Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So hopefully by the time we get to the public comment that most of you are here for, I presume. Then hopefully everybody will be in the door. So welcome. Also, bear with me tonight. I do this about every one and a half to two years is filling in as the chairman is unable to attend tonight. And so I welcome all of you and we'll work through this the best we can. Thanks. So I open this meeting of the Planning Commission on March 9th, 2026 at 6:32 p.m. Clerk please call the roll chair. - Reynolds. Vice chair. Almond. Commissioner. Coronado. Commissioner. Neelie. Commissioner. Radulovich. Present. Commissioner. Roethlisberger. Here. Commissioner. Santana. Here. Commissioner. Goodman. Chair. We have quorum. - Will you please stand as you're able to join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? - From the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands? One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. - Okay. Our next item is approval of the agenda. Are there any changes? Okay. With that? If there are no changes, the agenda is approved. We'll move on to the minutes to be approved from the last meeting, a call for a motion and a second on November. On the November 1025 regular meeting

minutes. - I move to approve based on the clerk's certification. November 10th, 2025 regular meeting of the Littleton Planning Commission. Chair I. Second. - The vote is five in favor of the motion carries. - Thank you. - Okay. Next will be having public comment period. And I need to read you some language here regarding the comments. If you wish to address the board under public comment, please sign in which most people are doing on the public speaker form before the call to order for this meeting. Public comment is an opportunity to express opinions regarding issues that are not part of public hearings. On tonight's agenda. A separate opportunity will be provided for comment. For any public hearing or for any public hearing. Each

speaker is limited to three minutes. We expect comments to be civil and disrespectful or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. The board is not authorized under the Colorado Open Meetings Law to discuss, comment or take action at this meeting on any issue raised by public comment. That is not part of tonight's agenda. Thanks. Next, we're moving on to general business, and it appears. - We have public public comment. Yeah. - Sorry I read all that. And then the. - Green one. - Are there any. Yes. These are general public comments not regarding any issues that are on the agenda tonight. So let me go through the list and see who wants to make a general comment. Brian Berkowitz. - Is regarding the planning. Is that time appropriate for now? - Planning in general. - Or is that for. - That's for later. Okay. Thank you. Diane Miller lamp. Okay. Darren Limmer I'm sorry, I can't read it. Okay. Thank you. And Pam Chadbourn. - Good evening. Planning commission. My name is Pam Chapman. I live a block or so from here, and I'm glad to see some turnout tonight for the public hearing, I would like to make a comment about the generic instructions for public comment. What this body can do is discuss getting items that are brought up, or topics that are brought up on a future

agenda. So it's written very negatively and you can and I think I don't see it happening often enough, say that we would like to get this on a future agenda, give instructions to staff to get stuff in on a future agenda. I think you should. We're not seeing that. I think that's a problem. I'm suggesting to you that it's a problem, that you're not picking up public topics and getting them on future agendas. It seems like the the agendas are driven by insiders, people who do not come in public for three minutes. Certainly not developers or applicants. They only show up at the end of the process at a public hearing. And that's a failing. We should really hear about that before. So let me go into my point here, which you are a public serving body. So the only reason you're here, you are not here to advance individual agendas or beliefs. You are here to follow the rule of law. First, we have a comprehensive plan and we have a zoning code. The comprehensive plan findings in the envision process were that people predominantly like the small town character, the quaint feel, and the human scale of Littleton. They liked Littleton as it was the unified land use Code. The replaced our zoning code in 2021 and 2022 was a radical change, which goes far beyond maintaining the current character of Littleton, or a small town or quaint feel or human scale. And that is a problem. And let me point out to you that the city's transportation mobility plan is being updated. It's actually being talked about by the Transportation Mobility Board. And where is the Planning Commission showing up to say,

where is our comprehensive plan update? Because the comprehensive plan and the TMP should go hand in hand, they affect one another. We didn't integrate them the first time. We did not integrate them technically. Planning commission you should be calling on staff explicitly to bring the comprehensive plan process update to our meetings where all of we, all we the public can see what you're doing and when you're going to do it, so we can contribute to that update. More to say, but that's all I have time for now. - Okay. Thank you sir. Anyone else who would like to make comments during the general public comment period? Okay. Our next topic is general business. And I see here that we have none. So we'll move on. And the next topic is public hearing for PC resolution number zero one 2026. A resolution of the Littleton Planning Commission approving the Gables Subdivision filing number one, preliminary plat. Next, we'll have staff present. - Thank you. Vice Chair Almond, members of Planning Commission, before you today is a proposal for the Gables subdivision filing one a preliminary plat. As mentioned, it's PC resolution zero one, 2026. I'm Terry Whitmore, senior planner here in Littleton. What we plan on covering in this staff

presentation are property details, application details in terms of the review criteria as well. The transportation master plan and traffic consistency with the stormwater, sewer and leads, which is the Littleton Engineering Design Standards process and staff recommendation. Property. Details of the proposal in front of you that is outlined in the thicker black vacant property where the little blue arrow is. It's a 9.9 acre site currently owned by Denver Water. Address is 4501 West Bowles Avenue. It's located north of West Bowles Avenue, west of South Laurel place, west of Bellflower Drive, and south of Snobbery Drive and Tule Lake Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site currently is suburban residential, surrounded on northeast and west by suburban residential. Consistent with the site, the current zoning designation for the property is our Large Lot Residential Zoning district, and it is surrounded by large lot residential zoning on the northeast and west side of the property. West Bowles Avenue is adjacent to the southern boundary of the site, and the developer is David Goldberg from Miller United. In terms of the application details and review criteria, the preliminary plat before you on

this slide. Was found consistent with the design criteria for a preliminary plat with the 17 proposed lots. It's consistent in again with the Unified Land Use Code standards. The large lot residential zoning, district standards, and the leads Littleton Engineering Design standards. The public meeting requirements for notification were also met. Staff notified within 700ft of the proposed project, 168 postcards were sent, property signs were posted, newspaper notice and there are no mineral owners present on site. In terms of the consistency with the Transportation Master plan, West Bowles Avenue is being provided dedicated rights of way with this project. A single point of access from West Bowles Avenue is proposed for the project. The project's also providing the six foot wide sidewalk and eight foot wide sidewalk where appropriate, per code and landscaping area along West Bowles Avenue. Frontage per code is being provided. Traffic analysis trip Generation memo was provided for the project with 15 morning peak hour trips. Bomber South currently generates 228 morning peak hour trips as a comparative 19 evening peak hour trips per trip generation is proposed with that memorandum. Bomber South

currently generates 257 evening peak hour trips, again as a comparative no level of service rankings are impacted by this study, and no more than 2.5% increase in existing delay periods will take place. As a result of the proposal to give a comparative. A 2.5% increase is from a 50.4 second delay to a 51.7 second delay. In terms of the consistency with stormwater, sewer and our engineering standards, the Stormwater Drainage and criteria manual attract for the project has been provided specifically for water quality and detention. To address those issues on site. In addition, an extension of the stormwater main is being provided in Bowles Avenue and maintenance access for that detention tract is being provided between lots 11 and 12, also with a with a. An easement tract development will be served by Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, and all submissions are currently consistent with those Littleton Engineering Design standards. To give you an overview of the process involved with this proposal. Right now, it's at that preliminary plat stage where Planning Commission is holding that public hearing and making a decision, and the next stage for that subdivision will be a final plat, where all those refinements are made to make certain that all standards are adhered to and moved forward. And that is an administrative review process. In terms of a recommendation for

planning Commission, staff recommends approval of PC resolution zero one 2026 approving the preliminary plat of the subdivision. A 9.9 acre lot into 17 single family detached residential lots, two tracks for stormwater detention, access and public rights of way dedication. And that is the staff report. Are there any questions? - Okay. - I think we'll hold off on questions for just a few minutes and allow the applicant a chance to present if the applicant is here. Yes. Okay. Please state your name. And we typically say address. But in this case do we. - That's all right. My name is Elise Applegate. Clink. I work at Norris Design and our address at Norris Design is 1101 Bannock Street. And that's in Denver. All right. So thank you to Terry. She gave a really great explanation of our project. And I'll try not to duplicate too much, but of course I do have a lot of details that I do want to share with you. So getting started with the team. Miller United Real Estate is the applicant for this, for this neighborhood. We've also worked with the city of Littleton for over two years now. We had our pre-application meeting in February of 2024 and have gone through several rounds of review, comments, revisions. So this is a really an iterative process. Norris design. Where I work, we handle the planning and landscape design of the site, and then Lgiu has done the survey work, civil engineering and traffic engineering for this project. Looking at the context map, I'm sure you're quite familiar with

the site at this point, but I did want to give a little bit more context with regard to the long term uses of the site. It's been owned by Denver Water for nearly a century or potentially more, and currently it's vacant except for a ditch that runs through the site. Our project and design team has been working with the Ditch Company throughout this entire time to come up with a new alignment for the ditch that will run through that site, and that agreement is requiring the relocation and is going to be executed prior to the final plat. Looking at our future land use character map, the site is suburban residential and using that dashed gray box on the left hand side of the screen that matches with all of our surrounding land uses. And then our zoning is large lot residential, which matches all of the uses to the north, east and west of the site. In large lot residential single family detached dwellings are permitted use by right, and they're subject to all the standards in the table on the right hand side of the page. What makes it large lot residential, is that there's a 20,000 square foot minimum for all of these lots. So going into this plan, we had some goals for making sure that this was a successful project, a good design process, and something that we could really be proud of when we came here to present to you at Planning Commission. So one of those goals is to provide housing that complements this established community in Littleton. We recognize that this is suburban infill, and it is not something that happens all the time. And so there's been a lot of thought about that level of design. Of course, we want to meet all of the Littleton land use code and engineering standards to make

sure that we are in full conformance. And then we also know that Bowles Avenue could could use some improvements. And we will be making improvements in our, you know, frontage along Bowles. So from here we'll look at the site plan again. The site proposes 17 lots on a circular drive that's accessed from a single point on Bowles Avenue. That point is a right in, right out access only. At the pre-application meeting it was suggested or requested by the applicant that a left turn into or out of the site might be provided, and it was explained to our team by the engineering department that there are safety and essentially traffic threshold reasons why that's not feasible. So the site is proposed as just right in, right out access. You can see around the boundary of the site, there's a reddish brown line that's to signify a six foot privacy fence that will be installed with this development to provide provided to provide privacy for residents on both sides of that fence. And then the site plan detail isn't something we're really getting into here, because site plan is not specifically approved by planning commission, but I do want to touch on the fact that there is a minimum of six trees on every single lot in large lot residential, which will be providing along with additional trees to offset those that have to be removed during the construction of the site. And the bottom right hand or southeast corner of the site. You'll also see a bluish tract that is the water quality tract that Terry was referring to in her presentation. So there will also be some significant work related to collecting storm water within our neighborhood and around it. And I will get into that level of detail in a little while to I do want to note that all of our homes, or

all of our lots that we're proposing here, minimum of 20,000ft■!S in area. This is in keeping with the neighborhood where homes surrounding the site are. Lots surrounding the site start at 18,000ft■!S and ae in that 18,000 to 20,000 range, all in keeping with the zoning here. So as we got into this project, the City of Littleton has really robust community engagement, and we heard a lot from the community around us. The first meeting was held in October of 2024, and the next one was held in February of 2025. And in those meetings, we heard a lot from our neighbors, but we are able to really distill it into three major concerns. The first is a concern about a lack of sidewalk connections for pedestrians or cyclists trying to enter or leave the site. The next was concerns about added traffic in and around the neighborhood. And then there were also lots of concerns about existing ponding in the neighboring yards after major storms. So to address that first item, we have been working with the city throughout this time, and around the time of our second review, we were informed that the city is going to extend the sidewalk on the south side of that furthest home on Bellflower Drive to meet our property boundary, and so the sidewalk has been revised to sort of create that S-curve to align with the sidewalk along Bowles. This creates a sidewalk connection for people who want to walk or bike over to Bellflower, where they can access a bus stop crosswalk to the south, or get into the neighborhood to the north. Especially if there are any kids looking to get to the middle school north of the site.

