On the record and the applicable criteria established under the municipal code, which are highlighted in the staff report.

Does any commission member believe that he or she isn't capable of evaluating and voting on the application consistently due process requirements?

If so, please describe the situation and refuse yourself further participation.

Sorry, um.

I think we're not greens, and there is no public hearing.

Um do you want to do that?

Oh, that's a good thing.

Okay, yeah.

I think that's a good idea.

Ah, okay.

So you might want to back on the agenda.

Okay.

I know there was no way to do that.

So yeah, but maybe where's Daily Greens.

Okay.

So I think there's some folks here to talk about an Echo Hotel project.

Um, so that would be the previous um time when that I said if you'd like to come here and talk about something other than Daily Greens, that would be the time to come.

So if you would like to, we'll we'll go back to agenda item number two.

And um sorry, I didn't see that particular subject line.

So um we'll go back to agenda item number two, and um we will call the first person on the list.

That'll be Anna Blythe.

Hello, thank you for going back and apologize.

Yes, understanding the agenda.

Um, a lot of my neighbors are here.

Um, and I live at 914 Hard Eye Trail in Lafayette.

Um, and there is an echo suites proposed across the street from Otis and Aspen Ridge Drive.

Um, you know, just two lanes away from our public school bus stop, and we all have concerns just about the uh fabric of the neighborhood and what that's going to bring to our residential community.

We understand that the the zoning for the area was um put into place long before our community was put in, and we're the first phase of the community, it's gonna continue to expand and be full of um children and families, and um we just feel like it's not the right uh commercial use for this site.

We know that it's going to be commercial, and we know that it'll bring in other people, and we want it to be something that is community focused and brings um positives to our community instead of bringing in uh negatives like heavier traffic late at night, um, people that aren't community-minded that aren't part of the community being so close to the children in our neighborhood in particular.

Um, and then in addition, just for like the planning portion of it and the rules of zoning, they're proposing a um to bring the hotel higher than the height limits allow for that site, and so it's already uncongruent, and they're trying to break the rules of the zoning.

Um, and so we would appreciate your consideration for um not allowing that to move forward.

So thank you.

Next we have next we have Bryce Stout.

I live at 843 for away in the silo, and I also wanted to express um my dislike of the uh Echo Suites project.

I think Lafayette is one of the best cities around here.

Part of the reason for that is the way that um we have like a classic city with a downtown, it's walkable, it's approachable, and I'd like to ask the city to um ask the developers of this project to attempt to make it something that's more in line with that type of a city as opposed to a big box sitting in a sea of asphalt type of development.

Thank you.

Next we have Amanda Ludwig.

Hi there.

Uh I'm Amanda Ludwig, my wife and I live at 873 Larry at Lane.

Um, familiar with many of the folks in this room and have spoken to our city council members as well.

So thanks for the opportunity to share tonight.

Um, we moved here in 2020 intentionally because we were really thrilled by the way that Lafayette was growing.

I'm a Denver native, have lived in Colorado my whole life, um, and would echo similar thoughts.

So I won't drain my speech, but really have serious concerns about this being the commercial proposal for that space.

Um, this is certainly not part of the design.

Um we had in mind, I mean it was a commercial space um when we moved in, but that this was not this was not what we had in mind when we were purchasing the property.

Um so concerns about property value, concerns about safety for the many young families and kids that live in the neighborhood.

Um, and we just ask for your partnership and consideration in in working with the developer to find um an alternative solution to that space.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Jill Summers.

I am Jill Summers and I live at 900 Heart Eye in the Silos community, and unlike Amanda, I am gonna do my speech.

And I do have notes.

So the three major things that we are most concerned about is having this extended say hotel set up in our community in neighborhood that as others have said are near our children and are is not set up for community sustainable type of uh situation.

Three major things I want to share with you.

Crime and police demand.

In Denver, the city shut down the Regis Motel on Colfax after police documented drug dealing, stolen vehicles, illegal firearms, prostitution, and even homicide.

Wheat Ridge officials reported that just nine hotels generated over 3,000 police calls a year.

They were forced to create a special licensing program just to deal with that.

Second, inability to remove problem tenants.

Once a guest stays 30 days or more, Colorado law often treats them as a permanent resident.

And under the state's 2024 cause required eviction law, management cannot simply ask them to leave.

Eviction requires legal process, which means if a problem develops, it lingers, placing the burden on police and neighbors.

Third, decline into blight.

We know from afar how hotels can run down, and it's also happened nearby.

Denver's Royal Palace Motel closed in 2013 after years of crime and then sat vacant and boarded up for more than a decade before demolition finally began this year.

In Wheat Ridge, the American motel became so run down that it's now an eyesore that attracts crime and trespassing, and it's being finally torn down.

These aren't isolated cases.

They show how properties like this can turn into blight that drags down entire neighborhoods and lowers surrounding property values.

Yes, extended stay hotels can look affordable on paper, but those savings are exactly what draw high risk and unstable occupancy.

What looks like a bargain for some comes at the expense of neighborhood safety, stability, and home values for the rest of us.

The truth is this product absolutely adds no value to our community.

It does not strengthen our neighborhoods, it does not contribute to long-stream term stability, and it certainly does not reflect the vision residents have for our city.

What Lafayette truly needs are developments that enhance family life, create safe and welcoming spaces, and reflect our shared values of stability, community, and growth.

The proposed extended stay does none of these.

And these extended stage style homes enable people to stay in places longer than they need to be, which tends to bring in people that aren't necessarily gonna benefit the city.

Um, when I came here from California, Lafayette was a small town.

Um still is a small town compared to where I'm from in California.

I grew up in Silicon Valley when it was cherry trees and strawberry fields.

It's no longer that.

It's it's a mess.

Um I think that if you're going to consider this hotel, you have to think about the long-term effects of what it can do.

Um, the the double tree in Denver is a perfect example.

When a hotel fails, it goes somewhere.

It gets boarded up, people move into it, people break into it, it causes more problems.

Um we have my partner and I, Michelle, we have two dogs that we walk at least twice a day.

We go from silos, we go through buy coals, we go to the tractor store and around the neighborhoods at least twice a day.

And the two years that we've been here, I've seen nothing but lack of respect for the areas around our neighborhood.

Just last night I was walking, I saw hypodermic needles and the pathway that were our dogs walk, aluminum cans, beer cans, broken bottles.

Um we are aware that what that Walmart allows overnight parking.

Um, I see nothing wrong with that.

However, it does tend to look to spread to the back of the buildings.

I've had multiple conversations with the management at Kohl's, with the management at uh tractor store.

They've all had a direct line to the local police department, which they do their best to come out and take care of trans that are building encampments surrounding the areas.

Um I've tried to help with that in communicating to the local police.

Um got initially got kind of pushed around because the sheriffs were saying this isn't our area, it's local, then the police were saying, well, that's not our area, that's the county.

But now I've got the direct lines and I've made multiple attempts, and I I hate to call a local police department when there are things that are going on, like drugs and alcohol and other things that are going on in cars that are sleeping behind the buildings.

Because these police have other things they should be doing, not just doing this.

They have told me that there were some laws that changed that allow them to cite them for staying overnight.

Um, they give them 48 hours, I think is the time period which they're allowed to stay until they have to leave, vacate.

Um it hadn't been up until a few months ago where they actually were able to try some of these cases, but the lack of people showing up for these cases really set no precedent for future issues.

Um, I think by putting this type of hotel in this neighborhood, um, and me with my background in banking and asset management, I was taught in appraisal, I was taught in underwriting.

We risk property.

We risk property on neighborhoods, we risk property in commercial properties, we risk neighborhoods on what we see when we saw it when we drove properties.

This is one thing that I taught the asset managers when I was traveling throughout the United States training asset management is what how do you price a property that's got these influences?

And me being a mortgage broker, or not a mortgage, I used to be a mortgage broker.

Being a broker, real estate broker, I knew coming into silos that there was going to be an added development.

Now you can't buy your neighbor, but you can hopefully think that the city around you is gonna influence the right direction for the city and what's gonna be the influence on that neighborhood.

The silos are eight to nine hundred thousand dollars.

The ones in front of us are two to two five 2.5 million dollars, which is really high for Lafayette.

We realize that the hotel will bring tax benefit, and it's all a business.

Everybody needs to get the benefit of what's going on.

However, there are better things that could be influencing the neighborhood with smaller businesses in the same commercial spots rather than a short-term stay, low dollar, high traffic, bad influence.

So I plead to you to uh think about this more towards the benefit of the city and to the homeowners that purchase these homes.

Um I personally have made a decision to sell my house.

Um I'm leaving the neighborhood.

Um I feel bad that I'm leaving the neighborhood because I started a Facebook group with a lot of these people to get everybody together to be able to communicate and talk because I've come from other neighborhoods where we influence the neighborhood and the people around us in a positive way.

Um I was blessed to have these great neighborhoods, neighbors that have the same ideals and same direction that I do, and I really appreciate all of you.

But the fact remains is I can't sell the house for what I thought I was gonna be able to sell a house for because of the influences that are going on in the neighborhood and the direction that it's going.

Yes, the markets change, it always changes.

Everybody takes a risk when they buy real estate.

