Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and call to order the Planning and Zoning Commission May 20th, 2026 meeting, roll call. Chair Polin? Here.

Commissioner Arment? Here. Commissioner Lang? Here. Commissioner Wang? Here. Commissioner Saunders? Here. Commissioner Forbes? Here. Commissioner Jordan? Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Next is the land acknowledgement statement. We acknowledge that Longmont sits on the traditional territory of the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute, and other indigenous peoples. We honor the history and the living and spiritual connection that the First People have with this land. It is our commitment to face the injustices that happened when the land was taken, and to educate our communities, ourselves, and our children to ensure that these injustices do not happen again. Next is communications from Grant Pendlin. I can move closer. Okay.

Good evening, Chair. The only communication this evening is to say thanks for all being here and happy May.

Thank you. Next is public invited to be heard initial. This is a chance for the public to come and speak to us on items that are not on the agenda for tonight are going to be coming to us in a quasi-judicial manner. Jane is going out to get the sign-up sheet. We'll give her a minute. During this time, speakers will have five minutes to speak. We just ask that you give your name and your address for the public record.

Where's Jane? I don't know. Maybe she left. She wants to check the score of that, Steve. Oh, there's more chatting down there, that's why.

They're just sorting it out.

Okay. Okay, so nobody signed up for the initial public invite to be heard. I will open up if anybody wants to come forward. Once again this is for items not on the agenda for today. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out the initial public invited to be heard. Next is approval of minutes. First, we have the April 15th, 2026 meeting minutes. Do we have any questions, comments, or motions? Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. I move we approve the April 15, 2026 meeting minutes.

Thank you. Commissioner Jordan. I second that motion. We have a motion. We have a second. Any other comments? If not, Jane, let's go to vote.

Commissioner Arment. Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Saunders? Yes. Commissioner Forbes? Aye. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Chair, that passes unanimously, seven to zero.

Thank you very much. Next, we have approval of the minutes from the April 22nd, 2026 meeting. Do we have any comments, questions, or motions? Commissioner Jordan?

I didn't realize I had the button still selected, but I would go ahead in motion to approve the minutes.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? I'll go ahead and second. Any other questions, comments? Jane, let's take a vote.

Commissioner Arment? Yes. Commissioner Lange? Aye. Commissioner Wang? Aye. Chair Polin? Yes. Commissioner Saunders? Aye. Commissioner Forbes? Aye. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Chair, that passes six approvals, one abstention.

Thank you very much. Next, we'll move to the public hearing items. The first item is the Copper Peak at Longmont Concept Plan Amendment, Longway Gateway Northeast Side. Senior Planner Christine Cote presenting.

Good evening and thank you, commissioners. I am Kristen Cody, a senior planner with Planning and Development Services. And this evening, I will be presenting for your consideration the Copper Peak at Longmont concept plan amendment. So tonight's agenda includes several related applications associated with the broader Longmont Gateway project area. So including in this application set is this concept plan amendment. the Envision Longmont Land Use Amendment and the Annexation and Concept Plan request on the Westerly property. While each application is evaluated independently under its applicable review criteria, together they will establish the broader planning framework for the Longmont Gateway North area. That being said. So the subject property is generally located at the northwest corner of US 287 and Parkridge Avenue at 2704 Main Street. The site is approximately 23 acres, is currently undeveloped, and is zoned Mixed Use Regional Center, or MUR. The property is designated in Envision Longmont as Regional Center. Request. The applicant requests approval of a concept plan amendment for approximately 23 acres. The amendment proposes increased residential mixed use development, incorporation of an RTD area, commercial and retail uses, and updates circulation and access. The property is already annexed into the city and is currently zoned MUR. This site is designated regional center under Envision Longmont. The regional center designation anticipates a mix of higher intensity residential commercial employment and transit supportive development near major transportation corridors and services. The designation also supports multimodal connectivity and regional serving commercial activity. The site is currently undeveloped and is surrounded by a mix of multifamily, residential development, commercial uses, and a major transportation corridor. So this is a view from US 287 looking east across the site. You can see it's undeveloped and in the background you can see the Copper Peak Apartments. The concept plan amendment includes several key revisions to the approved concept plan. These include increased residential emphasis, reduced commercial acreage, incorporation of the RTD area, and updates to circulation and internal street layout, as I mentioned previously. This exhibit shows you the existing approved concept plan for that area on the left and the proposal on the right. You can see that the RTD area shifted to the north with commercial uses shifting to the south and the addition of higher density residential in the mid portion. so the proposed concept plan includes approximately 15.1 acres of higher density residential approximately 3.3 acres of commercial and retail uses and approximately four acres dedicated to rtd parking the proposal includes an anticipated density range of approximately 18 to 35 dwelling units per acre resulting in an estimated range of 272 to 529 units The proposal maintains a mixed-use development pattern while increasing housing opportunities adjacent to existing services and transportation infrastructure. Access and circulation. This proposal includes a signalized access at the northern portion of this property on US 287. Additional right in, right out access, a Park Ridge Avenue connection, and an updated internal circulation framework will be coming. The proposal... Let's look at the traffic analysis. The traffic impact study evaluated both 2030 and 2050 conditions, including intersection operation, signalization needs, and access configuration. The study recommends signalized access, identifies turn lane improvements, and recommends operational improvements along US 287. Staff and referral agencies will continue reviewing detailed transportation improvements through future applications. The property is located adjacent to a major regional corridor and existing multifamily and commercial development. The existing MUR zone anticipates mixed use and higher intensity development patterns. The RTD component also supports broader multimodal transportation objectives and staff recognizes the importance of ensuring appropriate transitions and circulation relationships as development occurs in this area. So Commission's review tonight is guided by section 1502.055 of the Land Development Code, including consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility, infrastructure considerations, multimodal transportation planning. Commission has three options tonight for a decision, approval without conditions, which is staff's recommendation, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff recommends approval of the Copper Peak at Longmont concept plan amendment based on compliance with the applicable review criteria of section 1502.055 of the land development code. And this concludes staff's presentation. The applicant team has a presentation this evening and city staff will be available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Let's move to the applicant presentation.

I think you should probably go, and then we can continue on from there.

So we have a presentation that's much more, sorry, Chris Neals from ACTIS, part of the application team. I'll just dive in. Here from our side is Frank DeSiena with Actis. We've got James from Kimleyhorn and Jeff from Kimleyhorn. Candice Burnett, the land planner, was unable to make it tonight. I'm going to skip the timeline. So the applications that we're here to talk about, as Kristen mentioned, there are really three that are all interconnected. The east side, which she just spoke about, is probably the simplest of the three in that it's just an update of a concept plan that was done back in, I believe, 2014 when Walmart sold off the parcel just to the east of this site for the Copper Peak Affordable Housing Development. So I think I would like to kind of keep all of our comments.

Do you have a microphone you could talk into? Because a lot of people back here cannot hear you. I'm sorry. Thank you for letting me know.

Is this a little bit better? Aha. There we go. I think it might be easiest to open up questions now for the east side. And then after Kristen does her presentation for the west side, we can get into more details about that. Or would it be better for us to kind of give our overarching comments?

Can you give comments now, and then also when we move to the west side, we'll also look for comments as well. Okay, sure.

So on the east side, we did a market study and found that the need for additional retail in this area is fairly limited. When you look at the kind of north Main Street corridor throughout, through Longmont, there's a very... robust amount of retail here that services all the major needs. Additionally, certain retail centers do have vacancy that's available that they've been trying to fill. We had a brokerage team look at a voids analysis and there were no major retailers that want to be up on this parcel that aren't already represented in Longmont somewhere else. So we really felt that the higher density residential was a much better use of this land. That being said, on the south portion of the land, there is three acres reserved for commercial, which could be retail or kind of medical office, things that kind of serve the immediate community more than kind of larger retail. And then as a part of the Walmart annexation, it was determined that RTD would like to have the northern terminus of its rapid bus system connecting Boulder, the diagonal, Longmont, and then the northern cities here. And so four acres were designated to go to RTD as a part of that process. So those are the three components of the concept plan that we're asking to be updated this evening. Okay, thank you very much.

This is a public hearing item. As such, the public does have a opportunity to comment on it. Jane is going to get the sign-up sheet for this public hearing item, the Copper Peak. We'll give her a minute. And if you would like to comment but did not sign up on the sign-up sheet for this item, you still have a chance once we go through the sign-up sheet We do have two names on this. As I said, once we go through these first two people, if anybody else would like to comment, you will be invited up. We will give you five minutes to speak, and we do ask that you give your name and your address for the public record. First up is Michelle Christensen.

Good evening. Good evening. Oops, it's really high. Good evening, everybody, planning and zoning commissioners. I'm here to speak about the prairie dog colony.

You're okay. Go ahead.

I'm here to speak about the prairie dog colony on 66th and Main. We all know the black-tailed prairie dog is a keystone species. And I don't want to talk too much about that because I came here for a personal reason. These prairie dog systems are also not easily replaced.

Can I ask a quick question? Are these prairie dogs on the property being discussed? Okay, thank you.

Yes, it's a huge colony.

Okay, thank you.

Once a colony is lost, it's extremely difficult, often impossible, to restore in any meaningful way. I'm not only here as concerned about the ecology, I'm also here as a parent. My adult son has severe developmental disability. He has schizophrenia. For him, much of the world can feel overwhelming and difficult to access. But this Perry dog colony is different. Watching these animals is one of the few things that consistently bring him calm, Focus and joy. My son lives in a silent world. He barely talks. He barely leaves the house. But for some reason, these prairie dogs seem to do something for him. So I'm all fighting for prairie dogs now, because I see what they do. And I can't explain it. He smiles and he talks. So he can stand there for long stretches, completely engaged. And I talked to his psychiatrist about it, and he's amazed too, but he also understands why, because my son doesn't have the capacity to just go around and talk to people. So the Perry dogs help him want to be here. My son, I almost lost him a couple of times, so it was very emotional for me that these are actually maybe gone, because I, you know, I'm just like shaking thinking about it. So it actually gives him a very peaceful connection to nature that otherwise is very hard for him. For my family, this is not an abstract issue. This is not just a piece of land on a map. It is a place that provides real emotional benefit and a meaningful connection to the natural world for him. As Longmont continues to grow, I understand that development pressures are real and land use decisions are complex. But growth also comes with choices. And one of those choices is whether we take every remaining piece of functioning habitat and replace it for human value. Places like this, prairie dog colonies, are increasingly rare in Longmont. This is the last big colony here. So I hope that there's going to be alternatives that we could preserve at least part of this colony or meaningfully reduce the impact on them. Even partial preservation can retain ecological function and maintain a living connection to the landscape. I also want to speak to what kind of community Longmont chooses to be as it grows. A healthy city is not defined only by density or development. but also by how it protects the natural spaces that still exist within it. And we have very few spaces now that we can actually go see wildlife. It's pretty sad. For my son, these prairie dogs are vital. They're not just wildlife, they actually give him connection. And they are a source of happiness, calm. And losing this colony not only will be an ecological loss, but also a deeply personal one for my family. So as you consider the future of 66 in Maine, I ask that you weigh not only what will be built there, but also what already exists there, which is a huge prologue colony. And what cannot be replaced once it's gone. I'm sorry. I'm just pretty emotional. But I really appreciate your time. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Jamie Fraina. And I hope I'm getting all these names right.

Got it.

Thank you, zoning commission. Yes. Hi, I'm Jamie Frana. I live at 766 South Martin Street here in Longmont. You've seen me here just a couple of weeks ago to talk about our prairie dog ordinance. I'm also the Northern Colorado Outreach Director for Grasslands Colorado. We're a nonprofit to help protect our local wildlife. And it's surprising how many people have reached out to me about this habitat. It's very visible from the highway. Many people know it as one of the last large prairie dog habitats in the city. It matters a lot to many residents, as you just heard from Michelle. Residents at the Copper Peak Apartments even have reached out saying that they're worried about their wildlife neighbors. And also they are a keystone species that support so many other animals, the raptor, eagles, many others that are around the area that residents all over the city love. So I understand development is gonna happen. But I just am here to help with trying to find the most humane option for them. And just want to advocate and make myself available to the applicant for relocation at a volunteer rate, essentially. We have a lot of volunteers to help out. And just trying to avoid having this colony exterminated. So that's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Jamie. Okay, those are the two people who signed up. I will now open it up if anybody else in the public would like to come forward and speak. Once again, you will have five minutes. We just ask that you give your name and address for the record.

Hi, good evening. My name is Tim Schaff. I live at 12707 Hillcrest Drive, so right over there in the Willis Heights. I've got to plead a little ignorance. This is the first I'm hearing of this. So my question is, this is a concept plan amendment. Is this going through, or is this something that you guys are still trying to figure out whether or not you're going to do, what's going on at Copper Peak? That's my question.

Well, we don't usually do a back and forth just to let you know. The prior concept plan has already been approved. What the applicant has asked for is some changes to the outlay of the area.

Okay, fair enough. So I guess my comment then, and I don't know if I'll speak because I'm signed up to speak on the other side since I live on the other side of the highway there. So I think if I'm remembering correctly, 272 to 500 and something units going in. Not sure how much you'd like to put on the other side of the highway. I realize it's not a back and forth. And then we've also got Gay Street going in on the other side of the church over there. So we're looking at, what, probably 1,000 or more units that you guys are planning on putting in right there in our neighborhood? Would that be a correct assumption? Again, I don't know. That's my concern. I think that's everybody's concern. So I just wanted to say that, and I'll probably think more and see what you guys have to say about the other side of the street as well. But it seems unfair that I realize there has to be expansion. But it seems unfair to me that you guys are planning on putting so much of the new expansion right there in that neighborhood. To me, it would be one thing if it was all single-family homes, but now you guys are talking about putting in these apartments, and that's just 572 units or whatever it is, and if you put two people in that, that's 1,000 people just in that place. That's cause for concern for us. The traffic... When you're going to work and when you're coming home from work, the traffic at 287 and 66 is out of control. Oftentimes, I used to drive it all the time. Thankfully, I'm retired now, so I don't have to deal with that anymore. But sometimes that traffic coming up would be backed up a good quarter of a mile from 287 going down 66. And then people would cut where I used to turn on a hill crest and cut through our neighborhood just to get around all that. So it's already out of control. It's already too many people coming through there. I realize this is a little nimby going on here. I fully acknowledge that as well. But there's also a quality of life that is cause for concern, putting that many people in that small of an area, all in that one area. So I think I'll just leave it at that. Thanks.

Thank you, Tim. Do we have anybody else who would like to come forward and speak? Not seeing anybody come forward, we'll go ahead and close out the public invited to be heard for this hearing item. Move to comments, questions from the commission. Who would like to be first? Ah, Commissioner Arment.

I apologize. I didn't look this up beforehand, but is the land north of this property also developable or is that part of the Greenway north of this development? I don't know who would be the person to take that.

I can speak to that briefly. The land north of this is in unincorporated Boulder County, and I believe it is outside of the city's growth area, at least at a certain point. So there's no planned development within the city of Longmont on that north property at this time. Understood. Actis just brought to my attention, it is also within the Boulder County open space, so it is permanently protected open space.

Okay. So I guess... The reason why I'm asking that is because my thought on moving the, this proposal moves the RTD parking north. And it was brought up the multimodal access aspect of this. I'm wondering what is the reason for moving the RTD access to the very north of the property if you're not going to have walk shed north of that area?

Certainly, and I can address that briefly, and we can also ask the property owner to address that as well if they'd like to. Moving RTD into the northerly location, that design was brought about by the inclusion of the signalized intersection, so easy, fast access to the corridor was the thought behind it, but there may be more that the applicant would like to share. Okay.

I would say from the applicant's perspective, the move is primarily driven by what Kristen said, just in terms of giving the buses dedicated on and off access from 287 at that new signalized intersection, keeping them off Park Ridge Road and Copper Peak Lane, which under the previous design, they would have used both of those. I think we also heard in the neighborhood meeting comments from residents residents of this neighborhood that there's congregations of people at the intersection of Copper Peak and Park Ridge currently with the way that the buses are currently configured in that station that they felt like would be better served to be farther away from that busier intersection. So we felt like both from the neighborhood comments we received and just the general facilitation of movement of the buses, it was a better location for the RTD. We've also worked with the city transportation and RTD specifically on making sure that that decision coincided with what they thought was best as well, and both parties are in agreement.

So is there any effect on the walk shed, like the potential walk bike shed for this move of the RTD spaces, or...?