So that is a major improvement and something that we're really proud to bring forth. There is no public land around the site where we can make another connection directly north into the neighborhood without an easement or something of that sort. And so this is a great opportunity to to provide a non vehicle access into the site. You will notice on the west side of the site, the sidewalk stops a little bit short of the boundary. And that is intended to provide the same amount of space or space to provide that S-curve, in case the city chooses to add additional sidewalk that would be east of Laurel along Bowles to make a connection to the west. Traffic is also a big topic that we've heard quite a bit about because of the limited number of homes in the site. A traffic generation memo might be a little out of order here. A traffic generation memo. Was all that was requested initially, but following our public meetings, we decided to go through a fuller memo to understand all of the existing traffic in the area and how this neighborhood would add to the traffic on Bowles and in the south area, where we were hearing a lot of concerns from the neighbors. Let's see the studies or the research for that traffic study found that there's an average of 12 vehicle trips per home in the areas that you see with these colored blocks. That is a little bit higher than the international traffic engineer standard of about nine trips per single family detached home. And so our traffic engineer actually used that higher number of 12 trips per home to create estimates. So there are two sets of estimates in the

traffic memo. If you look there's one with it and there's one that's adjusted based on the neighborhood. We're showing those higher numbers based on the neighborhood here. And so something that we wanted to touch on overall that we know is of concern to the neighbors is how people will be able to go east from the site. There's a yellow outline showing traffic that may choose to go west, because that's the only option coming out of the site. North up onto Laurel. Following Snow Berry, another street which name escapes me right now, and Bellflower Drive and then heads east on Bowles using that traffic signal at Bellflower Drive. So a key factor there that we were trying to look at is how many trips do we expect to make a day, or how many trips can be expected a day? The estimate is 92 vehicle trips per day, making that that's out of the total trips for the entire site, which were 204 daily vehicle trips. So 92, a little less than half of that could choose to make this movement. If they choose not to make a U-turn at a light at a different place, or just find a completely different route to where they're going, that's eastbound. We do acknowledge that this is going to, you know, create some traffic on these neighborhood streets. And so something we really wanted to look at was the capacity as determined by the Littleton Transportation Master plan. So the Littleton Transportation Master Plan sets the capacity of local streets at 3000 vehicles per day. Right now, Laurel place, where we had good data on northbound traffic, sees 432 on a typical day, meaning they're at 14.4% of

capacity. The added 92 trips would bring that street and the surrounding streets up about 3% to 17.4% of capacity. So though there is an increase, it's not increasing beyond. The capacity is determined by the Littleton Transportation Master Plan. And the most vehicles that we ever anticipate per hour are ten per hour during peak or rush hours. For the rest of the day, that's much lower. But if you think about ten vehicles per hour, that does equate to one vehicle every six minutes. So though there is an impact, it is not. We're not anticipating all of the residents in this neighborhood to leave their home at the same time every day and create, you know, 17 cars in a parade on these streets at a regular interval. Next thing we wanted to touch on is the drainage patterns. So on the left hand side of the screen you see the existing ponding patterns. And there is significant ponding in the backyards of some of the homes on Bellflower, immediately to the east of the site. There's been a lot of work done to determine the right way to convey stormwater throughout this neighborhood. A lot of stormwater within the site will be conveyed using the gutters on gable circle, but if you look on the right hand side of the screen, there's a yellow outline and you can see some blue within that. There's also going to be a drainage swale on the northern and eastern boundary, to help channel all of the water in those areas and bring it down to the detention pond in the southeast corner of the site. I would also like to note that we've been working very closely with Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation in this whole process to work through

construction documents with them on on this and other utility matters, and have received their approval of the construction documents, which we realize is not the same as the approval of the preliminary plat. With that, we welcome any questions that you have. We know that there are a lot of community members here with questions and myself, the applicant, David and our engineer, Kevin, are all here and ready to have those conversations. Thank you. - Thank you. Does anyone else from the applicant group want to present or is that wrap it up okay. Thank you. So for this next portion we will take questions. From the commission. So the start with Dan excuse me Commissioner Radulovich. - It's okay. First off for the city, the LEDs or the LEDs as we call them, they're only applicable to the particular site and things that are adjacent to it. Correct. It's not going to be something across the street. Let's say. - That is correct okay. - The the ditch. That's that's the I'm guessing underground ditch. I noticed in the the paperwork received beforehand that the the negotiations are ongoing with this and you're expected to be done by towards the end of this process. Are you expecting any hiccups with that? Is it going smoothly? I just would like to know the status of those. - My name is David Goldberg and

my address is 6900 East Bellevue, suite 300, Greenwood Village, Colorado. I am with the developer. We started this conversation with Denver Water. And Denver Water had informed us that there was an easement. It was not in use. Through our due diligence, we realized that there was a ditch company. There's actually two ditch companies that both utilize the same ditch. Currently, the ditch runs. It probably used to run underground, but today it kind of runs underground. Some portions comes above ground, is exposed. So prior to our initial design, we've we've had numerous meetings with the Ditch Company, their engineers, their attorneys, and we agreed on a location of of the new ditch that meets with our plan. And so that is fully agreed to. Right now, we're finalizing the agreement, which includes that relocation. And they've got the construction drawings, which they'll approve, and there's no indication that it isn't going to be approved. They've received and been been been really good to work with. - Where's the relocation going to to go to. - I don't know if we've got an exact image. If you bring up the site here. Exactly. Let's just make this. - Big cleaner. - You can probably. - Highlight it. - All right. Hopefully this works. So it's going to basically come in. This is not going to be exact but effectively kind of cross between these lots here down through the street here. Sorry.

It does go through the street here. I'm not a very good draw but. And then come down. And then come down to the access point here and then go connect to the existing drain across to, to go across the street here. - Okay. And is that likely going to be mostly underground or is that that will all be underground 100%. Okay. So all right. There's nothing will be surfaced. - It'll be much better than it is currently. - Okay. Thank you. - You're welcome. - For the city. The applicant said that they asked for a left turn at this location. And I just would like to know why that was denied. If you have a traffic person here. - Yeah, I. Open this. Oh, sorry. - I have. - This in a minute. Jessica. City of Littleton. Yes. So from what I remember from the discussions with public works is the intersections would be too close. And that's a safety concern. There's a specific distance you need for intersection, signalized intersections. And where this proposed entry is, it would be far too close to the bellflower intersection, which is already staggered. And so we didn't want to introduce more conflicts and more issues on Bowles during peak hour times due to congestion. And, you know, when you introduce a new signal, rear end crashes tend to go up. - So yeah. It I understand the signal part of it because they'd be far too close. I understand that, but the putting a left turn lane from eastbound Bowles to northbound into this into this area, is

that still too close to that intersection or a signalized is what I'm talking about? - Well, I guess we I don't know if you'd ever get a gap, and then you'd start queuing up this left turn for a while, and we would have to provide storage for that queuing. And I just it wouldn't be efficient. It would probably increase delay for that left turn going in and out because they're not at a signalized intersection. Just knowing Bowles out there during peak hour, the gaps are are minimal when you're when you're not at a signal. - I suppose if you made it 17 cars long, it'd be fine, right? - Yeah. Right. So that that would be the reason if a left turn and then for safety reasons too. I'm assuming if you get frustrated, you'll just try to pass through cars as fast as you can. And Bowles is currently two lanes, right? So you're trying you're having people cut through two lanes of traffic. I wouldn't want to get behind that as a traffic engineer. - Okay. The six foot fence is going to be around the property, particularly the ones that are adjacent to the. I suppose after these properties are sold, I'm assuming they're going to be sold. They're not going to be owned and rented. The six foot fence. Who's going to own those? Is will the people who buy the homes own those after afterwards there's like an HOA going to own this. That's going to be inside here or. - The HOA. And again, they're all going to be for sale homes. I mean, we've heard things affordable housing. No. And I said, I think it's important to note in the design of this, we wanted to keep with the existing area. And as we've indicated, you know, all the lots are 20,000ft■!S. The homes are going to be 3500 to 5000ft■, including a basement. The average sales prices are going

to be in the 1.5 million to $2.3 million range. So am I answering your question? - Yeah, you're answering a couple questions for me because those were a few. That's you know, that's okay. Yeah. You just want you want to sit down for the rest of the meeting. But the but yeah, I expected these to be million dollar homes and the like. Will the has the city shown any interest in extending that sidewalk from Laurel over to this area, just to get a complete sidewalk on that? I know that north side of Bowles virtually has no sidewalk anywhere until you get into Jefferson County. So. - We had we had some of that discussion through the development process. A lot of that was really a negotiated solution, recognizing some of the public comment that we were receiving concerns with children walking to school. The thought was, if you could extend that sidewalk all the way to the edge of the property on the west side, there is a lot of uneven terrain. And from a safety perspective, there was concern that there might be travel that goes into that area and that it would indicate it's encouraged. And so there will actually be a sign that at the end of that sidewalk that indicates sidewalk ends, and that it could be extended into the future when we're able to connect it all the way through. - Yeah. The crux of my question was, are we going to, at least during this project, it's effectively one homes worth of sidewalk that we would have to the city would have to put in in order to connect this to, to the, to existing. If you were to go all the way through. And I would also contend that these kids are going to go to school and make friends and probably in that neighborhood, and they're going to walk on this regardless of whether that sign

is there or not at times. So I would highly encourage us to build that sidewalk. On Laurel there at least, and, and connect it to whatever would be in front of this development, if that's that's my yeah. - If I may answer your question, certainly I. Something that the city really desires is sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. Absolutely. One of the main rationales for why we were unable to promote that at this time is that there's above ground utilities there. So there are street light or there are poles with electricity on them. So we were able to work with the developer on removing some of those poles. However, we would have to remove some additional poles and do a lot more additional undergrounding to get to Laurel. - Okay. - That yeah. - It kind of feels like the cost of doing business sometimes, but I, you. - Know, we we do require that across someone's frontage, a developer's frontage that the underground, the lines. Absolutely. This is beyond that scope. We also do intend to evaluate as part of the upcoming transportation Master plan. - Okay. The estimation was 92 trips through the neighborhood that day. My my guess is just a regular human is that they're not going to turn right into that neighborhood. They're going to go to lupine and make a U-turn. That's my guess, because I don't know why I would make a right and circle all the way through a neighborhood to go left. I'm

going to go to the next light and make a U-turn. Our U-turn is allowed at that light right now. It it says left turn only on that sign when I looked at it earlier today. But it does it say no U-turn. Okay. Okay. So then the likely traffic pattern would be to probably go down Bowles make the left on lupine and make the U-turn. There would be that would be what I would do. I would not take the right and go all the way backtracking through this neighborhood. And I'm just speaking as someone who's driven professionally, even at one point, was there any evaluation on how our U-turns, even viable at lupine? And since there's no since, there's a sign up, apparently. Now apparently they're not. There just isn't the space to do it. This this was a question for the city. - Okay, I was going to say we were told at our neighborhood meetings that that was not an option. And so that's why it wasn't considered in the traffic memo. But I will leave it. Leave it to the city. - Staff has received some graphics pictures from neighbors related to U-turns in different parts of Bowles, and I do know that we will be discussing that as we go into the final plat stage as well. In this process is for that preliminary plat approval. But we do recognize that it is human nature, as you had indicated, to do the U-turns at the earliest feasible location. And oftentimes the sign helps, but it also is something that isn't a full deterrent. So we recognize that, and we'll work with the developer on ways that

we can address that going forward. - So just as as fodder as well as basically any you're supposed to make U-turns in intersections, not in the middle of streets. That's Colorado law. So if you were to make a U-turn, that would probably be the place to do it is at an intersection. That's just neither here nor there, I suppose. But that's a that's like I said, that that to me is what is going to happen, is that people are going to go to that light and make the U-turn. They aren't going to go into the neighborhood. And I think that's sort of the end of my questioning for now. - Thank you. Commissioner Roethlisberger. - Okay. So a couple a couple of questions. I did notice or I did have a similar question about U-turns and U-turns being allowed and protected. U-turn signals are a thing right or protected left turns with U-turn signals are an option such that traffic wouldn't be trying to turn right or eastbound on Bowles, such that a U-turn could be implemented. Keeping this traffic out of the neighborhood. Keeping people from doing cut Through's is. Has there been an evaluation by city, by our city traffic engineers to see about implementing that? - Sorry, I was looking at the photos. I talked to Public Works about this request. It came in with these photos to do a study of U-turns and public works said they will. So yes. - Okay, so we have an alternative then just we need we. - Need to do observations and look at it. Yes, we need to evaluate what those behaviors

are currently. - Yes okay. Related to that does. Sorry. Does the staggered intersection at Bowles Bellflower operate as a single signal, single intersection signal. - So it no because it's staggered. So we allow movements going northbound separate from southbound. Because of that stagger in the pedestrian movements. So no, it's not like a true signal because of that stagger. Sure okay. Yes. - No but that's okay. No, that's I think that's still in with what I was expecting in terms of how it operates. Our U-turns allowed at the Bellflower Bowles intersection. - So going so the right. - Turn, if you were going eastbound, are you allowed to make a U-turn at that intersection? - Well, it's news to me. If a sign went up because I'm not public at Bellflower. - Bellflower. Bellflower and Bowles. To the to the east of this subdivision. - Oh. To the. - Yes. Sorry. Yes, they are as far as I. As far as I know. Yes they are. And that was included as part of the traffic study. Okay. Yes. - Okay. What is the, the the right of way that's being added to put the sidewalk in on the north side. What is the sidewalk width. And is that being expanded to be Ada compliant with through the bellflower intersection at the east? - The sidewalk and the right of way that's being provided in front of the proposed development is going to be consistent with the sidewalk standards that we have in the

Unified Land Use Code. And as mentioned, there's the six foot and the eight foot sections. And I from what I understand, if I'm correct, it's the eight foot standard that's going to be adjacent to Bowles. Is that correct? Oh, it is the six foot standard. Do apologize. - I believe it's six foot sidewalk with eight foot landscaping and two feet of landscaping just to to basically make it a detached sidewalk. From what I from my understanding. - Okay, two more. - So we're we haven't taken into account the sidewalk that is on that north side in between this proposed development and Bellflower. Whether or not this sidewalk is going to be consistent with that. - All of the sidewalk sections will be consistent, and it will be built to an Ada standard that's required for this development. - All the way to the Bellflower intersection. - No, you're buying property. Property. - It would be matching up with the work that the City of Littleton is doing. So it would need to be consistent in size. - I guess. Like, I know there's a sidewalk, there's a very tiny sidewalk on between. - Excuse me. Do we have do we have a map or some kind of visual that could be put up on

the screen, please? - Mr. - So my question actually, if you can zoom back out here real quick, I just want to sorry. Here. This might be helpful. Okay. Oh, yeah. So this this side, this sidewalk here that you're showing right now, does that exist? - No, no. - The sidewalk extends to about here. That line is very wide for where we're looking at now. - No sidewalks. I can. - Confirm that. I've seen photos that there is. - I'm going to ask. - Excuse me, can we can we pause for a moment and please withhold your comments so that the presenters can give their presentation and answer questions from the commission? - I think as much as anything, this is a question for staff. - Yeah. So if I may, I'm looking at a Google Street View right now. There is a stub of sidewalk. It does not go the entire lot. Right. There's a stub of sidewalk that goes that way. I cannot confirm its width as of right now. My guess is it's probably about five feet, but I cannot confirm that we are unable to acquire additional right of way from at that time at this time. So that is one of the reasons why it's jogging is proposed to jog. So that is the sidewalk that exists until the pole. - No no, no that's it. - That's bellflower. - This is bellflower. - South side. - No, that's that's the north side.

