. And so That's not really what Longmont wants people to be doing. So that's something to consider as you come in. Right now we have the rule. We won't have the rule. And if it keeps getting pushed further and further out, it'll be like going down 119 now as you get into Boulder, where they've always had their rules, you know, that it's going to stay cool Boulder. But now when you go down 119, they've got between the two roads. And it's just weird to me because it is changing what it looks like where we live. And I liked it better the old way. We have the chance to somehow keep it that way, but it does take effort. So anyway, that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you. One last call. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard. As I mentioned, sir, you've already had your five minutes, so please. I'm going to take two minutes. Nope, nope, nope. Sorry, you've had your five minutes. You asked if anybody wanted to. Who hasn't already spoken.

Thank you.

As we mentioned earlier, we will go ahead at this point and take a five-minute break and then come back at approximately 835.

We'll be beginning in one minute, so if you can please take your seats.

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and start back up. We'll go ahead and start with questions, comments from the commission.

Vice Chair Earle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try my best to organize this in city and applicant and probably fail miserably, but I do have a list of questions here. I do wanna start off though, just, um as a comment to everyone who made a comment i listened very carefully to everything you said we took notes up here i listened to the last meeting as well i'm sorry i wasn't able to be here in person but i did listen to every one of those comments those do inform the way i'm thinking about this so please know that your comments do matter that they are being listened to they are important i may not agree with all of them but that's a whole separate thing i am listening and i'm trying to understand And I hope that you'll see that reflected in some of the questions that I'll ask to the city and the applicant to make sure I understand the project. And I want to start with traffic. And maybe this is the applicant. This is not actually traffic study so much as just entry access points. So what I believe I heard in the last meeting when we were talking about it wasn't specifically this project, it was the amendment to the comprehensive plan, was that there was not going to be public site access through the Willis Heights subdivision. And yet the concept plan we're seeing shows site access onto, I want to say Roslyn, and several of the documents talk about access onto Park Ridge. I want to have that clarified, because as is right now, that seems to be, one, a disagreement between the various documents, and two, certainly a concern that I have and that I know the neighbors have. So I don't know if someone from the applicant maybe can clarify what the entry exit points are.

Again, Chris Neals from the applicant. So it's been the topic of a lot of discussion. So originally, there was going to be a Parkridge connection moving south. That has been eliminated in favor of the light to the north, a mid-block, right in, right out, only on 287. And then there's the Roseland Avenue connection. There's been a lot of discussion about it. The applicant has suggested that it be emergency access only to prevent further cut through understanding the concerns of the neighborhood. I think there's, and Kristen chime in if I mischaracterize anything, I think there's kind of two big things on this. One, when the Roseland neighborhood was platted, a future connection point is on that plat. And so it It seems to the city that by the codes, both the international fire code and then also the codes that govern connectivity, that that kind of pre-decided connection point should stay. Again, I think from the perspective of the applicant, we would be open to not having public access there. Certainly, we do need to address the emergency elements and then also the safety elements um it to kind of give the residents of this an access um towards the east and also the willis heights neighborhood another way out of their neighborhood in the event of an emergency so i think that those are details that certainly are being discussed and are kind of ongoing okay i mean i think it's a really important detail for us tonight because i think if you're saying emergency access and you're saying pedestrian bike that's you know i think one thing i believe

I don't remember if it was in your document or in one of the resident comments that talked about that. Having it be a full public access back and forth certainly feels like that's putting a lot of burden in the neighborhood. Given the traffic, it's not something that's reflected in the traffic study either. So it's really hard for us to evaluate if that's what's on the table for it. Kristen, I don't know if that's you or somebody else at the city who can talk to a little bit of just what that plan is.

Certainly. And we do have Mark Sampson, who's our assistant fire marshal, and he can discuss the components and the requirements that have come with that being an emergency access. Thank you. Thank you.

Is it on? It is? Okay. Okay. Good evening, Chairman Poland, Assistant Fire Marshal, Commissioners, Assistant Fire Marshal, City of Longmont Fire Department. So every time we've gone through this development, we've always stated that it did, they proposed, the applicant proposed emergency access only, but with the number of units more than 25, we require two points of access per the fire code and local amendment. The two points that they're showing off at 287 are not separated by the half the diagonal. That's why the Roslyn connection has to be connected. We were going through Parkland through the church on the original submittal. Boulder County didn't allow that, so that's why we went over to Roslyn. It's been plotted for connectivity to this land, and it's also required by the fire code to be separated by half the diagonal. And so the current design, you can't get the two off of 287 separated by the overall dimensional diagonal of the lot. So that's why the Roslyn connection is there.

And does that have to be public access in order to meet that code? Yes. Okay. Is there any alternative to that per the fire code? I don't want to speak for the applicant. Sure. Yeah.

But right now, with that many units or the high density that they're proposing, I don't believe that it'll be used regularly, but it would serve, I think it'd serve the people of Willis Heights to go through the new subdivision, come out onto the road, and then they'd have a signalized intersection if they were going north.

So the issue is the two access points on 287 are not separated enough.

They're not separated by half the diagonal. And you can't move it closer to Park Ridge because then you wouldn't meet the collector spacing or the arterial spacing for the intersection. So they put the right in right out as far as they could, the 660 away. Yeah. But that doesn't meet the overall half the diagonal. Okay. Okay.

Understand that. Don't like it, but I understand what you're saying.

I understand.

No, thank you. That answers the question.

At least it is in the interest of public safety though.

Understand that. Um, I think I have a concern not with the public safety requirement to be clear, but that it is a kind of full public in out and that we don't have an impact in the traffic study that helps us evaluate that. And we have both resident concerns and Boulder County concerns about the traffic. It's not the, It's not that there's an access point there that is available for safety. It's kind of everything that comes from that that I'm concerned about just because we don't have the ability to fully evaluate it in what's in our packet, in my mind at least. Thank you for answering the question. Kristen, two questions for you. So I have not seen an application that has comments from a historical commission before. So I'm hoping you can just walk through kind of what that impact is and what we need to be thinking about at this point and what we need to be thinking about in a future point.