I wouldn't foresee there being an issue. Connectivity is a requirement of municipal codes. So if this application is approved and this property moves to subsequent development applications, connectivity will be evaluated and will have to meet code requirements. But I wouldn't foresee that there would be an issue with moving RTD to the northern portion in this instance. OK.

I think that was most of my questions for now. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Wang.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. So you mentioned that you're changing the concept plan because of lack of retail opportunities available. So you want to make it more residential? Is that what I'm hearing correctly? Yes, that is correct. Okay, can you explain, because there's an attachment, the concept plan attachment four. I don't know if you could see that or not. But under the land use table, the existing and proposed, the acreage actually went down for the residential and went up for the commercial.

I'm sorry, I don't have that document in front of me.

I don't know if Kirsten can pull it up or not. Attachment four for this subsection. Okay. For the concept plan?

Yeah, for the concept plan. Oh, yeah. It's the side-by-side.

Yeah, and scroll down to the second page.

Kristen, I think it's your third slide. Yep.

No, but you should look at the actual attachment because there's a table at the bottom.

Oh, on number four. Yeah.

Yeah, on the second slide at the

Yeah, so it's not in your slides, Kristen. It's in the actual attachments.

There's a land use table on there, and it says existing is what we have, but proposed says the numbers are lower.

Yeah, and I think what the difference is in what you're seeing is the original concept plan, that existing residential that is to the east on the existing in-place concept plan is the Copper Peaks Apartments. which is already developed and is not a part of this amendment. So that would be, I'm assuming the difference in acreages that you're seeing, does that sound appropriate or no?

No, can you go into the agenda portal and pull up attachment number four, please? second page yeah right there yeah which is different than what it shows on the original concept yeah the acreage for um residential went from 16 and a half to 15.1 and commercial went from 1.8 to 3.3 so that tells that the commercial went up when you wanted to go down do you have it on your thumb drive

Okay, so the table is wrong? Okay.

yeah just jumping in really quick i just looked at the table and it appears to not be correct i think i overheard uh chair poland um yeah the original very clearly has yeah three that are approximately an acre and a half and one that's almost nine acres of retail uh on the original so yeah there must be a an error in the table itself okay so we can't really rely on this attachment I think we can rely on the depiction. I think we identified that the table is incorrect.

Okay, thank you. The other question for the applicant is, are you going to be making any changes to the intersection of Park Ridge and 287? Especially the westbound portion of it, because right now it terminates and you can't go directly into the Willis Heights subdivision. Will that be changed?

The existing, Jeff Plank with Kimley Horn helped prepare the traffic study, 6200 South Syracuse Way, Greenwood Village. The existing configuration at that signal is a little unique that it doesn't allow eastbound and westbound throughs at that signalized intersection. That was with the desire of the previous application of the surrounding area and the neighbors and not having that through connectivity. And so, no, that is not proposed or recommended to change.

Okay, so it will stay the same. There will be no direct through traffic.

There will be no through traffic eastbound and westbound. It will remain the same.

Okay, thank you. The other question I have is for Kristen. Last month we talked about changes to the prairie dog amendment. Would this proposal project be built under the old code or the new code?

It would have to be built under the new code. So if this amendment is approved and if this property goes to future development, so subsequent applications, the first application that would allow for physical construction, which would be the plat application, would start the process in reference to prairie dogs. So that application would be submitted under the new code and it would have to follow those requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Do we have any other questions? Kristen, I do have a question. I believe there was a prior comment made about the original concept plan. Can you go through a brief history of this piece of property and how it came about?

I do have a bit of history about it. So this was part of the Copper Peak annexation that happened after the Walmart development was approved. It was approved for multifamily and had consideration for retail and commercial space. With some RTD area to the south, I don't have a lot of additional history, but I believe Actis could probably address the history more fully than myself.

Okay, thank you. And to qualify that in that original Annexation there is already the plan for the RTD. It was just moved in with this Proposed update that is correct.

Okay.

Thank you. Well, and I guess what I'm looking for I'll know if grantor or somebody can help me out with this is With this piece of property When was it proposed to be a retail area? How long ago was that when it was first proposed? Do we know that?

I will ask Chris from Actis to come up and talk about that process because that was a proposal when the concept plan was first accepted in reference to the annexation agreement.

Can you talk about history a bit of the property?

A lot of this predates me, but my understanding is that the Copper Peak development rezoned their property after the annexation and put together the concept plan that is currently in place back in 2014. So it really hasn't been looked at in about 12 years. Okay, thank you.

Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. Just a couple questions for the applicant. First one is about the prairie dogs. Have you considered how you would mitigate them?

Yes, and Frank can invite him to the stage. We are pretty well versed in the city's code around prairie dogs. We do have experience with relocating a colony over on the southeast side of town near the other Walmart. And I think our intention would be to follow the code as it is amended. I know that's a topic that's going on. It was at city council last night. We've heard from the people here in the room today and certainly do understand the process and are willing to work within the confines of what everybody agrees is the right thing to do.

Okay. One other. Oh, was there something else? No. Okay. Another question was just on the nature. Do you have any leaning towards apartments, condos, townhomes with these before rent for sale? Do you have any inclination on that front?

I think it's a really difficult question and one that council brought up when we did the annexation referral. And I think the biggest challenge is that the market moves a lot faster than some of these permitting processes. And so as a developer, we have to figure out what the right thing to do is at the time that we actually get it built. And so I would say it's really hard to know what it's going to be three, four, five years in the future when we're actually able to deliver something

Fair enough. Is it safe to say that given the targeted density, this would be probably apartments or condos? We're talking multi-story.

I would think for the east side, it would lean much more towards rental product. On the west side, I think there's a little bit more flexibility. Okay.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. If you guys don't mind, one of you standing up. So this is my differential of the packet that was given to me on Thursday slash Friday. There's 2,000 pages in here. There's three major applications in front of us, correct? And they're all sort of bundled together. And so far, what you've presented for your slide deck or reasoning and evidence supporting your three applications, is that the extent of it what we've seen so far? Is there more slide, more evidence? The packet is what staff has put together for us to review, yes? And Kenley Horn, sorry, the investors, RLA? Who is it? Actis. Actis, yes. It's the parent company. And so you have approached Planning and Zoning Commission with the application of these three developments. And so you're asking us to review that, yes?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, so I'm trying to ask you, is there more to your slide deck or are you just going off of the packet that staff put together?

I don't think that we would introduce anything that is not already in your packet through the slide deck, if that's your question.

Through your slide deck?

Correct.

That one slide we saw. Is there more to the slide deck?

Did I miss something? There are five slides in our presentation, and the other four relate to the west side of the project. That's why when I stood up originally, I was a little bit... Totally understand. Off kilter because I don't know whether we're introducing this as A, B, and C, or A through C, or how you want. That's where I'm getting at.

Yeah, because this is a humongous packet. I understand that. It's 2,000 pages to go over on a weekend. Nearly impossible. Okay, so there's three different things that we're looking at, right? And right now, I'm gathering we're focusing on the A, the conceptual amendments. Yes, ma'am. okay so we're not looking at bundling them all together we're just going to look at one at a time yes and correct me we probably have to do it that way one item at a time yes that is also my preference okay great um okay so you said this existing concept plan that oh it's gone from that attachment four maybe that could get put back on the screen please Don't go anywhere. Don't go anywhere, Mr. Niels, correct?

Yes, you pronounced it right.

Thank you. I write phonetically not how it is probably spelled. okay great thank you planner coat thank you okay so looking at these two concept plans the existing concept plan went with the annexation originally this is 2014 existing concept plan is what you said that's my head nods from the rest of the group so on saving the proposed concept plan is today it looks very different And you're asking for changing just the layout, not the density, not the use, just the layout in the concept plan for this one development application.

Yes.

Okay. I'm seeing that it looks like, big strokes, it looks less detailed on the proposed concept plan and that perhaps it feels less explored as the existing concept plan. Has the proposed concept plan been, you said it hadn't been looked at since 2014. How long has this proposed concept plan sort of been in the hopper, if you will?

We first presented it to the city back in 2023, October of 2023. And it's been kind of going through the process along with B and C for the last almost three years.

Okay. okay so for my personal vote if you will i don't have any huge red flags on this proposed concept plan i will say this 2 000 pages worth of stuff to look through over a weekend is near to impossible to do a thorough job this concept plan a seems the least um I don't want to say problematic because, again, I haven't had a thorough read on all of them. I'm concerned that all three of them are coming at us so quickly and in such a large packet for us to not really do a good job at reviewing it, for just me, for my vote. would have preferred them to be separated out knowing that we're going to be, you know, working them together. So I have a hard time saying yes when I've gotten 2,000 pieces of information to look through and invest for compatibility with the comp plan. i'm going to let that sit for a second and see if there are any other comments about we're just looking at the a concept plan i guess that's pzr 20269a um we're just looking at that one right now so i'm going to relinquish the mic for a second thank you chair thank you commissioner arment

Okay, so I guess a bit for my clarification, because looking through, I didn't note this earlier. Sorry, I'm on the bus, but this site is currently zoned RMN, right?

The site is zoned MUR, mixed-use regional.

Okay, and would the bus, the RTD area also be zoned that, or would that need to be?

No, that would remain that zone.

Okay. So I guess, and I can't remember off the top of my head, sorry, I should have looked this up earlier. Because I believe MUR has specific densities that are required. How would that interact with the RTD area?

Well, MUR has a required density of a minimum of 18 units per acre. So that would interact, you know, there'd be as the project was to go forward and applications that ended up in development were proposed. We would obviously look at buffering requirements, connectivity for easy walking access, if that would be an appropriate item, buffering to provide a compatible transition between uses, and circulation techniques and those kind of things, so that they can interact in the same general area, but interact compatibly together, if that makes sense. Understood, okay.

I guess I was more so asking The whole property, the whole of this unit does need to at least meet that 18. So because there's parking, would the rest have to be denser than that 18?

No, the density would only be looked at in regard to the residential portion of the property. So that would be evaluated at that time, but the RTD would not have a density requirement on it.

Understood. That makes sense. Thank you. I think that's all I had.

Thank you, Commissioner Jordan. Thank you, Chair. Sorry to bring back to me here real quick. Did we have from the applicant side a person who's responsible for the traffic engineering piece of this?

Yes.

The first one is just a minor clarification question, and I'll get it out there while you're walking up here. I noticed on the table where we're looking at the traffic study, it looks like it's combined for both sides of the highway here. Correct. The first, oh my gosh, there's a lot of pages in this. Okay, let me just jump straight into it and I'll find the actual page here in a minute. I thought that we were saying the commercial was going to be something along the lines of we mentioned either medical or something small in nature, but I noticed a huge amount of trips generated by what's listed under here as a fast food restaurant is accounting for 4,000 of the 7,000 predicted daily trips. Are we still thinking about fast food in this area, or was this traffic study done before the amendment was completed?

That's a neat question. I think within the commercial designation, it's pretty broad. And we would like the ability to do a retail center that does involve a quick service or drive-through food establishment.

Okay, that complicates matters from my perspective, because I'm going to jump down to the very bottom where we talk about the level of service changes on the 2030 and 2050 side. We're jumping from, looks like, where we're at now, which is, it looks like, am I to read this correctly, saying that I see As and Bs generally speaking, and we're jumping in a lot of cases to Ds and Es. Could you kind of double-click a little bit more on that?

Yes, and so the minor street intersections within the traffic study are all operating between you know mostly level service B or better on the side streets the intersection that has the lowest level of service and the least capacity right now is State Highway 66 and US 287 a big reason for that is the demand to go eastbound to northbound left during the PM peak, and then the reciprocal movement is southbound to westbound right in the AM peak. The AM peak operates well because there's an acceleration lane, so that movement is a lot easier to make a right with an acceleration lane, but the lefts are a more challenging movement. There's actually 800 lefts from a frame of reference. Dual left turn lanes, you start looking, are at capacity about 600. So that shows a need for regional capacity network. US-287 is the only roadway that travels north-south as a major arterial in the area to travel north to Berthoud and Loveland and south to Lafayette and Broomfield. And so to mitigate those left movements, you know, you'd want to look at more north-south traffic. through corridors as a regional connectivity in the area, like a 95th Street alignment or 83rd Street alignment. But the eastbound left is the only movement that fails at that intersection. The through capacity is operating acceptably.

Okay. I think, do we have anyone from city staff that can speak to traffic?

Yes, Caroline Michael is here. And I just want to mention one thing in reference to the existing traffic study. So right now you're looking at a concept plan, which doesn't have specific users or uses per se. So it's not as dialed in as it becomes in additional subsequent application sets.

That's fair. But there's a couple pieces of information here that are – I'd love to see – to hear – And I'll hold my question for just a second as she's working her way down here. But we have talked about specifically the intent. It sounds like it is more or less locked in of putting the RTD piece towards the north end of the property. And with the commercial being at the south, even though the plan isn't dialed in, that's where it would land if it showed up, right?

Yes, and I appreciate your feedback, and that is very important. I just wanted to mention that subsequent applications would look at a more robust interior network.

Okay, that's fair. I'll hold off on my question here just a minute.

Good evening, Commissioner Jordan. Can you please repeat the question? We've lost track of what we're discussing here.

So just for the context for this question, so far we've established that the RTD piece would be at the north end. There's going to be some commercial at the south end, which the applicant has indicated they want the flexibility of potentially having retail or fast food. In the traffic study, we've indicated that if that fast food were to show up, it would occupy a significant percentage of the daily trips. My question is actually more about how Envision Zero, sorry, the Envision Longmont plan works with our Vision Zero plan that we're working towards. What kind of infrastructure are we looking to have to mitigate pedestrian to vehicle incursions or impacts? Because it sounds to me like a lot of people will be walking past where we're potentially going to have fast food to get to an RTD Station at the north end of the property by design. I mean, I understand that there's a lot of conveniences here But I'm wondering what are we specifically looking for in the city that could mitigate some of those problems? And do we and would they and so I'm sorry I'm piling a lot on this question bear with me but what is appropriate to potentially add to a concept plan to ensure that those mitigations are handled and

Okay, so first part of the question. So far, this traffic study is focused on more high-level issues like the land use in the area. In one, I'm pretty sure, just looking at the traffic study, it was assuming 8,000 square feet of fast food restaurant with drive-thru, which I think is probably at least two restaurants. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's like a very large restaurant if it's only one. But regardless, I don't think that's one establishment producing all that traffic in the assumption. But the applicant can maybe correct me if I'm wrong there. So at this stage, there's really not any detailed roadway section design. There's not any detailed sidewalk layout. So it's kind of hard to answer the question of how. I mean, they would be required to install sidewalk on public right of way. like any street in the city would be. But right, I mean, there's a lot of things you can consider, like where we can maybe like formally stripe in crosswalks or add certain signage to help pedestrians access certain areas. But that level of design hasn't been done yet.

And would this come back to us as we go through more design iteration or not, if it's...

Yes, so you would see preliminary plats in reference to this potential development. And I also wanted to mention that Cami Edson, who is our transportation planning manager, is here tonight and can address some Vision Zero information if you would like her to do so.

So my main concern, and I guess this is what I'm looking for the warm fuzzies on, is we also just, the applicant just mentioned that we weren't planning to do any modifications to the traffic light that is, pardon me, at the Park Ridge and 287, right? That would be left unchanged?

That is my understanding at this time.

But the only place the commercial can go is right at that corner, yeah? In accordance with the proposed amendment, that is correct. Commissioner Jordan. So if that's the case and we allow to put in say two fast food restaurants that are drive-throughs and it's a huge amount of traffic influx, do we address this later at the preliminary plot to mitigate that or is it appropriate to address now?

Typically, you would probably want to address that at preliminary plat. So, you know, there are requirements in code that at various signalized intersections, if they go below a certain loss level, that it has to come to planning commission for consideration. So if, say, when the developer has actual uses and actual users of those properties established. They'll submit an application with a plat and the loss will be evaluated at that time for consideration by Planning Commission if that is necessary.

Okay. I think I'm good then on my questions. Sorry for the divergence there. No problem.

Commissioner Saunders. Thank you.