- The south is over here. - So it would be a continuation of that sidewalk. - So that. - So that pole is at the start of the developer property. - No, no. That is a part that the city's partnering on. - That's okay. So the city is going to move that pole or reroute the sidewalk around it. So it connects to the sidewalk. Yes or no? - Yes. The city will most likely not be in charge of moving that pole, but the pole will be moved as part of the project. Correct? - Okay. And is that scheduled to be completed at the same time as this? I mean, is that is that a criteria? I guess for that to be completed as part of this development being finalized and approved? - Yes, that's part of as part of the site plan, not so much the plot because the plot sets things up, but yes, in the future. - Okay. Nope. I'm tracking. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, that was a little bit, maybe a little bit more confusing regarding the drainage. So you said Platte Canyon. You said Plaque Canyon had reviewed reviewed Construction's plans. Does that mean that have they reviewed this drainage plan? - I will leave. - That to my civil engineer on the project. Kevin, this drainage plan that you're seeing right now, though, was created specifically to help visualize the improvements to drainage in the neighborhood. But I'll hand it over to him. - Good evening. My name is Kevin Lovelace with LJ engineering, 1765 West 1/21 Avenue, Westminster, Colorado. Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction over the drainage for the property. They have received the referral documents for the street and storm plans, but the street storm plans and the drainage approval is ultimately with staff.

- Okay. And so staff will review that as part of the site plan. Okay. So that will be pending approval with the site plan okay. Thank you. Has the land been purchased from Denver Water already or is that contingent upon okay. Why? I guess maybe this is something. So again, another question for a traffic engineer. There was concerns about left in left out for this intersection. But there is access to a property on the south side of Bowles through a break in the median. And I'm wondering why, if that's if that's a grandfathered thing or if that's a safety safety concern that has been taken into account, because I can also see a concern with people trying to make U-turns at that. And I don't know that. I guess the question is, I don't know if you guys have talked about this, but I'm kind of hoping that city that our city traffic engineers can tell us why that's still there, because that seems like the same risk that you've said isn't okay to accept for a left in, left out. - I will have our our transportation engineer and folks talk a little bit about this, but I've been involved from the initiation on the staff side, and it has been talked about from the preliminary plat stage all the way through the subsequent reviews of the preliminary plat. It is an existing break, as you mentioned, whether it's grandfathered or not, it's already existing. And so there was discussion of having that be looked at in terms of making

it. So you cannot make that real quick turn. And so that's something that's being considered through the the design process to try to address safety. And it has been part of our discussion from the onset. - Okay. - I believe that's all the questions that I have. Thank you. - Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Neelie. - Can we just pull up. - The the outbound traffic map from the site again, please? I just wanted to confirm that inbound and outbound is the intent is the same path. - Was this the map that you were considering? That's it. To to touch on that the inbound and outbound would look different. Because if you're traveling to the site on eastbound Bowles from the west, you can't make a turn on Laurel. The median is closed there. So that would be the situation in which you could turn north on lupine and work your way all the way through the site, or do the U-turn at Bellflower that was just discussed. - I'd like to add to that that based on the trip distribution and the 10% factor coming from the West, that would result in about 1 to 2 vehicles per peak hour. If that gives a frame of reference. - How many questions have been

answered previously? So that's all for now. Thanks. - Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Santana. - Thank you chair. Question maybe for staff is do we have a sense of what the overall developer impact fees for this project? 17 single family homes on 9.9 acres would be could be ballpark. - I do not have that. The fees are listed on our website so they can be calculated. They're typically calculated at time of building permit. We haven't done so as of yet. - The other thing I would also mention is the new inclusion inclusionary housing ordinance fee ordinance. The developer does intend to pay the fee in lieu for the I o rather than building affordable units. So these will all be market rate units. - Thank you. I, I would guess it would be substantial. I wanted to second Commissioner Rolovich's concerns about not having the second sidewalk to Laurel be included in the overall package. I think that's an important we're doing one side but not the other, and we have a fairly substantial developer impact fee levy on these kind of projects. And it may be that this is a very this could be a very appropriate use of those this projects impact fees to to oh go ahead. - It would be $142,000. - Yeah okay. So probably not enough to do the sidewalk. But maybe I just think it's a it's that connection to the neighborhood. Going to the, to the, to the west is a worthwhile angle of investigation in the project. So the other question I had perhaps was more to the developers with the with the swale in the southeast corner, has there been any conversation

or consideration for possibly making that a pedestrian egress, a little bridge over it, or a way to get out of the gables roadway and exit the community heading southeast to go towards Bellflower? - A couple slides so we can look at it here. - There's the swale. It will be shallow. I don't know how shallow, but looking at the amount of desire paths we see in Bowles, we see a lot of pedestrian where people find little ways to get around. And if I lived in this, I would, and I was heading to downtown on foot, or I was headed to schools via going north out of the community, I might actually just cut through that if it was accessible, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what the things, but I would I would say that's something I would look at. - I may be missing the question here. Are you asking if people can use the existing sidewalk or what will be the existing sidewalk at that time, and then travel north into. - Here diagonal northwest? - This is intended to be a gated water quality facility with a fence around it. There. There will be no access into that water quality feature for pedestrians, no maintenance access and other things, but not from a pedestrian standpoint. - All right. So they'll have to do the jog to the main exit and go around. That's correct. Not ideal okay. That. - Thank you. I have questions. I, I have a lot of the same concerns and questions primarily about the ingress egress and what's been mitigated and what's not been.

And I think we've had some explanation on that. And it sounds like that we perhaps there's not been enough mitigation for this project that we have concerns about. I did read a notes that there was a signal generation letter sent to the city for this project. But then I believe I heard that that is not allowed, will not be allowed because there's not enough room for the intersection there to put a light. There's not a room, is that correct? I'm just trying to cover some of the points that were made in previous. - Yeah, I apologize, I might need a little clarification. There was a trip generation letter that was then that was submitted to the city, and then subsequently there's been a full traffic impact or transportation impact study submitted. So I think I answered the first part, I apologize. I would need some clarification on the second part of your question. - I think that it was answered in that there's just not enough room in that intersection for a traffic signal. - Yeah, for a signal there. It's a it's, you know, too close to the Bellflower signal to it wouldn't meet warrants. And so that's why even having it offset pushed to the West a little bit, it still wouldn't meet those warrants. So it wouldn't be able to be installed. - Has there been any looking at the current signals or two already. But is there some way that could be looked at to make that more combined or with this project? I mean, you got two signals. You need some kind of ingress egress that's more workable here. It seems that I realize those streets are offset. I'm just trying to see if everything you feel like has

been mitigated so far. As best that can be done. - Yeah. So as Jared mentioned, this development is not warranting a signal. It's not creating enough trips to have them put in half $1 million signal. It's just not. So we cannot require that of the developer. It's just not meeting federal warrants for that signal. The concern for the city is the proximity to that signal. It and also to is it Laurel over there as well. So those are two safety concerns as well. Also, it is kind of it is common on this corridor. That right in right out is is a common entrance. I mean the next three are streets are right in right out. So this isn't an uncommon access point on this on this corridor. It's just it's just not. So it's it's it's the traveling public for the other three entrances also have that median there. And they're also making U-turns to go westbound somewhere. Whether it's at the signal on the west side or the east side. The same is happening on those three to the north, right next to adjacent to the site. So I just want to point out that this is not an uncommon access point to have right in, right out. But yeah, those I hope that answers your question. - Okay. It was kind of a question and kind of a comment. So thank you. But I think it's not just this development that sounds like it's an issue. It's that the whole Bowles corridor there is very difficult to navigate, given that there really are very few places even to make a U-turn. And U-turns are ideal in terms of safety. So it's just I guess it's a little frustrating, you know, that we're not really hearing

or seeing that there's a really good solution for that corridor so far. So that's my question. That's comment. - And I think I'll jump in again. I think Jared mentioned earlier the transportation master plan is looking at this corridor again. So there there could be some very good solutions that come out of that, that update to that study. - Thank you. We have further questions from commissioners. So Commissioner Radulovich. - Just in response to because I'm sure the people who live in the neighborhood are going to make this point. This will be a right in, right out. There are other right in right outs here. The other right in right outs. The vast majority of them have access to go back through their neighborhood and get to a signal. This one will not. I it's human nature that people are going to take the shortest route. They just are. That you turn at lupine is going to happen. People are going to make the right on bellflower, do the U-turn around that median and make the left back onto Bowles to come back in here. Those are the real routes. What we're being shown is not what's going to happen. It is not. So I think we need to understand that those are going to happen. Those U-turns are going to happen, and we need to make them as safe as possible. And I think that would be the route to go on this rather than trying to make people go through, go through this in some wacky, crazy way. - Yeah. And I just want to mention we looked at we pulled the crash data for that intersection for the last three years. There are no U-turn related crashes. There are actually only ten in the last three years and they are majority are rear end crashes due to congestion. There's been a couple where people have hit fixed objects like a light pole or a fence, but there's really no data to say. These U-turns are really

an issue. And in the existing condition, and as the applicant provided, the trips that this site are generating are much lower than existing condition, much, much lower. But I do want to point out that the crash data does not show an issue for U-turns at Bellflower. - I understand that, but at lupine we've put a U-turn sign up, presumably because there's crash data to support that. - I it sounds like there isn't crash data to support that. So there's already existing. There's already an existing condition. Yeah. Just a little bit further west. That's seven homes on the street, so I'm not sure if they do U-turns all the time, but they have to work within that condition already. - I just am questioning why we're putting a no U-turn sign up where we know people are going to make U-turns, and we should just try at lupine. At lupine? I just don't get it. Okay, cool. Thanks. - It's a public works item, not a community develop item, so I couldn't tell you the reason. It might be an enforcement thing. - I just. I'm sorry. I'm asking the wrong person. Then they're the wrong professional. But we should have had one of those professionals here at this meeting to answer these questions. - I am a professional, but thank you. Yeah, you. - I'm not claiming that you aren't a professional. What I'm saying is, is if you're going to if you're going to make that excuse that I'm, that I can't answer this question. - Sorry. Okay. Can I ask one other question when it comes to when it comes to medians in and out of neighborhoods, is are those the maintenance and responsibility of the subdivision or the city? - That would be of the city?

When we're looking at a new development, we work with developers in terms of what can be done for ensuring safety, what new improvements might need to be conducted, but that's actually in the public right of way. So that would be something under the purview of the city of Littleton. - So modifications to medians in and out of neighborhoods would be the city's decision. Or would that just be something that the neighborhood could apply to the city to change the way this this developer is applying for a change? - When we do the overall process and we have our public hearings, we take in all of that information that the public does provide. And we did have a fair amount of that discussion through those public meetings. And then we as community development, we may confer with public works on the traffic side as well, and see what we're able to do about making those adjustments to medians. And I know that's been part of our discussion as we're developing the plans with the development team that's here today. We will continue to work through those refinements as we go to the final plat, which would be the next stage of this process. - Let me let me try to rephrase this question. When it comes to so, so just in general, maybe not necessarily for this, but for existing neighborhoods, if they have a median as part of the entrance to their neighborhood, is that the city's responsibility to maintain, or is that so that the neighborhood to the south on Bellflower has a center island median? Is that the city's responsibility to maintain, or is that the neighborhood's. So? - Go ahead. - On Bowles. If it's a median on Bowles, it's the city's to maintain.

- And the median on Bellflower south of Bowles, one's on bellflower, South Bowles. - Ultimately those landscaped medians as part of an overall development may be part of the City of Littleton's rights of way. But in oftentimes without doing research on that project, those are developed through an HOA process with documents when it's initially developed. So it could be a mix in that circumstance. - Okay. Thank you. - Any further questions from planning commissioners? Okay. So with that we'll open the comment, public comment portion of the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. And I believe we have sign up lists. So we'll be going through that sign up list and have you come speak if you signed up. - You can start with the names you have. A chair just as a just as a response to one of the questions that Commissioner Radulovich asked. We just found out that Coventry has changed the access to their gated community, and the HOA requested that a no U-turn sign

be installed at that location. - Okay. Thank you. I will start with start with the three people who signed up for public comment. General public comment. Brian Berkowitz, are you still here? Yes. Okay. Please state your name and your address, please. - My name is Brian Berkowitz. I live at 4595 Westlake Circle South in the hamlet, which is the community south of Bowles off of Bellflower. I am the president. I am asking the Planning Commission to look past the individual line items of this proposal and focus on the big picture. We are at a critical juncture for district one. This corridor from Bellflower Drive to South Lupine Drive, is the primary artery for students heading to Wilder Elementary to our south and Goddard Middle School. We afforded this time to get this right. We have a professional and moral duty to use it. Rushing this process sets the city up for failure. The byproduct of poor planning will place an unnecessary traffic burden on our communities. It is our understanding the city has already denied a light, as well as a left hand turn lane for this project. By doing so, you are effectively funneling all new traffic and related traffic during the construction period into the existing U-turn pattern at our entrance of Bellflower and Bowles, as well as both as as well as Beaumont South. As I submitted photos, which I believe the commission

has, drivers are already whipping around in front of our sign at Bellflower and Bowles and behind our sign when this corridor becomes gridlocked due to poor design, the traffic will spill over into our neighborhoods streets. You aren't just affecting Bowles, you're putting residents at risk in front of their homes. This is not an acceptable outcome for our neighborhood. My discussion with our city councilmen. We cannot make permanent decision based on sanitized traffic data collected during the summer when school is out. Currently, there are two traffic cameras at Bowles and at Bellflower, which I have come to now know are not traffic cameras. They are for the lights, but we do need to reevaluate the traffic patterns at that intersection at the staggered light. What is the acceptable cost the city is putting on the safety of our children? The liability for a tragic event is simple. It's great and it's wrong. We ask the commission to reevaluate any variance on the table, demand a school year traffic study, ensure a safe sidewalk setback from Bellflower Drive to Laurel place with fair compensation for affected homeowners. Should that be let let's be intentional today so that we're not apologizing in the future. Thank you for my time. - Next on the list, we have Diane Miller. Hopefully I