I know that for a fact.

Foreclosing on 2500 homes over eight and a half years.

I know the factors that influence house housing prices, neighborhoods.

So once again, I appreciate your time.

I appreciate your efforts in trying to make this town better and enjoy the people that are here.

I hope to be here not that much longer, but um, I want to make a good influence when I leave.

So thank you very much.

Thanks.

Thank you all for um your comments.

I just want to note that this item has not come before planning commission yet, and we are a quasi-judicial board, so we are not familiar with the project yet because we are not allowed to be until it comes before us.

So I would encourage you to come back when we when this item is on our agenda, um, and there will be full presentation and there and you can have more input.

So um thank you very much for for coming out this evening.

Um right, so now we will move back to item number four, and we will hear from city planning staff.

We will pause for a few minutes to wait for the room to clear for anyone who'd like to leave.

Or please feel free to say past the law marks and all the good.

I could have sworn that right there.

Right.

All right, we'll hear from city planning staff.

Go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners.

Uh, I'm not actually doing this presentation, but we didn't have a slide in here to recognize kind of our newest planner, so I wanted to do a quick introduction.

Uh Melia Brackett will be uh presenting this.

She comes to us from Breckenridge, and before that, she was with Lewisville.

Uh here's Melia.

Very nice to meet you all.

Please don't hold Lewisville against me.

I know it's our arrival city.

Oh, okay.

No, but very happy to be here.

Um, yes, I'll be presenting the Daily Greens Bakery planned unit development and site plan architectural review.

So the PUD and the SPAR.

I'm gonna follow the standard order of presentation.

So we're gonna start with that blended presentation.

I'm gonna give a brief introduction.

The applicant has a number of slides, and then I'll come back, do the staff analysis, and then we'll get into the public hearing.

Any questions that you have of me or the applicant, um, and then you, of course, your discussion and motion.

So, like I said, brief introduction.

Uh, this is just a few blocks north of us on the west side of public.

I'm sure we're all familiar with this area.

There's a liquor store directly to the south, vacant property to the north, and the proposal is for new construction of a one-story bakery.

So the picture that shows the street view, that's the existing building.

I'll talk about it briefly later, but that's slated to be demolished, and then this would be entirely new construction.

The proposal is for a combination of retail in the front for the uh baked goods, and then an actual bakery for most of the um square footage.

And then there's also an exterior patio space.

I'm gonna talk through the site plan a little bit.

We'll get into more detail, especially with the applicant presentation.

Um, and of course, I'm sure you all reviewed this, but just to to give a big broad overview.

So, starting over there on the right side of the screen, that's South Public, so that's the front of this property.

Uh, we've got the patio space along the front, and then on the side, that north side of the building that's um encompassed by the seat wall.

You can see here really clearly that there's also a break in the seat wall with a connecting sidewalk from the public sidewalk uh into toward the bakery, and that directs visitors to the northeast corner of the building, which is where the actual entrance, the retail entrance is.

Then moving back, you've got the another seat wall, and then right behind that are the uh actual bicycle racks, so close to that entry.

And then in the sort of middle of the site to the rear of the building, you have what's currently it's uh the applicant will speak more to you know how they might activate it.

Um, but from our perspective in planning, you know, it's an it's an open space, it's really meant to do um some some drainage, uh, water sort of management mitigation.

Then you also have the trash enclosure, it's just fully screened, and then a uh fence along the uh southern portion.

You'll note that there is an encroachment from the existing building to the south.

The site plan takes that into account, no change there.

Um, and then the other thing to note is at the rear of the property are those four parking spaces that I'm sure we'll talk uh a bit more about, and I will go into more detail um with them as well.

But those are alley loaded.

There's the 20-foot alley um that's currently existing, um, and so they would be coming in off of that alley.

That's a very high level of the site plan, but just to remind us all what we're looking at.

But just a quick note about process.

So, planning commission is the approval body for both of these applications.

It's my understanding that's not the case always for PDs and spars, but in this case, uh it is.

Uh, so you would be making your motion to approve or deny our approved conditions.

There are two requested modifications.

I'll talk more about these later, but they are regarding uh parking.

So lowering uh the parking from required five spaces to four, and then reducing the front setback.

So again, I will get into much more detail um about those two.

The final thing to know is this was reviewed by the Stark Preservation Commission and Laura HPC looked at it because of the age of the existing building.

They found that it was not historically significant today.

Was placed, and then Laura looked at it because it is in the urban renewal area.

They support staff's recommendation, they support the application.

There is um a change of language that they're proposing for one of the conditions, and I will get into that and their reasoning at the end of the presentation.

And of course, you also have that notice of decision that they provided to you all as well.

All right, so I'm going to turn it over.

I can if you want, then you can just hit these buttons.

Perfect.

Good afternoon, or good afternoon, good evening.

Um we are we'll start the presentation here if you want to go start.

All right, so I am Ashley, and this is Paul, and we are here for Daily Graints.

Um, a little bit about us.

We have been in Lafayette since 2012.

Um we live less than a mile from um 707, so we are within walking distance, and uh we acquired that property in 2022 directly from the previous owner.

Um, the company that we did it through is Bond Street properties, and that was what it was set up for.

So about the bakery.

Um we are a home-based micro bakery.

Um, we're primarily focused on long fermentation or also naturally leavened breads, is another thing it's called.

Um, baked goods.

We've been operating for the last couple years under the Cottage Food Act.

Um, we mill flour for those baked goods from local and regional farmers.

Um, sometimes working with them directly.

Um we are kind of focused on end of works with some of our digital experience on getting the local grain economy back together, um, aimed at replacing commodity grains, so there's more flavor in these.

Um there's more nutrition to them.

Right now, um, a couple of the avenues that we have for sales, um, we're doing pre-order pickups at our house every Saturday year-round.

Um, we also are in partnership with Cure Organic Farm at 75th and Belmont.

Um, we sell ISO in person on Wednesdays, and then we also do um we drop off on the weekends.

Um, and then in relation to Lafayette's, we are at the new Lafayette Farmers Market every Sunday.

Uh I won't necessarily read through this.

This is all in the plans, but I just wanted to acknowledge the the team members that we've got that we've been using to help get us this far.

So uh uh Ashley and I, as the owners, we've already kind of gone over gone over that less than a mile from the house.

Um, Linda Ladwig, who's done uh recently did Little Herbal Apothecary and her design style.

We liked it, and everything that we're doing, we're starting with local, we're looking for local folks first before we expand our reach to find the people to help with the project.

So Linda's helped us with the design.

Um direction Burrell is here, um, located here in Lafayette.

Flatirons just done does most of the surveys around here, at least what I've seen.

Uh Kurt Munding, owner of the lumber yard, um, has partnered with us.

So um, and then uh our photometric lighting was a separate company.

But again, the team that we've been putting together, and including when we move up if and when we move on to the next stage with your with your blessing, uh we'll continue to start from local, everything that we're trying to do.

So if we can find local contractors, this is a project that's very bespoke and very um uh bootstrapping, I guess I guess I would say, where I plan on doing some of the work that I'm allowed to do as a contract.

I got licensed as a contractor in the city.

So, but that we that's the next phase for us in terms of the team.

Um not an architect by trade by any long shot, uh, but wanted to be able to at least present the elevations, talk a little bit about what's what some of the thinking was which we decide what we did.

Um I'll just step through the elevations very quickly.

Um, here we're looking at the the eastern elevation, we know both shots or slightly different angle.

Uh the maximum thing that we wanted to do is have in the front of the building have plenty of uh light and large windows.

A lot of what we've done has been guided by the development uh architectural standards uh for downtown comprehensive plan.

We tried to bake a lot in here as we kind of went through it, but the large windows was very important to us.

Uh this space is predominantly a uh commercial kitchen because you may or may not be aware there is a the strong lack of commercial kitchens and the ability for any small food businesses, many of which we're friends with.

Um that's the predominant use, but we didn't want to just make this a block building.

So when we worked with Linda, we actually had a different design last year that we modified when we got the first review back based off of just conversations.

So there's a little bit more architectural detail before it was kind of a white box with um a little bit of a colonial spin to it.

But what we've done here is if I'm using the wrong terms, I apologize, but a little bit of a farmhouse modern um style with regards to how what we were implementing.

Um you can see uh the the break up on the which would be the south side there, that brownish portion that is sticking out in front uh a little bit is actually that stained wood.

So there is actually stained wood.

We we reference it in the plans.

Um then we're just looking at another shot here.

We've got the side shot.

So you are seeing the patio.

There's patio space, about eight foot of patio space in the front, and then patio space on the side.

You are seeing space there with four uh four bikes, so for four bike racks.

So there's ample size there.

We've had people coming to our home.

We've also done um pop-ups in front of the building a couple years back.

And so a lot of people did come on bikes, a lot of people walk from the neighborhood.

So that element, even though we don't have indoor seating, it is very important to us for to have a community space.

So we do plan on having tables there during the certain parts of the season.

Um, and then you're just seeing the back of the building there.

So you're the the bulk of that building is really gonna be the commercial kitchen.

Um we did just want to talk a little bit about the the blue roof.

I mean, it adds to an eclectic nature to to the project, adds a little bit more design.