Nope. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to get back to layout a little bit on this concept plan. Could I please talk to someone from Actis? It's Actis, correct? I would like to talk some grading and drainage. So I believe that's Mr. Waller. Do you mind coming down? Thank you. Welcome. Good evening. I want to take a look at these two concept plans. They are different. So I'm guessing Kimberly Horn did the proposed concept plan. Do you know if Kimberly Horn also did this existing concept plan? Oh, sorry, you're not on. Hold on one second. It's just for the record. All our friends at home are watching.

um we did not do the existing concept plan we did do the proposed concept plan okay so i'm noticing something different from the existing and the proposed that brings me to grading and drainage yes could we address that please yes so the detention pond in the existing concept plan was modified as the copper peak at longmont multifamily project went to site plan and public improvement plants okay It was shifted farther to the east. It wasn't needed to extend as far to the west. We have done a preliminary drainage memo that verifies that the existing pond has sufficient capacity for the proposed development.

Okay. So what's already in there, they addressed it, and it's been developed, and that's what you guys will be using?

Correct.

And apologies, it's 2,000 pages. There's no way I would have been able to find that.

Understood.

Okay. The detail on the proposed concept plan is not to where I like it and I start to get blank check feeling when I see stuff like this. So that is probably my biggest concern here. And so I don't know if you can answer my next question. densities are we talking about from the the existing concept plan suggested all these different densities of retail multifamily but now we're really more high density so I'm wondering what density we're looking at because as far as I can tell 18 15 to 35 is it allowed density for the 18 to 35 18 okay my five looks it didn't make it all the way around 18 to 35 so it could be anywhere what you're saying this pink area could be anywhere between 18 and 35 with your proposed layout plan correct but uh with the higher density residential um as you're talking about additional detail that will be coming in the preliminary plot and site plan phase where we will be

where we would be subdividing the lots, there will be public right-of-way going through the parcel itself that will subdivide the lots even further. If we have a connection of a street to public right-of-way, which would be 287, or a continuation of existing right-of-way in Copper Peak Lane, it's required to be public right-of-way. So as we're looking at those areas, those are gross areas, that the public right-of-way would be subtracted from in the preliminary plat and site plan phase.

Hmm. So we're talking about the layout. That's what the application is asking, to amend the layout from the existing to the proposed. But I'm not really seeing much proposed except three different areas of density and some arrows. I'm not seeing any proposed roads, which I I know it's hard in development putting the chicken before the egg. I agree with you. But when you're putting these images side by side, I'd like to know where stuff is going to go. If you're going to try and amend the plan if I already had this existing one.

So on the proposed plan, everywhere where you see an arrow is going to be a site access that will be a street.

Just the access, not the through.

It will be a through.

We don't know that yet.

We don't know the defined street section. That public works city staff, planning city staff, and applicant agreed to decide on what the street section that ultimately needs to serve this development would be in the preliminary plot and site plan phase.

So let me approach this just a little bit differently. Planner Cote, if you don't mind. It's Cote, right? It's with the E at the end?

It is.

OK, thank you for correcting me. So do you know, on the existing concept plan, were the densities prescribed? Because that's a big range, 18 to 35. So I'm wondering where we're going to get that information. Because I feel at site plan, it starts to get a little too far down the road to then, because we're talking about the layout and the zoning. So I get the rub, and I hope you understand how it is on my end, too.

Yeah, I do understand, Commissioner Saunders. And I do appreciate your concerns. This particular concept plan, as concept plans are, are in general a bit gray, simply because it's conceptual. When you actually get into the development phase, the development review, which would be like preliminary site plan, is when you see greater detail And some of the reasoning is because within city standards, there are different requirements for maybe different forms of development, and you don't want your concept plan to be so rigidly set that the applicant is constantly asking for amendments to said plan.

Agree. Agree. Because my first blush of this packet, it's 2,000 pages long. It's three major developments. All I'm hearing is change order, change order, change order, change order, change order. And why don't we just start fresh? Like, that's just, those are my two cents. So, again, and I know this is an issue with me about these plans, and I'm seeing a much more detailed existing concept plan that went with the annexation. We're asking for an amendment on a concept plan that went with an annexation, and I'm just not quite comfortable enough with this sort of blank, checky kind of look over here. But that's me, and I see that Chair might want to address some of that issue. Am I reading that? Okay, so I'm going to let go of the mic for a second. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Please stay up. The way I look at this, when I look at the existing concept plan, and it was said that there was a mix of multifamily residential and retail restaurant. By the looks of it, the multifamily residential is actually what was built. That was the only thing proposed with the original concept plan for residential is what was built for the Copper Peak. All the other was retail. Now, they broke up the retail into pieces, but it's still one big piece of retail. There's a couple of streets, and he handled the detention pond and the fact that they did, and they're taking some of what would have been the detention pond, and that's what some of the commercial is ending up being on the bottom. So the way I look at this is that because of market conditions, that the need for 8, 9 plus 4.5, which is about 13.5 acres of retail, they don't need that much retail anymore. Right. And so what they're doing is they're just swapping it out. And basically, when you look at the existing concept plan, when they wrote that, they put the multifamily residential as a big blob. On the east side. And so basically, they did. I agree with that. It's a touchscreen. So for me, I'm okay with the fact that we're going to put in high residential. There could be multifamily townhouses, duplexes, definitely going to be some kind of apartments or something. And the fact that it has to fit at 18 units per acre, that's the minimum they have to meet. They can't go any lower than 18. Mm-hmm. So I'm okay with the fact that this doesn't have some of the clarity about some of the drive-through streets that the original one had. I can understand the fact, for me, it's okay to say that we're putting commercial on the bottom, RTD at the top, which is basically how RTD was slated before. And they said basically just in between the two, we're going to put in a mix of residential yet to be determined. And because it's yet to be determined, they can't really do the streets. And for me, I'm okay with the fact that they are still going to plan how that is divvied up. That's the way I read it. That's my take. Looking at the original concept plan, looking where they're moving to, you lose a little bit of the street... concepts but outside of that it's not really too different for me commissioner saunders thank you chair all great points most of which i agree with

um i agree with the market changing i agree that you need to pivot here's my concern i'm seeing this pink square and i'm seeing 35 units i'm seeing you could max out based off this concept plan you could max out at 35 right When there's an amendment to something, I want to see evidence, I want to see more support and more why, and I want to see more layout. I do. For me, to get my vote for approval, I do think it needs to be broken up because I am really concerned that it's going to look like these blocks and they're just going to be maxed out at 35 because that's what the market says it wants. I'd rather the mixed use with the residential and the retail, and that is a better layout since that's what we're talking about. We're talking about the layout, amending the layout. I don't see real reason Why we're amending it to what there's not a what we're amending the layout to we're just it sounds like we're just changing really the Density and now it's a big blob kind of a blank space. So I don't think that it's enough for me to approve the amendment to the concept plan with the layout that I'm seeing here because of the existing one is a higher detailed more mix of uses what we're trying to do with Longmont not just this huge high density residential max 35 units like that's where that's what we are saying that that's okay and we're just assuming that You guys are going to do a good job. But I'm not in the business of making assumptions here for my vote. So thank you for letting me rebut. I just don't think it's quite there enough for a layout amendment approval. I would need to have some more detail. So I guess I could put that as a condition on there. But I don't think reading the room, that's probably where we're at. But thank you, Chair.

commissioner lane thank you chair i wanted to echo commissioner saunders first of all frustration with such a huge package because it is kind of overwhelming um and i get you know rearranging these spaces but doing some math on like she said that's could be 18 per acre times 15 acres could be 500 units if you built the thing out completely it's a lot that's a hell of a lot of dwellings there on the on the that's and that's just the east side of 287 so and i also have to echo her comments and concerns about it just it does seem like it was kind of just thrown together and it i mean it's kind of If it's something that's updated by more than 10 years, you'd think it would look a little more detailed than the original concept plan, and it really doesn't. So I'm not a huge fan of this particular amendment.

Commissioner Forbes.

Commissioner Forbes. Thank you, Chair. So I just wanted to confirm on the traffic impact study attachment five and on page 73 of our amazingly huge packet that that diagram lays out exactly what the RTD plan is going to look like. And so this is attachment five of the traffic impact study. All right. And so that shows the parking, that shows the ins and outs of how traffic's supposed to flow in and out when everything is finished out on the proposed amended plan. Am I correct on that one?

I will ask the applicant's traffic engineer to come and address that question for you, Commissioner Forbes. Okay.

Can you tell me what page you're on? 73. 73. Yes.

You might want to have them pull it up.

Yes. And if you could pull it up, please, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. 73.

Yep, 73.

Is that the whole packet? This is the traffic impact study. Traffic impact study. On mine, it says 73. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's up a little ways. Yeah, there. There we go. That's the one. There's RTD. So is that what is proposed RTD layout for the amended layout?

So this is the most recent concept plan that we have received from RTD. They've been actually working on a phased approach of what their... layout will look like day one and what the ultimate build out will be. So as of right now, their phase one is going to be on the east side of their property. Phase two, which would include future parking, will be on the western side. But yes. Okay, great.

Yeah. So you've got the layout. you have you have the parking yeah eventually with different build outs the different phases and additional funding from them right and you can see how it'll start on copper peak because that's the first thing that's built out and then and then it goes and then once the the road behind is built out then it'll go on that that side uh instead of using copper peak and building traffic that way that's correct Then the reason I bring it up is when we were looking at the proposed plan, the main difference I see between the existing concept plan and the higher density concept plan. And one of the bigger, the bigger, uh, biggest differentiators is that on the, uh, the, the existing concept plan, you have like bicycle and pedestrian access and things and like going from the, like basically everything going to the RTD layout that's like in the center of everything. And then because this layout is now in the northernmost portion of the plan, the attachment 5 goes through and lists out how all of the traffic is going to go through and from the area. And then... Is that correct? That is correct.

With future build-out though, what I would say is their plan is to utilize that traffic signal for easy in, easy out as they're going to be timing their routes going up and down 287 and then on the diagonal over to Boulder. On the concept plan itself, on the FAR side, we worked with the planning staff on providing notes saying that all multimodal requirements at the time of application will be satisfied. So we didn't want to busy up the plan saying bicycle and multimodal, or pedestrian connectivity, and just wanted to say on the side that all multimodal connectivity will be supported.

Okay. So with that being said, like, In both plans, multifamily residential versus higher density residential are both still big blobs. So to me, there is no detail difference between those two. For me, the main difference is the access difference, which is addressed in the impact study. So the... To me, that tells me what I need to know about how at least this section of the layout and how it works out.

And the intention for those arrows in the concept plan are they're going to be the thoroughfares. So you see the arrows coming off of 287, and then at the... termination of Copper Peak Lane as it enters into the apartments. You'll see arrows on each side. Ultimately, there's going to be an east-west thoroughfare through there. You see the stub on the south side off of Park Ridge where Walmart's intersection will continue. That would be a thoroughfare going to the north as well. And then the dash line that we have going along what will be the future Copper Peak Lane and circling up to the north as it meets up with 287 will be a thoroughfare as well. We detailed that out as that's going to be one of RTD's top priorities for circulation as they plan to go to this development.

Okay. Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Wayne.

Another question about the RTD park and ride. Is it exclusively RTD only or will other bus services like the Flex, Transport Flex be able to use it?

I apologize. I don't know if I'm able to answer that question in a definitive manner. I know RTD is slated to use it. I don't know if Kristen has any additional information on it.

I do not, but I would.

We have somebody coming down to give us some additional information.

And that is who I was going to ask for, so perfect. Hi, commissioners. I'm Cami Edson. I'm the transportation planning manager for the city of Longmont New. Replace Phil Greenwald, if you remember him from before. So yes, transport who would already be using the same route and the same stations as RTD currently would also be there. It wouldn't preclude any other future vendors from also using the site as well.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. Just quick follow up on the RTD access. Mr. Waller, you were saying that.

Yes.

I just want to clarify. Can you put the attachment for concept plan side by side back up there just so we know what we're talking about? Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, that's the right one, thank you. So what I heard is that you said the RTD is gonna go on the north side, going east and west, come down Copper Peak Lane, south Copper Peak Lane, and then go across. They're gonna circle through the whole development, is that what I heard?

No, they will have accesses off of what will be the future street to the north. The dash line. There will be access off the dash line.

It just hasn't been connected. You didn't connect it.

That's correct. Yep. They're in a constant.

Okay.

Excuse me. What has not been connected?

The two arrows that are pointing as access points, that's going to be a road is what you're saying. That will be a road. You're going to connect a road somehow, but you don't know because we don't know the layout. But we'll maybe know the layout later, and then we'll maybe talk about density then when we see it. we will definitely know uh that there will be a street section across i'm sorry i know this is just it's such a hard thing to go from the the layout here that we have to the layout there but that was just my question and i'm going to limit myself to that thank you do we have any other questions mr neal i think you might be the one for this um

On the other item that we'll be considering, it was included a market study, which I believe actually ties into what you're also planning to do both on the east and west side together is what the market study was for. Yes, sir. And that speaks to the type of housing that you're looking at. So some of the concerns here is that there is the maximum of 35 units per acre. when I've gone over that market study it seems to indicate that there are other types of residential units that you are looking at can you go in a little bit more detail about that study and how that may affect what you guys are looking at putting into the east side yes so first it on the east side the current zoning

is what governs the density. So the minimum on the east side is 18, maximum is 35. I don't think there's anywhere in Longmont that has 35 units per acre. I think it would be very hard to get anywhere near that much density onto this site. So I don't want anybody to anchor on the kind of outside of it. And all of this will come back through planning commission again as we do the preliminary plat, which is the document that's going to do the subdivision and identify where the roads are and how they work. So I don't know that there's necessarily a blank check being written around kind of approving more of a bubble diagram. So with the 18 units per acre that does minimum on the east side, that does pretty much necessitate apartment-style three-story, you can probably get up fairly close to that minimum with very dense three-story townhouses. But because of that minimum density within the current zoning, it will almost certainly be an apartment-style project. It could be condos if it wanted to be for sale. functionally it'll look a lot like an apartment product on the east side where we have a different zoning there's a much more of an opportunity to do a mixed neighborhood and we can talk a little bit more about that with that particular project but the idea as we look at this as a whole is to create a diversity of housing types up here that allow For different styles of living all within the same area and the same access to the transportation and the pedestrian Circulation that will be a part of this project.

Thank you Kristen. I do have a question for you We see two different concept plans they have different levels of detail The city recommended approval of this. I guess the question I have then is Is there stuff missing on the proposed concept plan that the city requires in a concept plan?

Thank you for that question, Chair Pullman. There are not items missing on the concept plan that the city requires. Sometimes concept plans delve into a bit more detail. Other times they do not. This does include the aspects that the city asks to see in a concept plan, keeping in mind that development code will guide the rest of the process in reference to buffers, street layouts, setbacks, architectural standards, multimodal connectivity, and a number of other items.

Thank you. Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to follow up on a little conversation that you and Mr. Niels were having about potential approval of the other two sites. Yeah, do you mind coming up? Thank you. So my question is, so the other two sites right now that we're not quite talking about yet, are they're

Oh, sorry.

Oh, sorry. But there are two asks. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Thank you for clarifying. So there's not two different sites. I'm sorry. There are two different applications for the land use and the zoning on the other side of 287 on the west side. Yes?

Yes.

Okay. So if that does not go through, how does that work? How does that impact the one we're talking about now with the concept plan? And do you have a number high density that you are comfortable saying that you would probably stick at for this project that we're looking at right now for the copper?

So two questions there. The two sites are being brought to you all at once because there are a lot of elements that are interconnected between the two, particularly from an infrastructure standpoint. So lots of things we don't see that are under the ground with water and sewer and storm. And then kind of the most visible is the streetlight at the north side of the project. And it really, to make the expenditure around that street light. It only has two corners on it as opposed to four because of the open space and already the cost of that is really hard for the project to digest. Originally, the project did not have that light and there were traffic concerns that were brought up by the Willis Heights neighborhood about how the project was intended to connect into Park Ridge and make use of that traffic light. Also, through our traffic study, we found that having that second traffic light up on 287 allows us to drop the speed limit of 287 over the frontage of this project to 45 miles an hour, which everybody involved felt like would help with the safety concerns around both Park Ridge and also 66. given that a lot of people come through the Park Ridge light when it's green and don't slow down until they get all the way to the light at 66. So there was some thought that there was a benefit just from the safety and vehicular motion around having that light. So yes, if the project on the west doesn't happen, I think we really need to consider whether that light can be justified. And then this project probably has to be kind of reconsidered.

I agree. Thank you for answering that because sharing the tap, I totally get that. That makes sense to me and it helps me sort of with my differential. I do have a follow-up question if you don't mind. Sure.