pronounced that correctly. Lemcke. Okay. Good morning. - Glory Lane and Littleton. - I live in Beaumont South with my family. - I'm here as a. - Neighbor, as a parent of young children who live and play on these streets. My concern is with the traffic circulation proposed for the Gables development. If the project goes forward as currently designed, residents leaving the proposed development cannot turn left because of the divider. Instead, they would need to make a series of right turns through neighborhood streets. That route runs through Laurel, through snowberry, Tully Lake, and Bellflower before reaching a signalized intersection. These are very small residential streets designed for the families who live there, not as a route for traffic. Leaving another development. Our neighborhood streets have no sidewalks. Children walk in the street, they ride bikes in the street. They play basketball in the street. This quiet neighborhood environment is exactly why we residents chose to live here and raise our families. According to the developer's own traffic analysis, Laurel and snobbery alone would see an increase of 92 vehicles per day. If this project moves forward, that is a meaningful 120% increase in traffic volume on quiet residential roads that serve very little traffic daily. My request is simple if this project has not yet been approved, I ask that the commission reconsider the traffic circulation design before approving it. A plan that routes new development traffic through narrow. Forgive me. A plan that routes new development traffic through narrow residential streets without sidewalks is not a good fit for this neighborhood. If the project is already approved, I ask that the Commission require changes that address the traffic impact on Bomber South and help prevent neighborhood cut through traffic. Any required mitigation should be funded by the developers and not the taxpayers. Growth should not come at the expense of the

safety and character of the neighborhoods that already exist. Thank you. - Excuse me. Will you please hold your applause so we can move through the agenda quickly? Thank you. Darren Moran. - Good evening. My name is Darren Lemerond. I live on one of the streets that have the 7 or 8 houses to the west of the development, and quite frankly, it's it's an absolute hazard. I live at the end of the street with three kids. We talked to the city about sidewalks and the unsafe areas that we have there. And current city council's response was well cut through a neighbor's yard. So right now, that's exactly what my kids are doing to get to a school bus, because there are no sidewalks through that area. As far as the U-turns go, I talked to at least half of the neighbors on our street of paintbrush, and every single one of them does a U-turn on lupine. Recently, that no U-turn sign has been put up, and I have to ask about that. Is it? On one breath, we had a professional say that there was no traffic study data to say U-turns were an issue, but yet City Council went ahead and passed and put a no U-turn sign up there. So our decisions being made at a whim or are they being made on hard data here? So I think the previous gentleman was right that we have an opportunity to get this right, and we really need to take the time to look at the entire traffic study going down Bowles and look at making a left turn somehow and making U-turns. Okay, or some other avenue. I don't have the answer to it, but it really needs to

be studied. Thank you. - Thank you. Brittany Burrell. - Definitely not as tall. Okay. - Brittany Burrell. - Five eight, nine one South Laurel place. My husband is a PE teacher at Euclid Middle School. Every year he begins with a lesson about water. Over the years, students have written college essays about it. Graduates have returned to thank him, and parents have said it was a message their child never forgot. His lesson is simple don't be water. Water takes the path of least resistance. It doesn't fight the rock, it wears it down. It curves around obstacles and keeps flowing. And humans behave much in the same way. We take shortcuts, we make unsafe U-turns. We cut through neighborhoods not because we are reckless, but because the design makes the unsafe path the easiest one. This is the concern with the proposed Gables development in southwest Littleton. I am not arguing against the development itself. What I am concerned about is how that growth interacts with the infrastructure that is already under strain. The plan proposes 17 homes with access to eastbound Bowles Avenue. That means every westbound trip will be forced somewhere else when drivers face three options three mile detour through major roads, a half mile shortcut through Laurel, or an unsafe and now illegal U-turn at lupine. So the path runs directly through our neighborhood, or an illegal U-turn in traffic engineering. This is known as induced cut through traffic. When congestion or restricted access on arterial roads pushes drivers into residential streets that were never designed to carry the volume. These are quiet neighborhood

streets where children ride bikes, neighbors walk dogs, and families live. They were never intended to absorb overflow traffic from arterial roads. This is not just happening in isolation. Less than a mile west of this, in Jefferson County, a 990 unit 55 plus community called Aspen Littleton is opening near Bowles and Alkire this year. While it sits just outside our boundaries, it still adds daily trips onto the same Bowles corridor. Our neighborhood depends on. Traffic, does not stop at jurisdictional boundaries. Each development may seem small on its own, but together they create cumulative traffic impacts on roads that are already under strain. Bowles Avenue itself is already overloaded. Federal Highway Administration standards suggest a four lane arterial like Bowles should carry around 28,000 to 32,000 cars per day. Littleton's own counts show roughly 38,000 vehicles daily. What traffic engineers call level service F, meaning unstable flow and high congestion. This river has already spilled its banks. When bull reaches capacity, the overflow does not disappear. It moves into surrounding neighborhoods. Growth is not the problem. Littleton should and can grow, but growth must be planned responsibly so it does not overwhelm the roads or endanger neighborhoods. So I'll end where I began. Don't be water. - Thank you. Next we have Andy. Barbara. - Hello, Andy. Barb, I live at 5821 Wood Sorrel Drive. We have heard the city and developers say that they can't put in a light because it's too close to the bellflower and lupine lights on Bowles, but if it was put directly in the center of the property, it would be 0.26

miles from lupine and 0.11 miles from Bellflower. The recommended minimum between lights for the Federal Highway Administration is 0.25 miles, so the lupine light is no issue at all. They want you to believe that the bellflower light is there. Get out of jail free card, when in reality, the Federal Highway Administration supports the proper light coordination between traffic signals as close as 500ft together. This is because the through the Mutcd's explicitly allows local governments to apply engineering judgment when clear safety concerns are documented, including significant traffic volume changes and unsafe working conditions for children to access local schools. When issues such as these are present like they are now, the generic quarter mile minimum is no longer a consideration, so spacing is not the issue, but that's what they want you to think. I can only assume that they don't want to add this feature into their design, because it's going to eat away at their bottom line. I'm guessing they did not budget for this feature, which let's face it, it's really expensive. If included, they may not be able to make a profit on the development, but the thing is, that's not your problem and it's not ours. It is not your responsibility to greenlight poorly planned development proposals under the guise of pro growth. It is your responsibility to ensure new developments are thoughtful additions to Littleton and not unsafe detriments. I want to be clear I'm not anti-development, but I am pro safety. I'm not anti change, but I am pro community. So this is where I ask you to please have the hard conversation with them to determine what's actually holding them back from making this new community a nice one. Besides its large expense, there's no other reason for them to admit those to omit this critical feature. Adding a traffic light to the design will greatly improve the quality of life for the quality of life. For the current and

future residents of Littleton, it will make their development more accessible, encourage multimodal transportation, and relieve egregious safety concerns based off of their own traffic studies and just plain common sense, the installation of a traffic light is inevitable. I am urging you to be the heroes of Littleton, who require the installation of a traffic light to be constructed at the expense of the developers at the start of the project, instead of by Littleton's taxpayers. After a tragedy has occurred. Please have the courage to stand up for our beautiful city, ensure that its growth is responsible, and continue the tradition of being a thoughtful and safe place to live. Littleton residents of today and tomorrow will be forever grateful. I know I will be, thank you. - Thank you. Next we have Brad Nicholson. - Hello. - I'm Brad Nicholson. I live at 5892 South Laurel, which is the first house right where you would make that right turn onto Laurel. I'm looking for answers on the severe traffic increase that an established neighborhood will experience and how we can protect our current residents, which is which includes 12 children under the age of 13 on that one little strip of Laurel, right now, 12 children under the age of 13, per the ATR to report supplied by the developer for the proposed Gables, they reported that the road Laurel currently supports 65 vehicles a day. An additional 92 vehicles means that Laurel will now service roughly 157 vehicles a day, which is 142% increase in traffic this draft. How can this dramatic increase considered minimal? And why doesn't it require additional improvements? Putting a neighborhood without a light is just irresponsible. More

importantly, it was stated that this development and the associated traffic is appropriate for the classification and does not alter the intended use of the street. But I completely disagree with this assessment for two reasons. First, Littleton topped t map states a local street can exist in any context and is used primarily for access to adjacent properties. Since the word adjacent means sharing a common endpoint or border, the assumption is that the property use. The primary use for local street is to access properties on that street. Please explain why an enclave of homes with a completely separate HOA and no common borders to Laurel is considered adjacent. Second, the TMP states these streets provide at least the least through movement connectivity. The usage of laurel as suggested by the developer. Now true, some might do U-turns, but suggested by the developer is exactly that through movement connectivity to pass through these streets and three others to get to the light. On Bellflower, this type of vehicle movement is more appropriate for a street designated as a neighborhood connector. However, none of the streets that will be utilized for this new resident to get to the light on Bellflower are flagged with this designation. Laurel snobbery, tulips nor bellflower are all cat or all categorized as local streets. I find it disappointing that the city believes it is appropriate for a new neighborhood to utilize an established neighborhood streets as a thoroughfare, because the new ones design lacks the basic accessibility to appropriate roads. The residents in this new development will have to at least to leave their neighborhood, access West Bowles and then enter our neighborhood with the sole purpose of cutting through and

then heading east on Bowles. That type of movement directly violates the intended use of our local streets. Per the Transportation Master plan. A traffic light for this new development would resolve this issue. These this these dismissive deflections from the city leadership to the name of pro development is both negligent and willing and willful noncompliance of the TMP that the city created in the first place. Please acknowledge that the clear. Oh, sorry. Thank you. - Jennifer Stearns. - Good evening. My name is Jennifer Stearns and I live at 5869 Snowberry Drive. A request under the Colorado Open Records Act was submitted in October seeking documents related to the property of this application. While the city did provide a response to the request, the community was charged $495 for the record search and review. Of the materials provided, only seven files were relevant to the rezoning request, and one document authored by the city attorney was redacted in its entirety, and the follow up request asking the city to identify the specific the specific statutory reason for the redaction has not received a response. Under Colorado law, public records may only be withheld if a specific legal exemption applies. When an entire document is withheld without explanation, it raises significant transparency concerns and may. Constitute a constructive denial. Without clarity about whether this redaction is lawful, the public cannot meaningfully evaluate information that may directly inform your decision. The issue is especially important in the context of how this property was rezoned. In 2021. The City

of Littleton adopted city initiated comprehensive rezonings as part of the Unified Land Use Update. Under that process, the city can rezone large areas, 50 parcels or more as legislative action without mailed notice to property owners and without signage posted on the affected properties. While that may meet the minimum legal requirements for legislative notice, it creates a real risk that residents will be unaware that the zoning affecting their property or neighborhood has changed. In this case, the surrounding community did not know that this property had been rezoned until the development proposal was brought forward. Rezoning fundamentally determines the future use and intensity of land. It shapes traffic density, infrastructure demands, and neighborhood character for decades. When those changes occur without direct notice to residents, it can undermine public trust and make it difficult for the community to participate meaningfully in the planning process. The context the context that makes transparency now even more important. Residents are trying to understand both the rezoning and the implications of the proposal before you tonight, without access to the complete public record or clear explanation for why it's being denied, the community cannot fully evaluate evaluate information that may be relevant to your decision. This request is not about a delay for delay's sake. If you delay tonight, it's to ensure public the informed public participation and maintaining confidence in the integrity of the process. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask that you continue this item tonight until this, as well as many of the other issues brought to you tonight can be resolved. Thank you. - Next, Justin Balderston. - Hi there. Justin Balderston,

5820 Woods Road Drive. I understand the importance of driving safely, driving safe commercial vehicles and heavy equipment. In the mid 90s I drove commercial vehicles, heavy hauling, heavy equipment. In 2000, I switched careers to fire service. My current position is driving a ladder truck for the city of Aurora Fire Department. I've done that for the last 12 years. I spent three years as the city of Aurora Fire Department training engineer. I taught firefighters how to drive fire engines and fire trucks. I revamped our driving program to make it more challenging and more safe for individuals to get credentials to drive fire engines and fire trucks, because there is so much responsibility that comes with driving heavy equipment, I have seen firsthand what negligent driving can do, whether commercial vehicles or personal vehicles. We live in a quiet neighborhood full of children with no sidewalks and very few street lights. Our neighborhood is not set up for the influx of commercial vehicles, traffic, vehicle traffic, or new traffic. A jury in the state of Colorado has already awarded a family $205 million for negligence in the death of a child. This sets case law precedent. $205 million cannot replace the life of a child or anyone. But until this developer can show us that they have a policy for $205 million for negligent or wrongful death, not one teaspoon of dirt should be moved. To avoid all of this, the developer, not the taxpayers of Littleton or Boomer South, should incur any costs to pay for a median cutout and a stoplight for this neighborhood. This will eventually be needed anyways for all the children to cross the neighborhoods, or to cross Bowles so that they can get to Wilder Elementary and to get to other schools. There is nowhere for those children to get out of that neighborhood without a new median cutout or stoplight.