That is a great question. I could try to walk you through, but we do have our historic planner, Jennifer Hewitt Apperson here. So I would ask that she come down and represent that.

Thank you. I didn't want to be presumptuous, but I did see her. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, members of the commission, Commissioner Earle. Jennifer Hewitt Apperson, principal planner with the City of Longmont. I am the staff liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission. So per the code, both within the Land Development Code, but especially within our Historic Preservation Code, when you are looking at proposed development that has the potential to impact properties, structures that are more than 50 years old, The Historic Preservation Commission can request that it be reviewed. So in this case, for this property, the applicant was required to conduct a historic site analysis, a cultural survey of the property. This had been done previously for prior development proposals. It was updated for this one. There was a determination that the historic farm structures had some significance in terms of agricultural history of the area because it was a very intact group of structures. However, it happens to be located where that right in, right out entrance would be onto 287. So when the commission is looking at things like this, at developments like this, the role then becomes how can we memorialize the property's history, whether that be through buildings, whether that be through an interpretive plan of some sort. So ultimately, the commission has recommended in this case, as they have in many other development applications for annexations and rezonings and such major development applications that a condition be put into the annexation agreement that in conjunction with future development applications a preservation plan would be created and ultimately go back to the historic preservation commission for approval to basically determine how to best memorialize, preserve the history of the property. One of the items for discussion in this case was that the primary farmhouse was in not terrible condition, so the condition proposed by the Historic Preservation Commission was that a preservation plan, when it gets developed, particular consideration to relocating that particular farmhouse on site. So it's really a way to, you know, this is something that we definitely see in many developments, primarily in larger developments where there might be older properties, older structures on the property. So hopefully that Add some clarity?

It does add clarity. It does lead to a follow up. Okay. Because you said that there would be a condition in the annexation agreement. Yes. I'm at least not seeing the annexation petition. Is that not the appropriate place we would see it?

No. The annexation agreement is a formal agreement that gets approved by city council that memorializes all of the conditions for the annexation. So in this particular case, there would be a condition that reflects the motion made by the Historic Preservation Commission at the meeting where this was discussed.

Okay. That's helpful because I was trying to square those two together. So understanding when it comes in is really helpful.

Great.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Kristen, I think this one is probably you this time. Maybe. There were concerns about wildlife. There's an environmental assessment that's in the packet that we have that talks about a whole lot of things, but wildlife isn't one of them. I am guessing wildlife's going to be in a future part of this, but I do want to understand when that comes up, how that's reviewed, kind of what that impact is on construction given the concerns that were raised.

Certainly I can try to address that. I don't know that our environmental planner is here this evening, but I will discuss what I can. So in preparation of this project, there was a species and habitat report. That study was done, it was submitted. They do have some minimization and mitigation techniques because there are prairie dogs on the site. some vegetative removals, requirements for nesting birds, raptors, burrowing owls, et cetera. It was very brief as it is with annexation because it's very high level and conceptual. If this annexation is approved, as I've stated many times, it has to go through multiple rounds of review. to actually establish entitlements. So subdivisions, site plan reviews, et cetera. Higher detail and more detail is required at those levels for evaluation and mitigation requirements can be established at that time or will be established at that time.

If I recall right, when we've seen previous ones, we've seen those studies, we've seen the maps of where the bird nests are, all the rest of it. The fact that I'm not seeing it now doesn't mean it won't be done. It's just not at the appropriate time to get to that detail, correct?

Correct. The level of detail will be much dialed in if this project goes forward. That is correct.

That's what I have for right now. I certainly may come back, but Mr. Chairman, I'll yield for now. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Arment.

Okay. Um, I believe this would be the applicant, um, and, and I might bounce around a bit. Sorry if I play a bit of musical chairs, but, um, I know a lot of, I was at the previous meeting. Hey, I appreciate that. I feel like, um, this presentation was a lot more polished, so I just wanted to appreciate that. Um, on the drain, on the drainage, it seems like that has been updated. Uh, would you like to speak to what updates have been made? Cause it looks like there's a new detention pond on this plan.

Again, Chris Nails from the applicant.

On the topic of drainage, I think we have done enough work to understand that it is feasible. We have definitely had Tyler Dell and Josh and Madeline involved in understanding the strategies of how this site could drain. And I think kind of the big takeaways for where we are at this particular point in the project is that the city has satisfied itself that there is a feasible way to drain this project in compliance with all of the city codes and regulations which do address the concerns of the neighbors and of Boulder County that there won't be kind of external drainage with a negative impact. Exactly how that gets done is still a up for some discussion. There's been a couple of different paths evaluated as part of that feasibility study. Um, and certainly there are details that need to be ironed out. And I think what we've kind of talked about and what we talked about after last meeting is that I think the city has said applicant, I think you need to know there's some risk on your side of the ledger for exactly how this gets done and how expensive it'll be to do it, but we're confident that you guys can find a way to do it that's in compliance with what needs to be done.

That's all I wanted to hear. Thank you very much. Also, I'm not sure who on the applicant side would like to field this question, but And I know this is a conceptual level, but what strategies are going to be used because we're adding a new signal and pedestrian connectivity was brought up a lot. Is there any thought to pedestrian connectivity across 287 here? I know that that would fall partially under the purview of CDOT, but I don't know if anyone could speak to that.

Good evening. James Waller with Kimley Horn. Regarding pedestrian connectivity with the traffic signal, yes. There's a plan to have pedestrian connectivity going across 287 from the west of the east side. We'll make any necessary improvements at the intersection of Park Ridge Avenue and 287 as well, along with the 50-foot gateway buffer that will be on both sides of 287, where there will be a 10-foot 10-foot walk along 287 that will be used for multimodal travel.

Okay, that makes sense. And then I guess along that stretch of 287, there's going to be the right-in, right-out. Is any other modifications to that stretch of 287 envisioned, or is it going to remain as is?