There was a second part to your question that I didn't answer yet. I know you did, but that's okay.

I'm letting you think about it for a minute because that number, it's always tricky to share. You're saying that it's going to be 45 speed limit on this little section of 287 with that new light? Yes. So off of 66 coming through, it'll be 45, and then it goes up to 75 after that light going north? 65 65 okay don't tell anybody I drive sorry 65 it is 65 so that's what it will yes okay and do you have a density number that you're comfortable like we're gonna stay at probably this we're not gonna go to 35 in this higher density residential area that Amy is not super jazzed about We're going to take probably 25. That's what my market is looking at. If the other annexation and land use goes through to carry some of that density, then what would...

I don't feel comfortable answering that right now, just because that's not my expertise. I kind of lightly know what a lot of the apartment developments throughout Longmont are, but I would want to talk to our planner for this, and unfortunately she's in California tonight.

I appreciate the honesty, but it's good to see how they're tied all together as one Bundle and I get that and I get that when you have all this together it makes sense But it is a lot like you said to digest there's a lot going on here. And so that's back to my point I would have hoped there would be more Detail in this but I get where there are still some questions, but I'm sure because it's an amendment I I really feel like it all of this work had already been done on the concept plan originally with that original annexation and it it I have struggles just saying, oh, okay, now you can just get – I'm going to leave it there. It feels like a blank check to me.

We wrestled with how much detail to put into this document, and we're giving counsel that if too much detail goes into it at the point of the plat – we come to Planning Commission and we say, we want to approve this plan. And oh, by the way, we also have to do a concept plan amendment because it doesn't conform exactly to the details. So it's definitely a gray area of how much we want to say. I think from the developer standpoint, once we have a good understanding of what the chunks of uses are, then we can devote a lot more time and resource to figuring out exactly how that looks and how it lays out.

Yeah, and I guess that's my rub. It sort of feels like an ask, like, oh, okay, just look at this whole big bundle of stuff and just kind of trust us that it's going to develop out better. I would have rather seen, okay, at this density that we're asking and the land use that we're asking on the west side, this is what we think. This is what the new layout will look like. More detailed than this because it is a bigger project. And so I expect a little bit more to see into like Man, cuz I just cannot get that image of high density residential at 35 like I can't and see that now So having the more details in there and better layout even though it is, you know, it's still in the concept, right? You can you can push it a little bit further and put some more information in here for for us to look at and also maybe what if those land use and zonings don't come through so it can kind of be on its own. I think that's also helpful when you're asking for these three big development reviews. Those are my two cents. I think I'm not gonna beat this dead horse on my point. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. Do we have any more questions, comments, or motions?

Commissioner Lang. One more thing on the MUR designation for zoning is, I mean, by the code, you can go up to three stories height on that. However, if you provide a certain percentage of available affordable housing, you can go up to four. Or if it's within one quarter mile of a transit center, don't know if that little RTD nook could be considered a transit center, but there you could maybe kind of wriggle in a four story as well. So I know, and I empathize, everyone up here's We don't know what it's going to look like, but it's also hard to just say, oh, let's figure that out later, platting or whatever, because sometimes you're so far down that road that that becomes almost like a... technicality so I don't like that about MU art and I know you're not asking for a for a zoning change but I think that does allow quite a bit of wiggle room in terms of I agree you probably wouldn't be doing 35 per acre but 18 is the bare minimum whereas single-family zoning I think it's eight is the max dwelling units per acre so that's that's pretty big so I don't know. It just feels fairly carte blanche in terms of what is going to go there. And I know you don't know what's going to go there yet, but, uh, it, it's driving in from the North. It's such a, a nice drive on two 87. And then they get blasted with a bunch of apartments, right? When you come into town would be like, Whoa, where am I? So, um, I don't know. I'm, I still think it needs a little work, honestly. And, uh, Yeah, it's just a lot of stuff to fill in that you don't know that I don't know. But it's tough to just say, oh, okay, well, we'll just figure that out later. Because sometimes that happens and sometimes we never see the thing again. I just don't. I'm not seasoned enough on this board to know exactly how the progression of how developments go. But I just want to mention that.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments, questions, motions? Commissioner Amon.

Hey, I move to approve PZR 2026-7A for approval of this. Or actually, was that the one for the next? PZR 2026-9A is for this one, I believe. Yeah, item A. Yes, for this concept amendment plan.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Jordan. I'll second the motion. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second. Is there any other further comment? Seeing nobody light up the screen, let's go ahead and take a vote.

Commissioner Arment. Aye. Commissioner Lange. Nay. Commissioner Wang. Aye. Chair Polin. Yes. Commissioner Saunders? No. Commissioner Forbes? Aye. Commissioner Jordan?

Yes.

Chair, that passes five approvals.

Thank you. Sorry, two denials. Thank you. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with the City Council procedures and intend to appear before City Council, please contact the Planning Division for further information at 303-651-8330. That was item 7A. Are we ready to move to item 7B, or do we need any kind of time? Okay, let's take a five-minute break, and let's see if we can keep it to five minutes. Okay, if everybody can please take your seat. We are ready to continue.

That was really close to five minutes.

I heard it. I was so nervous.

Okay, the next item is the Longmont Gateway Northwest Envision Longmont Land Use Amendment. Senior Planner Kristen Cote presenting.

Thank you, Commissioners. This evening, the second application I will be presenting is the Envision Longmont Land Use Amendment, which is on the west side of 287. So the subject property is generally located at the northwest corner of US 287 and Parkridge Avenue. The site is approximately 26 acres and is currently located within unincorporated Boulder County. The property is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood to the west. The request tonight is to amend the Envision Longmont land use designation from single family neighborhood to mixed neighborhood for approximately 26 acres. The request tonight is to amend the Envision Longmont land use designation from single family to mixed neighborhood, as I said. What this is not, so this request is a policy level comprehensive plan amendment evaluating future land use compatibility and long-term planning direction. Tonight's request is not final development approval, site plan approval, preliminary plat approval, or architectural review. Detail reviews of buffering, circulation, utilities, drainage, architecture, and final site design occurs through future applications later in the process. The related requests tonight are also an annexation on this property, zoning to RMN, which is residential mixed neighborhood, and a concept plan consideration. So this exhibit illustrates the proposed amendment from single family neighborhood to mixed neighborhood, currently a single family neighborhood in Envision Longmont, and the applicant is asking for a change to mixed neighborhood. The Envision Longmont framework, the property is located within an identified area of change under Envision Longmont. Areas of change are locations where future growth, reinvestment, and broader housing opportunities may be appropriate over time. Envision Longmont also supports a broader mix of housing types and corridor-orientated development patterns adjacent to major transportation corridors. Much of Longmont's future growth over the next 10 to 20 years is anticipated to occur in areas of change, and that is in accordance with Envision Longmont. Compatibility and neighborhood transition. Staff recognizes the sensitivity associated with transitioning from existing lower density neighborhoods towards more mixed residential forms adjacent to US 287. The proposed mixed neighborhood designation is intended to provide a transition between the corridor context and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Lower intensity residential areas are proposed adjacent to the existing neighborhoods with increased intensity towards US 287. Access and connectivity. Primary access is proposed from U.S. 287, including a future signalized access connection and additional write-in, write-out accesses. Emergency access is proposed toward Roseland consistent with the public safety reviews. And detailed traffic analysis and engineering reviews will occur through future applications. This just gives a depiction of the area in general with lower density, small lot residential on the westerly side, higher density residential along that 287 corridor, a rough and ready greenway connection on the northerly portion of the site, and as is required by code, a 50 foot gateway buffer. So the market analysis that was presented with this application identified continued demand for broader housing options within Longmont, including housing types often described as missing middle housing. Missing middle housing refers to neighborhood scaled housing types such as duplexes, townplexes, townhomes, small-scale multi-family buildings that fall between detached single-family homes and larger apartment developments. The study also identified higher density residential as the strongest near-term market fit for the site. Review criteria, Commission's review tonight is guided by section 1502055 of the Land Development Code, including comprehensive plan consistency, compatibility, infrastructure demands, and multimodal transportation considerations. Under section 1502060B3, comprehensive plan amendments are not required to remain consistent with the existing land use designation, but must further the overall goals in the best interest of the city. Staff finds that the request supports growth within the Longmont planning area, broader housing opportunities, efficient land utilization adjacent to existing infrastructure and corridor-oriented growth patterns with transitions to surrounding neighborhoods. The commission has three decision options this evening, approval without conditions, approval with conditions, which is staff's recommendation or denial. Staff recommends conditional approval based on compliance with the applicable review criteria and standards of the land development code. The recommended condition requires identification of the future rough and ready greenway trail connection on all applicable future land use concept plan and circulation exhibits subject to the final alignment and design review by the city. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation will be forward to City Council for a final decision. That concludes staff's presentation. Obviously, the applicant team is here and has a presentation to share, and city staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

It's me again. You'll probably get sick of hearing from me by the end of the night.

Chris, can you just please state your name? Oh, sorry.

Chris Niels from Actis, address 755 Delaware Avenue in Longmont, Colorado. um so kristen thank you for the introduction and thank you for all the work your team has done on this side there have been countless meetings and revisions of this plan and so this is the first time we've been in front of this particular commission and so one of the things i wanted to do was just kind of go through a history of this plan and how we've gotten to here so Starting in June of 2016, this particular parcel was identified in the Envision Longmont Plan as part of the Longmont Planning Area, anticipated to be annexed and designated as an area of change. About five years later, the national home builder, Meritage Homes, came to City Council with an annexation request and had a single-family development of 99 homes that they were proposing City Council made it very clear to Meritage homes that they wanted to see far more density on this site given some of its attributes and the needs of the city and So subsequently, Meritage looked at a couple different options and decided to walk away from this project, at which time Actis stepped in. And we spent about 18 months reconciling what Meritage heard, what we knew from the planning documents, our ideas. We hired a planning expert from Kimley Horn and had a number of meetings with the city to really identify what the right use for this parcel was and really dig in on what the council was looking for when they said we want to see more density here. And that led to this particular request of changing from a single family designation to a mixed neighborhood designation. So in 2024, we spent most of the year doing traffic studies, utility studies, drainage studies, market reports. So sorry again for the 2,000 page submission. And it was referred to city council again in 2024. At that time, city council was very appreciative that their previous meeting had been studied, that the city had been kind of contacted in the conception of the plan. And they felt like there was an appropriate level of density with consideration for the surrounding uses and were very supportive of the plan. It was advanced unanimously. Following that meeting our organization did a neighborhood meeting primarily comprised of the residents of Willis Heights to make the first kind of public disclosure of what had been presented to City Council and what we heard and There was a considerable amount of feedback that was given through that process around traffic patterns pedestrian safety compatibility the conditions of safety on 287 and crime. And so following that meeting, we took a pause and spent another year going through a kind of re, Evaluation of how the access would work And so we completely overhauled the way the access worked on this site as I mentioned earlier Abandoned the connection to Park Ridge, which would have tied these neighborhoods together Quite a bit more and again worked with CDOT and RTD especially on getting the light blessed by both of those organizations and so finally at the end of 2025 we resubmitted the package to this city and have spent the last about six months kind of working through little details that have gotten us to this point where we're presenting it to you so broadly speaking, the Envision Longmont goals are sort of creating wonderful places to live. And that was one of our overarching goals and trying to figure out how to include the density, the diversity of housing types, the connections to the transit corridors and trails and provide an improved arrival experience for Longmont because that was one of the things city council had mentioned. And so we've spent a considerable amount of time looking at those and think that the sort of bare bones of an idea of what we have for the concept here meets a lot of the goals from the city. So again, mixed neighborhood has a density of six units up to 18. Again, we would kind of create a very thoughtful transition from the lower density conditions on the west and south side of the project, kind of moving in towards a more dense experience out towards the highway. So the picture that you're seeing in front of you is taken directly from Envision Longmont, and I think does a pretty good job of actually depicting what we're thinking about with diversity of housing types and ascending density as we kind of transition from one neighborhood to another. And so that's it for my prepared comments. I'm sure you'll have questions. I can stand up here.

Right now, we're gonna go ahead. This is a public hearing item, so we'll go ahead and move to public comment. Once again, to remind everybody, you have five minutes. We ask that you give your name and your address for the record. And I do have a list for item 7B. At the end of this list, if there's anybody else who hasn't spoken, you will have a chance to speak. The first person on the list is Susan Felix.

Hello. Good morning, afternoon, evening, whatever. OK. I live in the Willis Heights neighborhood. I had a petition.

Name and address, please.

12890 Columbine Drive, right around the corner from this project. Last year, I sent a petition around to the whole neighborhood. We got about 60 names. I turned it into Boulder County. Boulder County responded and sent me a letter, which I can give to you, that they are not happy with this project because we don't have sewers, not enough water, too much traffic, and it's an agricultural county piece of land. It's not city. We also, the neighbors in the area, are not happy with the condensity. We just got rid of some crime and some homeless people on the corner that were living in a house, and I had to call the sheriff. So we don't want to deal with any of that. We also have federal birds in the neighborhood. We have eagles. I have pictures. They are living in the neighborhood. And by law, because they're federal birds, you cannot build within 700 feet two football fields from where they're staying. So if they're going to put property and building on the other side of 287 by Walmart, to do something on our end of the property is going to be crazy, let alone get out of there, deal with the accidents that we already have now, and we just don't think it's feasible. And everybody's here to tell you the same thing. Thank you. Thank you.

If you want any pictures or letters, I have them for you.

Next up, we have Yvette Valdez.

Thank you for having this meeting finally, because when you mentioned that meeting, that neighborhood meeting that was on the screen back in December 2024.

We do need your name and address.

Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Yvette Valdez. My husband's name is Patrick Valdez. He would be here. He just couldn't be. and I live right across the street from Susan. And it is at 12899 Columbine Drive, 80504. And yes, it's Longmont, Colorado, but like she said, it's unincorporated Boulder County, which is one of the main reasons why We loved to move to this neighborhood almost 18 years ago. We wanted a place that we could retire, our forever home. So we made sure we got one that didn't have stairs, just a rancher. And I have loved my community. Everybody walks in this neighborhood. Everybody loves it. And we have the nicest neighborhood. Yes, there's been some things that have not always been great, like she said, some transients once in a while. And at the same time, you can call the sheriff, and we know that they'll be there if there's a problem. But that meeting that they mentioned there, I just wanted to get back to that, December 2024, that was not a face-to-face meeting. That was a virtual meeting like the one they had on Monday with Kim Lee Horn. I missed that meeting because I was helping my son move. But I was able to go to that meeting, the original one, and that was just a virtual meeting. And we've waited all this time to hear back about anything else. They kept telling us that we would have another meeting that we could see face to face and talk to city council and everybody about it. But Susan is right. She went and did that petition. We all signed it. The majority of our neighborhood has said they don't like this coming into our neighborhood. We don't want it. So like Mr. Niels said something about the things that we addressed that day, one of those things is the traffic. They just put two cameras. Everybody well, you know, the Longmont Safety has been talking about those cameras that show that if people are going too fast in that area because it's one of the, the major places that gets a lot of accidents. We see them all the time. There's always somebody who is not careful. And so we have lots of accidents there. That's one of the major things. I don't think we would be so upset about it if it was single family housing, which is what we're all. When you say you're going to build somewhere between 100 and something and 468 units. And then when I heard the other one, when they're talking about the other side, something about 30 some units on an acre. My house is on a half an acre. Most of our acreage is maybe a 30-acre, half an acre, some are more than an acre. I can't imagine so many more people living right there at that edge and that traffic going even to a new light to the other side. We're still not happy with that. Of course, we weren't happy when we had that first meeting and we talked about... BRINGING EVERYBODY THROUGH IN ON PARK RIDGE NEXT TO THE CHURCH, WHETHER THEY WERE ACCEPTING IT OR NOT. BUT THE FACT THAT, LIKE I SAID, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE ALL THE ZONING AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SEWERS. I CAN IMAGINE HOW MUCH MONEY THAT IS GOING TO BE SPENT TO GET ALL THIS DONE. But this RMN thing that you mentioned, residential, the zoning issues, we're just not happy with it. So like I said, I have lived here for almost 18 years and you're planning to ruin my neighborhood and I'm not happy about it. But thank you for letting me come to this meeting.

Thank you. Next on the list is Bruce Felix. And once again, remember to give your name and address for the record.

