Longmont City Council on Aug. 26 heard a detailed proposal to reduce the city’s 100‑foot riparian setback along Dry Creek Number 1 so developer Alta Vita can build senior housing closer to a multiuse bike path. After two hours of presentations and questions, the council voted to table the application for more analysis and to return it to a future meeting.

The variance matter matters because the city’s Longmont Municipal Code riparian setback (LMC 15O502 — as described in staff materials) is intended to protect stream corridors, wetland and wildlife habitat. The applicant sought a variable setback tied to the north edge of an existing bike path rather than the standard 100‑foot line; Planning & Zoning recommended a 50‑foot setback measured from the northern edge of the riparian habitat.

Senior environmental planner Zach Lasik opened staff’s technical briefing and described the new Sustainability Evaluation System (SES) used to score ecological impacts. The applicant’s SES score was 10; staff’s independent SES score was 5. Parker Macy, representing the applicant, said the site is about 17 acres and that Alta Vita seeks additional senior units to meet local demand. Ecologist Heather Houston of Birch Ecology told council she regularly uses the bike path and that the north side of the path is, today, predominantly weeds and alfalfa, with most native riparian trees and shrubs concentrated south of the path: “I like to ride my bike on that bike path, regularly,” she said, to underline the local context of the land on both sides of the path.

Applicant materials and the consultant presentations described mitigation elements they say would offset impacts if the setback were reduced: a stormwater management plan with rain gardens and bioswales, removal of Russian olive and other noxious weeds, and new plantings (the applicant’s concept plan identified 21 native trees and 154 native shrubs to be installed within the vicinity of the creek and bike path). Staff and the applicant disagreed on several SES categories (aquatic habitat, floodplain protection, ecological connectivity, nighttime light and heat‑island effects). Staff said some mitigation claims were appropriate for separate SES categories and could not be counted twice; the applicant said modern low‑impact stormwater design and new plantings would yield a net habitat improvement over current conditions north of the bike path.

Council members pressed on multiple topics: whether the bike path is an appropriate legal and enforcement anchor for a new setback line; the implications of floodplain regulations (a separate review during site plan/floodplain review); how the SES treats mitigation credits; and neighborhood and wildlife impacts. Planning & Zoning had recommended a 50‑foot setback; several council members said they needed more time to compare the commission recommendation, the applicant’s concept plans and the staff SES results.

Councilor Matthew Popkin moved to conditionally approve the applicant’s full variance to the bike path edge in exchange for additional on‑site green infrastructure; that motion failed. Popkin then moved to table the application to allow staff and the applicant time to provide additional materials; Mayor Pro Tem Hidalgo Faring seconded the table motion. The motion to table carried, with Mayor Peck and Councilor Crist recorded as opposing. The council set a future date for reconsideration and asked staff to circulate the applicant’s slides and updated SES materials to council members before the return hearing.

The application will return to council after staff and the applicant provide the additional technical materials and clarifications requested by councilors, including clearer mapping of the proposed setback line, a more detailed landscape/planting and stormwater plan tied to SES scoring, and cross‑walks between Planning & Zoning’s 50‑foot recommendation and the applicant’s proposal.

Speakers at the meeting included city staff and the applicant’s technical team; no final land‑use decision was made tonight. Council members emphasized they wanted more explicit, site‑specific detail tying mitigation commitments to the SES scores before taking a final vote.

What’s next: The council tabled the item for additional staff review and directed staff and the applicant to return with clearer technical documentation and a single recommended setback line for final action at the follow‑up meeting.