There are active discussions with CDOT for any measures that can be implemented with their design. They're doing safety improvements from Berthed to Parkridge Avenue and then from the south side of Longmont all the way down to Lafayette. So we're actively working with them for safety improvements. That would be any improvements within 287. Okay. Yeah.

That makes sense. Thank you very much. Yeah, of course. I think those were my main questions for the applicant. Oh, this was another question I had. Regarding internal circulation within the site, and I know this is just very high level, has there been thought put towards traffic calming and other such measures for internal circulation? Because I know that is a concern of the neighborhood.

Some consideration. It is still preliminary. We're looking at potential street layouts throughout the site with some potential street layouts. It will be public right-of-way for the majority of the roadways going through here. So we're going to need to meet current city standards for that with any signage and traffic calming measures along there.

Okay, so, yeah, I know city restraints on road width and stuff. I just wanted to emphasize that I do think, to what extent possible, there should be an emphasis placed on slowing traffic down through this neighborhood so that it might discourage people cutting through to Willis Heights.

Understood. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I think that's all I have for now. Thank you. Commissioner Boone.

Already, okay.

Thank you, Chair Polin. First of all, thank you to all of the homeowners who spoke tonight. I appreciate all your comments and I too would just like to have it on the record that even though I was not at the initial meeting, I listened to that entire four-hour meeting and studied the minutes. So I am up to speed on the project and on the one on the east side as well. You know, that's part of our job. Sometimes we can't come to the meeting, but we did get the information. I want to just verify a couple of things, probably with Kristen. So to the north of the proposed project, which is also the north of the Willow Heights subdivision, is open space. That is correct. Is that always going to be open space?

That is my understanding that that is preserved open space in Boulder County.

That was my understanding too. And I would say to the residents that live in Willis Heights, You are really lucky to have this preserved open space to the north of your property. Not many of us that live in the city of Longmont have that. So be thankful for that. And then as I'm understanding to the west of Willis Heights, is zoned as mixed-use corridor or maybe it's not zoned yet but it's designated as mixed-use corridor in the Longmont area planning maps. Is that correct? That is correct. And that includes a lot of things including commercial and other types of residential and other things and I would really just like to encourage the neighbors who are upset about this area being developed to look at the whole picture because you are kind of an enclave at the north end of the city. And there is going to be development all around you, and many of you have been here many, many years, but Envision Longmont has been around for a long time, and that information has been available for a long time. people who have just bought into the neighborhood thinking that they're living in the country forever. You know, they just don't have all the information. That's just a comment. So originally, this parcel was designated in the land use plan as single family. In my mind's eye, putting single-family lots up against 287 is a bad idea. I can only think of one place in the city of Longmont where we have single-family lots backed up against 287, and that's Southmore Park. way down south and the entire rest of the 287 corridor has at least mixed-use neighborhoods or commercial or things other than big single-family lots. I also feel like the proposed development is truly a good transition between the big lots, single family homes that you have in Willis Heights and what's going on the other side of 287, which is a higher density. This particular parcel is not high density. There are single family lots that back up to the Willis subdivision on the west side And then we've got duplexes and triples and fours and maybe some little higher density, but this is not high density. This is medium density. So in my mind's eye, it's really an appropriate transition going from the rural lots in Willis through this subdivision. And then as you cross 287, the higher density is over there. So I commend the developer for presenting that and making that work. in my mind. Let's see. The other thing that I just wanted to bring up is that I think there's going to be more people from the Willis subdivision driving through this new subdivision to get up to the north exit than the other way around. I don't see any reason I don't see any reason for the people in this proposed subdivision to be driving west through the Willis subdivision There might be a little bit, but I really see most of the traffic going the other direction So those those are just comments I support what this developer is proposing I think it will address not necessarily low income housing, but certainly middle income housing, which is what we need. As you all have mentioned, we've got an awful lot of apartments. And this is something other than just high density apartments. We've got the smaller lot single families, we've got the duplexes and the triples. And I think it's a creative solution. I'm interested to see the next phase. So thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Edgley-Wells.

Thank you, Chairman. I have a question related to the Kimley-Horn traffic study. I believe that's going to be for Mr. James Wallaby, possibly, whomever. Hi, thank you. So the traffic study. So I was one of the commissioners not at the last meeting, and there was a lot of discussion on some of the proposed changes only being applicable after the plotting of the neighborhood. So I'm just trying to get a better understanding of if I'm able to ask these questions as they apply to the annexation, which we're regarding. How much of the recommendations in this traffic study will be, I guess, accounted for during this annexation? Does that make sense?

So when you go through the annexation it's more of a conceptual level and so that's going to change. The traffic study is going to need to be updated as you go through site development plan. The topic of conversation that is being brought up is the access to Roseland. Adding the traffic to a local street with driveways is not desirable. All along from a traffic engineering perspective, we feel the two points of access is sufficient and the third should be emergency. But that'll be properly vetted in the future with updated traffic study if it is required without a waiver.

Well, I'm more so asking some of these suggestions or recommendations in the traffic study are based on growth, not necessarily the concept plan itself, from what I'm understanding. So I'm just wondering, like some of these are recommended that R11 stop sign be installed on the exiting approaches at each of the three remaining new site accesses. Assuming that a center median is not constructed along US 287, it is also recommended that an R32 no left turn sign be installed underneath the R11 signs. I'm just trying to get a better, there are lots of recommendations here. There's a lot of concern on traffic safety, and I'm just trying to get a better handle on which of these can be applied to today.