Do you want me to give you my address? What? Do you need to know? I'll just start talking. No, we need your address for the public record. 12890 Columbine. Thank you. Okay. I'm a numbers guy, and I've been listening to these people talk about what they're going to build. The number one problem you have with this development on both sides of 287 is traffic. The traffic in the morning is all the way from 25 to 287, both directions. Count, that's four and a half miles. The traffic on 287 from Loveland, which they're building like crazy, goes at least two miles. Now you're going to put, it looks like 2,000 people and 2,000 cars on two pieces of property, high density. and put another light. That light is what it's going to do. It'll slow down the traffic on 287. So that traffic is going to go even further than what it is now. The traffic on 287 is increasing by the week, not the day, the week, not the month. There's people moving to Loveland and those outer areas to buy homes because they can't afford Boulder County. They can't afford Longmont. I understand you're building apartments. I get it. But this is not going to work in the most congested part of Longmont. Just look around. Go down there at 6 in the morning during the week and see what the traffic looks like. It's incredible how many people go through that intersection. And now you're going to build around the corner next to the life bridge and all that traffic's gonna block up. You got a traffic problem in Longmont and you're creating a greater one by developing this property. I'm not against them developing property. It's my time. Longmont is number one in the state. for high density apartments. You're number one. You're number 18th in the nation right now. That's your statistics. So, people are calling it not Longmont anymore. They're calling it apartment mall. I just hear it from, I've been here 26 years. I've seen a lot of change. Not for the good. What they brought you here today is a joke. Poorly designed, poorly presented. I'm just speaking from experience. I don't like what they're presenting. I know there's some people out here that don't like it either. When you drive up 287, do you wanna see apartments? No. It's open. It's not developed. When are we going to stop? We're here because it's Colorado. We want to look at those mountains. We don't want to look at apartments. Do you think the people that live on half acre and one acre lots that saved all their lives to buy those pieces of property want to see apartments? You've got tons of apartments in Longmont. This is a bad location and a bad design. That's my view. Thank you. Thank you.

Folks, please, please. Next on the list is Mary Brown.

Hi, I'm Mary Brown. I live at 12933 Columbine Drive. I want to thank you folks for being here and letting us come and speak. I know that you're not elected officials. You're here by appointment, volunteering your time to make some of the biggest decisions that are being made in our community. We live in unincorporated Boulder County. We don't vote on the city officials, so it feels a little bit like decisions are being made about our neighborhood that we have no real say in on the people who are making these decisions. I do want to thank you folks for being here and giving us a chance to speak. I was wondering, I know you mentioned earlier we can't ask questions, so I was wondering how many of you have actually been up there to this site and seen both sides of east and west up there? Anybody been up there? And it's very different. You just had a slide up there that showed the west side and the east side quickly went through. If you put that slide back up, you'll see that it is completely different on the west side. There's an old subdivision been there. Open land, open space, farmland, there's nothing like what's on the other side of 287. The proposed annexation, which I wasn't aware that there's like two different things that are being addressed here tonight. Concerning our our side this envision thing This this is what we were mailed was just a letter with a few sentences and a picture and then something from the city So it wasn't real clear to me what what that was all about But anyway that property that's up for annexation is bordered on three sides by unincorporated Boulder County land and the state highway on the others on the fourth side and Just questions. I know you can't answer them. Who's paying for the stoplight? Who pays the utilities to be brought into the development? Where does the water come? How are they going to bring the utilities in? They're going to dig up 287 and come across and go under the road there? How's that all going to happen if this... His push through, the traffic has already been mentioned. That same traffic that you're adding to, actually 287 goes right into downtown Longmont and dumps right into, not very far, there's not very many blocks down, you're right in downtown Longmont. So that feels really constricted. It looked like the one plan you had up there, the original one that we got mailed was looked just like this except it had some access into our subdivision and now this new one, this new proposed along with the changes they're now going from they're wanting to go from a single family neighborhood to a mixed neighborhood and add even more if i'm reading this right envision longmont land use map designation for the same property from single family to mixed so it just feels like we're just adding more and more density in that area and I don't think it's anybody of course in our neighborhood wants it. Um, and I think that's, you know, the, I know the city gets tax dollars from the county for, for any city, any lands that they own, uh, for property on the property taxes so that the city will benefit financially from get you know acquiring more county land but but what do we get you know we we get noise traffic crime and more obnoxious lights itself anyway that's uh... thank you for uh... listening and thank you for being here thank you next on the list is craig brown

Can you hear me? If you were really being careful to do what's best for this community, you would remove that high-density concept, create a park, and abandon a property that retains a prairie dog colony that gives a young handicapped child a reason to wake up that day. I'm sure that would concern... Pardon me.

Craig, can you just please state your address for the record?

Craig Brown. I live at 1... 2933 Columbine Avenue.

Thank you.

I'm sure that would concern your investors since that kind of thinking means less money. Please remember that the love of money is the root of all evil, and the creator of heaven and earth commands us to love our neighbor like we love ourselves. So if you really want to show this neighborhood that you love us, You remove that high density thing, use dark sky lighting when you light your new area, and maybe put a big fence up. And the other thing I think, I only had a couple seconds to come up with this, so sorry if it seems harsh, but this is the way I feel. And the other thing about Driving into Longmont, my wife and I decided to move here about four years ago. And one of the things that attracted us was that there was no skyscrapers and you don't have to pay to park on Main Street. And there was just kind of a small town feel about it. And as you drive past Highway 66, it starts to get a little more residential, not so businesslike, and it starts to feather out and make you feel like, yeah, I just left behind a really cool little town. And this big idea that you guys have It seems awfully busy, and it seems like there's lots of room for problems to occur when you can only pack so much into a box. So I would just ask you to please be careful about how complicated you make your whole thing and maybe try to simplify it. Maybe build a park, and maybe we'll have more birds living here, more bunnies, more prairie dogs. God bless.

Thank you. Next on the list is Rebecca Schaaf.

Hi. My name is Rebecca Schaaf, and I live at 12707 Hillcrest Drive, Longmont 80504. I'm in Willis Heights. And I'm not even sure exactly what I'm going to say. Just... You know, like some other people have said, you know, I saved my money my entire life to live in a really nice neighborhood, and now I live in a really nice neighborhood. And I've been here seven years, and now it's going to get screwed up if you guys pass this thing. And, you know, the thing about the traffic and the crime, I just want to reiterate what other people have said, and I just want you to think about You know, where do you live? And would you want to live in a place where there's going to be all these, you know, crappy apartments? I mean, think about it. You know, if you were in the... I'm trying not to be argumentative, but, you know, it's... This is a really sweet little town, and I feel like this is going to turn this part of it. I mean, that place that was just recently built right next to Home Depot, I don't know what the... occupancy rate is but I've never seen a car driving around that place I've never seen a car and I drive by that place all the time so like I don't even know why you guys think you need more places so that's my opinion and um anyway so you guys are going to do what you're going to do but I just wanted to say that the stuff that I think is um really important for you to know is the thing about 287 is when you put in that turn signal on Park Ridge, if you're on Park Ridge in Willis Heights and you're traveling east towards Walmart and you have to turn left or right, I'm telling you, this is conservatively, at least 30% of the time that I drive out, because most of the time I drive out of the neighborhood, it's that way. Someone is going straight. People disregard that rule all the time. I have never once seen a cop give anyone a ticket there. It happens all the time. And so I regularly have to sit to make my right turn. I have to sit behind someone who's going to go straight through the light. And so I want you to think about that when you're planning your thing. And I also want you to know that when people are traveling south on 287, especially in the morning, they're taking a right on Park Ridge to come through Willis Heights They take a right on Park Ridge or they come to my street, Hillcrest, they take a left and they come out on 66 so they can avoid all that traffic and they can avoid taking a right and waiting to take a right on 66. The traffic is a huge problem. There are, I mean, there's kids in our neighborhood. It's a quiet neighborhood. We have a ton of traffic that is completely unnecessary. So I think we should put gigantic speed bumps in that neighborhood. My neighbor had that idea. I think it's genius, like big speed bumps. so maybe make it so like in the morning on a you know 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. or whatever you can't take a you're not supposed to take a right turn off of 287 on to Park Ridge or whatever and you know something like that so something like that combined with gigantic speed bumps I don't know something like that and and then get some more I don't know, I guess it would be city police, but I'm really concerned about crime because, you know, we have a really quiet neighborhood, like everyone has said. And, you know, when you have apartments, you're just going to have more crime. It's just a fact. So I don't know. Anyway, so that's my thing. That's my spiel. So thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list is Judy Cole.

Hi, I'm Judy Cole. I live at 12773 Hillcrest Drive. And I think all my neighbors have said what I need to say. So I'm here just to support and echo what they have all already told you. I think for me, individually, the traffic is the biggest issue. not only on 287 and 66, but also now what this additional residence will cause traffic through our neighborhood. And if any way you can limit the traffic through our neighborhood, I would appreciate it. And I don't understand the access that you're allowing into this new development on Roseland, it looked like maybe that was just emergency access, and if that's the case, I'm fine with it, but if it's gonna be access for them all the time, I am greatly concerned about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list, is it Heather Kerr? Kerr. Kerr.

My name is Heather Kerr. My address is 12886 Columbine Drive here in Longmont. I'm living in the Willis Heights subdivision. I'm in possession of a letter from the Boulder County Community Planning and Permitting addressed to Kristen Colt dated May 1st, 2025. And I was heartened to receive a copy of this letter because it contains seven points that summarize very succinctly feed the comments, the concerns that I have for the proposed development in our neighborhood area, as well as what I heard from a lot of other community members, some division members at our meeting back in December of 2024. I came to this meeting hoping to see some evidence that these concerns have been taken to heart and addressed in the plan, and I'm stunned at the presentation for this particular amendment in that there was no, think of the inordinate amount of time spent studying the proposed layout for the eastern side of 287 with the RTD. We saw nothing for the west side. I heard someone state that they abandoned the connection to Park Ridge. Where do we see evidence of that? I really hope that in your 2,000 page packet that you get to study, you have a copy of this letter stating Boulder County's concerns. And I hope that you can find the evidence in the 2,000 pages that these concerns, many of which summarize residents concerns have been addressed in the plan because that has not been presented to us and I have never before spoken publicly in a forum like this. I have never in many decades of life ever participated in a project such as this. I'm having to live in a place, choosing it because of the environment, because of the wildlife exposure. We live on 1.2 acres. It's just a beautiful plot of land, and I look out, I see open skies. I have grave concerns for what I'm going to see and hear when I look eastward from my backyard over 287. Major lights all over the RTD parking lot and such. I've never participated in such a process, so I'm not particularly... being articulate about this, but I truly hope that you study that 2,000 page document plan and that you have a copy of this letter and that you find that the city of Longmont has addressed every one of these concerns expressed by Boulder County and by the residents of the neighborhood as well.

Thank you. Next is, is it Kenta Wood? Keith Wood, okay.

Keith Wood, 12928 Waterbury Road, Loma, Colorado. I'd say, first of all, thanks, you guys, for being here. I guess echoing one of the other gals, you guys are all doing here on your own time, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate Amy and Tom, you know, looking at this pretty much an ambiguous drawing that was up there. You know, this is, like you said, this is a big undertaking, and I think everything ought to be... Pretty much, you know, under the microscope, I would have to think. It is. There's a lot going on here. So, you know, like I said, the 2,000 pages kind of over the weekend. Sounds like a Senate bill to me. Let's kind of push it through. Just saying. kind of thinking that. But I've got a lot going on here. I just want to say also, this is our world, our life in Willis Heights. I'm going to be right up against the apartments, the high-density housing, which is kind of tough. I hope the developers and you folks can see that you call it a smooth transition, or I don't know what the verbiage is they used here, that maybe the lower, not three stories, would be right up next to the property line, but maybe the one stories, and then move a tier out to the higher buildings out towards 287. I'm sure this is going to go through, but hopefully there's some thought process put in this, because this is where we live. We come home at night. I'd hate to be like Tom, so I'd be blasted when you come into Longmont. Here's all this apartments, which there are a lot of apartments along the name, we all know that, I've been here since 65. Long time, been on the cruise in Main Street scene back in the day, if anybody remembers that. Went to Niawat High School, was the first member of the class at Niawat High School, Tim Kaler and the Niawat Cougars and so forth and so on. Saw a lot of changes, but I just want to touch on a couple things here. If I could read my writing, of course. I guess I saw on the map there there's a 50 foot buffer zone from 287 to the the start of the buildings there. I hope that there's a 50-foot buffer zone from the back of my property and all along 287, or I'm sorry, Waterbury Road and Parkridge Avenue that comes in off of that. I'd like to see, and I think all of us would like that, and I think you would too if you guys live there, a 50-foot buffer zone because I would think there'd have to be an easement along the back of my property on Waterbury because there's power poles that run all the way up there. I'd have to think there's going to be easement there. So the utilities could get there. And put a 50-foot buffer zone there and a nice cinder block wall. I see this in a lot of places. And let's make this a user-friendly thing. And put spade trucks, which I did in the back of my house. Spade trucks, some nice big... Evergreen trees in there about every 20 feet Let's make this a good thing for the people that do live here so that we're I don't want to see suffering But man, it's it's a hell heck of a jolt when the earth mover is gonna be out there and That's that's a big deal if you live there and we live there I'm not crying a song. I'm just saying this is the reality of what's happening and So the buffer zone would be nice. Try to put the taller buildings towards the 287 there. The traffic, of course, is a mess. We don't need to be a dead horse. It's bad. And it's just gonna add more on top of that because more population means more traffic. Thanks, guys. Thanks for listening to me.

Thank you, Keith. Next is Pankaisalya. Did I get that right, Pankaj Salya? Not seeing anybody come forward, I'll go ahead and move on to the next person, Aiman Singh. Okay, and the final person, Atul Sanai. Seeing nobody go ahead, that's the end of the list. Now, if there's anybody else in the audience who would like to come up, you do get a chance to speak, even if you didn't sign up ahead of time. Please come forward, state your name and your address, and you get five minutes.

Hi there.

Thank you guys for coming and being here and listening to us. Taylor Sarachek, 10591 Park Ridge. I think I'm the only one who has spoke who's actually on Park Ridge. This is going to be directly behind me. I think I also represent a little bit of a younger generation, possibly the youngest one in the neighborhood. I saved up my entire life to buy this property. I think that to try to pull a little bit of emotion out of it and just deal with the facts and the evidence, we don't have it yet. We don't have enough yet. We don't have enough on the sewage. We don't have enough on the water. We don't have enough on the traffic. We don't have enough case studies on the crime. This is, from a younger generation, this is the opposite of what is bringing people to Colorado. You guys are, if this happens, you know, you guys are essentially taking away the views. You guys are taking away the nature. They're taking away what brings the younger generation to Colorado. It's the exact opposite. of what is going to bring in young professionals. I'm a horse girl myself. I am a small business owner, women owned, independent. I own a small livestock watching company. I'm a horse girl myself, and we're just seeing more and more in Colorado this ag land just completely disappearing. And what we're getting is fast food restaurants, what we're getting is Walmarts, what we're getting is, you know, these places that are the opposite of what we want. A lot of the folks in my neighborhood have lived here for a lot, a lot of years, and they came here for a reason. I came from the East Coast. A lot of them came from the East Coast. And we worked really hard to get to here, which was our dream, right? And I just don't think there's enough evidence. There's not enough case studies on what this is going to do. We know about the traffic and everything. I've called in the past year that I've lived in Willis Heights. The reason I got this property was because it was on 0.3 acres. There was really not many other properties in the area that were not ag status, that were not acres and acres that I could afford. This was kind of it. And it was a beautiful neighborhood. And it is a beautiful neighborhood. And it's quiet. And there's kids there. And I don't understand really. how it's going to continue to turn over with a bunch of other young professionals if we have this behind us. I just don't see it. But back to my point, I've called probably four times the sheriff and said, hey, listen, there's a transient in my backyard. The jail is dropping off, the buses are dropping off people who have just been released from jail, and they've ended up in my backyard already. and we already have that bus stop, and they get there, thankfully, at the drop of a hat. They're there. The police are there. They're there to protect us. They get there super quickly. What are we doing to make sure that we have the capacity, that our police stations have the capacity to bring on all of this new shit? Sorry for my language, but all of this new stuff. just hard it's really hard to see it's it's hard to watch and like I said this is going to be right back up to my property which I have worked my life to pay for and I see AG land and I see fields behind me and I see the mountains and instead I'm going to see multi-use Everyone said it um if there was single-family homes We'd be more apt to at least try to wrap our heads around it But the multi-use is just not it's not something that any of us want. It's not something the older generation wants It's not something the younger generation wants and I kind of bug it begs the question to me We have so many apartment complexes in Longmont. Are they all full? Are they, you know, are they even making money? And then what happens if they can't fill up those apartments? Then it becomes lower pricing, which brings in a different, completely different level of folks living in those apartments. I just don't think there's enough evidence yet. So thank you guys for being here and for listening to us. And hopefully, you know, we can come up with a solution that works for everybody. But this definitely is not it.