As I mentioned before, our first design was flat and very square.

You're going for like a little very clean look, but talking with Linda and introducing this element that kind of respects the current building there, has about that roof pitch.

So you're really not this the building size is doubling, but with the use of this type of roof, it's almost you're in terms of the the size and the visual space, you're seeing the same kind of roof that's there now.

Um, the factor here was the reason for the blue color is when Ashley started uh her what led to her baking career here eventually was a blue top restaurant.

This is back in LaMarle, Missouri.

So we wanted to bake a little bit of our personality into the oh no problem, added.

Sorry.

Uh into the into the project.

And so that's there, but then also it adds to the visual interest.

Um, it allows us, and it is the roof is flat in the back, but we do have plans for adding solar in a future phase, but there's also going to be additional HVAC equipment, which we do not.

We started this journey and submitted our original plans about a year and a half ago.

The business has changed, it probably will change by the time we're going to build this, but we've left our ourselves space on the roof to be able to put HVAC and solar.

I won't necessarily, you are all very painfully familiar, I'm sure, with the the architectural standards.

I just put together a couple of slides.

I won't go through these line by line, but you'll see this iterated both in the design.

So I went through them and called out some of the items that we were trying to address.

Just saying that we factored in the design standards as a kind of a big part of the approach to it.

Plus Linda's background in the design process.

Um, she already knows this as well.

So we've got you know, direct sidewalk connections.

So when you look at the site plan, when you look at the full the full project, you can see that there's connections from the back.

We're moving parking to the back.

Um we're moving the building up, and that was a conversation originally about a year and a half ago-ish that the planning department kind of encouraged.

So it is to bring the building forward, it's 25 feet back.

So about eight feet back.

So it will be very um highly activating space.

Large windows, you'll be able to see in part of the work we do in the bakery.

You will see on the second set of windows.

So there's windows to the right, windows to the left.

So you'll be able to look in there and actually see us making bread, actually, more likely.

Um direct passes, these are a little bit reiterative.

I just put them so there's A, B, C, and then G.

I skipped over them just to highlight them.

It's a very well connected site, uh, at least from our perspective.

I mentioned the setback, the large windows uh was very important to us.

It's very important to us, but in a bakery, it's also important to not have everything be have the light piling in on you because temperature control when you're doing the baking is incredibly important.

So you will see very limited windows in the back, but also for bakery equipment and a for commercial kitchen.

You don't you need the wall space for refrigeration for baking and for for your ovens.

Um and then the patio, one of the that downtown standard is you we have a patio that we do plan on having um tables at, so you can order something, buy it, go out to the tables, eat in front.

We've also got space in the back that is will be gravel that we want to use for both.

It could be extended seating if we had that, but there is a we have a larger desire to do like food truck collaborations, farm to table dinners, um, many, just like Vin what Ventry does, and they have many um pop-ups, a number of people, local artisans.

For us, we know a lot of uh people who are doing the food business things as well as other cottage bakers, so we'll have space in the back in the plan now when you look at the full plans to be able to do that sort of thing.

Um again, reiterating just pulling things from the the downtown vision plan.

I believe this was from 2011, but really just the focus of bringing more food and healthy food with regards to we could go into a large story of what we're trying to do with the bakery right now.

It's sell the bread, buy the bread, eat it.

Hopefully, you enjoy it, you come back as customers.

But there's a much deeper plan uh for the for the business as part of Lafayette that we're trying to do.

Um, Ashley was mentioning it, rebuilding local grain economy, using local regional grains first.

So, this is all part of the food culture that we want to help be in anchor with.

We also want to help other small businesses.

Um, if we one of the plans we've talked about is if we are um not using the space in the evening that we could do uh Butcher of Blonde owns a commercial kitchen space that they share with Falafayette and Weed Hor Pies and East Simpson Coffee, they're all using the same kitchen.

We may that's one of the ideas we've talked about doing is being able to share our space because it's a challenge to do a new food business in Lafayette because of limited space but limited commercial kitchens.

Um very quickly calling out just a couple items from comprehensive plan, encouraging healthy food.

I I've got my notes here, I'll read everything for first um verbatim here.

But the idea of like I was just talking about the business, the building, the space, the outdoor space, the patio, the bike rack, having it be a people can walk to the destination, people can ride their bike to the destination.

We can have collaborative events in the back with what we have planned right now, and to help us plug into the comprehensive pan from the perspective of encouraging healthy food establishments within the community.

Um the bike park, that one's kind of self-we-we see people, it is you know, space is a premium on a 6,500 square foot lot, but we do already already know we have people that walk from our neighborhood on Saturdays every week, come and walk to our house, or they ride their bike to our house.

We want the same exact thing for this space.

We want it we'll move our pre-order pickups from our house to this location.

People would come in to pick up their goods.

Um, and then also obviously plugging into the downtown and adding to that fabric.

This I'm I am pulling this.

You might think this a little weird to pull this one up.

I do want to say that when we first bought the the building of the original tension, we knew we may not be able to use it for a commercial kitchen.

Um, we went through probably a six-month period where we went from talked to a structural engineer, had them look at the space, it's built on field stone, the back left corners collapsed, and it's on dirt.

So we we went through back and forth, and then he said immediately within 15 minutes, he said no.

We looked back at it, um, said okay, maybe we do new, then we look back.

The price was really high, you know, we're being price conscious here.

So maybe we'll renovate, had another one come, another structural engineer come in, looked at that, he said, Well, we might be able to do something, but then he looked at the roof, and the roof is made of two by fours, so we wouldn't be able to support uh spliced two by fours.

Um all that being said and done.

Um I just wanted to acknowledge the fact that we did look at this as part of the comprehensive plan.

So we did think through this, um, but it it just didn't work out that way.

But obviously, we've got the demolition permit, we've gone through that, but I just wanted to speak to it very briefly.

That was it.

Um thank you for listening.

Do you mind and all right?

So staff analysis for this project.

I'm gonna go first through some highlights on the spark criteria and then go to the zoning modifications that are processed through the PUD.

Obviously, there are many more spar criteria that I'm about to talk about here.

I'm happy to answer questions or address questions at the end if there are more.

Um, but just to give some highlights.

So, first of all, as the applicant just described, we talked about the site plan, the street orientation, street activation piece here.

Um, definitely, you know, staff finds that this meets those parts of the criteria that relate to bringing the building up closer, creating a space in the outdoor that connects with the with the street.

The circulation is something that, of course, I'm sure we'll talk about more as well.

We have several questions from the commission ahead of time.

I'll just touch now on a couple of things about it.

So, first of all, we have the internal site circulation, right?

And I can, if I need to, I can bring the site plan back up, but it basically allows for access from South Public, whether you've parked on public road or whether you've biked in or walked in to the building.

And also, there's also an ADA sidewalk from the alleyway over across the north side of the building as well.

So, in terms of internal circulation, no matter how you get to the property, staff finds that that's adequate to serve the building.

Also, there were questions about the external circulation in terms of this being an alley loaded proposal.

And so there's sort of a two-part response to that.

One is again trying to bring this the building forward, and as you know, currently there's a parking in the front.

But in order to have that sort of multimodality bring it up closer, the parking has been moved to the back.

The alley itself does have at least currently some access to the north and then also one-way access to the south.

It's not going to be accessed from any private property, it would be from those two points.

There's also currently a plan from the city to pave the alley and do alley improvements in this location.

Happy to pull that plan up later if there are more questions about it.

But that part wasn't covered in the staff report, so I just wanted to make that clear now.

And then in terms of the building itself, so staff reviewed the architectural criteria for basically you know two main things design variability, so that there's different materials on the building, providing visual interests, plane change, that kind of thing.

And certainly there are several different materials, the different roof pitches, some of the things that the applicant already talked about.

The staff found that it met that criterion.

And then in terms of material durability, I mean, these are pretty standard materials for this area, they're known to wear well.

So that's what we looked at primarily for the spar criteria.

And then moving to the two zoning modifications through the PUD.

So the zoning requires a setback of 25 feet of the front.

The proposal is for eight.

I'm not going to belabor the point about street activation, but just to note that that's also something that's covered in the Laura plan and then the comprehensive plan.

Encourage that street orientation and encourage bringing buildings up toward the street.

There's also, as I mentioned, the walkability access for pedestrians, for bicyclists, that street appeal piece as well that this facilitates.

Now, in terms of the parking modification, the requirements for this area for the square footage was just how we measured it, the whole square footage of the entire interior of the building.

Took that, it's one space for every 200 square feet, and that comes out to five spaces.

The proposal is for four, that's a 10% reduction that can be processed and approved by PC through a PUD.

So what we looked at for recommending this modification, a couple of things.

One is the lot size limitation itself, that there's space for four, and you know, we have the requirement that there be a van accessible space, and so there's really no way to put in a fifth space without making the whole parking area take up quite a bit more than just one single space additional.

That's one reason.

Another thing, and this ties uh directly to the to the criteria, you know, the I mean all of these do, but this one in particular, uh, the use here that's being proposed is primarily takeout retail.

So it's not like a restaurant, there's no interior seating, that kind of thing.

It's mostly a you know, you come, you come into the building, and you take your food away.