So the improvement recommendations will not change much. It's been reviewed by the city of Longmont. It's been reviewed by CDOT. We've had coordination with all of them. The auxiliary turn lane recommendations along the CDOT highway are to standard to code. That will not change. The traffic signal is warranted. That would not change. The signage that you're talking about would not change. If a raise median happened to go in along US 287, the signage recommendations would change. Instead of a no left turn, you would have a one-way sign. And so both of those options were provided in the traffic study contingent on the raised median. Along Park Ridge Avenue, the eastbound left turn lane into that access to 75 feet of storage, that would not change. Really the only thing that would change in the traffic study is if It is 100% required that Roseland is a public access. We would have to distribute some traffic that way. I can definitively say right now we don't have that traffic study. The volumes wouldn't be high enough. It would operate acceptably. It may not be a desirable condition, but the volumes wouldn't be high enough to trigger unacceptable level of service. That's not to say you would want additional traffic on a local street with driveways, but it would operate acceptably. From a traffic engineering perspective, emergency access would be the most desirable condition in that case, but we have to continue to work through that with the city and the fire and... CDOT's not going to allow another point of access. We were lucky to get two points of access along the CDOT highway. Part of that was the rigorous efforts to do a speed study, putting in the traffic signal, having additional development. We're going to have the speed limit lowered from 65 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour. The traffic signal is going to provide a natural sense of traffic calming. The two points of access will provide a natural sense of traffic calming. The roadway classification's gonna change from regional highway to NRB, which is a lower classification with a lower speed limit, so that's gonna increase safety. All those will stay the same. Does the traffic study right now evaluate Roseland? No. Will it operate acceptably? Yes. Do I want access on Roseland as a traffic engineer? No.

Okay, thank you. That's good. Thank you.

I'm done. Next is Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. A couple questions. Let's see here. Kristen, let's start with you. There were some concerns brought up by the community about resource availability. And I do have a specific question about water. But just covering, let's just say, police, fire, other utilities. This is also somewhat of a procedural question because I know some of this is going to be more, let's just say, rigorous and a part of our review criteria at the preliminary plat. At a concept plan, how material is that resource availability?

So basically, with an annexation, when you're looking at it, it's a very conceptual process. Can this property be brought in the city? Does it meet the annexation statute requirements to bring it into the city? And can it be served by the city? So that is what is evaluated initially with the annexation. I mean, all reviewers have come to point where the plan is acceptable that they believe it can be served by the city what happens as it goes forward in development and it gets dialed in as you get more specific details which then kind of establish your final dwelling units per acre numbers and those sort of things so if Can it be served? That is what the annexation is looking at. And the reviewers have indicated that it can be served appropriately. And then that will get more dialed in as the process goes along if this is approved.

So let me paraphrase to see if I got that correctly. That when we talk about, say, like we talk about Longmont Police, Longmont Fire, you know, sewer, water, that sort of thing, electricity. At first blush, looking at an overall concept, we think, okay, we have... We don't see any red flags. We can move forward with annexation, the concept. But we're going to have to review when we have more detail. Correct. OK. So this isn't like a hard gate, but we don't initially see any red flags with the public services that we've consulted with yet. That is correct. OK. I did want to thank you. That answers that question. But I want to go a little deeper on the water. Specifically, I see that we have about a 74 acre feet water deficit. And I know that water availability and, let's just say, sustainability was brought up as one of the concerns around here. If we get to preliminary plat and the applicant is not able to come up with that 74 acre feet of water rights, I don't know if I'm saying that correctly, does that mean that they have to scale the plan back?

That is a great question that Chris from Actis will address. Thank you, Chris. Thank you.

It's a very good question. And, you know, I think we're really fortunate in Longmont that we've done a lot of long-range planning around water and are in a much better position around water than most other front-range communities. I've been working with Wes Lowry for three years about this water deficit. He has helped our firm secure water rights that will be dedicated to the city as part of the annexation. And then there's... Well, actually... It'll be required as part of the annexation and it will get actually dedicated when we start to build. And then also city council has a cash in lieu for any water that's not provided via water shares. And so there is an opportunity to just pay your way on that. I think it's quintupled in the last four years. So it's gotten much, much more expensive, but it's still a viable option. But I feel very confident that we're going to be able to address the raw water needs on this project. I'm going to paraphrase that again.

You're working with West Lowry to secure those water rights, but if you don't, you might have to make up the difference in cash on maybe a 5x. I think those of us might be a little concerned that cash might be easier to build in this economy than water. I don't know. But, you know, that's not a review criteria. I don't believe at a concept plan. Is that correct, Kristen? That is correct. Okay. So I won't belabor it, but I appreciate that you are being sensitive about this.

One little clarification. The 5X is just that currently in Longmont, every acre foot of water that's not dedicated via water rights, there's a $59,650 cash-in-lieu payment. For every foot? For every acre foot.

Oh, wow.

And three acre feet per acre are required to be dedicated to the city and so that number does continue to climb because Colorado has difficulties with water and Longmont's been really forward thinking about securing water rights and being a part of some of the big projects like the Windy Gap that are able to serve the city both in drought times and better years.

Chris, while you're up here, one other quick question. I'll make it very quick because I understand this is before any preliminary plat. You're in an interesting position because you have both sides of 287 in this case. We've talked a lot about pedestrian safety. and an entrance to Longmont and RTD access. And it seems like you would be in a great place to build a lovely pedestrian bridge to address the safety of our residents as a gateway to Longmont, as it were. Just throwing that as a side. I don't know if that has been something you've considered. It hasn't come up yet.

I don't even know how to answer the question, because I don't know what constituencies are involved in deciding whether that's warranted, whether that's legal, whether that's the right thing to do. If that's something that is asked of us very broadly, I think we're- 287 is a very wide-