Thank you, Taylor. Anybody else who would like to come forward who hasn't spoken yet?

Hi. I'm Janine Hopping. And I live at 12953 Hillcrest Drive. Lived there since 1978. Love it there. It's beautiful. The main things I want to say is my first one is with regards to our county roads. People are coming through via Roseland, which I'm not sure, I don't understand what that would look like because it was mentioned as emergency, but I don't know what that means. But our roads are not, they're county maintained. And I know that that's one of the things that the county was worried about if they came through on Park Ridge, because our roads are county-maintained, and there are plenty potholes, and there are plenty crumbling, and the county does come in periodically and, like, fill potholes with asphalt. So just take that into consideration. Make sure you know Boulder County. has agreed to take care of those, or continue to take care of our roads. Another thing is, oh, I was a little confused about the Greenway Trail planning into the future. It seems like when they built the big old houses back behind us, which are beautiful, by the way, and it didn't wind up being a 7-Eleven, and an elementary school, which was one of the thoughts at the time. But anyway, those houses are very nice. But even back then, there was the Greenway Trail idea, and I never have understood how that's actually going to come to fruition. to get it to the ditch, the irrigation ditch. Another thing is people have talked about crime and stuff like that. I can attest that this week, on the coldest night, there was one man who had a tarp who camped along the creek or along the ditch right behind our house. Of course, it's a ways from us. But there was someone who was camping back there just this week. And what's the last one I had here? Oh, it's kind of, you know, we talked about the prairie dogs, but I will tell you that there are also great horned owls, which we have on one of our trees almost every day. We see coyotes very regularly. We don't see deer as often, but I've had at least a deer, one deer jump our fence and get caught in our yard. We had turkeys there recently, wild turkeys. A few years back, twice, a few years back, there were moose in our backyard. And we see snapping turtles regularly sunning themselves on the pond that's back behind us. So all of that's really cool stuff that sort of Proves that we actually do live in a kind of a unique area, which is the Colorado thing going on. And then one thing I don't know that this is exactly related, but I just wonder where in Longmont is there a single family home building going on? Where is any single family home being built right now? I haven't seen anything in a long time. So just give that some thought. Thank you.

Thank you. One last call for anybody else.

Yeah, once again, Tim Schaaf.

Oh, Tim, did you already speak?

I did. You can't speak twice. I spoke on the other.

Oh, you spoke on the other one. Yeah. So you can speak on this one.

And I'm not going to speak on the third one. I realize I signed up for the wrong one. No problem.

I just wanted to make sure.

That's cool. So Tim Schaaf, 12707 Hillcrest Drive. First thing, I'm really glad to hear you said that that pass-through on Park Ridge is not going to change, because that is huge, because that definitely saves a lot of traffic, even though, like my wife said, people do still go through. Secondly, the way that traffic... This is where I have to kind of go against what you said. When you're heading south on 287, west on 66, you got that acceleration lane. That is true. I spent six years taking a right off a hill crest going west on 66. It's anywhere from 730 to 8 in the morning. And... The longest I waited was about two minutes just to be able to pull out even with that lane, that acceleration lane. There was sometimes I had three cars coming at me side by side. I would be in that acceleration lane trying to get up to 60 because trying to get over because even though people look, you look like you got space and then doing like 60 or 70 off of 287 because they've just been spent whatever how many times, how many hours or minutes I mean coming down 287 doing 65, 70. And they've pushed me all the way to where it becomes a right turn lane only into the church there. It's the life bridge. So it's a real issue. It's a real issue. Now you're talking about putting conservatively or actually in the middle 470 units over there at Copper Peak. And that's going to be, even if we just split the difference, you're looking at one and a half cars per household. Now we're up to what? Almost 900, right? Somewhere in there. Sorry, I'm trying to do math in my head and still think at the same time. It's getting late. Like she said, there's a lot of us old folks here. So the issue becomes quality of life, which people have said. And so it looks like Copper Peak's going in. There's nothing we can do about that. Okay. When you put up that Envision map, I have to wonder why with all this red down south in Longmont, you aren't pushing some of this housing down that way. Why is it all going in right up here? We got Gay Street going in. My understanding, that's been approved. That's not coming back. That's going to increase the traffic right there. So why you want to put this other one right here that's going to increase the traffic even more? When there's other places in Longmont, you can build out. And then the last point I wanted to make is if that goes from county, which it sounds like from the letter that we've received, the county doesn't want to do, if that becomes county, we basically become an island of unincorporated Boulder County surrounded by annexed Longmont. And I know you guys can't respond to this, but are you going to consider annexing Willis Heights into the city of Longmont? And there is concern. How does all the utilities get in there, right? Are you going to go up 287? Are they going to tear up the highway to put in all the utilities? Are you going to come through our neighborhood to put in all the utilities? You know? I mean, that's all real questions. And, you know, I said it before, this whole idea of a NIMBY, right? I get it, man. We came up here seven years ago because we got priced out of Boulder. We wanted to buy a house, and we got, to be honest with you, we got twice the house for half the price. And we love it here in Longmont. I have no regrets, not one, since we got back until now. This is really what's pushing it. And so, to me, where am I at here? 130, okay, to me, When you say you want to build out, I did some quick numbers before I came down here, and what I saw was the vacancy rate in Longmont is like about 4.5, I think. And in Northern Colorado, it's eight. That means there's a high need for housing in Longmont, if I'm understanding that correctly, right? So you guys need to do your jobs. You need to build housing if we need housing in Longmont. Why is it all going here? That's the question. There's other places you can put it. And I agree. Why are you not building houses? People want to live in houses. Not everybody can afford them. We need apartments. I'm not against you guys making money. I'm really not. Trust me. I understand it. I worked for 25 years with the homeless people. I understand the need for housing. But there's got to be a balance. And it's not just a NIMBY issue. It's not just, oh, our quality of life is going to go down. What it comes down to is, how do you guys factor our quality of life into your decision making? That's what it comes down to. We shouldn't just be the sacrificial lambs because it's convenient for these guys to build just across the highway. Because it really does put us in this isolated position where I don't have to listen. You guys have heard it all night. I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Thank you, Tim. We have one more gentleman coming forward.

Thank you, Mr. Pullen. My name is Arthur Murray, 55 Empire Place. First of all, the Willis Heights neighborhood and all of Park Ridge, certainly a gem. So I appreciate the neighborhood that the folks are enjoying. Since transportation was here, Just in general with two state highways, a question of maybe transportation could address, are there, like 66 has some utility markings out there. Is that highway being expanded? all the way across over to Hoover and even outside 25. And also just as a general comment that the north and south has been addressed on 287. It's only going to keep getting busier. It's absolutely a choke point, and I don't see any near-term relief on the amount of traffic that's going to be at that intersection on either 287 or 66. It would be great if transportation has some general information. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Anybody else?

I promise I'll make this really short. Name and address please. Sandy Freiberger, 12625 Hillcrest Drive. My story starts on our honeymoon. We came through here on our honeymoon to go to Estes Park. We saved up six years to make our first trip back to Longmont. The next year we brought my dad to show my dad why we loved Longmont so much. On that trip with my dad, my husband found a job here, so we moved here in 1972. And we loved Longmont. It's a nice, western, beautiful town. Any street you walk down, you could see the mountains. And we left a town of 18,000 in Ohio, and Longmont was 21,000 then, when we moved here. And yes, we saw a lot of growth, but we still loved Longmont. And I hate to say it because I respect anybody that has a job, but when greed took over and the building started, it wasn't for progress and it wasn't even necessary because it took a long time to fill up these mountains or these apartments. And I said, the thing that... upsets me the most, and I think I'm speaking for the people who live in Willis Heights, that the greed comes in when they do things not thinking about the people they impact, not caring about what they're doing. It's their job, and they do a beautiful job. There's apartments. But I'll tell you one thing. If we were to drive through Longmont today, we would never stop and move in because it's not the same little western town that we moved here for. And the worst part is, the part I hate the most, is going to be built right behind us. It'll be part of our neighborhood now. that isn't Longmont. And there's hardly a street you could drive down, Airport Road, anybody, where you can't see them out. You cannot see them for the buildings that are there. We thought it was bad enough when it was across the street when they did Walmart. And as a matter of fact, when they built Walmart, we went to that meeting, too, and we says, we cannot stop the building. But one thing I hope we could stop is the traffic going through our neighborhood. We don't want our street to go to Walmart, Walmart to come through our street to stop going through the light. They could cut through our neighborhood and avoid the light. And they said, that's one thing we never thought about. But yes, we could do that. And they did. And yes, there's people that come off of 66 and go through our neighborhood and go to Walmart to prevent the light. So I hope there'll be some kind of consideration that the traffic from this development does not enter Park Ridge. It's gotta go someplace else because when you see that traffic, like everybody was saying too, coming in the morning and coming south on 287 and trying to get on to 66, it could be backed up past the light even. So if you have that traffic coming through too from the neighborhood, It's going to be bad. But I just want you to know how we feel, the people who lived there, and why we lived there, and why we moved here. So I hope everybody's happy when this is all over. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else? seeing nobody else i'm going to go ahead and close out public invited to be heard turn this back over to the commission for questions comments motions commissioner saunders

Thank you, Chair. I just have a quick question. Can someone tell me where the Boulder County letter is, what attachment it is?

The Boulder County letter was sent in reference to the annexation and concept plan, so it would be a portion of that application set.

In C, the Longmont Gateway, C. Can you say that again? I'm sorry, Kristen.

Sure. Yep. The letter from Boulder County is included as part of the annexation application set. Attachment 14. Thank you.

That's what I was looking for. Thank you, Commissioner Wayne. Okay. Attachment 14, public referral comments. Okay. I just needed that for a moment. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Do we have anybody with questions? Commissioner Wayne.

Oh.

Okay, so I know a lot of the questioning is going to overlap with number C, so I just hope that everybody here would stick with B first before we go on to C. Thank you.

Commissioner Jordan.

Thank you, Chair. Planner Cody, and maybe this might be for Grant or Jeremy. This is the first time I've seen, and granted, I've not been here a long time, but the first time I've seen something come across for changing the zoning. Most of the time when we've been looking at these things, it's been like, okay, well, it's sort of taken for gospel. Is this the first time this has happened? What's the precedent here?

this is not the first time this has happened i do have another application set that has proposed such um and but i have not worked for the county for an extremely long period of time so perhaps their director could give you additional information if that has happened in other instances i don't know also remember this is about the land use amendment and not about the zoning

So the land use amendment is what changes it to RMN, right? No, Commissioner Jordan.

So Envision Longmont sets forth designations for the property within city limits in reference to the future development of those. Currently in Envision Longmont, this property is classified as single family, and they're asking for the change to mixed neighborhood. And that would then allow for annexation, zoning, and concept plan, which is your next application.

Right. and perhaps I'm not I'm being uncareful with my terms here but since we're on B this is about the change to the designation and envision Longmont so it doesn't change the underlying zone district okay so Maybe I'm just confused then. So if we vote yes on B, that's what will allow us to go beyond single family? Correct. Okay. So I'm not going to put any labels on that, just leave it there so I don't get uncareful here. The question I have is what's the precedent for that? Because my understanding is that those designations were set when Envision Longmont was created. And we're largely come up with, through the use of collaboration between Envision Longmont, you know, there's involvement with the citizen base. We had consultants. This seems like it's being driven by the applicant.

So when looking at the review criteria, because that's a very important consideration in looking at applications, the review criteria has some support from Envision Longmont. There's goal 1.4F, which encourages sensitive transitions between differing land use intensities. There is the fact that this is adjacent to US 287, which is a regional arterial. envision longmont indicates um the high increased density toward orientated towards those um land those traffic corridors so our main traffic corridors like highway 66 287 colorado 119 that is what was put forth in the review criteria and the applicant can certainly go into greater detail on that if if you would like that commissioner jordan i would like that great

Thank you. I guess, what is the question exactly?

If you could repeat it. I'm trying to understand how this... how this proposal meets the review criteria.

Okay. So let me just pull up my review criteria analysis. I just want to make sure I don't misspeak. But as you mentioned previously that this land use amendment change is developer driven. We are doing this with city council input as well with the previous application. That was back in 2021 where there was an ask from city council to go from single-family neighborhood to the mixed neighborhood for that increased density along 287.

I need to think on this one a little bit, but just go back to the presentation. I apologize. I'm going to be a little wishy-washy. I'll yield here in just a minute. But Planner Cody, you did mention, you showed in your presentation that there were sort of two, we'll call them areas, one of like lesser density, one of more on the west side. Is that part of this thing? In other words, if we say yes, are they limited to that or is that just their intent?

Well, this is the Envision land use amendment, only on the west side. It's focused on the west side. So the depiction you've seen was a side-by-side of the existing designation for this property in Envision and the proposed designation. If this amendment to Envision Longmont were to be changed, that would then allow the property to develop in an RMN fashion. So the six to 18 units per acre, as long as the annexation and zoning and concept plan are approved.

Right. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question. In the presentation, you said you had a list of everything. This is not. But then you show a here's where we're going to have lower density and here's where we're going to have higher density.

So that would be the annexation portion. And that is their concept plan that you are referring to.

So I should not consider that as material for whether we approve this or not. I should assume that they would take it to the maximum RMM.

I don't know that I would necessarily say that because this property is not annexed into the city yet. So the concept plan is very important in that limiting factor.

If I can jump in, Commissioner Jordan, just help maybe distinguish, and if it muddies everything up, feel free to let me know and I'll stop talking. Good evening, Commissioner Jeremy Terrell, Senior Assistant City Attorney. So just to help clarify, the first application, Application B, is a comprehensive plan amendment application. And so the comp plan, also known as Envision Longmont, is designation among city property along with unincorporated property. So property in Boulder, Weld County, that's part of our coordinated planning agreements with those respective counties. So we have an intergovernmental agreement with the county saying, here's land that the city of Longmont could expand into. And as part of Envision, we identified what we think those areas might come into the city when we adopted Envision. And so back when that happened, back when Envision came out, this was identified as single family. That single family is not a zoning. It's just our future intent at the time Envision came out. Right. To comply with zoning changes or zoning adoption through annexation, you do have to go back and still change the comprehensive plan in Vision Longmont to match whatever the zoning is. So the comprehensive plan and the zoning are different, but they have to match. So if you actually look at the review criteria for comprehensive plan amendments, which was 1502.062, B, looking at subsection little b, 1b, it does say a land use amendment is often necessary in conjunction with rezoning requests and occasionally with annexation requests. So that's what we're seeing here, is that the applicant wants a particular zoning, which is establishing annexation, but to get to that zoning, the comp plan has to match. So what we're doing is just changing the guidance documents to ensure that if this does become annexed and become the zoning that they're requesting, it matches the comp plan.

Understood. So just to play that back, we're talking about the comp plan, which talks about usage, about single or not, and we're talking about updating the comp plan. Does it have to be in line with the zoning that would be part of annexation?

The zoning will have to match whatever the comp plan is. So you couldn't approve a multifamily zoning in the single-family Envision area.

To keep my question then focused on the comp plan specifically, this is being driven by the applicant or the city?

It can be requested by both. The city can initiate an Envision Longmont comprehensive plan amendment, so can the applicant. In this case, the applicant's proposing a multifamily, so they need the ComPlan amendment. I understand the applicant has said that city council's driving their choice in Envision. I wasn't there in the meeting. I don't know. But they need the ComPlan amendment to match the zoning they're requesting.

Okay. I'm going to mull on this a little bit. It's all yield. But thank you for that clarification, Jeremy. Sure.

Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure who's going to want to field this. I'm thinking it will be the applicant. If this land use amendment to the comp plant does not go through for mixed neighborhood, does C become moot? It would, correct? If it stays single family, then the C, which is annexation, zoning, and something RTD, it wouldn't matter. Because then the proposed plan for the annexation wouldn't go, right?