Of course, you can also have exterior, you could bring it to the outside.

Um, but the that's why there's that condition in the staff recommendation that the use be uh that the parking be reconsidered if the use changes is because we found that this ties to this criterion specifically.

And I will just note as well, there is exterior seating, of course, um, but in Laura, those are not subject to parking standards from so from a strict code reading.

We didn't look at that because the code doesn't allow us to look at it, right?

So we only looked at the interior square footage, and that's how we got that five.

And then the final thing I'll say is that the way that this is cut the way that this parking for this is calculated, it doesn't take tables or staff or anything, it doesn't parse things out like that interior in for the interior, it just uses a square footage.

So, again, that's just how we calculated.

There are a number of other criteria that don't relate to modifications that we talk about more in your staff report.

I don't want to belabor them here because they do generally relate to things like best interest of the city and that kind of thing.

I will just note though that there is one that specifically talks about economic development, and of course, we all know not only is this in the urban renewal area, but it's also an area that is fairly underutilized.

I mean, this is one of two vacancies right next to each other.

Um, and so in general, I think that this is this is clearly meeting that economic development uh criterion as well.

So I'll just close by noting I think actually now we have seven public comments.

I think actually now we have seven public comments.

So there were six public comments in your packet as of yesterday, all in favor.

There is a seventh, and we need to enter that into the record.

So we've got that for you here.

I believe this one's also in support.

And I'll just say I'll describe the uh conditions a little bit here while while we're getting those to you.

So the staff recommendation is to approve both applications.

Each one has a number of conditions that basically mean technical modifications need to happen to the spar before the final document.

Um, but then as I noted, the parking uh staff has a condition, planning staff has a condition that says this needs to be reevaluated if any other type of use comes in, or that if they want to expand the use at all.

That's because we have a very strict reading of the criterion.

But Laura did recommend to soften that language a bit and say something along the lines of um it's it's in your report, but it says something like, you know, may be reconsidered.

And so that would give a little bit of space that if something's changed, you know, this applicant wanted to do.

I don't know what it could be, but a restaurant or something, right?

That they wouldn't maybe they would have to go through another review process, or maybe they wouldn't.

It's a bit more open, I believe, with the idea that you know, want to have more flexibility for the business to make changes like that if they would choose to do so.

Again, staff planning staff's recommendation is to have that stricter uh reading of the code.

Um, and then also just to note the height.

So I think we're being overly cautious here.

Um, there is some potential for a little bit of grading change that relates to, I believe it has to do with the ADA um the slope of the ADA access on the northern side.

And so before I try to explain that anymore from uh from a public works perspective, um, basically my understanding is that the height technically may change the way because we measure it from grade, and so we have a little bit of language in there that says if this does technically change within two feet, it's still approved, right?

Through this process.

Um, again, we're being overly cautious.

It's not to say you can build two extra feet, it's just to say if there's a little bit of a change there, it's okay.

All right, so I will turn it over to the public hearing side of things and then be back for any questions that you have.

Thank you.

All right.

Um this time we'll hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the commission.

Um, if you've not already filled out one of these speaker forms, please go ahead and do that and hand it to Lauren.

Um, first we have Mary Cartwright.

I am Mary Cartwright.

I actually live in Louisville, one of your neighbors.

I started uh with daily grains, it's over three years ago when uh Lafayette had their first um fall festival, and there was just a little tiny bit of things they were selling, and I was impressed with the quality of the food.

Got in touch with them and have watched them grow within the limits of a cottage bakery.

Just and the the bread is fantastic, and it would just be so good to see them get a proper bakery where they could really expand and just help help help you all and and us in Lewisfield.

So I just wanted to say, please approve this.

Thank you.

Um Spaulding, Ron's Paul.

Sorry.

Good evening, Commissioner Ron Sporting 1326 Lafayette, Colorado.

I'm excited to see this happen.

Been waiting a long time on South Public Road.

We got the Khalida Girl coming in, we've got the new eyeglass or optometers guy, and I think even uh the sewer is getting new siding.

So, first I want to say I'll support this 150%.

I have a couple questions and comments, and I don't want you to take them as negative.

The question I'm reviewing the site plan, it's states and some of them have been answered already, but a great staff.

When the site plan states 18-foot concrete alley section improved by others.

My question was who who is going to approve the alley?

The city or adjacent property owners.

And uh I might answer that myself.

And B, when might the approving happen?

Might it happen with the construction of the pocket park proposed by the Lafayette Downtown Development Authority?

Uh just stated that uh Laura has been involved with this project.

Uh and I don't know, and they've approved it, and that's that's super.

Uh when you look at the whole plan, it'd be nice.

I don't know.

If Laura or LDDDA has some funding to improve it all the way down, press the look or store, Khleita Grill, we're at that end.

Uh I know it's expense, but when you look at the whole concept, thinking of the future plan, bang, we we have a couple more properties to go.

You give the access, uh concrete's expensive, could be macadam or something like that.

That's just a thought.

Uh what do they have to put in the project?

I don't even know if they're helping out financially.

I hope they are because this is gonna be very expensive, and I want to see the thing be a great success for this young couple.

Talking about external circulation, and I know I'm gonna already get into the nuts and bolts and I might be off base.

I was thinking about the concern of traffic flow on the existing poor condition of the compacted gravel access with overgrown tree into the alley for for two-way traffic.

Uh but there may not be that much traffic, and uh so it might be a moot point.

But then I was thinking also if if you have in people park, and uh we're still gonna get p people driving here.

And I'm thinking, you know, the customers might find access to the bakery through the deluxe liquors in Rocky Mount Legal or the Catalina Grill access.

And and we all love each other here, and we try to help businesses out.

I don't know if they would like that.

Uh the other thing is uh if the park, if the bakery parking spaces are occupied, driving customers may try to find parking elsewhere at the D-Lux look of Rocky Mountain Legal or Catalina properties.

However, noted, I mean, I don't know if people think about this, but if that would happen, and that can be covered by adequate signing, I think, on the properties, you know, no trespassing for for people uh for for this, you know, for this uh business only.

Uh and this whole alley thing, if it's not improved at the same time the bakery is constructed and it's improved at a future date.

Uh would the bakery the bakery might be impacted with the alley being closed for construction, therefore the bakery would not be provided access.

Now, these are a lot of things that may or may not happen, but I'm just thinking I want this thing to go good.

Lead LDDA come up with some money maybe.

But there's some things I was thinking about.

Uh this is very unique, and uh, you know, I I'm an old transportation guy.

I was thinking, what's the chip generation for this?

Well, it's probably gonna be nothing.

So, you know, I went to try to look up the 11th edition of the ITE handbook land use code 936, which may come close, but it's not really.

It's not the same.

And they say there's not even any reliable data, it's really a coffee shop and no drive-thru.

But anyway, uh they don't have uh good data on it for a number of reasons, COVID and all.

So there's uh there's nothing to compare it to.

Then I thought, well, here's Moxie Bread and Lafayette, which is great, and I hope you surpass Moxie Bread.

I mean in Lewisville, but that's a whole different situation because you're in the corner, you got street parking, so you can't compare.

So I know staff got a great job in looking at this, because I couldn't come up with any numbers, you know.

And you're right, this is a this is a good bicycle walking community, and uh we're accessing everybody.

So with this said, I want just for conclusion, I may be overthinking all this, and there's probably minimal traffic flow impacts, so no problems.

I just want the Daily Grains Bakery to be successful, and that you hope you take my comments is trying to be constructive to avoid any unforeseen issues.

And I love it.

I love the architectural everything.

It's beautiful.

I know the commission is gonna have a lot of comments on this, but uh I don't want to submarine the thing out, but just thinking about my place and putting in all this uh that alley, no big deal.

Uh it might not be a big deal, but you know, it's an ugly pothole now, a couple trees hanging over.

You don't want these crazy smoker marijuana driving down now, hitting each other.

So that's just something to consider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anyone else who'd like to uh to comment in the public hearing?

If not, we will close the public hearing.

Um do any commission members have questions for staff or for the applicant?

Um I know Mr.

Spaulding and I are the same wing length or quantum entanglement or what it is, but um staff could bring up I think I noticed you're pulling up Google map of the property.

That we have the alley plan too.

I was gonna say, yeah.

And actually, I'm uh earlier today.

And I was gonna say, yeah, and actually I'm uh earlier today I sent staff about seven question issues all evolving the alleyway, and I guess I'm the fact that we have in the past talked about this alleyway extensively.

I'm a little concerned as why that wasn't oh, yeah, we need to have this in the presentation.

I mean, I I you know it's like that would have been an automatic for me, but maybe you guys are are thinking differently.

Well, the plans did depict the alley connection on the on to onto concrete, but you're right, we we could have daylighted the alley better.

Uh but if you'd like to look at the alley, kind of talk through it more.

We definitely can.

Actually, I think we'll get there with my different questions and issues.

Yeah.

All right, so um the circulation that you talk about and the justification for removing a parking space.

Um, and I understand it maybe not be something in a regulation or a Lura rule, but if you are having outside seating, that to me negates your uh a reasoning that oh, not having any indoor seating would mean there's less traffic.