road with a lot of people who don't, as we've seen today, I'll respect the laws of traffic. I personally wouldn't feel very comfortable crossing as we go from a 65 to 45 transition zone. So I think some mitigation there should be addressed. Again, concept plan, I understand. We're ahead of the game here. But I just wanted to bring that up. Because traffic has been probably the most I've been counting, and I wanted to thank everybody from Coyote here. I've been doing tick marks as we're talking about traffic and access through the neighborhood and safety and all these things. And because we are talking a lot about a transportation hub with RTD and whatnot, pedestrian safety, vehicle safety, those are all really important things. And you are in a unique position, which is why I brought it up, because of both sides of the road there. heard so some other thoughts then I'll yield I know there's been a lot of conversations with everyone about crime I don't I believe we're talking about high-density apartments on the west side here. I think we're talking about single-family transitioning to multi-family, duplexes, triplexes, as Commissioner Gerry had mentioned. I believe that will actually address your homeless problem when this area is developed. I don't think the kinds of people who can afford a multi-hundred-thousand-dollar dwelling or $1,600 a month in rent are going to be the kind of people who are going to be bringing homeless into your neighborhood. Looking at the traffic, though, I also wanted to echo that. I think that it's going to be kind of the kind of trips I would expect that residents of this new development would take through your neighborhood would be to go westbound on 66. That would be about it, I think. I think if you're going westbound 66, coming south on 287, you have a right merge lane that isn't lighted at the intersection. And that merge lane extends almost, it looks like, almost all the way to Hillcrest. So I'm not sure that it would be advantageous to go through your neighborhood, although I understand there would be some trips there. I think that's all my comments there. Ultimately, I do think that this is a good transition development. I think that you'll have single family housing that is abutting your direct borders, but we're gonna have to wait and see at a later stages what the actual concept, what the specifics look like. But I'm in support of it at its current state. Thank you.

Chris, can you please step back up? Yes, sir. I kind of danced around this a little bit. public has been indicating higher density and maybe that's partly because on the concept plan it says higher density residential but not specifically high density and a couple of the commissioners have kind of made the comments about what they are anticipating for lower residential density and higher residential density but from you the developer and i know you don't have numbers and but what are you looking at for let's say the higher density residential section what kind of units are you going to try to put in there? Are you thinking about putting in there? And then also for the lower density residential, what kind of units are you looking at putting in there? I don't care about numbers, just kind of rough feel, yeah, we're thinking it's probably going to be this type of development.

Yeah, we've looked through a number of different plans and we've kind of held off on getting really into those weeds until we know what the land use designation and the zoning are going to be. I think as we've talked about this project at every stage, we've committed to the idea of single family homes around the perimeter and then scaling the density up towards the highway. I think Today where the the market needs? Product is in the less dense than apartment I think a lot of people have correctly stated a lot of apartments have been built in Longmont and that need has been to a certain extent, satiated. And I think this project wants to be at a little lower density than that. So I don't have exact numbers, but I think we're very committed to the transition from west to east and from south to north on how that transition works.

OK, thank you. I'm just going to put in my two cents about the traffic. And this is just for when you start going through the platting and putting in your roads, If there's, and people talk about traffic calming, but also maybe offsetting roads just to make it a little, good, a little less convenient for people to cut through. I really don't think there's gonna be many. I think if people are gonna cut through, actually, they're gonna still take Park Ridge. That seems a little bit more direct. But if you can put in roads that are just kind of offset, maybe something like that, that may be the deterrent that would help people say, no, it's too windy to try to get through. Then I also have a question. Kristen, Rough and Ready Greenway. And this is getting back to one of the things that Commissioner Jordan brought up. But right now, on the north end, we have a dedication for the Rough and Ready Greenway. And if I remember right, they were also showing it coming down along 287 on both sides of 287?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And this is getting to what Commissioner Jordan said. And then I believe it connects to something further east, correct? That is my understanding. Okay, so if that's going to be like a major greenway, I would hope that we could at some point in that area do maybe some kind of bridge. to make it easier for people who want to use the rough and ready in the future start thinking about now and make it easier and they don't have to worry about crossing at lights across 287. That's my thoughts. But anyways, that's just that. And then I had one final question for Jeremy. So currently, the concept, or sorry, the comp plan is still waiting with city council, right? They have not approved anything that we recommended from our last meeting, correct?

Correct.

So... I know that the city recommended approval with no conditions, but do we need to add a condition for approval for this that the comp plan amendment has to get approved?

Good evening, Chair Polin, Jeremy Terrell, Senior Assistant City Attorney. I feel comfortable not adding that condition, I think. Okay. Annexation, at the last meeting I discussed how annexation could proceed even without the comprehensive plan change or with it and I feel confident just to consider the annexation concept plan zoning request before you and then we'll figure it out at the city council level if we need to.

Okay, thank you. At this time I'll go ahead and send it over to Councilman Popkin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to offer two clarifications, both for the commission and for the residents who are here. First of all, my role here is non-voting today. So if you're curious of what I feel, that's not what my position is today. I do serve on City Council for the county residents who may not have been to a Longmont Planning Commission meeting before, but I won't vote until the City Council decision. My role here is as a liaison to City Council, and so the goal is for me to absorb the public comments, understand this in detail, absorb the applicant's presentation, absorb that in detail, understand our staff's work through this and the commission's comments. I also was not at the May meeting, but I did watch the whole thing online as well so that I could understand where we were getting to. So I just wanted to let you know what my role is here and that the comments that you're offering do factor into the feedback that I will provide to City Council as a whole if or when this gets to City Council's decision. So I just wanted to let you know what my role is today. The other thing I wanted to clarify builds off of what Commissioner Boone was sharing earlier on the open space because I saw a lot of furrowed brows that went around of just like what does that mean and what are we talking about there? So I just wanted to offer a definitional clarification here. And bear with me because there are a few definitions that are relevant for this. The first thing is, some people colloquially might think of open space of just like things that aren't developed on. In Boulder County and in the city of Longmont, there are multiple legal definitions as to what open space actually is. And so I just wanted to read you into what that means. In Longmont, open space specifically refers to protected natural areas funded by open space dollars. That is not what this is. What this is, is a county conservation easement. It's the Wood Meadows County Conservation Easement. We're talking by this, not the subject property. We're talking about the property just north of what we're talking about. Just north of, is that Hillcrest? Is that the north road that would be at the top there? Am I getting that right, Kristen? Anything north of what is basically proposed is a county conservation easement. That also has restrictions, though different restrictions from what Longmont open space would be. And so I just wanted to let you know what that is. You can find the county's open space map, which includes this conservation easement online at bouldercounty.gov, open space map, if you're curious to learn more about what that is. The last thing I wanted to just clarify is this is in Envision Longmont, because it's within our area, it is zoned Community Parks Greenway Open Space, that area north of, again, the subject property. So Longmont's intention is not to develop under Envision Longmont. at any level of development to the area just north of the subject property that we're talking about. So when Commissioner Boone is referring to the northbound boundary is open space, that is in bulk what she was referring to. But I wanted to just clarify the different definitions both for the commission and for the members of public. It's a county conservation easement that is zoned community in Longmont for parks, recreation, parks, greenway, and or open space purposes. So I just wanted to let you know in terms of just north of what we're talking about today, what is surrounded up there, because I did hear some comments that were concerned that development was gonna just keep spreading there. And that's not the intention based on all of the plans that exist at the county and city level. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

I remember my other question, Kristen, before I send it over to Vice Chair. There were multiple people who had issues or were indicated that they were wondering would we want to annex in the community to the west. Can we address that to some degree?

