The Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 17 recommended that City Council approve the Dry Creek annexation and concept plan (PZR-2025-15a), forwarding the proposal by a 6–1 vote after a public hearing in which neighbors raised traffic, parking and wildlife concerns.

City planning staff presented the proposal as an annexation of roughly eight acres at 9308 North 87th Street for the Residential Mixed Neighborhood (RMN) designation under Envision Longmont. ‘‘Based off of all review of the request, staff is recommending to you that you recommend approval of the Dry Creek annexation as denoted in PZR 2025‑15a,’’ Planner Nathan Jones told the commission during his presentation, summarizing staff’s analysis of review criteria and public‑notice steps.

The applicant team, represented by landscape architect Jonah Weiss of LJA and Matthew Napier for the landowner, said the concept plan would deliver ‘‘missing middle’’ housing in fee‑simple lots rather than apartment buildings. Weiss told commissioners the development would ‘‘provide attached or smaller detached homes that are more attainable for families’’ and said the applicant has removed apartment buildings from the plan and will dedicate land for inclusionary (affordable) housing.

Density limits and design conditions were central to the presentation. Staff and the applicant described RMN as allowing 6–18 dwelling units per acre by code; the concept plan would cap detached homes at about 7 dwelling units per acre and attached/townhouse styles at up to 15 dwelling units per acre, with the applicant explaining the final achievable unit count depends on area lost to roads, detention and parks.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing pressed the commission on traffic and circulation, parking, and environmental impacts. Chris Beck, a Box Elder Drive resident, said traffic on nearby Clover Basin is already heavy and asked how parking would be handled in the new development. ‘‘This is gonna add to it as will the parcel to the east when it's developed,’’ Beck said, asking the commission to consider lower density and clearer parking plans.

Other residents urged measures to prevent cut‑through traffic into the Box Elder neighborhood, asking whether the Quail Road connection could be limited to emergency access with a locked gate. Staff and Public Works engineering administrator Josh Sherman repeatedly cited fire‑safety requirements that generally require two full means of ingress and egress and said a gated emergency access alone would not meet that public‑safety standard.

Environmental concerns also featured in public comment. A resident who lives near the proposed site described bobcat sightings, coyotes and occasional cougar sightings and urged that design and construction protect wildlife corridors. The applicant and staff said a wildlife assessment had been done within the last year that identified no significant habitat; they said environmental studies would be refreshed and any required mitigation addressed during subsequent development steps.

Commissioner questions focused on the narrow county parcels adjacent to the site, the 20‑foot width of segments of Quail Road that ‘‘don't support parking,’’ the scope of a future traffic study, and whether the concept plan could legally require owner‑occupancy. Planner Jones and the applicant said the current concept plan contains no enforceable owner‑occupancy restriction but that the applicant had prioritized fee‑simple lots and conversations to attract for‑sale homebuilders rather than build‑to‑rent developers.

Several commissioners urged that future traffic studies at preliminary plat explicitly model potential interactions with the neighboring 8902 Quail Road parcel and account for realistic trip distribution, and city staff said they will scope the next traffic study to consider adjacent development. The FAA/airport overlay was discussed; staff said applicants bear the responsibility for FAA coordination when building proposals involve obstruction or height review.

After deliberation Vice Chair Pullen moved to recommend approval of PZR‑2025‑15a; Commissioner Earl seconded. The commission approved the recommendation 6–1, with Chair Hite dissenting. The item will be forwarded to Longmont City Council for final action.

Next steps: if City Council takes up the annexation and concept plan, the proposal will return to the Planning and Zoning Commission during the preliminary and final plat stages, where more detailed traffic, environmental and utility studies and site drawings will be required and public review of architecture, access points and mitigation measures will occur.