Well, you have outdoor seating, and people aren't going to get there by cars.

So that that that was just a logical, no sense.

Um especially when you have staff, obviously, who work there, where are they going to park?

And if you look at the building up there and you look at public road, you'll note there's some striping there.

So there's no street parking there because the road then kind of bifurcates into a turn lane and a straightforward lane.

So on public road itself, you notice right there, there's no parking there.

So uh was brought up south of the building is of course the liquor store legal clinic.

Um there was no mention there.

Has been there any discussions with the proprietors of those properties, whether they're open to parking.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no discussions uh with the but you the applicant might be able to give us some more insight on that.

There, yeah, well, there's this is kind of packed.

I think your point about uh the alley project because I got we we had to update our plans to include the alley improvements, which were finished recently, but there's a ton of stuff in there because there are actually going to be closing off the street access.

So they're doing the curb cut, they're removing the curb cut.

There are currently two spots right past the curb cut, so there is parking in front of the the building, and I think there might be a couple.

I I don't know if I saw it on the plan, but I think they might have four spots total coming on our side, and there's 11 spots across the street.

Because even when I did those pop-up markets a couple years ago, so but but there's a ton you're hitting on a lot of things that are covered in that that uh the plan because I reached out to Bridget and got it.

Could we see that?

Could we do a quick run through that plan?

Well, I guess can we hold off on that so that I can get through most of this and then we can just move off to that separately.

Okay, so there's an issue there, of course, of shared parking.

Um the current utilization of that alley is people coming on Kim Bark and then going down to the liquor store, the drive-in window, because that's the way that it faces okay.

And then the other access is of course is right off public road there in the front.

However, that's right at a traffic light.

So there's little problems there now with people wanting to come out of the liquor store onto public road if there's a lot of traffic.

Okay.

So again, we're more traffic, now we're getting more issues.

So then the question would be exactly what what is the traffic flow pattern there?

I mean, is most of it supposed to be directed from Kim Bark onto the alley, or are you expecting a fair amount of it to come and drive through the liquor lure uh liquor store and uh Rocky Mountain legal drive-through?

What's the the plans depict uh uh an access here?

It's a little south of the existing one.

Uh there they haven't acquired all the property.

Lura owns a fairly large strip here, and they're in discussions with acquiring this, and then it'll roughly it'll align much better with the spalding.

This is not being closed, and I believe it's probably because the the drive-thru and the way it works and functions.

So, you know, in most of these projects, we are trying to close up access points off of public, but this was one where they didn't.

You know, for example, this access point, this the shared one for the subject property existing is being closed with the alley project or with the with the alley and street improvement.

It kind of is it's both at the front and the back of these lots that are being approved, but they left they left the liquor access as it is, or I mean there.

I don't know if it's exactly as it is.

Okay, so you now mentioned another future thing as far as Lura goes, and and I guess that'd be another question as to Laura's basically dead.

It's there's a new authority.

So how does it work?

Well, one thing with I'm not an urban renewal expert, but urban renewals uh, as I understand it, when you're an urban urban renewal agency, you can never actually completely go away until you've spent all the money you've got through the increment.

So there is still money from that increment.

So I think that's the reason that Lura still kind of exists, even though the time has expired in terms of the 25 or 30 year uh increment window there.

And they indicated that's the money they're gonna use to deal with that road situation.

I don't I do not know exactly.

I think the the LURA money is actually going to some other sub-area planning efforts and some other ones.

So I don't know if this is from the DDA's budget or the Lura budget exactly, but I don't think that really uh matters on tonight's con, you know, has an impact on tonight's conversation.

Well, yeah, it kind of does, because there's timing issue that's been brought up.

And um again, we've brought this up before.

So, guys, none of this should be a surprise.

Okay.

Has there uh been any you know, anybody knocked on doors or gotten any impact from the neighbors who are right along that alley there where the traffic will increase and it'll be an increase, so there'll be some impact on them.

I didn't inquire, uh I didn't ask that question too from the engineer that's in charge of the CIP project.

Uh I imagine they are because there are some improvements back there that are called out as kind of encroaching in some places.

Uh but also they are getting a fully paved alley, and uh there's there's lots of benefits to them too.

But I I can't tell you I haven't heard any specific complaints or concerns at all through the project.

I did the review for planning when it was going through the process.

I didn't hear about anything through that process.

But we weren't the case manager on that one, so we won't necessarily hear it.

So we've got two things here that are not nailed down.

One is if and when and how that alley is going to be improved.

Because remember, too, the city is said has a pocket park there right in the beginning of it.

So this now starts to include a safety issue if you're having young children playing in the park.

Okay.

So we don't know when or how that's gonna happen, correct?

Or is there you're gonna tell us now?

For the for the park?

Yeah, well, for that alley.

Yeah, I can tell you like the rough timeline that the the okay that's you know, the timeline currently today.

Okay, and then what you mentioned was that Lura own piece right there, which by the way, I mean, there's an alley there now, but it's extremely narrow.

That that alley is actually on the the legal property and the uh liquor store.

Lura owns one that I believe actually might have come off of Kalita's property.

Uh and they're there.

I don't want to speak to where they're at in the process of negotiation with the adjacent property, but it that's what the plans show.

The plans, you know, they're confident enough to be 100% design with the access on in that location, so I can tell you.

But I understand, but you actually pointed to that intersection there.

Yep, they're aligning with trees there and said Lura owns a strip of property.

Somewhere, somewhere like on if you were to draw from the center line of spalding over, they're kind of like south or south-ish of that center line.

And then there's an alley there.

But the alley is further north.

The alley would be like on the north half of like the center line if you projected that across.

So they're kind of going to be splitting the different, they're kind of they're gonna be roughly aligning, and and and that's shown on the plans too.

But that's not considered to be access for this property.

It's access to the alley that accesses the property.

Yeah, it's all gonna be public access.

But there's no improvement on that alley.

It's gonna be paved.

It is gonna be paved.

Yes, this part of this project that's correct.

And it pays all the way down, it paves all the way down to the bank where it ends.

Uh it seems like showing that would answer a lot of these questions.

Absolutely.

Just one question for the city attorney.

We always uh well, not always, but there's frequently conditions put on things for the applicant.

Can we put conditions on there for the city?

It it depends on no, I mean you cannot condition their approval on the city fulfilling some obligation, but we're here tonight to answer your questions about what the city is and isn't planning in that area.

Yeah, there is a lot of information we haven't covered tonight.

But I I think just encourage the commission to stay on factors and and facts that are relevant to this property.

And that includes access that includes discussing the access down the alley, but in terms of maybe some of the surrounding properties, those those may not from a quasi-judicial perspective be relevant to whether this application meets the or has considered the criteria that earner code for site plan approval and for the PUD.

So with that said, I know that we are all here to um answer questions that might help you make your decision tonight on um on things like access circulation, those are all relevant to the site plan.

I yield the rest of my time to the planning manager.

All right, so we have Ken Bark over here, public bottom of the page.

Here's the uh the legal services building and the liquor store.

Exist the existing drive aisle, I think it's tucked in closer to the side of this building.

Uh the yeah, the alley access kind of informal.

I don't even I don't even believe that's in an easement to the best of my knowledge.

It's kind of just like an informal access, I believe.

Uh don't hold me to that.

This is the proposed, and this again is a hundred percent design.

Uh and it's it's much more centered.

I think it still looks like to be a little bit shifted to the south side, but uh, and it's my understanding this will be a four-way stop controlled, you know, essentially become a four-way intersection rather than that kind of funky offset four-way that it is today.

Uh again, it'll be paved down to the bank where there's bollards really to provide continued access to these residential lots, I believe.

Uh I the optometrist, I think only they're keeping that access point there.

Kali or uh 20 feet.

Yeah, I thought Kalita was maintaining it, but this isn't showing it.

Or am I missing it goes, it it goes only to the rear.

No, it goes all the way through to the I well.

This plan is showing it maybe they're gonna eliminate it with this.

That we can, I mean, I don't think that's super relevant, but uh maintaining this access point and then you know eliminating the existing one for this lot here, paving all the way through 20 feet wide paving.

And anticipated, anticipated uh start of construction spring of next year.

Can you point out the lot that for this property?

Yeah, oh sorry, it's this one right here.

Yep.

And can you show?

So it looks like there's something painted on public there.

Is that where is there parking on public?

Oh there's some uh let's see here.

Good question.

Zoom in a little bit here.

So we've got that little taper.

Good.

Um it's showing one, two, three, three spaces there, and then you know, a full full row along the the other side of the street.

Is the alley just one lane eastbound, or is there one lane both directions of the alley?

It's like uh most of our alleys is 20 feet, and we don't restrict we don't restrict access, it's it's two-way.

Okay, so would that not at the same time it ain't the access at a section of spawn?

I would disagree with you.

I mean, uh 10 foot wide lanes are are actually fairly good lanes, especially on a local street.

I mean, that's you if you're wanting worrying about safety and traffic calming.

Not what it's now, but I think that's is going to be expanded.

Well, all of our all of our alleys in Old Town are 20 feet.

Now, whether or not the the drive aisle is 20 feet wide because they're dirt and things maybe encroach on them and they get a little more narrow, but this will be a 25 foot or 20 foot cross section of pavement.