I can just briefly address it in that I have heard no plans of that. There's no indication that that is any consideration. Our planning director may have more information in reference to that, but that is nothing I'm aware of.

And correct me, would that annexation generally come from actually the property owners before it would come from the city?

I mean, there's different ways to annex, but I believe the property owners would be a component of it.

Grant. Yeah, just to add on what Kristen said, this particular property would have to petition to annex because it isn't eligible for an enclave annexation. To the north, essentially, is, as we've noted before, Boulder County. So it has not been surrounded, nor would we anticipate it being surrounded. Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Vice Chair Earle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a second round here, and I'll be brief. Mr. Niels, did I get that right?

Yes, sir.

The chairman asked you a little bit about kind of the balance of single family, multifamily, kind of what you were thinking. The question I didn't hear, or he didn't ask and you didn't answer, is what's the balance of for sale and rental? And recognizing we're not putting this in the record, this is not binding, but just where are you thinking on that topic right now?

I think it's too early to tell. I think we have a long process ahead of us and markets move faster than development plans. And I think the current tenor within the city is that there is an unaddressed need for purchase housing. But I think it would be really hard to commit to that at this stage. And so I think we're open to assessing the market as we get closer to being able to deliver units.

At least at this stage, and again, this isn't going into anything, so it's not a binding statement, but there's not a plan that this is strictly for rent or build-to-rent or, for that matter, even strictly for sale. That is all a little bit to be addressed as we go. Yes. I think you've probably heard from members of the community broadly in Longmont. You've probably heard from this commission before. There certainly is that need for for sale. I would certainly encourage you to take that very seriously as you develop the plan. see where the market goes. Absolutely.

I think we're very much watching developments like True North very carefully to understand kind of where the demand is and how that product that I think in some ways is similar to what we're envisioning here is received as it gets delivered.

Thank you. I will just kind of make a broad comment. I really like this project. I think it's in a good location. I like the higher density closer to 287. I like the buffer to the neighborhood. I'm really uncomfortable with access into Roslyn right now. I'm uncomfortable that we don't have a traffic study for that. I mean, I would really like to vote for this project for everything except that aspect. I am certainly not... an expert in this. I am not a public safety officer. I'm not a traffic planner. There are other neighborhoods in the city where we do see emergency only access when there's even into a county, into unincorporated Longmont next to a development. We certainly see it in, sorry, Willow Creek onto North 89th. This is something we've addressed in a previous application that came before us, I believe last year for a Quail Road project. I'd really like to see if there's a way that we can do that here to help ensure that we're not putting traffic in. I appreciate that we'll probably see offset roads and we'll see traffic mitigation and a whole lot of other things, but it's a little hard to accept right now and we have both the community and Boulder County pushing against it. For the community itself, independent from this project, I am sorry you have people cutting through Park Ridge and Hillcrest to go between 287 and 66. That sounds miserable. I would encourage you, and I'm a volunteer commissioner in the city of Longmont who has no authority on this whatsoever, but I would really hope Boulder County could do some traffic calming through there. Whatever that looks like, whether that's speed bumps or anything else, that is well outside of any of our purview to even suggest that. I hope that there's an option there to address that, and I hope you appreciate that we're trying to not make that worse with anything that we're talking about tonight. Recognize that traffic's going into Longmont. Traffic is getting worse. It is a top concern. I can't address what's already in the situation, though. So I at least hope you appreciate that that is on our minds. Thank you.

Commissioner Lane. Thank you, Chair. To jump off of Harrison's question regarding that, you know, public safety access through Roseland Avenue, could we not put like a Knox box and an automatic gate there for fire access only? Is that not a possibility?

I will ask Mark Sampson to address that. I believe it has to do with the half-diagonal situation. The half-diagonal?

Yeah. The access spacing. Commissioner Poland, Chairman Poland, Commissioner Link. Longmont Fire has just currently adopted the 24, like, IFC amendments, and those go into effect July 1. So by the time that this comes through, Section 503.3 states specifically when more than 25 dwelling units are built, two independent public accesses are required.

Okay. Public means anyone can drive through there. Correct. And that's 503. 503, did you say it's just coming into effect on July 1st?

It's already currently adopted by city council. It takes effect July 1st.

And while I have you up here, I didn't understand. When you say diagonal, what do you mean? The overall lot, northwest to southeast. Okay. You put a line through there and then you divide it in two.

Divide it in two. Then that's your distance that the two points of access have to be separated by. Okay.

So this first one would be northeast corner. Northeast corner. And the second one would be the Roslyn. Roslyn. Roslyn. Whatever. Yeah. Okay.

Because the right in, like I spoke with Commissioner Earl before, the right in, right out off of 287, they're too close together.

Okay. I think I see what you're saying now. I'm looking at the concept plan. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. We good. Good. Thank you, sir. Uh, the farmhouse, you're saying that definitely will get relocated. Is that correct? And I know you said it's not, we may be with other things as with other things, maybe a little ahead of ourselves on this one, but that will not be demolished. Is that correct?

So too early to say specifically, however, the condition recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission essentially says that priority should be given, that special consideration should be given to relocating that house elsewhere on the property over demolishing it. So that's something that the commission specifically directed the applicant to look at as an option.