Thank you. - Thank you, Mason Moore. - I'll save everybody some time and not repeat much of what's been said. I think I'm maybe not smart enough to understand the math, but the assumption that just that these houses have one car rather than multiple cars making this vehicle seems like an obvious error in these calculations. This is an easy decision. I usually don't envy the decisions that are put before this good board. This is an easy one. - Thank you. Carrie Moore. - And with that guy and we're both at 5730 Snowberry Drive. First of all, thank you to our community for showing up tonight. I was going to stand up here and talk about some other things, but I just want to simply ask you to vote no. At this point, there's just far too many unanswered questions. Numbers that don't make sense. Bad Math City has doesn't have answers to some of our questions. I once sat on your side of the podium, and now you're sitting here wondering, well, isn't this the highest and best use of this land? Cramps some more houses in it? In my opinion, the only people that are going to profit from this is Denver Water and the developer, Denver Water, should have sold this property back when they widened Bowles in the 80s. They didn't. We as a neighborhood, as Bomber South are going to be left holding that bag, an unsafe bag, to somehow make do with traffic in a neighborhood that was not

designed for this much traffic. The onus is on Denver water to do something better. Before the Unified Land Use Code changed the property from agricultural to large lot residential, some of us were hoping to create a. Community supported agriculture on that property. I think was already zoned agriculture. It's something that we could provide food for our schools and for our community, and it's something different. It is the highest and best use of that land, in my opinion, rather than cramming more homes on a lot. Who the poor people buying it aren't going to realize until they're in there that they're landlocked and that their kids don't have a safe way to get to and from. Thank you for your time. - Thank you. Amy Reuter. - Hello. I'm Amy Rider and I live at 5057 West. - Maplewood Avenue in Coventry. - And I also am president of the Coventry HOA board. Our concerns have been outlined pretty well tonight with the U-turn on lupine. One of the reasons for the. - No U-turn sign was the amount of traffic that we were receiving into our community, because they couldn't make the turnaround to make a full U-turn. So they actually enter our community, which is gated, and we now have an exit gate leaving the community as well. So this was taking a significant toll on traffic entering our community with even with the green light. So I won't take my full three minutes. But I urge you tonight to delay the decision based on unknown information around

traffic and conflicting information around traffic. It's not enough to necessitate a signal, but it's too much to have a left turn lane that doesn't add up. I can, I urge you to delay this vote. Thank you. - Thank you. I'm sorry if I mispronounce this, but Matt Bartley. Adi. Okay. - Matt Bhatti I live at 5700 Snowberry Drive and Boomer South, and I just want to thank all the members here and thank everyone from our neighborhood that that came out. I'm not going not going to repeat too much of what has been said. But we do know that this is a challenging lot or challenging plot to develop, and that we just urge that this board thinks thoroughly about, you know, the position of these developers. We're not opposed and we're not stifling growth. Rather, we're looking at, you know, long standing impact to this development and what it does to the surrounding neighborhood. Again, I think that you've heard it. You've heard it from so many people and also from board members as well. So thank you for your time, and I appreciate your attendance today. - Thank you. Brian Klinker. Excuse me. Krieger. - Thank you for your time. My name is Brian Clegg. I live at 5809 Memory Drive. I just want to say up front, I'm actually a little bit surprised. I thought more people would be opposed to the development. You're not hearing that we're opposed to the development. We just want it done right. We want it done well. And a lot of that does have to do with traffic. Someone at this table earlier

said that they didn't want to introduce congestion on Bowles, which leaves three options. As I hear it tonight. One is most people are going to go do a U-turn. You still have congestion on Bowles. You actually have worse problem now because people are trying to do a U-turn farther down. The second option is you actually introduce congestion into our neighborhood. A neighborhood that's been mentioned doesn't have sidewalks, doesn't have stoplights, and has a lot of kids playing in the streets. So instead of having congestion that is actually regulated on a city street, you want to introduce that congestion into our neighborhood with the kids and where they're at. The third option that I don't think anybody's really noticed yet is when you mentioned that cut through where that south facing lot is. So that cut through is just west of the exit point of the Gables development. There will be people who leave that neighborhood, try to get across to the second lane and then do a U-turn into oncoming traffic. And along there there are trees in the median. And so to be able to see traffic coming, that's actually the first you point option or U-turn option that you mentioned that would be available for them leaving. And it's a really dangerous maneuver because they'd be trying to do it really quick. The last thing I just curious about, you mentioned a traffic memo. I appreciate that the numbers were too quick for my West Nebraska math to keep up with, and so is there a way we can get access to that? Because some of the data, it seemed like we're saying the amount of daily traffic through there is really high, which presents a really good image. But then we're presenting a really low number of hourly amount of vehicles going through, which is also to your benefit. So I'd just like to be able to review that and look at the math. How do we get access to that data? - The traffic memo would have been posted as part of the documents through the public process. - Okay. So it's in that. - It would have been downloaded. - It's in the development activity list that's on the

City of Littleton website if you need to look at it. It's also if you got a card for being within 700ft. - Yeah, I. - Did okay. It'll have that website for the development activity list on the left. And then the project numbers are listed on the card as well. And that's how you will search it. And you'll be able to get all the documents that have been submitted. - Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you guys for your time. - Michael Paradise. - Mike Paradise and I live at the hot Corner, Bellflower and Bowles. All this proposal does. It just benefits the water board. It exacerbates the existing traffic problems on Bowles. In 30 years we've had three accidents with cars through our fence into our yard, and we just had one this summer. And now you're proposing to violate the six foot sidewalk rule by putting a two foot wide sidewalk adjacent to our property to get to the light at Bellflower. - Laura. Sweet. I'd like to hear everyone correct me when they come up to the microphone. So. - Laura Switek 45502 Lake Drive.

I don't have a prepared statement, but I agree with everything that's been said so far. I worry about the moms with their strollers, the kids 4 or 5, six feet abreast on their bicycles, going down Tule Lake on the way to school because they that's what they do. And yeah, so I disapprove of this. There's got to be a better solution than routing traffic through our neighborhood. As you heard, no sidewalks, no lights. So they've got to figure it out. Thank you. All of you. All of you. - Thank you. Mark Switek. - Hi, I'm Mark Switek. - 4552 Lake Drive, right at the would be the northeast corner of of this proposed development. Full disclosure I'm a civil engineer and I've spent a lot of time going over the drawings. I have a couple concerns. One of the big one is the drainage system that they're proposing. It's great that they're proposing it because that does flood right there in that corner. We've had geese and ducks swimming in floodwaters there. After a major storms last winter. We had. What they called. What. No, we had we had strange birds out there. Yeah,

sandhill cranes. But my issue is the drainage system itself going down to that detention pond, you know, a closed facility. Then it exits in a pipe that goes underneath Bowles to the eastbound lanes, runs down the the north side of the eastbound lanes about halfway down the hill. Then it goes back underneath and connects into a storm drain that's down there. So you got a private discharge line being put into public rights of way. That's going to have to be maintained by a yet to be developed HOA of 17 homes. That's a fairly significant facility that you're requiring homeowners to have no idea what they're getting into to maintain it. I think that's a big challenge that the city has got to consider. I also think that there's a precedent there of having a private pipeline being put into the city's right of way, and in whether that's effective for the city itself. My last concern is these gentlemen have done a great job of putting together a development plan that basically includes over lot grading, which is what's done to put in the streets and put in the utilities, the sewer lines and the water lines. But it doesn't include what happens on the individual lots. And there's a lot of cut and fill that's going to go into those lots that that we don't know about yet and we don't know how it's going to get approved. And my concern is that's going to dramatically change their drainage plan that they have put together. As those houses are put in and water is wrapped around those, and where does it go and how much additional drainage is going to go into

that drainage way? And again, who is responsible for maintaining that and making sure it doesn't back up into our yards? So thank you. Appreciate you tonight. Good luck. - Thank you Dan Hinton. - Okay. - Okay. There's a Sean Hinton also. You good. Okay. Thank you Brandon XR Brandon you're good okay Scott Reed. - I'm Scott Reed I live at 5794 Shasta. We moved into the neighborhood about two years ago. We just welcomed our third child into the neighborhood. And I taught my kids to bike on these streets. When I look at these streets. I moved out to Littleton because of the space, because of the opportunity to raise a family in a safe spot. And it's just not realistic to think that when we think about this traffic study, we're not talking about just cars of people's homes, but also delivery trucks, Uber drivers, food delivery. These are drivers who enter my neighborhood and currently make it unsafe. So adding this volume to the roads in and around our homes just feels like something that I don't think would come up in a traffic study. And I hope the committee understands safety is the number one thing. Thank you. - Thank you. Amanda. Paul.

You're good. Okay. Thank you. I think it's Sara Bradley. Sara. No. Okay. And Wade Brantley. You're good. Okay. Thank you. Michael Plotnick. - Hi. - Thank you for your time. I agree with the previous comments. A couple small things to add. I live Michael Plotnick 5860 Snowberry Drive 5690 Snowberry Drive is an elder care facility, and I believe there are 8 to 10 residents in that building, which brings relatives, visitors, medical delivery trucks, which means the first the very beginning of snobbery. I realize that's not on their designed route, but there will be cars that miss Laurel and come up snobbery. So you have both sides of the street with parked cars, which narrows it quite a bit. And besides the children, these visitors like to take their elderly relatives on walks with strollers. Which does not create a safe situation. The second point, just from personal experience. The turn radius to make U-turns. Westbound lupine and the median

of Bowles stopped short of the lupine intersection. By I say, about 4050 yards. And since they put up the no U-turn sign, cars have been trying to take a U-turn at that, where the median stops and they usually do have to start in the right lane to go all the way around to the other right lane. Eastbound. That's four lanes. And if you have anything other than a compact car, you hit the curb just like I'm hitting this microphone. You hit the curb and you have to do a three point turn. Thank you for your time. - Thank you. Mackenzie Jones. - Good evening and thank. - You guys for your time. I'm Mackenzie Jones I live at five, 723 Shasta Circle. And I just want to reiterate the safety concerns that this development brings to our community and our neighborhood. As you've heard from so many of us, our kids are in the streets riding their bikes, playing basketball. I mean, hundreds of kids. And it's just a big safety concern for our community. And I hope you guys will consider that. Thank you. - Brandon. Roberto. Okay. Chad Rabideau. - I'm Chad Robidoux with 5780 Snowberry Drive. In the hierarchy of Littleton's roads, the local street has one primary job, and that's to provide access to our homes. It's the most intimate level of

our infrastructure, designed for low speeds and low volumes. By allowing the new development to use our residential blocks as a shortcut to avoid arterials and connectors like Bowles, Federal Santa Fe were effectively reclassifying our streets without proper engineering. This isn't a connection to bypass, it's ignoring the safety and design limits of our neighborhood. I'm going to skip ahead because I think a lot of this has been covered, but we haven't had a chance to really have time to refute the data that was presented to us earlier. You know, they counted 400 cars on Laurel place. Well, we had Shane Powers. He's a senior transportation planner with Littleton. He released all the daily traffic totals in BMWs. And that was on March 11th, 2025. He had 47 cars on Laurel that day, not 400 or whatever was in that slide. When you put another hundred plus on that street a day, that's more than a 200% increase in traffic on Laurel. We also saw, you know, the six foot sidewalk. That sidewalk is less than three feet. There's pieces of fence that stick out. The concrete goes around it. That little piece of sidewalk that the city put in, there's no way that that's to code. And it's definitely not six feet with a eight foot landscaping area. Let's see what other. It's some other data things here. We can probably cover. Oh, the U-turn Mike just brought up the U-turn. It's 33ft from the left hand turn lane to make a proper U-turn across West Bowles. You have 33ft turning radius of, let's say, a Toyota Camry, 37ft turning radius of an F-150. Probably one of the most common vehicles on the road between 40.1 and 51ft, depending on the size of your F-150. Nobody can make that U-turn legally. Probably why that sign was put in. You had to go into Coventry to properly make that U-turn,

which is not not allowed. That's not a proper U-turn. As a resident that lives on one of these streets, I don't make U-turns. I'm probably one of the most aggressive drivers out there, and I still don't make U-turns out there. I will go through our neighborhood, but as a resident, when you drive through a neighborhood, everyone knows who you are. They know where to find you. And if you're speeding or being dangerous, you're going to hear about it. In our neighborhood, cut through traffic does not follow any of those rules. Thank you. - Thank you, Martin Lessman. - Martin Lessman. 5842 South Laurel place, father of Easton Lessman Nolan Lessman, age nine, age seven, one of the or two of the 12 children on South Laurel. I'm going to bring up two other names tonight. Liam Stewart, age 13, Littleton resident who perished by a driver in 2023. Alex McKinnon, age 13, neighborhood just west of us in Grant ranch, also perished by a driver. Cut through neighborhood of Grant ranch, age 13. Easton Nolan. Claire. Willey, Charlie. These are all children that this neighborhood is responsible for and that this committee is responsible for, not opposed to development. We're not opposed. We are opposed to people who don't

respect the neighborhood. I respect the law. For the record, I don't do U-turns, I get it, that is a shortcut. But we're law abiding citizens, so I don't think we can do that. So people are going to come through the neighborhood. We put up signs all throughout our neighborhood how to get to school safely. It's a school route. And that's one of Littleton's priorities, is to create safe streets for children. This will not present that opportunity to us. I do not want to be standing here in two years saying Easton Lessman died age 13. - Thank you Kim. I'm going to mispronounce this one probably Brulette. You're good. Okay. Maureen McFall. - Good evening. - Thank you all for. - Being here. - Maureen McFall, 5855 South Lupine Drive. I think I have unique perspective in this room. The second house in off of Bowles, directly across from the entrance to Coventry. We get a lot of U-turns on our street. There are lots of little kids. There's about eight kids within those first four houses. People come flying around that corner and either try and turn in the middle of our street, or they pull into one of our driveways. It's a very blind turn trying to come out of that street. Thankfully we have our light, but if I try to take a right, I have to be very careful that I don't get hit. Bowles is a very difficult

thoroughfare. It's already overwhelmed. It's already a mess. It's been widened, I think already twice. There's just no space left. And as somebody else mentioned, trying to take trying to make a U-turn on Bowles haven't tried it on on Bellflower, but the road's just not that wide and there's just not enough breaks in traffic to reasonably assume that people can make these U-turns. It's going to get backed up even worse than it already is. But what concerns me the most, like other residents, is all the kids I see crossing Bowles from Coventry, coming down lupine to get to school. There are people who don't see them sometimes, and there's a really good reason they put up that no U-turn sign, because those kids, they're coming across all day long and it's dangerous. And like others have said, we just don't want to have horrible traffic and worse, to have any kind of fatal accidents on our streets. And I don't think a development is worth that kind of danger. We're not, as others have said, we're not opposed to development. But without a traffic signal to control this, it's just not a good idea. So I urge you to vote against it. Thank you so much. - Thank you, Sandy Wilder. Okay. Denise Lee. - Hi. - I'm Denise. - Lee, 5845, Bellflower. I do have a written and then I'm not going to go over all of it because some of it we have

discussed. But there's many areas of concern that we have that's have been mentioned. But I'm going to focus on one so far that hasn't been brought up. In 1974, Bomber South was annexed into Littleton. Shortly after that time, one of our homeowners had the wisdom to work with the city and created an agreement that Bomber South would not become a thoroughfare for neighboring communities. And I think at that time is when Bomber Knowles was just starting to feel actually as a child, I moved into that neighborhood. At that time, that agreement was the basis for the traffic study and subsequent subsequent gate that was put into Bomber South. And if you're not aware of the traffic gate, it closes off all traffic at one specific spot in the neighborhood, including the Bomber South residents, during rush hour times each day. To stop any of that cut through traffic. And although this new development obviously didn't exist in the 70s in that concept, that same concept should still apply. The city was obligated to comply with the agreement at that time, resulting in the gate. So why wouldn't they be under the same obligation now with this new neighborhood development, bomber South should not have to bear the burden of the neighborhood vehicles for years on end for the construction traffic that will go on for, I don't know, I would guess, a few years. It's just not the responsibility of Bomber South in the traffic study. With the gate approval process, their numbers at that time were cut through traffic of 45 to 65% extra on our road. Most of that traffic from the new development will be on our roads in that little loop like we've seen. I was glad to hear that there might be some of the sidewalk put through, because otherwise those neighbors new