Hey, okay.

Yep, I want to clarify.

I might be I hold on.

There looks like there's a foot of crush gravel on either side.

So yeah, we'll be keen feet in the foot.

Yeah, for the extra.

So more clarifying the and not that it's for me, not the relevant to the project, but the alley that's the one that's being proposed, which with the access on spaulding, the east-west one.

That's also proposed to kind of be 20 feet for one lane both ways.

That's my understanding.

We can take a look to see they're pointing out signage here, so we can see if they uh call out any a one-way sign there.

Calling out a stop sign there.

Yeah.

So it's my understanding that it's gonna be a full movement uh four-way intersection.

Okay, just curious.

I don't see, I think you know, given the call out a stop sign here, I think they would call out a do not inter sign over here.

And and my understanding is it isn't.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

So this this project could potentially be concurrent with construction.

I think the timing happens to uh work out pretty well.

In fact, Lura or you know, when I say Lura, you know, I could be referring to Lura or the DO.

Yeah, and they approached the the owners and talked about well, why don't you just let us uh pave your your parking and you can you can just pay us for that proportional share, and maybe there'll be some economies of scale there.

Uh and I don't know that they're necessarily gonna go that route, but the the thought is that it's timing up really well.

So this feels in the park enhancing the existing circulation.

So next spring you're seeing that east-west road and then the alley work will be starting.

That's the intended timeline.

Okay.

Yeah.

And and you know, you'll notice in other parts of old town when we've had commercial businesses take access through an alley, like community has a few parking spaces off, they were required to pave it.

And uh that's kind of been the policy.

It's not necessarily codified that I'm aware of, but uh that's been the policy.

And and with this one, we just knew these were moving through together, and so it wasn't really conversation we ever had with this applicant about you know what would happen if all of a sudden you were required to pave 20 feet by you know whatever 150 linear feet or whatever that might be.

Uh, what would that do to your your business?

Uh your kind of your pro forma.

Uh so this is kind of in planned hand in hand.

So this expenditure and improved expenditure that's already in the budget.

That's my it was not in the city budget, but it's a Laura.

Oh, so Laura's gonna with the park together.

It's all kind of a package deal.

Okay, cool.

Excellent.

I have some questions.

Um I don't know if it's best to look at this with the aerial image or one of these plans either way.

I'm curious about the um the north side.

So it looks like there's a paved sidewalk.

I think that's the ADA sidewalk you were talking about.

Oh, oh yeah, yeah.

And the plan property but on the the neighboring property to the north, is there gonna be anything?

Is that a park?

What's there now?

Like is it a parking lot into sidewalk, or is there in between the pocket park and this property?

It's a blue building.

Yeah, uh is it because there's there's like a dry it I guess what I'm wondering is is there is there a need to put something next to that on that northern property line so that you don't have people driving into your sidewalk because I think it's it's yeah like uh over here?

Yeah, right.

Like right now it's a paved it is it gonna be strange to have a sort of sidewalk on that property line.

Well, it's gonna yeah, the sidewalk's kind of gonna be over here.

Uh yeah, and this curb cut's gonna go away, so this is kind of gonna be uh an unaccessible kind of concrete drive.

And I what I what the plans don't show is whether or not Lura is providing access back here.

We did have a permit application for this, so just a building permit to to operate a an ice cream store, uh, but I do not know if they're continuing to move forward.

So then why are you removing the curb cut?

Well, generally speaking, I think uh with any capital improvement project along public, we're trying to consolidate and remove curb cuts to minimize you've got the potential for some either two businesses or construction of a new building, and then they would have a curb cut.

The idea is that they'll take access off the alley too.

Okay.

The goal is to eliminate these curbs.

Yeah, to make it more pedestrian-oriented, minimize pedestrian vehicle conflicts, and traffic issues into the back.

All right, yeah.

So I mean, I feel like if if if this were to be built tomorrow, there would be a sidewalk through a parking lot.

It would look like a sidewalk through a parking lot.

Well, no, because like on their site here specifically.

Well, their site, I see how their site looks, but I'm just saying, like, is something needed on that northern property line to indicate that there's now a sidewalk running into an asphalt drive.

But I think all the asphalt on their site, I might I don't think I've quite following.

I apologize.

All this asphalt's getting ripped out.

Sure.

Maybe I can pull a plan.

It's just on their plan it says to match existing height of the existing adjacent property.

So that's I'm wondering if there's bollards or trees or bushes or something that that we'd want to see there, so that is just separated, the sidewalk is separated from that parking area.

Um, it sounds like maybe okay.

I see what you're saying, like in this area where there's kind of it's gonna be adjacent.

Yeah, I mean, it'll obviously it'd be a different material, uh, but they're kind of maxing maximizing their site by pushing their sidewalk to the edge.

Obviously, our public works group is looking at it from a drainage perspective to make sure we're not uh you know, going against kind of historical flows because that's the requirement is they can't change historical flows uh or increase historic flows, I should say.

So uh but they're really side, isn't it?

Fairly trying to very flat into that that pond kind of or that retention.

That's my understanding, yeah.

And then and then there is with another thing with the alley improvements that we didn't let you know enough about.

They are putting a stormwater uh uh line in there, so which is a problem with a lot of our alleys, as you guys probably all know, is that we can't really drain towards the alley because they don't have stormwater facilities, so we are getting stormwater facilities in that alley also.

Uh yeah, um mentioned a food trap, and I was wondering where that would go.

Where's the vision for that work?

Yeah, that is just concept in terms of how we can expand the business and collaborate with other food.

There's like no infrastructure for starting new food businesses, including we had uh food trucks asked to park in our front, but there was some concern with our neighbors, so we didn't do that, so they were there, but then we they stopped going.

So that was just a concept of we can do those sorts of things that potentially we could, but there's nothing definitively in this plan that authorizes that or puts in infrastructure for that.

Sure, but like where did you imagine it?

Would it go?

Like if they park if they parked in one of our parking spots, and then we have tables in that back area in the in the park.

Okay, thanks.

Sure.

Um I did want to ask this question to see if you guys have thoughts on how many employees will be in the building typically, like how many of those parking spaces might get taken by your employees during the um it's uh that's a fair question.

We've this like I said, when we started uh a year and a half ago with this whole process, it's still us, it's still us in our working out of our house.

Um so seeing what that growth is, um we don't have numbers on that.

So there's two parts.

I guess that's to divide it as well.

Is to say Bond Street properties bought the property, that's more than likely the entity that will continue to own it.

Daily grains will go in there as the business because if there's a different purpose or if we change our minds or we grow bigger and we needed to go someplace else, this the building that we're building would have some flexibility in it.

So we we've been waiting to get to this point before we can start doing more hardcore planning.

Um as like as you can imagine, you guys go through this all the time, but it's a year and a half that we've been waiting and we started a business and we're held up because there's no other place in Lafayette to have a commercial kitchen to do what we do.

So okay.

Um sorry.

I just have uh two, I guess one more.

One more.

Um I just want to ask about the I well, maybe this is actually, you know what?

It's a discussion question for us.

Okay, I'm back.

Oh I'm just kind of curious.

Um what you plan to be selling.

So what we're selling now, uh the walk.

So stop by the lobby at Farmers Market every Sunday until October 26.

We're we're there, we've got a double tent, and we're selling um naturally leavened sourdough bread.

We do whole grain cookies.

We are um we're also adding more things to that menu.

So we'll actually grind grain and we bring flour.

So it's it's a little bit of a version.

What we plan on opening with is the focus on the bread, and and what we want to be able to do is to be a grocery source stop as well as some place that you can stop and and get a treat.

But we're not looking to be uh uh we're not our case will not be filled with cupcakes, our case will be filled with things hopefully that you buy to bring home, like what we're doing at the farmers market, which is the mission of the farmers market is to be what they're calling a buyer's market, um, so that you can go every Sunday and get food.

That's part of what our plan is.

But we talk about maybe we would do breakfast sandwiches, maybe we can do pizza uh like wood fired pizza.

Okay, so you're you're not gonna be selling coffee or I don't know how you would have a place like this without doing coffee, but it's not gonna be a coffee shop or the focus wouldn't be a coffee shop, but but having beverage there to purchase.

So if you're coming in buying a cookie, you could get coffee.

But I we we I feel like we have enough coffee shops personally, but I also if you're gonna buy a cookie, you're gonna want something to drink.

Correct.

It all it all leads back to the parking because uh you're asking for reduction of one, and then back to I see in your plans, you have uh a vehicle charging station planned.

Are you are you gonna put that in, or is that just there?

There's a discussion there because there's a couple items to that.

We can talk to that one first.

When the code says that if you have 10 or fewer spaces, an electric vehicle charging station isn't required.

It's administered through our building code.

And uh it was a it was required early on on these plans before the exception was well known, so they it might go away.

Okay, because that's my thought there.

If if we're reducing uh one parking space and you have an EV on the sidewalk, I seem to remember there's a sign of all these EVs saying you can't park there if you're charging if you have an EV parking space slowing the LV reducing the parking requirements to 40%.

And I'm I'm I'm 100% with you on everything you're saying because the the updated code that's coming along.