And you guys have looked at that and built that in or sort of?

This plan would need to be developed as part of future development applications. So at this stage, this is one of the things we're going to look at moving forward.

I grew up here and I actually knew the previous owner of that house. I spent time in that house. So it's a cool house. I mean, I'd hate to see it get demolished. Okay. Right there.

Just real quick, what about our historic value? Yeah. I understand if you had five minutes to speak for your home, but we all live here and love this town.

That's understood, but we have the way that we handle the meeting and people have had their time.

Okay. The next thing, affordable housing. Have you guys addressed affordable housing in this plan?

It has not been addressed at annexation, but actors can address what their thoughts have been in reference to affordable requirements of the city.

I think there's probably a bit of a moving target. There are certainly code requirements and we would adhere to those. I've had several conversations both with Kylene and most recently Melissa about creative ways that we can address affordable housing here. There's certainly, it's a very important topic and I think the city has great people looking out for it and we're happy to work with them and look forward to figuring it all out together.

Okay. I know in lieu of is usually a popular route. I'd encourage that to not be a possibility if at all possible. I mean, I know that's down the road a little ways, but. I feel like it's a little too easy for a developer just to pay some money to not build affordable housing. And while I got you up here, in this Kimberly Horn, what is it, attachment, project description to, it's like a four-pager, five-pager. You talk about, you just go into a little bit kind of off of Harrison's question as well, rental versus ownership. But it says, you know, initially, where is it here? Sorry, this thing's going crazy on me. Um, you would have so many lots that would have, um, you, you could maybe sell them or develop in the future. Here it is. Um, approximately 17 lots that will not have structures develop on them initially, but will allow the development of approximately single size, appropriately sized single family housing on those lots. The project would also allow the development of approximately 230,000 square feet of multifamily housing with approximately 204 units and approximately 11,000 square foot accessory clubhouse. That's on page three of that thing, of that five pager. Does that mean you're looking at potentially even subbing this out to someone else where you guys would sell part of the land down the road for someone else to develop as a multi-tenant unit kind of thing?

can't commit to anything at this point in time. This is certainly a very large project for a small local developer to take on. I think we would love to be able to do it. We'll have to get money from somewhere other than our company. So how we do that is something that we'll have to address and we'll do it at the appropriate time. That's all I can say.

I'm in agreement with a lot of people here that we need. I don't particularly want acreages. I don't want a bunch of multi-tenant units stacked on top of each other. That missing middle is an issue in Longmont. Someone pointed out the average rent is like $1,600. I mean, that's nuts. I think more importantly than the cost of living is the... availability and the ability to get a house and own a house because for probably most of us in this room that's our primary asset period if you own a house if you're lucky enough to own a house so um i know that's still as with a lot of things here it's it's too far down the road to really know what it's going to look like but i would hope that there'd be a lot more stuff available no matter what the scale to buy as opposed to rent. I think people just make owner-occupied properties or nicer kept. People take pride in them. I've got a neighborhood that's got one guy that has an Airbnb on it and it drives me crazy because He doesn't live in town, so he's got to rent it a month at a time. But still, those people have no interest in keeping that property up. It's just a stop on the road for them. So any kind of, no matter the scale, I think it's important that ownership be a possibility. I know there's a lot that goes into that in terms of The housing market on the Front Range, it's tight. I get it. It sucks. But to have people to be able to have the ability to buy something, whether it's 1,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet, is huge. Yep. Okay. I think and I want to echo the person's comment on public safety that article who brought that up out there somebody yeah that's a that was a great article on the times call and I work for public safety and that article pointed out very clearly that as a city we're falling behind in terms of demand and resources I actually helped maintain the 911 system for this town so I see that they're constantly getting, the more development, the more demands, the harder it is to keep up staffing, dispatching, and policing is getting much more technical than it was even 10 or 20 years ago, and so that's tough. So that department in the city feels that pretty heavily when you add whether it's 200 houses or 500 houses or whatever, it's going to make an impact. So it's going to be tough for them. And I know they're going to come back. Is that right, Matthew? Is staff going to come back and talk about public safety, maybe how the budget's going to look and potentially a tax increase or what? You said something about that at the end of that article, I think. And then I'm done asking things.

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Lange and Mr. Chair. That is correct. There was an initial presentation, I want to say, a couple of weeks ago. I think it was early mid-May from our public safety team about the challenges that police and fire are facing and the need for additional funding. They will be coming back, I think it's in late July, for an additional update and discussion on different potential approaches and how much they might need if it was to go to a ballot measure or other strategies that we could take to try to meet that need. So yes, thank you for the question.

Commissioner Arment. Chris, I believe this would be a question for you. While I was reviewing the documents the applicant submitted, I did notice that they had a note on pocket park location to be determined. I'm just wondering what requirements would we have for green space and park space in this new development? I know that again, conceptual like high-level but

Certainly. So our landscape standards actually discuss pocket park size. I believe the pocket park requirement begins at 50 units for a multi-family property, and the requirement is one acre for 200 units, which can be, if it's less than 200 units, it is reduced accordingly. So that will come up at, as I've mentioned, many times, additional application size. But yes, we do have requirements for pocket park and they are in our landscape portion of our code and we would expect that they adhere to those.

Understood. Thank you very much. The other question I had, and this might be for, I'm not sure who would want to field this if it's Christian or the applicant. I am wondering about, because the lower density was mentioned and there was concerns brought up of compatibility, what mechanisms do we have to limit things such as height and density? I don't know if there's any strict requirements on compatibility. And again, conceptual. I'm just wondering.

Definitely, that is a great question. So this would fall under the RMN standards for development if this application were to be approved and go forward. So there's a 35 foot maximum height. There are some different allowances in reference to offering affordable that can be looked at in reference to that height requirement. but 35 foot is the requirement as mentioned in code. The minimum lot area is 4,000 square feet, so it would be the RMN standards which would dictate that continuing development. Understood, thank you. You're welcome.

Okay, do we have any questions, comments? Anybody like to make a motion?