neighbors, would be prisoners in their own neighborhood. Not being able to walk out of their neighborhood. They could ride their bike if they went west on Bowles, but I would not ride my bike on Wolves Bond Bowles at all the numbers that they were showing earlier just don't fly. There definitely needs to be some new math there. We've talked about trucks and U-turns. I've seriously, as a taxpayer think that if there's new lights and new sidewalks that need to be happening for the development, that needs to be the developer's problem, not the city's, not the taxpayers. And the last real quick comment is coming in, and Maureen kind of mentioned it, doing a U-turn at Bellflower. Lupine. Bellflower has a little space there that makes it easier, but I've been honked at when I've had to slow down to not get hit. Thank you. - Curt Gottshall. - So good evening Curt. I live at 5840 Wood Sorrel Drive. I don't have formal remarks for you this evening, but I just wanted to make a couple of points I jotted down on my notes during the course of the hearing. Look, in my opinion, I think you've got a developer in a very deep pocketed folks at Denver Water who are trying to avoid putting in a traffic light because it's going to cut into their profits. And by by that decision, as a result of their own admission, all the traffic is going to be routed around through the very quiet neighborhood streets that the folks here you've heard from tonight. That's not okay. The traffic study cited by the developers, I think, at a minimum, is incomplete, if not misleading for several reasons. First of all, I can tell you

that as a resident of South, I think they divided the westbound and eastbound trips equally. That's not the case 90% of the time you're going back eastbound because that's where Santa Fe is. That's where the city is. That's where all the major thoroughfares are. So unless you're going up to the mountains, most of the time you're going east. The traffic study apparently was done in the summer without any the school traffic. The developers cited the maximum traffic load on the streets. But as several commentators have noted tonight, that's misleading because these are residential streets, not thoroughfares. So you're you're shuttling additional traffic onto those streets. You've heard from several residents tonight about the U-turns on lupine not being viable. Completely agree with that. You've heard from the Coventry folks about the same issue. The traffic engineer apparently has said the lights are too close to one another. I don't necessarily buy that analysis for all the reasons that Miss Burba outlined earlier tonight. So in summary, in my opinion, look, these are 1.5 to $2.3 million homes. These developers can afford a light having it done the right way should be a precedent to approving the project. Thanks. - Margaret Muldoon. She left. Okay. Cynthia Patterson. Brian sadat. Sadat. - Kelli Narde. - Oh, it's Salazar. Sorry, I can't read it. Is Brian here? No. Okay. Julia Wilder. She left. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

That is everyone signed up. Just. No, we don't, but I'm getting ready just to ask if there are any. Oh, evidently, we have some others who signed up on a different sign up sheet. Catherine Dunn. - No, I signed up. - Okay. Everything okay? Ken Hunter? Same. Ian brown. Okay. Chris McBride. You're good. All right. And then Maureen McFall. I think she already spoke. Okay. And then now we've gone through the list. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak? Okay. Would you come up and give us your name and address, please? Thank you. - My name. - Is. - Kim McGregor. - And I live at 5865 Wood Sorrel Drive. I'm going to skip to some things we haven't covered tonight. The first issue is about emergency access and public safety. I'm wondering if fire, police and emergency medical services have signed off on the longer, more complicated response routes and what happens to response times when westbound trips require a detour or unsafe maneuver. The second is about the broader impact. Evaluating one project in isolation ignores how traffic actually builds and moves. How will the city account for the combined impact of all developments in the pipeline? The third relates to enforcement and accountability. If projections are wrong and traffic floods our neighborhood streets, what is the city's mechanism for correction? Will future traffic audits trigger

enforceable action? Or residents be told that it's too late? The fourth is environmental quality and livability. When neighborhood streets carry traffic that they weren't designed for, families lose livability. Has the city evaluated things like noise, air quality and property values? And as my husband's been whispering at me the whole night, I need to mention construction. Construction vehicles can't make U-turns. And I also wonder who is going to repair our streets that were just redone. Residents of our South are not opposed to development, as we've heard. We're just insisting that this project be done with foresight, transparency, and a commitment to public safety. Responsible leadership requires putting these protections in place now before families pay the price later. Thank you. - Okay. Thank you. Would you like to speak now? Okay. Would you like to speak next? Thank you. - Hello. Thank you. My name is Karina Mogue. It's spelled emoji. I live at 5889 Snowberry Drive. I am right next to wonderful Bowles Avenue, one of my favorite streets. Unfortunately, I guess I'm in the minority with Mike. I think there's a better place to put this development than in this little plot of land that isn't going to have a light that people can turn left and right into. I am worried not only about the safety of the kids in Bowmore, North Grant ranch, Coventry, Hamlet, all of them. But I am really worried about the commuters on Bowles Avenue.

There isn't a night that I am not woken up at 2 a.m. in the morning with the buzz of some car going over 6090 miles an hour past my house. It is dangerous. It is very dangerous. I used to go and do a U-turn at Lupine on Sunday morning at 6 a.m. in the morning. I no longer do that. I almost got hit by a tractor trailer, 18 wheel truck coming out on a right onto Bowles Avenue. It is very dangerous and I think you really need to take a look at this, and you need to spend the money to put a light. If you're going to have people trapped in one little area to go left or right, it maybe it'll slow down traffic on Bowles Avenue, but it is terrible and it is dangerous, and I know that that's a bigger issue. But as others have said, you better start increasing the police department and the fire department because there's going to be a lot more problems. That right, is dangerous. And now I go all the way through the neighborhood to a light to make a left out into Bowles. Thank you. - Thank you. Yes. - My name is Marie Adams. - I'm at 5840 Wood. - Sorrel Drive. I'm a little nervous and not eloquent, but I do think that the wilder traffic, like there was something like about one trip per minute or something. But even in when Wilder Elementary starts having all of those, you're going to have families coming out and driving, their kids, not taking a bus. I don't even know how the bus thing

works with this, but that is something that is very real. So again, there's a very limited amount of time where it is going to be much, much more than one car per six minutes or whatever that was said. I also think of Liam, who was killed on Euclid, and or the student at Euclid, and I cannot imagine kids coming eastbound on a couple feet of contract. A couple feet of concrete going east on Bowles. I just want you guys to remember just how unsafe that would be. I will also say that a new trend is, are these little zipping motocross kind of or, I don't know, electric bikes that are in the neighborhood now? I mean, the reality is, is they're not motocross. I don't know, they're electric little zippers and they're all on Tule Lake right now. And it's dangerous with our own traffic. We don't see them. They're little. And the reality is, is they're there. And so. That's just an additional factor. Anyway, I agree with so many of the people that have been so eloquent before, and I think this has been turned down so many times because of the traffic light and the drainage. And it shouldn't be passed again or yeah, that precedent should continue. Thank you.

- Thank you. Any other people who would like to make a comment? Miss Chadborn? - I'm Pam, I live a block or so from here. So first I just want to say that the quality of Littleton residents never ceases to thrill me. And these comments tonight were wonderful, and I really appreciate the community for coming out and making these points. When I look at the city's packet. If I were in your chairs, I would vote against the preliminary plat. It does not meet all of the design and improvement standards in the LEDs, and it doesn't meet our other standards and specifications in the city. It's already been kind of mentioned that we have safer streets. Littleton that was passed by council. This does not meet safer streets. Littleton requirements. We didn't even do Project Zero. We just did safer streets. Littleton. But as I think you've already commented and many, many neighbors have commented, it simply doesn't meet that standard. And the U-turns on Bowles shocked and saddened that our community development staff thinks that that kind of approach is okay. I'm also going to say just financially we have a financial standard or obligation to meet, and although I don't see it mentioned specifically in the criteria that our community development staff chose to put in here, transferring the cost to the city is unacceptable. And on our behalf, I ask you the cost of incorporating this

for sidewalks and for the light or the control, traffic control and Bowles alone should not be transferred to the taxpayers of Littleton. This is an interesting development that fills its property with its own benefit. These are large lot homes, and it certainly seems to me that there are many design choices that would allow them more circulation within the property. I'm also really concerned about the drainage. I don't think that that's solved, and I think a couple people already spoke to that. So I don't think it meets those kind of standards for Littleton either. So. Let's see. And I'm also really disappointed that for whatever reason, staff didn't have any public works people here. Shocking I anyway, so that point was made. And just to be clear, it's not that you're not professionals, it's that where's the public Which ss impacts. This is not time planning Commission. I'm going to ask you to disapprove it and then ask for more public works help. And also just having the notice of the Corps request, having returned all the zoning stuff repressed. The second criteria is about zoning. And honestly, if the citizens through a court request are not given that data, it's unacceptable. Thanks very much. - Thank you sir. Anyone else who would like to speak? All right. Okay. At this point, then we'll close the public comment portion of the public hearing announced. Oh, it says

announce the time, which is 8:48 p.m. Okay. So the next step is I would like to ask for a motion. A second. - Can can we ask more questions based off of what we just heard? - I think we make a motion in a. - Or is that is that over now? - Yeah. The public comment period is over. But we make a motion and then ask questions. Right. - Ask questions before the motion. - We can okay. Just following. Yes Commissioner. Would questions. Go ahead. Go ahead. - First off I'd like to publicly apologize to you. I, I, I lost my temper a little bit and that's on me and I apologize to this board. And you more than adequately answered the questions that I was asking. So I'm, I apologize to you professionally and personally. So. - Okay. - I will yes, I'll do it. And then we can move on to more discussion. So I moved to propose. I move to approve Planning Commission Resolution zero one 2026, approving the subdivision filing number one preliminary plat. - Do we have a second?

- Second? Thank you. Chair. First of all, I want to acknowledge that I have heard a great deal of concern, and I share it about the safety of everyone on the streets and in the city. And I think that's a concern I've long focused on in my work on this commission, and I think it's something the city is taking seriously and will continue to take seriously. We have a lot of intersecting challenges here. We have the challenge of schools and children accessing them. We have the challenge of people entering and exiting their homes and getting to work in places. And we have the challenges of using our land to further the goals of our comprehensive plan and community development. I, I, I guess I'm thinking that I separate these things a little bit. We are talking about 17 homes, 17 homes, 17 homes. In many neighborhoods. That might be one block or maybe two blocks of homes. This isn't a large development, and whatever we may think of, traffic counts. I kind of want to I kind of I do want our commission to consider what 17 homes really is in a neighborhood of

hundreds of homes. That's just a scale thing that I keep in my mind around these kind of projects. The other thing is I look at our criteria. We as a commission, have a set of criteria that we use to approve plats. This is a preliminary plat. This is not a large scale quarter development. This is not an MDP. This is a preliminary plat. And we have these three conditions. They are conformance to our comprehensive plan. And the requirements of its code. We have zoning whether the lots created conform to the zoning requirements of the area and standards and specifications, which is does does the Plat conform to the design improvement standards within our engineering guidelines? And one of the things I really appreciate about this project is that it's making a tremendously important improvement on Bowles itself. The residents within this community will be able to walk out of the Gables and head west, or as somebody mentioned, Bicycle West, which is. Excuse me, east, but there is a side that's a that's a major improvement, something which is missing in a lot of sections on Bowles side. That's in the plat drawings we've seen, and I appreciate the developers are taking that step. The other thing I think about in streets is that they are public right of way. They are really the purview not of developers, but of us. We own them, the city, we maintain them and we have control over them. So when I hear concerns about safety needs on our streets, that is a

concern for the city. And it is not strictly a concern for developers. And I don't believe that any single development can cover all of the needs for safety around the entire city. In other words, we have a public works department and it is charged with managing those streets. And what I see in this project is a long process of conversation with the community, with the staff, and with other leaders in this community to address those concerns, and it's ongoing. My my sense of it is that. You want to we want to mitigate the negative, right? It isn't. It is not. The goal is of of a preliminary plat is not to answer all the questions, but is to state whether it meets and conforms to our comprehensive plan and meets those criteria. The other things, like wanting to have slower streets or places where people can walk without fear of cars hitting them. Those are things that our public works has to address, not just in a project, but across an entire area. And I believe it should and will. There's a lot of conversation that exaggerates the dangers. Liam Stewart, you know, I'm good friends with Josh. I know everything about that trial. I watched it that was not that was a woman driving just down the street. It was not. It was not an event caused by overdevelopment. It was not an event that really pertains to anything here. It could happen anywhere, and it will happen anywhere until we really do address safety in neighborhood streets. And I think we should and we will. But that isn't truly the purview of a preliminary plat

approval process. So I think of these things, and I'm looking at this within the criteria that we are using to evaluate this. And I am going to be voting in support of it. I am concerned with the traffic issues. I don't agree that a traffic light here is the solution. There may be the best solution in what Dan mentioned, which is a proper U-turns signalization at lupine. There are other ways to address all of these things, and we have experts who do that. But I don't believe we hold up homes for families, and certainly not 17 homes for hypotheticals like that, for things that can be solved in context. And I think that one of the things we do we want to do is evaluate things as they go forward. And this is something we are doing across the city and we continue to do. And you don't just not do things. If we held this standard of, we are not going to do something until all traffic concerns of the future are resolved, then we would never approve a single thing. So I remain a yes vote on this. Thank you. - Commissioner Neelie. - So I think contextually, the. - Development of single family homes, you know, makes makes a lot of sense. And it's an easy argument there. The typical traffic argument here is that proposed developments are going to add more traffic to Littleton. And my personal personal justification for approval in some cases is that, you know, if we're obstructive in Littleton, housing developments go elsewhere and we see the traffic anyways.