There's a I can tell you as a person who's been planning this, I'm very involved in it because we've got again bootstrapping.

So to hear that we might be doing away with parking requirements.

We've got uh a parking requirement of five.

Now, if you just look at that site, we're we're also I guess it's worth noting B1, the minimum lot size recommend recommendation is 10,000 square feet.

We're 6500 square feet.

We try to add one more spot to that, you're taking up 50 percent.

I'm not going that way.

What I'm okay.

What I'm trying to say is if if there's no need for it, why is it on the plan?

You could save yourself 20,000 dollars.

Oh, sure.

You sure we don't want to call it?

I don't know why it's there.

This wasn't on a handoff from planners, and we were reviewing this when we were getting ready for this, and we'd already kind of told them, hey, we can get you in front of it when we realize it.

We weren't going to make them go back around to their architect just to remove any V space when it's already technical comment that they don't have to provide it.

So that's why it's on there.

We should have caught it earlier.

But we do have a few more changes.

So this this meeting was set on.

We've got a couple more things on the plan to update that came from code changes that are still required, like some additional sewer tie-ins.

So there's more when we update that.

If we have the official word from the planning department that we can remove it, we probably there's a code required that he had that.

No, not okay.

So that was, yeah, which there was a miscommunication because we put it on there because we thought it was a requirement.

So throw up this document, I read you don't plan to have people hanging around for very long.

Other than if you're at the patio table, but it's not like a full service thing.

Correct.

But if you have four parking spots and as commissioner Phillips said the other question is where you and your wife gonna park.

We're more than likely we're walking or taking our bike, or she'll bring your motorcycle down.

Can I also address that really quickly?

You know, the downtown vision plan explicitly says our parking's way too much in downtown.

Oh, yeah.

It's parked the same as highway as projects along Highway 287.

It says that the city should look at a parking district and should use a series of shared lots rather than requiring each lot to park itself.

And we do have shared lots in close proximity.

Uh not a lot of people know it, but the flea market lot is a shared lot.

Um the flea market is.

They're also working to get a shared lot with the with this building, too.

That's not done yet, it's not in the process.

The shared lots over here.

This is all shared lot here, public parking.

Also to the north, on the same side of the street.

Uh this is a shared lot here.

Uh, and you know, any smart business owner is going to encourage your employees to park in a shared lot to provide to leave the spots open on their business for customers.

I mean, we don't enforce that.

That's not an enforcement thing, but that's just a kind of a common sense uh thing that people are gonna do.

Okay, so if we say shared lot, there's shared lot of it.

Laura leases them for public.

Oh, so they're actually so then there should be sign.

There is sign in general.

Yep, yeah.

I shall look for yes, and I you know right there.

I might have just passed it, but it's around here, right here.

Oh, that's it.

Public parking.

There's all over.

There's little pockets of it in weird places too, like tucked in behind the U place on Simpson.

There's like six spots back there that are shared.

Where's Waldo?

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

So there are and Laura's, you know, or is constantly looking for more opportunities for this.

Uh so you know, and there's also they're also studying it right now, not on the south side of town, but up north farther.

Uh they are stuck, they're doing a study right now to explore uh different.

I'm not I'm not involved in the project, so I don't know what the details of it, but it is a parking study.

So um, I guess one more question.

First, I just want to say I think it's very nice.

You're gonna put a bakery there, but silly knee.

What's a rain garden?

This is these are all quite you're it was that was my question when I first saw it.

Oh, okay.

So the Mile High Flood Protection District, Mile High Flood Protection District, who who you know regulates the you know the stormwater management in the in the greater Denver metro area, they're trying to move away from like the old school full spectrum detention ponds, and they're trying to do more qu water quality things like bioswales, a rain garden's gonna be like a det uh uh uh a depression in the ground with plants that are more like hardy for for you know wet situations, wet conditions, and so they're just meant to uh be localized stormwater quality and management.

Uh and it also treats it before it runs off site too.

So it's kind of the quality and management component blended.

But it'll look it'll look like a like a garden flower bed, yeah.

Yeah, looks like landscaping.

They don't work as well here as they do like northwest and other places because they were great in St.

Louis.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, there's other places, you know, that like green streets don't really work in Colorado, they kind of turn into brown streets, and uh you know, you have to kind of re-introduce uh irrigation.

I have a question.

Can you bring the site plan up, please?

Site plan?

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Let me I operate a computer once in a while.

All right.

Good question.

I missed it.

Right.

So we have the public sidewalk, which is six feet.

There's a connecting piece right there.

You've just mentioned to us, and then there's the kind of small like seating wall.

Like just between you've seen I'm showing two little like what is it?

Bike racks.

And that's this this right here.

I'm talking about this one.

The space that has at least two little plant plants in it on the other side on the front, right between like between the sort of proposed seating wall and the sidewalk.

This guy?

What goes in between there?

What's there?

Existing trees.

There are existing trees.

Okay.

And then there is not on our property.

You you will see the landscaping plan for the frontage on ours, but the streetscape improvements that are also part of the alley improvement have the full um landscaping plan as well for that.

And that's not your property.

Yeah, that's yeah, that's just north of that.

That top tree that you're just mentioning, that's the end point of the streetscape improvement.

It stops passes our property and then keeps going down.

So the property line is actually at your patio wall.

It's right at the front of that wall.

Yes.

Gotcha.

So it's it's the right-of-way technically of the city.

Yeah, and I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but these are being done with the street project.

They are, yeah.

And and actually the light pole that is there is they're being moved.

So that light bulb is actually set back.

So in that when you get the full plans that show you the alley and streetscape improvements, you will see that those light things were moved and they're doing they're changing the paving a little bit or like the concrete pad that the bench is currently on, and they're gonna put back the recycling and trash because they took it away a couple years ago.

I don't know why you would take it away from a uh a store where people are buying drinks and have things because I picked them up a little bit.

Gotcha.

Okay.

But you do have landscaping there too, yes.

You're proposing in between.

Yeah, okay.

And some of your landscaping is obviously spilling out to the back where you have the rain garden and what have you.

Right.

There's so we've got a gravel area, uh, a crush refined area in the back, but it's bordered by do we have a landscape plan?

I'm guessing I'm just trying to look for it.

Yeah, it is in the back of it.

So could I ask you what's under the blue hat?

What's that?

What's under the blue hat?

Uh it is more of a visual than anything else, as opposed to not having.

Other than just adding to the visual uh interest of the space in the building, and it's also like what's under the roof of the current building.

There's nothing in there.

I don't I guess I don't interesting the question.

I think if you look at the architectural elevations, you gave us a small sketch up model.

Sure.

Um, have we made a decision about having the architect present when there's a spar?

Uh no, we haven't.

It's not required anywhere in the code.

Uh and also say the gentleman's very articulate.

I'm just trying to say that the questions that come up for the architect then become a struggle for the applicant.

She wasn't able to make it today.

Like I had asked today.

It's also an added expense to require an applicant to pay for the architect to come out, you know, especially in these smaller projects.

Obviously, on large projects, it almost is a kind of a norm that you come with your engineer, you come with your architect, you come with your traffic engineer.

Uh sorry, we don't want to require it in all projects.

Uh okay, so all I'm asking is could we just um bring up the little perspective that you showed us before?

Yeah, we can find it.

There you go.

You want this one or you want one of the other ones?

It's the idea that there is this volume that's up above, right?

And I'm calling it a hat because it doesn't actually find itself doing anything except sitting on top of a square of a flat building, right?

And the cost of that, I'm I don't really want to address that.

That's your that's your like decision about something like that.

But for architectural review, I realize that form is down the street.

You see the kind of pitch roof and it's trundling along along these one-story buildings, and these may not this may not violate anything in terms of you know the criteria that is being laid out in the handbook here.

However, I'm just trying to ask the question is there a better way to kind of capture this volume somehow, because you're paying for a lot of space that's not being used just to give a form.

And um that on top of that, you have these kind of outriggers that I don't see anywhere, or are those just lights?

Yeah, they're just lights.

I just like they look a little bit like strange.

Um, and then and then there's this box that kind of pulls out um, which is I guess a part of the retail portion of the wood box.

That portion is actually where the bakery, like we have that will be part of our prep area when it's pulled out a little bit.

So there is that distinct delineation within the the it doesn't show on the floor plan because we didn't lay out the bakery yet.

Yeah.

But that idea there, because and that brings it even closer to the street, so you'll be able to see us at our baker tables.

Gotcha.

That's one of the intentions here.

So I I get that.

It's it's great to see making and process, it's part of the charm of some of these smaller kinds of local, you know, local shops.

Um but I'm just I'm just curious to know is what the decisions are about that form, and is it simply just okay, everything else looks like it along the street, so we should just put in something as a you know, a nod to that, where for me, if you're really going to do something that really addresses the idea that this is a very residential sort of context in this in that particular location, somehow those windows feel like they needed to come right all the way up to show the volume in there to say that this is an airy space, this is beautiful and natural, and the light is coming through in your retail area through some skylighting or something like that.

Because right now, it seems to be you could take that off, and it didn't matter.

So there's two we we arrived here, and this was what when I came to we went through a couple architects um through the given the length of the project.