Commissioner Arment. Seeing no other questions, I'd move to, let me pull up the actual title so I have it. Approve PZR 2026-8A to approve the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Boone? I will second the motion. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? I will say that going through the approval that this does meet an application for the Longmont Gateway Northwest annexation, RMN zoning and constant plan has been submitted. That's checked. Set applications found to be complete through the DRC review process, that's checked. Set application was considered including the record presented with it during a public hearing opened on June 17th, 2026, checked. Proper notice was given according to section 1502040J of the long line development code, checked. And set application conforms to the applicable requirements of sections 1502055. and 1502060A2 of the Longmont Land Development Code. Given that, I will be for this also. Any further comments? If not, Jane, let's take, oh, Commissioner Lane.

For you fellows, I'm not brand new, but fairly new to this board. Is this a typical process in terms of annexation, zoning, and concept plan all in one fell swoop. So you don't typically just annex something and then try to figure out, well, maybe now we need to figure out how to zone it. You want to do it concurrently, right?

Correct. Our code requires that an applicant for annexation, present a concept plan, and zoning at annexation. So they all come together as one. The exception being enclaves or city-initiated annexations. So when we brought in Old County Road something a couple years ago, I'm not sure if you were in the commission at that time, but it wouldn't have been a concept plan because it was coming in as a public right-of-way and city-initiated.

Okay. I think eventually this property's gonna get annexed, whether it's now or in the future. I don't particularly care for the concept plan. I don't feel it's fleshed out enough. I know there's a lot of variables in play there, so I'm not sure if I'll be supporting this tonight, but thanks for that answer.

Do we have any other comments, questions? If not, Jane, let's take the vote. Commissioner Edgley-Wells?

Yes. Commissioner Lange? Vice chair, Earl chair Poland. Yes. Commissioner Arment commissioner Boone commissioner Jordan.

chair that passes uh... five to two with commissioners laying and vice-chair earl dissenting thank you very much this i will not be forwarded to the long and city council for action if you're unfamiliar with council procedures and tend to appear before city council please contact the planning division for further information at three zero three six five one eight three three zero Thank you to everyone who came here. Thank you to the applicant and thank you to the staff for presentation. Let's go ahead and the next item, let me see if I can get this closed down. Final call, public invited to be heard. This is a chance for anybody in the public who would like to come and speak about something that we did not talk about today. Jane, did we have anybody on? Nope, nobody signed up for it. I will open up to the public. Somebody would like to come forward. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close up. Final call, public invited to be heard. Next is items from the commission. The commission's quiet today on this item. Okay, next is items from Council Representative Popkin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, thank you to those of you who participated in a multi-phase journey for this project, whether you were on the commission for both live or whether you watched and caught up, really appreciate that. I also want to just note, I want to thank staff members of the public and the applicant for their participation and patience through this public process. It's not over. There are still more parts of this, but we do have public hearings for many reasons, and that doesn't always make the process inherently easier. But hopefully, you also understood that the comments that people shared reflected questions that were asked and inform another layer of this, which I just wanted to add on to this. Something that I shared last week at the City Council meeting was that there are multiple complex planning applications that are going through the process right now, this being one of those, and that I really appreciate the Planning and Zoning Commission's thorough consideration of this and other projects, and frankly, even code updates when you talk about the bike parking code updates too. I think the questions that you all asked, Even if you weren't all unanimous in vote, what I encouraged my colleagues on city council to pay attention to was not just what's in the packet, but all of the questions that you all asked in the recording here. Because I think some people learn through visual, through reading, and through oral discussion. We don't have the time much to my chagrin to clarify all of these fine points that you have all been doing today and last month as well and among just the last two months in particular. So I hope that they will continue to pay attention to those because you got into the weeds on this in a very productive way so that people could really understand what's happening with the different exits, what's happening with the different parts of traffic safety mitigation, the county roads versus the city areas. what's happened on the northern boundary on 287 pedestrian bridge interesting idea um so thank you for for all of those fine pointed questions i know this this was part of a much longer packet as well and i know there was multiple discussions in may about how how long the previous packet was um and so thank you for the diligence and the time that you all spent there that was not lost on me either um and uh i do hope that we will consider the volume of information that uh comes i know that isn't every week but i do realize that is uh difficult to sift through um especially in just one week so i'm in some ways glad that this was continued even though it did make for a bit of a longer process for everyone and some folks had to come to the least exciting thing to do on a wednesday night twice to offer your feedback as well so so i really do appreciate that hopefully you saw that these folks did offer a really really thorough discussion here that will inform how city council thinks about this too Unrelated to this specific proposal, I did want to cue the commission into council's presentation discussion of the phase two for the Front Range Community College down near First and Main last week. If you haven't seen that presentation, I highly encourage you to go watch that. Not that it inherently concerns any business before the commission at this moment, but as it concerns land use, growth considerations, transit-oriented development in our community, I thought it was an exciting update and phase two of what I believe will be four phases for the planning and design and construction of the Front Range Community College urban downtown campus and the First and Main Transit Center overall. also already mentioned the bike parking code updates but as someone who sees that both for pnz and on the transportation advisory board and actually i think helped kick start this with the commission a couple years ago for the code updates really appreciate everyone's direct comments and kind of nuanced questioning of kind of how people are thinking about that how our staff has been working through that meticulously and the hopefully productive changes that come with that too mr chair i think that's it Thank you very much.

Items from Planning Director Grant Pendlin.

Chair, just a quick update regarding schedule for July. As of right now, we do not have any items for the July 15th. There's a very, very short window in which we could have something, but as of right now, it doesn't look like it. However, July 22nd, we do have an item that is very time sensitive. I think I alluded to it previously, URA-related items. I don't know if it's going to be one or two, but because of the timing of that, it appears that July 22nd is the only date that may work. So I wanted to generally get a sense if we may be able to make that special meeting work in order to accommodate. But yeah, long story short, that might actually be the only item in July. Thank you.

Then we are in adjournment. Thank you, everybody.