However, I think the arguments we heard tonight are not against traffic volume or inconvenience or even perceived loss of property value because you won't back up to an open lot, which we've also heard here. I think if there were a connection from this development to the interior of the neighborhood, I could consider the argument of existing right of way or right in, right out being in in an apples to apples argument. However, I think that's not the case here. And I think we're, you know, in this case, being a little too flippant about the dangers of increased neighborhood traffic and U-turns on an already congested thoroughfare. And I think it's a fair point that there's a misalignment with the principles of safer streets, Littleton as well. So I think a little more study and creativity is needed to get the the development of homes to get to the development of homes in this lot. - Thank you. Commissioner Röthlisberger. - Okay. Yeah. This is this is this is difficult because as someone who would prefer to bike more places rather than drive places. I'm, I'm well aware of the dangers that are that are, that are posed by inattentive drivers, drivers that go too fast, congestion, heavy traffic, poor visibility, the one of the things I feel like I heard from a lot of people, and I kind of want to

go back to echo, I think a little bit of what Commissioner Santana was saying is that. These are problems that already exist, that we are talking about issues and dangers that are already present on our streets, and that we need to look at that from a more comprehensive standpoint of what can we do to increase visibility? What can we do to make sidewalks better? How can we make that, rather than having this disjointed sidewalk where only the developer has has this section where they've allocated this right of way and the neighborhoods to the east and the West have done nothing, or, you know, there was an, you know, the oversight of not putting sidewalks in when these areas were developed that that now all of a sudden we have these problems of, of unsafe streets as, as more and more people are required, you know, required to drive because we don't have a safe way for them to get around any other way, that that's a bigger problem than what's than than this particular plat. The other thing is, I want to note is that this is seven again. Yeah, 17 homes. Right. So on Bowles admittedly these you know, these these counts are a little dated on this section of Bowles. So between. Between. Sheridan and Lowell, which is the section we're talking about. The latest traffic counts we have are 30,000 vehicle trips. Right. When you get east a little bit, that's where you get into that 38,000. But in this section, again, on these

somewhat dated traffic counts that I found is you're talking about 30,000 cars. So 17 houses is not going to make or break the problems that we already have on Bowles. I do think that the, the approach of, you know, oh, well, we can just have people make writes and go through the neighborhood. It feels like a, it feels like a very poor design decision in terms of traffic management as opposed to addressing the real problem, which is Bowles. And again, that's on that's on public works. We do have, yes, the right in, right out on some of these streets is is already present. Some of these streets already connect back to the neighborhoods. But there's there are there is one at least one other one that does not. So there are streets on this, you know, on Bowles that are also going to do this right in, right out and then go down, cut through the neighborhood that they're not connected to. And that's I think eight houses. So twice as many houses as you've already got. This is. I am in I am in full agreement in terms of making our city safer for kids on bikes, for people on foot. And I think the problem is that I'm hearing is that these are problems that already exist, and we're trying to put the onus on one developer of 17 houses to fix all of these problems that these hundreds of houses already have. And that's

that's out of the scope of what we can do here. Right? We are we are bound by rules in terms of approving or disapproving this plat. Right. And those rules don't necessarily say that we can put the onus of a safer Bowles on this plat. And I know that this is I understand that looking at this as its own singular project, rather than as the comprehensive is problematic. And I agree, but unfortunately, that's outside of the scope of what we are allowed and what we are required and bound by the rules of this board and this city. To do so. I would like to ask that before any or, you know, at least as part of me, the the site plan that the city and the Public Works Department take a good hard look at how we can make this safer and how we can maybe slow down some of these streets or turns into and out of this neighborhood, whether that's by shrinking the the turns in and out like they did on Jackass Hill recently, to the city, to the streets, off of Jackass Hill. That's resulted in incredible slowdown in that neighborhood in terms of people turning in and turning out. And I would like to see some plan other than just say, well, go right and cut around in terms of how can people easily get eastbound on Bowles from not just this subdivision, but other subdivisions as well, such that it's not just saying, well, you

can you can use these neighborhood streets as these local streets as connectors. So. Anyway, I apologize. That was a little that was a little rambly. If I had one other question. No. Never mind. Thank you. - Thank you, Commissioner Radulovich. - I don't think we're even allowed to ask questions at this point anyway. Correct. I've run into I think I ran into that my first meeting. Yeah, it's a it's a thing. So this is one of those where I think. This is difficult just because you're weighing two things that are in direct opposition to one another, being that this site. But on its face, I think this meets everything that it should. I think the one place you could make an argument that you can make arguments is that one of the overarching things of any comprehensive plan is the safety of its residents. And. This comes down to a matter of scope. As in, as Mr. Santana said or Commissioner Santana said in that this is 17 homes. I am fairly certain these neighborhoods generate more traffic or close, or they generate traffic on Amazon. Calls that didn't exist when these things were designed. There's there's just so many variants here that could increase your traffic. We. So

this. On its face and the by the criteria that we're looking at I am fairly certain I have to vote yes on this. - Thank you. I echo the other commissioners in many ways and also have have a lot of the same concerns about safety and traffic and ingress egress. But I also feel that a lot of that the issues are greater than just this one development. We know that they're there. It is concerning that we don't have a planned, clear plan for the Bowles corridor in terms of traffic and safety. The whole works. And that that makes it a difficult decision for us. Again, I, I got a little excited to see. Not that I have preconceived notions that that a single family development is being proposed. I have not seen one since I've been on this planning commission. For how many years now? Eight. Seven. So it is an area of need regardless of the price range. Regardless, we do have a need for a range of housing types, a range of housing prices, and it is only again 17 units. I know to you it's a huge impact, but in the overall scheme of things, it's a very few housing units that are needed. I think, you know that the the issues, the problems being brought up tonight are just more all

encompassing than this one development. And there's a lot of responsibility there with in terms of the city, with the residents who live there in coming up with solutions, not just who lived there, but our host city. We are we need better solutions around safety and traffic, and we're a growing community. And those are just, you know, the consequences of that. We need to we have to look at those things and try to correct them. I given I have to say too, that the criteria that we have is based on does this preliminary plat meet the land use code? And under that criteria is conformance that the plan plat meets the Comprehensive plan and all applicable requirements of the city code? And I believe that it does. It's just the plat itself. That's our responsibility tonight. Preliminary plat, the zoning, it's already zoned. There's not anything that we can do about that tonight. It's zoned. Given that, then the developers are presenting something that is within the zoning, the standards and specifications. Again, we're just looking at platting. And for platting. I think that the applicant has met those. And is conforming with those standards. So with that, it's a tough situation and I, I will support approval

of the preliminary plat tonight. Thank you. But. We need to call for a vote. - What we said do you need anything? Oh. - I did vote it. - Why not wait and get the problem fixed? If it's just 17 homes, the 17 homes argument can be flipped around. I don't care about all I care about. - Is everybody voted. Does it look like. Okay. Thank you. Yes. - The vote is four in favor with one opposed. Commissioner Neelie is opposed. The motion carries. - Okay. - Okay. I don't see anything else agenda. So other than does staff have any reports? Oh, we have two more items. Excuse me. In this shuffle here. I've lost the second page chair. - Might we take a yes? - Yes, and I was going to propose that. Let's take a ten minute break and then be back here at what is it, 913, 23.

How about 925? 13 2025? Thank you. - So.

- I.

- To City Council of Code text amendments to the Unite Unified Land Use code regarding electric vehicle charging. And I'll turn it over to staff. - Thank you. - Very quickly. Present this. - Absolutely. Hopefully the presentation are phenomenal. Yes. Before you this evening is a follow up to a prior conversation. There we go. A prior conversation that we had. Oh, it's mirroring it. Well, if that's the case. That's okay. You'll see the next slide anyway. Electric vehicle charging station discussion. So before you this evening is a recommendation for a resolution to recommend an ordinance change to the UC. All right. It's just slow. - There we go. Thank you. - Agenda introduction electric vehicle charging code update and discussion. So as I previously at our previous meeting mentioned that in 2024, the state legislation, HB 20 4-1173 created the regulatory guidelines that ultimately resulted in this Colorado electric vehicle charging model. Land use code and guidance document. This is the document that staff has been working with the state's consultants on to ensure that this this

updates, that's before you this evening, complies with the guidance document. So some minor changes from our last conversation. So principal use standards allowed in DTA, DMU, NCC, bc, IP zone districts. We did talk with the state about the MFR item. They were not amenable to us removing it completely, but they were amenable to extra process that would have to come before the Planning Commission in the form of a conditional use. So we are proposing a conditional use for, you know, principal use charging stations in MFR, abide by the book standards. Campese similar to car washes, the convenience store item. We had a good conversation about that at the last meeting that we discussed this on, and staff is proposing, and the state was amenable to this convenience stores being allowed as accessory uses to EV charging stations in NCC, BC and IP, which would be similar to those gas station provisions. The state was also amenable, but staff is is proposing them to just be allowed, but the state was amenable, if you so choose, through an amendment to make those conditional uses as well. So just wanted to make sure you had the full scope of that conversation. And then approval process would be a site plan with the couple conditional use items I referenced. Accessory use, expanding accessory use EV charging to all zone districts. So the only problem with my graphic is at the bottom there it should have a red line. As for every one of those items instead of just the ones, this is the current code, the proposed that you have in your

packets shows that across all of them, and then the approval process would be the building permit. Accessory use standards continued. Kind of talked about this exempt from setback buffer yard screen requirements with some exceptions. Those exceptions are basically if it's going in at the same time as a principal use, that the principal use would still have to meet those buffer, those screening requirements, excuse me. And then adjustments to some of the non-conforming provisions. And then we did. We are proposing a slight amendment to one of the sustainability incentive items, just to bring it in line with this Colorado model electric ready and solar array code with a little bit of additional. So if you applied for it, you would have to put in more than what's required to meet that sustainability bonus. Required off street parking. As I mentioned prior, we're proposing this code or this table has been adopted per per that Colorado model electric reading and writing code. So it's in the building code. So we're planning to reference this table for the parking requirements. And then lastly adding and adjusting definitions. Electric vehicle charging accessory use proposed to add that definition. Electric vehicle charging principle use proposed to add that EV charging station. That's an addition electric vehicle or electric EV charging electrical utility equipment. Proposing to add that adjusting fuel sales retail. And that kind of goes into our next presentation and then convenience store adjustment and then the old electric vehicle definition being removed. With that, I'm happy to take any questions.

- Thank you. - Thank you. - The so to get the bonus they have to be 5% over the 5% if they're one of the big ones basically. Right. Is that okay? I just didn't see any of these things in the table in the code anywhere. Is that just are they going to be covered under the building code standards? Is that what they'll be covered? - That is correct. That table, that entire document has actually been adopted with the building codes. So the plan is to reference in in the table the building code to get to this table. That's the plan okay. - All right. Cool. I did like the the addition of putting the convenience stores only kind of in the commercial zones. That was very nice. And I think that's kind of all I have. Thank you, thank you. - Okay, so I just have one question real quick and I maybe I maybe I've messed this up. But like in this packet. Right. There's a I don't know if I have an extra page here because it just says ordinance number XX. But it has a line for vehicle sales and service for electric vehicle. Right. Is that. - Second page? - Oh, I think the table got cut off onto the next page. - So it says. - Electric vehicle. - Charging principle use. - Okay okay. Well okay. But then because I've also got this one that has anyway okay. So I guess a question. Just on this okay. So this vehicle sales and service right where it's permitted by right in the GTA DMU neighborhood is Nccm. And

the BCI Subections. Is that the same as applied. So so those are areas that where you're already allowed to have a car sales like a car sales lot. Is that what we're talking about here. So or am I is that like okay so let me try this again. Vehicle sales and service category. That is literally like a convenience store that just has electric car chargers as a principal use. So the. - The principal use would be the electric vehicle charging as a principal use. And then there's a separate line item. And so that is under the vehicle section. And so the I must have deleted or I must have got out of my packet earlier. - So it's not. - Sales just charging. - Just the charging station. - I think the sales is a different line of that table, if I'm not mistaken. - Yeah. I don't know if it's just the way it cut. - Across sales and services off to the left. Yeah. That's the the broader category okay. So this is a subset of that category. The principal use. - Okay. - So like instead of having a gas station in DTA I could have an electric car charging lot. - Yes. In certain zone districts you would be allowed principal. Yes. Electric vehicle charging station okay. - So. I guess I'm how how bound are we to have a principal use permitted by right in the DTA, DMU, NC and CCM areas because

we don't allow fuel stations in those areas and I feel like we should be consistent as a primary use, I have no objection to adding that as an accessory use to any of these. To to all of these segments, but I do have a little bit of a qualm with suggesting that we can have like an electric vehicle, charging station lot, but not a gas station lot. That feels very inconsistent in terms of because I feel your land use and your visuals and your layout and the amount of pavement you're putting down are very similar between those two. It's just whether you're plugging into electric or whether you're pulling out a gas pump. - Yeah. And I certainly understand we had a little bit of that conversation last time kind of what makes the difference. And I see a lot of similarities to it. I will say one of the things that that makes it differ in this regard is, is the state's mandate that that they go into as many use or may zone districts as possible. So we actually have worked with the state's consultant to remove it from some that we felt that were even less applicable. But I think we might be reaching the end of our end of our leniency with with those requests. - Okay. So the accessory use doesn't cut it for those districts. - That's correct. Yeah. The in the guidance document, it really talks about as I mentioned, you know, that's why MFR we had a good discussion on and completely understand you know, the where the commission's coming from in regards to potential for taking away housing. And so we had to work with the state to come to a, to a middle ground rather than abolition.

- Okay. Yeah, I must have been out for that. I don't know if that was the last discussion or something I was out sick for. So I apologize for repeating, for making you repeat that that information, but appreciate you clarifying that this is this is the result of this state, you know, part of the part of the state negotiations and stuff. It just thank you. - You're welcome. - Thank you. Commissioner Santana. - No questions. But I think, Aaron, I wanted to just say that I think we're going to have to hope that in our downtown parcels, that the land value is just so high that people don't put primary electric vehicle chargers there because it's a poor use of downtown space. But we may need to address that. Should we start seeing a bunch of primary EV charging stations eating up our DTA zone? - Commissioner Neelie. - No, no further questions. I have the same concern. I don't know that we really addressed any of our concerns last time, but maybe just a few. Sort of minor adjustments. But I guess that's it is what it is. - Thank you. - I don't have any questions. I do like that we the change to conditional approval in MFR chair. - I wanted to say if we're going to just do some comments, that I actually like the idea of adding the conditional use requirement for accessory. Sales, the convenience store sales that that should. I think the state's goal is noble to get as many primary charging stations built, but I don't think the state is really trying to get as many convenience stores added to these neighborhoods as possible, and I think we should make that.

