Lafayette Planning Commission Meeting: Silo Phase Two Sketch Plan, April 9, 2025

This meeting of the Lafayette Planning Commission on April 9, 2025, focused on a public hearing for Resolution PC 202501, recommending approval of the Silo Phase Two Planned Unit Development (PUD) sketch plan at 10364 Arapahoe Road. The commission heard public testimony, staff analysis, and applicant presentations. After extensive discussion, the commission voted to refer the application back to the applicant for further study, citing concerns about housing diversity, open space, and alignment with the comprehensive plan.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Rhonda Leinberg (1843 Stonehenge Drive) expressed concern about the preservation of Lafayette's way of life, stating that developers and state mandates are attacking open spaces and wildlife. She highlighted traffic congestion on Arapahoe Road and urged the commission to consider what is being taken away before approving further development.
• Ron Spaulding (Lafayette) asked why the sketch plan could not be delayed until major issues like fire access, utilities, and traffic studies are addressed. He noted the potential for significant traffic increases from multiple proposed developments along Arapahoe Road.
• Preston Patton and Barbara Patton (2389 Indian Peaks Trail) argued that the original developer, Cornerstone, promised a unique, nature-focused community with timber frame homes, a CSA farm, and a large central park. They claimed that Lenar, the current builder, has delivered a traditional, cookie-cutter product and that the proposed changes further deviate from the original vision. They also raised concerns about traffic gridlock on Arapahoe Road.
• Aaron Rayne (Silo resident) expressed disappointment that the central park shown in original marketing has been reduced and replaced with townhomes. He asked the commission to reconsider the park's size.
• Kelly Done (Silo phase one resident) stated she felt "bait and switched" because the promised agricultural community features (CSA farm, community plots, barn) have been eliminated. She also noted that trail connectivity within phase one is incomplete, with dead ends and private property blocking movement.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation (Jesse Round, Senior City Planner): Jesse Round explained the sketch plan process, noting that the purpose is a high-level review. The applicant is proposing a rezoning of the phase two area (37.88 acres) from a mix of R1, R2, T1, and AG to R2 and R3, with modifications to dimensional standards. The proposal includes 235 dwelling units (a reduction of 80 units from the original approved PUD), townhomes replacing multifamily condos, and consolidated detention. Staff found the plan consistent with the comprehensive plan but noted concerns about utilities, public safety, and traffic that will be addressed at the preliminary plan stage.
• Applicant Presentation (Casey Van Iten, Project Coordinator; Alan Cunningham, Lead Designer): The applicant reviewed the history of the Silo development, emphasizing that the original 2017 PUD included multifamily and a CSA farm. For phase two, they are proposing to replace the 176 condos with townhomes, reducing overall density. They argued that the changes are a refinement of the approved plan, with improved pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, larger rights-of-way for utilities and fire safety, and a consolidated detention pond that frees up usable open space. They also noted that the central park, though reduced, remains a neighborhood-scale amenity. The applicant stated that the CSA farm was not economically viable and has been replaced with community gardens.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioners raised concerns about:
  • The loss of multifamily housing, which reduces housing diversity and affordability.
  • The reduction in the size of the central park and the impact on phase one residents who were promised a larger open space.
  • The lack of a traffic study at this stage and the potential for increased congestion on Arapahoe Road.
  • The types of housing products (single-family detached and townhomes) with limited variety, and the desire for more innovative designs like triplexes or quadplexes to create usable open space.
  • The feasibility of the community center and its programming.
  • The orientation of townhomes along Aspen Ridge Drive and the need for better pedestrian connectivity.
  • The impact of state laws (transit-oriented communities) on the development.
  • The metro district's role and how it will maintain open spaces.
• Commission Discussion: The commission debated the appropriate course of action. Options included approving the sketch plan as is, approving with conditions, referring back to the applicant, or denial. The majority felt that the plan did not adequately address comprehensive plan goals for housing diversity and open space, particularly the loss of multifamily and the reduced central park. They also considered the applicant's property rights as an entitled PUD. After hearing from the applicant, who preferred to move forward to preliminary plan, the commission decided to refer the application back to the applicant for further study.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Refer Back: Commissioner Wilson moved to refer the Silo Phase Two sketch plan back to the applicant for further study, citing concerns related to PUD criteria 4 (community amenities), 8 (housing variety), and 18 (diversity and quality of development), as well as comprehensive plan policies. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (7-0).
• Next Steps: The applicant may choose to resubmit a revised sketch plan or proceed to preliminary plan, understanding that the commission's concerns must be addressed. The applicant also has the option to request a city council call-up of the planning commission's decision.
• Future Meetings: The commission's next regular meeting is April 23, 2025, which will include a variance request, a development application, and discussion of ADU code amendments.