On the legal side, Commissioner Saunders.

Someone's getting their squats in over there.

Technically, the annexation could continue, but the zoning would then be inconsistent with Envision Longmont.

Which you can't have. So you wouldn't be able to approve the city council because we don't approve annexations, right? We just recommend...

Annexation is a voluntary legislative act of City Council and they have wide discretion to annex and how to annex property.

But not if the zoning doesn't match.

I'm going to refer back to my last statement that there is wide-ranging legislative authority to zone properties.

So it could. It could, if this land use fails, application fails, then C could still potentially go through. And then city council's wide reach of legislative yada yada can address it, I guess.

It would not be ideal.

OK. Thank you, Chair.

commissioner arment so green oh there we go okay um so it seems like the meat of of item B put before us is really that market study. So I'd like to go over that because that seems like what's driving the base decision to move away from single family. And the applicant talks about towards the end of their section pricing inactivity that single family production in Longmont is not as economically viable. So could you just speak to what, what on like the developer production, like making the numbers pencil out has driven you towards this. Is that something you could speak to?

Yes. Again, Chris Niels from Actis. Single families is very difficult because there are very high fixed costs associated with both the annexation and bringing in utilities. So as a part of the annexation, now the city council has increased the raw water dedication to three acre feet per acre at a cost of just over $59,000 per acre. So every acre that gets a part of this annexation, the development will need to pay $178,000 purely to the city for raw water capacity. That gets you no taps. That gets you no pipes. That's purely just the capacity that the city has to serve. So dividing that number by two lots, you're already into your lot for $100,000 and you have literally nothing. So I think that's where single family becomes really difficult. On top of that, we do have to bring all of the utilities in. They're already all stubbed on the east side. I know there are a few questions about exactly how that would work, and I'll probably defer to the civil engineers, but my understanding is that they would bore under 287. It wouldn't tear up 287. It wouldn't interrupt traffic. But that's the way to get the utilities over. And bringing those over also is a very high fixed cost. So in single family, you're just amortizing that cost over fewer units. And so it becomes very difficult. And I think there's a reason why somebody had mentioned there's not much single family development going on in Longmont right now. It's just it's too expensive on a per acre to get utilities in and get raw water in to make it particularly feasible.

um the study also talks about uh an emphasis on single-family housing i i know that here we're not nailing down we're not holding you to anything on what you're going to build but could you just kind of speak to what the vision for the the missing middle housing you talk about is and kind of like how you envision that across this whole property

Yeah, again, I wish I could defer to our planner who's not in town this evening. But I think a lot of care was taken by she and her team to ensure this transition. And the plans that have gotten a little bit more detailed that have been shared with us, the idea is to put smaller lot distinct single family housing on the western and southern edge that backs up to the existing neighborhood. And that's both to create a density transition, but also a height transition. so that things kind of step up as you get away from that neighborhood and try to limit some of the impacts that the people who spoke here tonight were concerned about.

I'm assuming you're planning for a mix of for sale and for rent in this development then? I know you don't know the specifics, but I'm assuming there's going to be probably some mix in there?

Again, I really think it's too early to tell. Okay. Unfortunately, this is going to be a long process and those decisions will get made much further down the road. Understood.

Yeah, this is a big development, so it's understandable that there's a lot that can't be nailed down right now. The other thing I wanted to discuss is you mentioned the... The report mentions some demand for retail. So is there a desire to have retail in this development as well? Because I guess mixed neighborhood does allow some retail. Is the vision for?

I think on the west side, there's a pretty limited desire to have retail. We just don't feel like it is as complementary a use to the surrounding areas and that the east side already really addresses that need. Okay.

I think that's most of my questions.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Forbes. Thank you, Chair. I don't know who would have the answers to these questions, but my first question is the RTD stop that is planned for the east side was when this was initially zoned, or like not necessarily zoned, but plotted for and envisioned Longmont, was the RTD plotted or envisioned in that area?

The concept plan on the east side with the RTD area was in place at that time.

Even though Envision Longmont talks about anything within a quarter mile of a high transit spot, That doesn't really affect it. It is not part of why, like, since that was already in place. Like, so, like, I'm looking at Envision Longmont right now, and it says mixed neighborhood, typically between 6 and 18 dwelling units per acre. However, development then incorporates affordable units and or is located within a quarter mile of a high-frequency transit stop, may be eligible for greater densities as specified in the LDC. So...

And I don't believe that was in place at the time. Well, in 2014, when the easterly property concept plan was in line, that was not in play. And the Envision Longmont update came in, I believe, 2016. So that was not a factor either, would be my understanding.

Okay. Yeah, that answers my question. Thank you. Commissioner Saunders.

myself in the queue thank you chair um could i speak with someone from the applicant um sorry um mr niels please would you stand up for a second i think you will be able to answer these but i'm not sure okay i'll do my best okay cool um can we talk about the boulder county um letter

Yes.

Because that, to me, reads into the pressure of the site, which is what we're really talking about, the land use. Can it work at multifamily? Yes. It's single family to multifamily. Yes. I think it's mixed residential. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry, all the Ms. So I just want to look at the pressure of putting a higher density land use in this project. So they're saying they're not Well, number 1 says that Public Works is not supportive of the amendment to the comp plan from single family to mixed use high density as it will result in substantially higher vehicle trips impacting a county subdivision and county maintenance needs. Now, you guys are going to think this is ironic because I harp on concept plan so much, but traffic to me waits for a little bit. think there needs to be a little bit more to find out what traffic actually develops out is and I always feel like the traffic studies are done a little bit too far in the past to really be anyways super supportive they are concerned about the county maintenance needs with this higher land use density request So I'm not sure that that is helpful to support the change in land use. That is a concern since it is, everything else around it is still gonna be Boulder County, correct? So they're telling you that it's gonna be harder at the mixed use than single family. Do you guys have comments on that?

It's hard for me to opine on what their interpretation of it is. I do want to mention that the letter was provided after the city council meeting before the project was re-envisioned after the neighborhood meeting. I apologize that in my timeline, I did not mention this letter. That was an oversight on my part. I think of the seven parts, Us in collaboration with the city have tried to really thoughtfully address every single one of those seven. I think that the updated plan, especially abandoning the connection to Park Ridge addresses a lot of the concerns that the county had about the way that the density would interface with the county neighborhood and using the Park Ridge light as the primary ingress, egress from 287 onto the county road Adjacent to the neighborhood into the site and so as it was reimagined now with the light on the north side and two primary accesses on 287 and no connection to Park Ridge I hope that that would eliminate a lot of their concerns. They have not Been contacted or asked for an update to the letter kind of pending the outcome of these meetings Yeah, and that would be helpful, but I'm seeing here in three

addressing the same things that this is attachment 14 public in referral comments in our packet and it's page 12 for all of you following along at home um it addresses it in number three park ridge avenue would need to be redesigned and reconfigured yeah yeah kind of addressing number one um The stormwater is also a concern as based off of the staff recommendations for the rough and ready. They don't want any of that being dumped in into the rough and ready, and I'm not seeing anywhere where that was addressed, but.

I would have to turn it over to our civil engineer. My understanding is that their request was that the development conform with the city's requirements and policies. And I believe it is the intention to do so. And I know that James, and he can come up and answer this, has worked with Public Works and with Longmont to identify multiple feasible alternatives to get the drainage into the appropriate areas without having any negative impact on county land.

Yes, please. Thank you.

Hello.

Welcome again.

Thank you. We are exploring the option with the stormwater manager, who's here, Tyler, to follow existing conditions, which this site drains from northwest to southeast. It goes under Park Ridge in a culvert and goes into a swale that outfalls to an area drain that dumps into the rough and ready ditch. Based off our interpretation of city code and how the site falls, we're planning to put a water quality detention pond at the southeast corner. We're going to outfall at historic rates, meeting current city criteria, and outfall into a roughing ready ditch. if rough and ready ditch will not allow us to outfall there. That same detention pond that we were talking about for the east side is sized for, I'm gonna get a little more technical, but like a higher impervious area for Longmont Gateway Northeast or the Copper Peak at Longmont. It was sized for 95% impervious value. We're not going to reach a 95% impervious value. There will be additional storage in that pond that could accommodate the western.

The one across the street?

Correct.

so it says here on uh attachment 13 or i'm sorry page 13 of attachment 14 it's the letter right after the boulder county letter from kevin boden rough and ready irrigation ditch company that says the rough and ready ditch company will not allow any storm water discharges into the north branch of the rough and ready ditch

I've read that. We look forward to further conversations with the Rough and Ready Ditch.

They're saying no.

I understand. Tyler, if I'm able to call on you, if I'm able to call on City of Longmont's stormwater manager to get his interpretation.

You've got to get it past Kristen. If she's cool with it, it's fine with me.

Okay.

Commissioners, yeah, what's your question? Can you please state your name for the record? Tyler Doe, the Senior Civil Engineer and Stormwater Program Manager.

Tyler, thank you for coming down. My question, we're talking about the rough and ready ditch on the north part of the property as far as I understand. Again, 2,000 pages to review, not as schooled as the rest of you. The rough and ready ditch company letter from Kevin Bowden, president of the rough and ready irrigation ditch company says, on behalf of the rough and ready ditch company, the company has reviewed your referral letter, has the following comments. the rough and ready ditch company will not allow any stormwater discharges into the north branch of the rough and ready ditch. And they're saying that's what they're going to do.

I believe that's one of the options outlined in their conceptual drainage report. Like James mentioned, there are other options that will be hashed out as they go through preliminary and final drainage report where all the drainage code and requirements would be evaluated at that time but there are other drainage avenues that are more complex but could be achieved and this property this was thank you this was in august of 2025 so there's been time to make adjustments to the proposal

application that we're looking at when they're already saying no why wasn't that updated in the concept lane and this is not for you Tyler this is for the applicant they would need to answer that question thank you though I appreciate that we look forward to have further discussions with them but in between now and then or in between when we got the letter to right

From then to today, we explore different options on the elevations to make sure hydraulically the outfall will be able to drain from the ultimate water quality on our site that we're going to adequately size for the development for Longmont Gateway Northwest will outfall to public infrastructure downstream.

So across the street.

Correct.

It's not even going to go into the rough and ready, but it's been proposed to go into the rough and ready. This is my problem. And being like sort of snowplowed with all this information and it feels like it's going pretty fast. And some of these things are getting missed, like the Residents are showing concern of not being heard. The residents are concerned about a large project. This is fairly large. It's a big change in their neighborhood. And I mean, fair point. Would you want this big change to happen this quickly in your backyard? It's fair. I mean, that's part of development. We have to understand compatibility when we're putting anything in. So the problem I'm having here is you already know that you cannot do it, but you've left it in the proposal, you being ubiquitous project. So it feels disingenuous to say, well, we're going to try and do it anyways, even though they've already said no. So I don't understand why it would be, is that part of the 2,000 pages I'm supposed to review and do quality control on and go, oh, okay, we already got here. We don't need to put it in. Let's update the proposal. Why are we not seeing the most updated proposal where it says you can't do it? And just by chance, I found this, right? How would I know if you're putting it in a proposal that you can do it even though the rough and ready ditch said you cannot? we're prepared to provide design alternatives for the drainage outfall later after it's been approved later so i'm approving something that maybe will maybe so you can sort of see you writing on the wall for my vote on this right now because i feel like doing design per code yeah you you can design stuff per code but it ends up looking like junk right you have to have some of that um do better ish miss for projects it is also late for me too um i'm not seeing it here with the evidence that's being provided where you're getting feedback that says no and yet you're still well we'll talk about it it'll be fine they're saying no so why not just move on and start talking about what option b is if you've already gotten the no that's a problem for me

To sidestep and know from one of the pieces of feedback that we're supposed to be relying on Understood we we have started discussions on the design alternatives should have updated that in our preliminary drainage memo for the Land use amendment. Yeah, the design alternatives have been vetted and can be achieved but are more complex and

Again, you guys are applying through to planning and zoning. Why not have it updated when it gets to us? It just makes it take longer. It's harder to get through. I just think that it's maybe not the best time or approach or it's already talking about the pressure of moving to There's two entities that we rely on in the city of Longmont, and I've lived here for half my life. I've lived in Boulder County my whole life, and there is a certain quality here that as a kid growing up, I thought was like, oh my gosh, it's just too slow and boring. But now as an older person here, I'm like, that is awesome. And I think that that culture that we have here in Longmont has to be a driving force when we're talking about these big land changes, a big land use change from single family to, let me make sure I'm saying it right. mixed-neighborhood mixed-neighborhood thank you seems that it's getting push back from other entities that are uh... a little more in the no boulder county in the left and ready ditch company are seen pressures in the proposal that are not uh... uh... applicable with success of a project like this uh... and he meaning from the very little bit that i can't get their scene that higher land use density, higher land use of mixed use, mixed neighborhood, is not a good fit in this area. That's what I am hearing. It is not a good fit to go from single family. Single family, they're saying they have the resources for, but they're not saying that you can have the resources at that change. So I'm a no for this.

Would I be able to ask what resources you're discussing about specifically that Boulder County

Okay. Per the privilege of chair, the Boulder County list.

I just want to make sure it's not discussing city utilities or like utilities for water and sanitary as those will be tied to the city system.

I haven't even gotten that far is what I'm saying. I'm hearing from the county and they're saying, no, I've not ever seen a list where there's like 12 things on there. They're like, nope, nope, nope, nope. But some of them have been addressed. But that's the annoying thing to me as a volunteer sitting up here looking through 2,000 pages. succinct and like update like then it's not reviewable if it's not updated it doesn't it's just kind of waste of time so i think that it's a no right now perhaps this just needs a little time in the cooker to get some updates and some mistakes um sort of adjusted for that sort of we're hearing because it sounds like the neighborhood is amenable to doing something they want to talk with you guys about what's going to work best here and again we're not saying things should be built here the people that own the property are asking us if it can come in based on the code and the rules so we're not suggesting that they are suggesting that just to be clear um just don't think i think that you guys are headed in the right direction it just is like it's just not quite enough information and evidence and updated evidence to get my vote of approval for this change of land use on b commissioner amend

Hey, apologies. I'm speaking in bursts here, but there's a lot to review. So I guess for my clarification, and I think this is from the city people, when we get a plat, we would review this again. Like this is not, this is coming back to PNZ before it's being developed, right?

The property overall would, for this component of it, the Envision land use amendment, that's an amendment to the Envision plan, so that would not have any additional Planning Commission input. But the actual development of the property going to preliminary plat would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration.

Okay. Okay, that makes sense. I guess the other question I had is... For the applicant, some of the history on this, you mentioned that city council previously, that there was a previous attempt to develop single family on this property, right? That is correct. I guess, could you give me some history there? Because you mentioned city council wasn't happy. Did they indicate specifically that they wanted higher density or what was the indication there?

Yes, I think in very specific terms, they said that this parcel needs to have higher density than single family housing. I think that they cited the need for housing in the community. I think they cited the access on a major arterial with 287. And I would encourage you to watch the whole video. That's my understanding of it. OK.

Thank you. I think that answered my question. So I guess with that in mind that this item is specifically asking us to do the land use amendment and the city council indicating that they have requested this, then I would move to approve PZR 2026 7A, actually 7B, I believe, because there was conditional approvals recommended by staff. Yes. So seeing as City Council has indicated that they want higher density, I think it makes sense for PZR to approve, I move to approve PZR 2026-7B conditional approval.

Okay, we have a motion. So before any comments, we have to have a second to see if anybody will second this. I'll go ahead and second it and lead it back to discussion. Commissioner... Jordan, it's getting long.

Thank you, Chair. I'll try to be brief. This is a question for staff, but also discussion amongst ourselves. I'm not sure how to actually evaluate this against criteria because we've already said that 1502.055A, which is it's consistent with the comp plan, is to be disregarded because we're changing the comp plan. And all of the other criteria rely on detail, which we have also been told to disregard because they are not part of this. So I am kind of like, well, the only piece of material bits of review for Section B specifically is the market study and a mention about how city council thinks this is a good idea.

I appreciate those comments, Commissioner Jordan. You would want to rely heavily on the review criteria analysis in reference to decision making on such an application.

And I went through it, but we've got things like, oh, hey, we're actually compatible because we're going to make it so it's lower density over here. But we already know. I mean, we know we haven't even annexed this thing. We're not even reviewing a plat. So I can't use that. So like literally nothing of this from my interpretation actually is substantive to say I have something to go on via the code beyond just say we got a market analysis and a mention about city council. So I am a no on this.