I like your suggestion that we could put an amendment for that. I'm planning to put an amendment for that. We include a conditional approval for accessory use of convenience stores, even in CMU, IP and NC zones, so that we don't see the by right approval with no setbacks or buffer yard requirements of primary EV charging. Businesses that are really just a Trojan horse to get convenience stores in that we should have a process to evaluate whether we it's a need necessary and necessary. And good addition to the to that zone. So I will be making that amendment. - Okay. Thank you. Let's see. We're moving into. Okay. Well now now have public comment portion of public hearing. Do we have any public comments. Anyone want to. - State. - The time. State the time is 9:41 p.m. - My name is Pam and I live a block or so from here and I'm not sure I understand this enough to. Talk about it. What seems clear to me is that a car is a valuable possession, and people don't want to be separated from it. It should be very close to where people are sleeping so that for, you know, a long time charging which multifamily may be what they offer their tenants, the tenants can rest easily near their cars, see their cars being charged. The concept of

separate EV charging places that you drive to to charge. Maybe you're assuming it's a quick charge or something like that seems questionable to me, so I don't see this as practicable. So I'm just saying that I don't think I'd vote for it even if the state said you have to. So thanks. Okay. - Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak? Seeing no one, we'll close the public comment portion of the public hearing. And it is now 942. Okay. Yes. - With your permission, chair. If an amendment is sought, may we ask? We noticed one item that we would ask for it to be added in the accessories. The A's should actually be a S's for accessory with standards. So just request that the amendment include that as well. If or if there is not an amendment that would be made to include that. Thank you. Yeah. On the accessory use portion of the table it just says a which is not bad nomenclature, but to be consistent with our the rest of our table, we prefer that they say a s so accessory with standards. And then the standards line is off to the right that it refers to. So it's just calling people's attention that there are standards. - B on page two of the draft ordinance, the table is technically at line 33, but

it's on page two at the very, very top. - The table that you're asking to correct with the A's is ten dash, one dash, one dash. 3.1 correct. That's correct okay. Okay. So with that we'll call for a motion. - I move to approve resolution 02-2026 recommending approval to City Council of Code text amendments to title ten regarding electric vehicle charging. - Second. - Okay. Did we want to add the I don't know if I can do this right now. The table changes. Do we need to add that to the motion? I didn't hear it. - That would be an amendment. - It's an amendment okay. Thank you. - Since Commissioner Santana is planning on doing an amendment, do we want to do this in two separate amendments? Would that be easier? Okay, I'll give it. I'll give a stab at the first one. I propose an amendment to table ten, dash one, dash 1.3.1. Under the commercial accessory Use heading. Changing the letter A to the letters A and S across the entirety of the table. - Do we have a second? - Second? - Okay. - I'm sorry. Who seconded. - Commissioner Santana. - Thank you. - Okay. - Any discussion on the motion that has been made in amended?

- We would just be voting on the amendment. - So we're calling for a vote on the amendment, which is changed to table ten, dash 1-1, dash three, dash one. Okay, I think okay. - Okay. - The vote is five in favor. The amendment carries. - The member. - The chair. - I may need some help with this, but I don't believe this is a change to ten point table ten one. One. Three. One day I need to make this a change on a different location. If I want to require a conditional use, go ahead. - If I may. I believe it is in the definitions and I will get you that code section. - It's line 79 on our packet. - Oh, thank you very much. Okay. So 79 would be a portion of section ten 11.4. - All right I move to amend resolution 022026, section ten

.1.1.4 to add conditional use requirements for NCP and CCM zoning districts. For accessory use of convenience stores. - May I ask? Just a point of clarification. I believe you mentioned three of the four. Did you did you include want to include BC? But thank you. - NCP, CN and. - And. - And BC. - Okay. - I'll second. - The vote is five in favor the amendment carries. - Moving on to the next topic. - Nope. You gotta vote on the main motion, but now you have to vote on the main motion as amended. - Just as a for discussion purposes, electric vehicle charging stations, principal use, or a collection of public use. Direct current fast charging or DC DC charging stations that service the primary function and land use.

So basically for all of these primary use ones, we're getting the fast chargers as opposed to the to the to the slow ones. As a as a point of clarification for our public commenter. - Thank you. Okay. With that, we will call for a vote. - Vote. The vote on the main motion, as amended, is five in favor the motion carries. - Okay. - Thank you. Now we have the next topic. If we could get through this in a few minutes. If not, we'll we can vote to extend, but we can try to get done if let's try and then we'll revisit in about seven minutes. Okay. So PC resolution zero three 2026 A resolution of the Littleton Planning Commission recommending approval to the City Council of Code text amendments to the Unified Land Use Code regarding fuel sales per retail. Okay staff. - Good evening. - Yeah, we'll try and go through this as quickly as possible. There's some background in here that we covered last time. Then we'll go into our existing code and then to the proposed code amendments and then to our potential actions. Some of this background I will go through

quickly, but I do know that Vice Chair Almond and Commissioner Roethlisberger weren't here last time. So please ask any clarifying questions you have. In April of last year, the City Council met to discuss fuel stations and to receive some information on the current status of fuel stations in Littleton. They approved an ordinance oh eight 2025 to put a moratorium on new fuel station developments and applications in the city. New fuel station applications in the city. This was extended in November, so it is currently in place until May 18th of 2026. Our existing code permits fuel stations in business corridor and industrial parks, and it is a conditional use, so it has to appear before the Planning Commission in neighborhood commercial and commercial mixed use zoning districts. There are 24 gas stations in the city of Littleton, and 20 gas stations within a 1.5 mile radius of the city limits. This is a map of green areas, allow fuel sales, and then the purple areas are fuel sales. With that conditional, use that extra appearance in front of the Planning Commission. I'm going to just go through that one. Our proposed code text amendments are based on our discussion we had last time, and a comparison with neighboring codes. So the first is to switch the current permitted use in BC and IP to a conditional use. So any proposed gas station would have to come in front of the planning commission for a conditional use. The other change would be the other two changes would be to add a buffer requirement, so that

there shall be no fuel stations located within a quarter mile of any other existing fuel stations. There's also an allowance for. I'm just going to go through the. These are where fuel sales are currently allowed. This is where fuel sales would be allowed with the quarter mile buffer. We also ran a half mile buffer for comparison. So this is where fuel sales would be allowed with a half mile buffer. There's also a summary table of the amount of parcels where fuel sales would be allowed. Again with that conditional use, if that part of the amendment is also recommended. So just for your knowledge, we decided to recommend the quarter mile buffer to give more wiggle room. But we wanted to present you with both options of the buffer. It is also comparable to Lakewood and Denver's buffer. The quarter mile Denver has a quarter mile and Lakewood has a 1000 foot buffers. We also added a exemption to the buffer for any fuel sales attached to a use that is attached to it. Sorry, a food market or grocery store with a gross floor area of 25,000ft■!S or greater. This is to allow for grocery store developments to come into the city that might otherwise be deterred by their inability to add a fuel sale station. Yeah, we are recommending that the Planning Commission give a recommendation to approve these amendments. And yeah, any questions? I know I went through that fairly quickly. - I have a very quick question. What constitutes a food market

or a grocery store? - Yes. Let me get that definition. So food market means a food facility where bakery products, meats, shellfish, seafood, poultry, preserves or any other foods or food products, whether in bulk, canned, wrapped, bottled, packaged or in any other form or sold or offered. And the grocery store is any building where most of the gross floor area is devoted to the sale of food products for home preparation and consumption. That's not the full, but may also offer prepared food for on or off site consumption, retail, personnel and household items, so food markets are limited to those food items specifically, and grocery stores can have a slightly larger scope. - And would these this this exception, if they're within a quarter mile and the. Would they still have to come before planning commission for approval? - They would. - Yes. Okay. Thank you. - Commissioner Santana. - Questions? - Yes. - Questions. - Be sure. - No questions. - Commissioner. - No, no. - Any further questions? - Nope. - Okay. But I think we need to to read the list. Okay. We're opening public comment portion of the public hearing at 956. We have one person who would like to speak. I think Miss Chad board. - So I'm Pam Chadbourn. I live a block from here. And my question is this I don't

understand the impact of this proposal on our existing stations. One of the interesting things and I about Littleton is that the little grocery stores with four pumps serve as little bodegas for neighborhoods. You know, there's more than one because some people like one guy and not the other one. If you've ever walked around doing fliers like I have and you talk to those folks, that's what they say. These little neighborhood places serve a purpose. I don't understand the impact of this on those. They are existing, and I want to see that they're grandfathered in or something like that. But I also want our staff to say that. How is it I mean, again, to me as a planner and as a person who is understood management, you never bring a proposal without describing the impact on our existing structure. And I don't see that here. I want to know that I it is wrong to the city to bring something like this without explaining what it's going to do to us and what it's going to do to those existing owners and neighborhoods. I want to know that. So also, I don't see the environmental impact spelled out anywhere here. The ESB didn't hear this. The Environmental Stewardship Board did not hear this. Why not folks, you have Greg Sullivan, who has spoken at tons of city council meetings over and over about the environmental impacts of the 32 pumps of Costco. Where is that? It's not even addressed. I'm really offended by this. I don't think the city has served well by this. I don't think we understand what it does, whether it benefits us or not. I want to see the outcomes or impacts, and I want to see the benefits and the pros and cons and risks. I want to see the

impacts on Costco. ET cetera. ET cetera. So yeah, I'm very unhappy with this and I'm not sure. I mean, obviously I'd vote against it until these things were answered. Thanks. Okay. - Yeah. - You should vote to go past ten. - Chair. I move that we extend the meeting past 10:00 to complete business second. - The vote is five in favor of the motion carries. - Okay, so we will continue on. Did I close the public comment period? Okay. - Go ahead and. - Close it. - We now close public comment portion public hearing at 10:00 pm. Okay. Now let's call I call for a motion. For PC resolution zero three 2026. Do we have a motion? - Sure. I chair I move to approve resolution PC resolution zero three 2026 recommending approval to City Council of Kotex amendments to title ten regarding standards

for fuel sales. - Retail second. - A vote. - Excuse me, I'm jumping ahead. Do we have any discussion? Commissioner Santana, you look ready. - I do. I appreciate the work you've done on this. I think this is really close to what you know, what we're hoping to do. I'm in favor of the conditional use review process. My only feeling here is that we go with the half mile buffer. I understand the quarter mile buffer. Allows 14 possible sites to be developed, but we already are at such a huge capacity of fuel stations that just room for six more is plenty. Excess capacity. I think that would be amenable to council. They certainly are welcome to dial it back to quarter mile if they so choose, but I would recommend that this body propose the half mile buffer as and I will be proposing an amendment. But otherwise I'm very much in favor of everything here. Great work. - Any other comments, Commissioner? - Commissioner. - I know during our discussions prior that basically this has no effect on things that exist right now. We're not going to force anybody to go out of business. This is for future lands, future ones to be built. From what I understand of things. - Okay. Thank you. I have no

questions. I do like the conditional use again. So we'll vote. - Are you going to make an amendment. - I chair? - Okay. - I'd like to propose an amendment. I move to amend resolution zero three Dash 2026 to change E fuel sales one locations to read location. The use shall not be located within one half mile of other fuel sales. Retail dot dot dot change just to change to that first line of E part one. - Second. - Now we can call for a vote. - We can have discussion. - On the amendment. Correct. - Sure. - Okay. - The vote is four in favor with Commissioner Radulovich voting. No motion carries. I'm sorry. The amendment carries. - Yes. - Now we're on the main. - Thank you. Okay with that, I believe. - The motion. - No, no, we have to vote on. - We have another vote. - On the motion. - Okay. We have another question. You just vote against the. - Motion, okay?

- Yeah. Okay. - Cool. Don't remember the motion. - Sorry. The vote is five in favor. The main motion carries as amended. - Thank you. Now, with that, I believe we are finished with the hearing portion of our meeting today. Tonight. And then we will move into comments and reports. Staff, do you have anything? - Just a very brief update. So a few meetings ago, the early meeting in actually last meeting in February, there was a few requests for staff to bring back some additional information to the Planning Commission. So I'll save some of it for next meeting because we will have a meeting in two weeks. But just to hit a couple of highlights, the the inquiries were how many units have been permitted. So we're at 1932. And those are for pretty much the bigger projects. There might be a couple of smaller projects that have some units as well, but that's the kind of the headline number, nearly 2000. And then units approved but not under construction, 828 and then development under developments under review. So I'm, I'm working on tallying that up. But so far I have 1042 units under review currently. So approximately a total of 3802, as I mentioned, give or take a few on the smaller projects.

And then the other item that I was asked about at that meeting was bring back an update on some of the things that you had seen in the past. So that item I'll reserve in the for the sake of time for the next meeting. So thank you. - Thank you. Do you have anything? - There'll be one last meeting in March with this current board on the 23rd, and then we will seat the new members on the 13th of April. But our training won't be until the April 27th at 530. - So mark that down. - So we have no meeting, right? - Yes. There's a meeting March 23rd with this current board. That's the last one for this board. All right. Then we see a new board on April 13th. And then the training that you get every year, it will be on April 27th at 530 okay. - Great. - Thank you. Any reports from commission members? You did okay. - I will not be here on the 23rd. I'm going to be in Washington State drinking wine. Okay. So so. - This is your last meeting. - So this is this is my last meeting on this board. So I'd like to thank the the staff for the work that they put in the, the council for allowing me to be here and you all for, for, for just all the support and all the, you know, the stuff we go through. So but yeah, this is my last one. And after seven years of being on a board, this will be a new experience for me. - Okay. Thank you for your

service as well. This has been you've been a really great contributor to the commission. I know you have a lot of good questions. You challenge us and we appreciate that. We'll miss you. - When I get back. - Well, that's the first time I've ever heard you do that. - Enjoy your retirement from boards. - Yes. - Yeah. - And congrats. Any other announcements? I have nothing, so we will adjourn this meeting at 10:08 p.m. Thank you.