Voting on the application consistent with due process requirements.

If so, please describe the situation and recuse yourself from further participation on this agenda item.

All right.

Does any commission member have a conflict of interest or any other closed prior to proceeding on this item?

All right, go ahead.

Commission will now hear from city planning staff.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners.

As stated tonight's a uh rezoning request for lot 1A of the West Ridge filing number one replat a cutting that now.

Brief uh agenda, I'll do a quick introduction, followed by an analysis, public testimony, any questions planning commission may have discussion, and finally a motion.

So this is an unaddressed property uh south of the intersection.

Oh, I'm forgetting the trail name now of Aspen Ridge and uh I'm forgetting it.

What was it?

Is it timber timber trail?

Thank you.

2.89 acre property, it is currently zoned uh transitional business district, and the proposal is for the public district.

This is a city owned property.

A little background, uh kind of in roughly chronological order.

City purchased this in 2017 for a potential water treatment facility in 2019 IGA with Erie, the parties agreed to find a suitable location for Erie to locate a water storage facility.

A recent sighting study by the city of Lafayette concluded that the size of the property is not sufficient for the treatment facility.

A similar study by Erie concluded that the site and more almost more importantly, the elevation of the site relative to the nine mile development is suitable for their needs.

Um sorry, I left that second one in there when I was rearranging.

And then lastly, the purchase and sale agreement uh was agreed to on at the May 27th City Council meeting.

So a little comparison between the two zone districts.

Uh the transitional business district has setbacks on this street, it would be a 35 foot front setback, 15 foot side, 25 foot rear.

The public district has no setbacks, but it's worth noting that there is a 30 foot wide utility easement along the west side of the property where it's adjacent to residential.

So that's would be the effective setback in either district.

Uh, and there's also a 10 foot setback along Aspen Ridge.

Height limit is a slightly different, 27 feet for the uh transitional district and 35 for the public.

It's also worth noting that based on early studies for the water storage facility, it's supposed to be at grade or below.

It's maybe just a pertinences above it, but they're still preliminary, so that could change a little bit, but that's the information we have now.

Uh ownership or more potential land uses in the transitional district.

There was uh 51 total uses that were allowed either by right or by a special use review versus 40 in the public district.

And a lot of the one some of the the uses that are allowed in the transitional that aren't allowed in the public are kind of the more intensive uses, retail under 20,000 square feet, restaurants, hotels, commercial greenhouse, personal services, indoor amusement entertainment, things like that.

And then there's some kind of odd uses in the public, like auto repair, but that's more for like a streets maintenance facility for a city facility.

So there are some kind of at what seem to be at first blush, maybe unusual uses like daycares are allowed there, conceivably the city could operate a daycare.

So that's kind of the overview of the different uses.

They do represent different types of ownership.

Uh transitional is private, or it can be private, and a public district is a governmental ownership.

And then in both districts, obviously, and and regardless of who owns it, any future development does require city review.

So our development code essentially states that to rezone a property, one of the four criteria here have to be met.

The first one is the land to be rezoned was initially zoned in air, or uh the rezonings of the technical or corrective nature.

That one is not the case.

I'm gonna skip B because that's what we landed on, and we're gonna go over that in the next slide.

The rezoning is necessary to conform to the Lafayette comprehensive plan.

That's not applicable, and then lastly, the rezoning is necessary to provide land for a community related use that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan, but which use is generally consistent with the policies and goals of said plan.

And that's also not accurate.

We didn't we you know when we adopted the current comprehensive plan, we already owned the property and we thought it was going to be used for a utility use.

So we did find that criterion B was met.

So we found that the future conveyance conveyance of the property to Erie is a changing condition, and we felt that the rezoning to a public district that ensures the property will be developed for a public purpose and also limits the development outcomes, serves the public interest and is reasonably necessary in the promotion of public health safety or welfare, and it also encourages that it be developed in a specific way for public purposes.

So that was our finding.

Next steps, you guys get to make a recommendation.

First reading is at next week at the June 17th City Council meeting.

Second reading at a subsequent city council meeting.

No first.

And now I'm ready for questions.

I see the look in Frank's eyes.

Where to begin?

So this property is Erie going to actually annex it after they purchase it.

No, it'll be a city property.

City property, and then that would be like anybody else buying a city property.