Longmont narrows definition of "adjacent" in park/greenway development rule to 100 feet after resident concerns

Longmont City Council on Tuesday amended and approved a change to the municipal code that defines when development is considered adjacent to city parks, greenways and open space. Council replaced a reference to being “separated by a local street” with a distance test: a property is adjacent if separated from park, greenway or open space by less than 100 feet of right‑of‑way.

The change followed extensive public comment and council debate over whether the city should maintain council‑level review of conditional use and site plan applications near sensitive natural areas. The amended ordinance (2025‑55) was approved after councilors and planning staff discussed the practical differences between street classifications and a measured distance.

Why it matters: The definition determines which land‑use applications the Planning and Zoning Commission may decide alone and which require final review by the City Council. Residents opposed to the original change argued it could let large redevelopment near the St. Vrain Creek riparian buffer proceed without council review.

Public commenters urged the council to preserve review authority for developments that could affect river corridors and open space. Sherry Malloy told council the ordinance “would redefine the term adjacent” and could prevent council review of conditional use applications for properties separated from open space by a major thoroughfare. Jamie Sima urged council to consider Longmont’s Capital Improvement Plan showing Boston Avenue’s planned connection, which she said would increase traffic and redevelopment pressure near the St. Vrain riparian buffer.

Planning staff described a practical problem with the initial approach. Planners said distinguishing development by street classification (local, collector, arterial) produced inconsistent outcomes as built street widths and right‑of‑way measurements vary. Don Burchett, planning staff, recommended a fixed right‑of‑way distance on the face of the ordinance so the rule is measurable and reproducible.

Council weighed alternatives and settled on 100 feet as a middle ground between local streets (roughly 61 feet of right‑of‑way) and full arterial standards (roughly 120 feet). The council amendment replaces the “local street” language with the 100‑foot test; the council then voted to adopt the ordinance as amended.

What this means in practice: Under the adopted language, developments separated from city parks, greenways or open space by 100 feet or more of right‑of‑way will generally be decided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Developments within 100 feet must be filed for council review so the full council can assess broader community impacts.

Councilors emphasized the change was intended to be clear and measurable. “I would highly recommend the council get away from using street type terminology and stick to a distance,” Don Burchett told council during the debate; Burchett said distance eliminates naming disputes and is readily verifiable in city mapping systems.

Next steps: The ordinance will be incorporated into the municipal code as amended; future development applications near parks and greenways will be screened using the 100‑foot right‑of‑way test. Planning staff and commissioners will apply the new rule as the city receives site plans and conditional use requests.

The decision followed public comments from multiple neighborhood residents and a string of council questions about Boston Avenue, the St. Vrain riparian setback and the city’s Capital Improvement Plan. Councilors said the distance‑based definition will give residents and applicants a consistent rule.