Commissioner Jordan, just to point you to one additional review criteria applicable to comp plan amendments. So under 1502060B3, it does note that proposed comprehensive plan amendments need not be consistent with the existing comprehensive plan, but must serve the best interest of the city. So I just wanted to throw out that additional criteria to consider in addition to the 1502055 all application types.

Just to then complete the thought from my perspective with that in mind, Jeremy, I'm still inclined to say no, because I'm seeing an applicant sponsored market analysis. I'm not seeing a city sponsored consultant to tell me that this is best for the city. This seems like it's best for the applicant.

Commissioner Saunders.

Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up with that, do we have evidence of what council directed us to do in amending to the comp plan for this? Is there any evidence?

Yes and no. The evidence is that this was, did go to city council for referral to annexation process. And so the comprehensive plan amendment language notes that city planning area amendment shall be referred to the city council before processes and determine whether it's the best interest of the city to vote staff and PZ resources to a full review of the application.

Sure. That's the code, right?

Yes, it did.

Okay. So what did city council say? That's what I'm trying to figure out. So we don't know. Fair enough. If we don't have that information, we just don't have that information. And I think that's sort of where we're headed. We would like to have more, which is weird because we had 2,000 pages. I think we'd like to have updated in certain direction from council if that's what we're relying on. I mean, I get where you guys are coming from. I really do. Trying to put all this together. I get it, but it's huge So hopefully you understand like that's a big ass all this development happening and all this change happening where it's not necessarily Definitive and supportive by some of these other entities like City Council and Boulder County in the rough-and-ready ditch. So Thank you, I'm hearing no there is no definitive direction from Council I Absolutely. I mean, because we're just a recommending body for utilization and for land use.

Kristen, do you have a comment?

Yeah, go ahead.

I was just going to say, Commissioner Sanders is correct. This is a recommendation body, and the final decision would be at city council level.

Thank you. Yes, thank you.

Commissioner Forbes. Thank you, Chair. The question I have is, do we have, like... along with the market study and things like that, do we have anything that, I think this is kind of going with Commissioner Sanders' question, do we have anything, it's Saunders, it's Saunders, question of whether or not, does this benefit the people of Longmont? Is this going, having the, changing this and envision Longmont, what benefits would there be?

Certainly, and I think some of that would have to go back to, obviously, the review criteria, because it is important, and providing the markets today, I believe, indicated the city is in need of missing middle housing, which this property is also proposing to include in their annexation concept plan, and also in... in compliance with Envision Longmont, the direction to focus on your corridors of travel and transportation with your larger developments as that is where services and transportation is fast and readily available.

And the, so, and also the follow-up on that is if, so let's say, like, and so the way I'm looking at this is, let's say, like, again, we're supposed to be looking at this as aside from the annexation and aside from if the applicant is bringing this to this, if anyone builds on it and it's RMN in the change. So, the The question I have is single-family versus RMN for, like, does the city have numbers on the deficit, what it would mean to have just single-family homes on that land versus deficit, and what that could mean for Longmont? Yeah.

And I appreciate that question. I think probably the best person to address that would be our principal planner, Jennifer Hewitt Apperson, who is also our long-range planner, and can speak more towards the annexation referral process for this property as she brought that to council. And she is with us tonight.

I see her coming.

All right, could you repeat the question? Just real quick.

I was doing various research stuff on this. That's okay. So if this plot was zoned single family only versus RMN, If if if we did that, what is the is there a cost benefit analysis or like is it what it would be the cost to Longmont if it stayed single family or the benefit, the overall benefits if it was RMN?

Sure. So I don't have a specific cost benefit analysis, but what I can reference is the housing needs assessment that was completed in 2023. It's currently being updated per state requirements. I do not have the exact numbers because I That is a different department, but I have been peripherally involved. But it did identify a significant deficit. And really, that missing middle is really a big area of need as far as versus single family. As was mentioned previously, the cost of developing single family is driven up by a lot of things, particularly raw water. RMN does permit single family. It also permits... Medium density. So by medium density, you can do from 6 to 18 units an acre. But you can also do single family. You can do duplexes. You can do townhouses. It allows a range. And within that range is a product type that has been identified through previous housing needs assessments as being a gap, basically, in our housing supply. I don't know if that answers your question or not.

So you said that we're at a deficit. Let's just say we zoned everything single-family housing. So basically all remaining land stayed at single-family housing. Would that address the deficit at all? And then what would happen from there?

Not even close.

What would the consequences of that be?

Do you want to have housing prices like in Boulder? That's the consequence, frankly. When you have limited supply, you drive up the cost significantly. And so as it stands now, single-family homes are unattainable to the overwhelming majority of prospective buyers who would want to buy a home in Longmont. because we don't have the supply. Part of not having the supply is our single-family homes have a really low vacancy rate. So they just aren't available. But we also have very limited land available for development in the city of Longmont, whether it's zoned for a single family or something else. We have very little land left that's zoned for single family. And frankly, single family is the least efficient

Form of housing that you could build in terms of satisfying need particularly when you're looking at affordability and based on based on the very long packet that we got 50 according to the market study it was 56% of the housing in Longmont was single-family currently and then versus I think it was 13 percent was for Liz. I'd have to look at the sheet, but I remember it's 56 percent with single family right now, which is a large percentage of the housing at the moment. Then the other question following that up is that why is it limited in Longmont? The next question is about annexation, why would it be limited?

So we have our Longmont planning area, which is defined in our comprehensive plan and memorialized with intergovernmental agreements with Boulder County as well as Weld County, because we do have a little bit of Weld County in our planning area. If you look at the future land use map, you'll notice it is almost entirely encircled in green. What that means is that land, and much of that land is also, it does bleed into our planning areas, not just outside of it. We are almost entirely encircled by permanently protected open space. We cannot go out anymore. And that's, you know, it is a geographic limitation, frankly.

Okay. And it... Is there any advantage to having this single plat being multi-zoned for multifamily versus single family specifically?

So I would say that mixed neighborhood is not necessarily multifamily. It's a mix of densities. So the previous council, it was the council that made the comment that wanted more density. It was from 2021. And it was specifically, as the applicant has indicated, contemplated at the time for single family. And so there was expression by that previous council that they would prefer to see higher density at that location. In particular, given its access from 287. I can't speak from a developer-realtor standpoint, but putting single-family adjacent to a major U.S. highway is probably not... Going to be as easy of a sell when you're looking at the prices that homes in Longmont Command that's whether that's regardless of I'm not saying good or bad for this location in terms of its adjacency to other uses but adjacency to the highway is it was a big factor and Typically you don't see lower density or lower intensity. I should say you don't see lower intensity uses typically adjacent to major highways now again i'm speaking in general terms um just from general planning concepts that's what i'm speaking from at this point okay uh yeah i think that wraps up my questions right now thank you

Yes, Kristen.

I was just going to say, if it would help the commission, I do have a exhibit, which is the planning map of Longmont. So you could look at the zoning along the 287 corridor, if you would like to see that.

I can bring it up on the screen.

Yeah, I think the question, and I can ask a question now. So, Kristen, there have been a couple questions raised here. I think we did get an answer to the fact that there was from at least a previous city council. They did recommend the, I'm going to say the annexation and zoning and concept plan to be forwarded to us. Does that mean they also recommended the land use or did that just become part and parcel because they recommended the annexation and zoning to come to us for review?

I believe that was part of the conversation. So at that May 25th, 2021 meeting, single family development was contemplated at that time on this property. And the city council members expressed at that meeting that they would prefer to see higher density development at that location.

Thank you. Also, if you can help me with this, it appears that over the... shorter term lately, and I'm looking at the 119 corridor, both coming in from the east and coming in from the west, which are gateways to Longmont. The city has gone to the plan to put higher density developments along those gateways. Is that true?

So how I would respond to that question is that these gateways are zoned for mixed use, either regional or employment or corridor. All of our mixed use zoning districts permit Residential development at a minimum density of 18 dwelling units per acre as a secondary use Which means not more than 50% of the total land area and a given adjacent Zoning area so it's not so much that the city has decided to put multifamily there it's that the areas are zoned to accommodate it and the private market has determined that that is what will bear

Okay. Thank you. I guess from my perspective, given the fact that it was, and just keeping it to this first item, the land use amendment, because we are probably, I guess we're not going to get to the next item tonight. To me, given the fact that this was forwarded to us by the city council, I do agree that I will go along with the land use amendment and going to the mixed family. Mixed neighborhood. Mixed neighborhood. I am for that and I understand because of the, need for the missing middle and also because of the added costs for development of single family, I can understand the logic of city council wanting that in this area, especially since it is off of a main arterial. So given that, I will be for this. That's my take for making the land use amendment change.

So we have a motion to do that.

Are we doing that in the motion? No, no, we already have a motion that was seconded, and we are still continuing the discussion. That was so long ago. Yes. So are there any other comments, or are we ready to take a vote? I think I'm fine. Yes, I am. Okay, I think we are ready for a vote.

Commissioner Arment.

Aye.

Commissioner Lange.

Nay.

Commissioner Wang. Aye. Chair Polin.

Yes.

Commissioner Saunders? No. Commissioner Forbes? Aye. Commissioner Jordan?

No.

Chair, that does pass four to three. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This item will now be forwarded to the Longmont City Council for action. If you are unfamiliar with City Council procedures and intend to appear before City Council, please contact the Planning Division for further information at 303-651-8330. Thank you very much. We are coming up on 11 o'clock, which means if we were to go past 11 o'clock, we would have to have someone make a motion and have the majority go through, or the next option would be to forward item C to a... Hearing to the date of the call of the chair. Oh, hearing to the date of the call of the chair. Could that be a... I think it's, Jeremy, wanna help us with that? Who would decide on the date for the next item? Because I don't think it would be me, because I don't know the schedule of the planning department. And the next meeting is next week, so we don't wanna do that.

I thought it was the secretary. Didn't we talk about this, that it was the secretary? Sorry, I'm all on this.

I thought it was Jane.

Our bylaws say... You were there, though, right?

Yes, our bylaws are the executive secretary, which, confusingly, is our director.

Okay.

establishes the agenda, looking at your bylaws, it does say that if you don't adjourn, all meetings adjourned and 11 remaining items should be continued and not called for consideration after that hour. The next sentence does say that the chairman can decide if the agenda should be continued to a subsequent meeting in order to comply with the adjournment policy. So I think it would be the chair's discretion to continue item c to comply with the 11 o'clock policy and direct staff to put it on an appropriate meeting agenda that's what i would like to do and that's your discretion without unless there's a motion to extend and continue

I'm just looking.

So are you just going to go ahead?

Yeah. And I won't make a motion. Okay. We don't need one. We don't need one.

We're going forward to the date certain or to a date as specified by the executive. Well, let's. So we're set with this item then, item C, because I've recommended it.

Can I go on record real quick? Okay.

I have a question about it.

I'm so sorry. But if we extend and go to item C, everything stays the same, right? And we don't talk ex parte and we don't anything. And no new evidence comes or can more evidence come? That's my, you know, Jeremy's like, that's why we don't do this.

It's a legislative item, so ex parte communications are not a concern. Okay.

But what about more stuff coming on C, or is it locked in?

We have not encountered this situation, and I don't have an opinion at this time.

So, Jeremy, I guess the question would be, is there opportunity for either the staff or for the applicant to add or modify the information that they've already submitted?

I don't have an opinion at this time.

Locked down.

But there is, so there is no notice requirements for re-noticing because it's a continued hearing. Because it's, I would consider it continued. Maybe. I don't know. But we don't have a date yet, so. TBD, I guess, is the best opinion I can give you at this point. Yeah.

do do we need do we need to i mean we only have 10 more minutes or we're going to get in trouble do we need to pull the commission and see how they feel about that adding or not adding i mean there's a lot of good information provided at this meeting oh do you want i don't know if it's our decision it sounds like that's more of a legal decision that can be handled but no i don't create the agendas

Well, no, but the question is adding to the material. You could.

I think you could say no. I think you could say yes. But not you, this you, I think.

So let me get this right, though. So if we move this to another date, you will resend out the packet? Would the packet be re-sent out before the next meeting? Okay. No, go ahead.

My thought on the re-submitting, if there's not a new, like, public or neighborhood meeting to show neighborhood the new information, it's maybe not fair for the applicant to have that time to add information that they don't get to see first. That's my thought.

The counter to that is it will be submitted a week ahead. It will be given like this was. I mean, I think the public testimony was the fact that there was information that had not been provided in their prior meeting that was submitted in the packet. So if the packet is submitted, they have access to the information like we have access to the information.

How will they know if there's no requirement to do notification on this extension? How will they know? How does the public know that we're revisiting C, if there's no? If we don't pick a date tonight, we have to re-notice it, right? Yes, that is true.

Yeah. If we don't pick a date tonight.

Okay, so then, if there's a new date, then maybe it opens up for updating things? It gets re-noticed. If it's re-noticed, then updating things. Yep. Okay.

Okay, and just for consideration, as I think, I don't know, we haven't set up the packet yet for next week. Yes. Regardless, we do have items that have already been noticed for next week. We do not have any items for the first regular meeting in June, at least formally scheduled. So that could be a date. Yes, for consideration. I would support that. Again, provided the commission believes that's sufficient time.

I believe it is. Okay, so I believe we are set on item 7C. We're going to look at it, potentially go on schedule for next June 1st meeting, have it re-noticed, and have another packet sent out.

Again, I think we discussed, and I'll defer to Jeremy, but I think if we pick a date this evening and continue to a date certain, we would not have to re-notice. But we could re-notice. We could, yes.

I think we should.

Then don't continue to a date certain.

Then we will not continue to a date certain. Very good. Yep. OK. We're set. Okay, now we'll move on to final call, public invited to be heard. This is a chance for the public to come and talk about anything that was not on the schedule for today or is not a item that's gonna come before us as a quasi-judicial. Seeing nobody come forward, I'll go ahead and close out. Final call, public invited to be heard. Next is items from the commission. We are set on items from the commission. Oh, commissioner lane.

I just think this packet was a little rough. Um, and also I, I know it's lengthy, but when we are looking at something and we all look at it here and you guys can't find it out there, it's a little frustrating. So just for staff, you know, I don't know. It's tough. It's a, it's a huge package. It's hard for anybody to find anything in here, but, um, I don't know how we could, I think we talked about this in another meeting. We did. This packet, I feel like we regressed. I mean, it's just, it's brutal. So I don't know if we could do like a condensed version to put up front and then have, I don't know. But it was. It was not a good position to be in getting this just, you know, like Amy said, you can't, I'm not going to sit home all weekend reading this stuff. I'm just not.

You signed up for this.

You signed up for it too. You can read it all weekend. Okay. Well, I've got other things to do, so I'll do it when I can do it. But you know, that's, that's ridiculous. That's way too much.

Thank you. Commissioner Wayne.

I would like to jump on Tom's, Commissioner Lang's comment. It was a little bit rough, not in terms of the size of the package, but the quality of the information presented. There was a lot of information in there that were old or inconsistent. For example, the traffic study showed the, I mean, that was back in November, but it showed the connections over down to Park Ridge through the church. That was no longer part of the new thing, but it was still presented to us as a possibility. So there was a lot of information that was just not quite pertinent or updated especially you know if we were looking at the one um the acreage for example that that information wasn't updated either i mean i just thinking yes it was a little rough it was a little long i was able to slide through it but there was a lot of inconsistencies with the data and the quality of this package was not very um consistent with what we've seen in the past thank you for the feedback

No other items. Council Representative Popkin is not in today. So we'll go to items from Planning Director Grant Pendlin.

sincerity covered the upcoming meeting i won't go through that but again i'll echo thanks for the feedback i think we can explore some options in terms of providing summaries obviously there's executive summaries and reports so if commission thinks that that might be more consumable we probably split that out obviously if you want to do the deep dive I think the intent is to include all of the hundreds of pages of reports that are included. But if it makes it, again, easier to at least get the high-level information, that's something we can definitely do in the future.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Wayne.

Okay. Thank you. Also, I do appreciate the summary from the Historic Preservation Committee meeting. I did watch that again, too, and I did watch the original report. neighborhood original meeting too. So it's nice having that summary on there, but I mean, I went back and watched it again just to verify the information and it was pretty, I liked the way that you once summarized it. So thank you.

Anything else, Grant? Nothing else for me. Okay. We are in adjournment.