So we we purchased in 22, you know, you can imagine.

So when I first went to Linda, the project had a full roof, full length roof of with this pitch, because we were the style, I changed a little, it's like a white building.

I was using uh I'm from New England, Massachusetts, Maine, coastal cities.

I kind of had that inspiration.

Um, but then that left us limited roof on the space, so there was a cost factor of making it smaller, pulling it back.

But the the more important part for us, and instead of just having a roof was going back to putting a little bit of ourselves into the building with that blue roof and the blue top roof and reflecting back.

So it's just a story.

That's great.

I mean, I get the color, I get the need for scaling it down.

I don't get I what I don't get is this relationship to the box at the bottom and its relationship to like even when you see a roof on a house that is on the street, there's at least an attic condition that you're calling out through a window, right?

Something is happening in that volume, nothing is happening here except that nothing is happening here.

Yeah, and you colored it, that's it.

Now, of course, this doesn't have anything to do with meeting the architectural standards that you have cited when you were talking about it it meets the standards, but I want us as a city to push this a little bit.

It's been a constant thing that we talk about during commission, and unfortunately I'm the one bringing it up because I'm just one of those people who does.

So and you know, it becomes like just like Commissioner Phillips is like, what about that alley and that transportation and that circulation?

This is something that I really care about because if you're going to become the transition between rural and a real city, you have to think about the architecture as part of that identity, right?

What is it?

So if you're going to be stuck in between somewhere, it doesn't feel kind of like hmm, I've really thought about that.

So if I may, uh just in general, like the entire process from what we come to and the requirements that we have or try to respect when we're coming to the planning committee.

And we're the smallest project that I've ever seen, and that we've been sent here since 2012.

So that like those standards, the architectural standards, what we're bringing, what we're paying for.

Granted, you're not gonna get a lot of tiny projects like with us, you know.

I don't think.

But your point about those standards, trying to go to the comprehensive plan, the the the city's um the city code, like bringing all these things together, and those codes keep changing.

Like I it public works.

So you bring this all together.

I agree with you completely that whatever that is, if you do to choose to move forward on an integrating architectural standards, just make it comprehensive because this is too many pieces, too many moving, too many conflicting responses from different departments.

Uh and and if you do this with the planning commission, as long as it's baked into what is codified, then that's but I can tell you it's just not awesome right now.

And as you get you guys, you you know this better than anybody.

So it's the reason why I think an architect being present helps your cause a little bit because they can then speak directly to a decision made here based on this form, right?

Why it is the way it is.

So and it's not it's not saying that it's anything to do with you're not being able to articulate it.

I'm very impressed with your knowledge and how you've been able to talk about very complicated things actually on the site.

Um, so just one more piece to be aware of as you're kind of going through the appreciation.

I think what would be I I see there's a comment about depending on final equipment, additional screening may be required.

I understand it's it's acting as signage in some way, it's potential screening.

Um I would be curious that we don't have yet another element added that screening eventually, you know, when you get to that point.

So at that point, it would be extending this roof back a little more, and maybe the south side of it is is cut out or something.

Um, but I I understand that the pickle you're in in terms of this is a lot of metal roofing, and we can't cover the whole building, and also we like to put solar panels later.

Um, but um it doesn't feel quite resolved yet.

And that's and there's a requirement for 40% of the roof to be available, like it has to be in the plan for it to be for solar.

So there's to your point, it's just pulling all those elements together, undersized lots of it.

And when you want a steep roof pitch, and you can't do solar on that as easily.

I mean you can, but it it likes to have a certain pitch.

Well, if we go 40 degrees, I think that's the where you know where the latitude is kind of.

Is there a reason why there's like this brown break between the parapet and the other box?

What is that?

That bar the design, it's a design element, and if you look at little herbal apothecary, you'll see the exact same one.

Linda did that design.

And so little herbal apothecary has the same thing.

Where do you foresee signage?

Is that kind of where that's I don't like?

I don't think we want to we we haven't really.

I mean, just adjust your daily grains like it would probably be more of a an arm, like not okay, like a blade size.

Not like making like a burger king.

Sure, yeah.

But we haven't talked about that at all because as you know, it's a separate thing.

So but but when I've thought about it, I'm like, I'd prefer it was like old school again, going back to the New England theme of a sign of the building or a post that's like but but again, with we haven't crossed that bridge yet.

Um any other questions for the elk?

Go ahead.

Uh I've had a couple, I got one left.

Um, can we talk a little bit about maybe I missed it in the packet?

Can we talk about where two feet became that number for that potential deviation for the building?

Like why two feet versus a different number?

Just curious for a little bit of background or explanation on that.

Oh, yeah, I I think just from the discussion that we had, that was um so it's sort of a round number that we thought would encompass the the what might change.

I mean, I might I think if you want to add to that, but it's not, I don't think it's even gonna go to two feet, but it was just sort of like okay, that's what and again, just to say it too, the height is 35 feet that's allowed, right?

So we're we're well below the max that's allowed here.

Um, and so the two feet was something that's reasonable for the grading change, as much as we understand it from engineering, but also to give us all a cap, right?

That it's not going to become something, you know, so much taller.

Yeah, and it's kind of two two things.

It's the grading on a site, which Amelia mentioned it's also they haven't potholed their sanitary sewer yet, and that once they pothole that and the shape it's in, they might need to put a new one in, they might need to raise it a little bit to get positive drainage and talking with public works.

They thought like six inches maybe, and we just we don't want to go a foot, we just want to give a little ek bacon a little extra room so we're not coming in front of you guys in six months to ask for another six inches, you know, in addition to the foot we put in or the six inches we put in.

So it's less of a concern than we're just information gathering.

So thanks about the six inches.

You know, and we're trying to get projects here a little earlier, uh, so that while we're in the notification period, which is you know, roughly you know, four weeks, and then we you know most cases go to city council too, but because this is the went to lure already, you guys are kind of serving a city council.

It gives us kind of like three or uh six to eight weeks of time where normally the projects just stalled out.

So we're trying to get things over here a little earlier so that we can be working through the final things on the project during that kind of time where we're not doing anything.

So we will be coming with some of these things that maybe aren't as buttoned up quite as well, as long as we all feel comfortable that there's gonna be no significant changes uh to on the site as far as things moving around or substantial changes to design or height and things like that.

So uh you might be seeing more of more of this.

Is there an overhang over the entry at all?

Yes.

What's the size?

I can see it better.

I don't have it at the great angle there, but it's a little bit not a ton.

There's a the overhang over the entrance is a little bit greater than the overhang on the east elevation, the front side.

Yeah, because you have a pitch, you don't have like a hip.

So you're gonna have people sitting there on this side of the entry.

There's a patio space out there.

You're saying I'm I'm seeing so I'm just asking if there's deluge of rain, how do you protect it if you're gonna want to go in or something like that?

Uh in terms of the north side or the east side?

The north side, because you're coming in now.

I mean, uh guttering I mean uh would be part of this.

I don't really it's not really showing on there.

So as part, and you'll see in the plan as well that the gutter plan is part of there, but I'm trying to remember if there is actually one on that that part or not.

That's a good point.

Okay.

So you can see how by looking at this picture on the left, um, the relationship between this box.

You know what?

I I should just stop.

Is it any other questions?

We can break some of this back for discussion.

Any other questions of the applicant or staff?

Maybe one quick one.

Okay.

So your anticipation is getting approval and approvals.

When will you roughly looking to we went through the we were waiting for this because it was a year and a half?

And so when we first put our team together and put the plan together, I came back 18 months later to talk to them to the contractors to all my service people.

So we've been waiting for this solid date.

Now we'll pick it back up to finalize and get all that stuff worked out.

Okay.

Which is a little non-standard in watching how the process is, but I'm like, you pick up, I have to pay people to get back up to speed.

You guys, you know, you know all this.

Um so but that's what we're hoping for is the with the approval.

We pick back up and go where we were when we left off.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um there no more if there's no more questions for staff, uh, we will move on to discussion.

Um would anyone like to lead off the discussion.

Um I'll go ahead.

Uh I'm so glad Commissioner Phillips brought it up about the VL and the access.

So I see that as a problem, but the city's telling us seems like we have that in hand.

I just want to see it's fantastic that we're doing uh another bakery and tell.

Um I just want to say I think yeah, I think it's a in general excellent, you know, use of this property and and redeveloping a space that has obviously been been blighted to use an overused term.

Um I understand your concerns architecturally, and I'm this is where we have a it's a it's hard to split the difference between here we're making this improvement to the project or to the property.

How can we maximize the architectural design?

Um, but I don't want to put such an onus on the owners that it's that it's not doable, you know.

Maybe it looks like not doable, but not um, you know, maybe it looks like a frame that extends that roof line back over the back of the building, so that it's just a suggestion of that architectural kind of statement, but you can still put solar panels on it, and you can still express that this is an echo of this blue top restaurant that I you know.

Um so I think there's there's ways to do that architecturally that might be developed a little more as you get further down the path.

Um sounds like you've been delayed for a long time, um, which is another another point of discussion that we can have after this public hearing.

Um I think in general they've done a lot of they've obviously done a lot of work, and I love that they're using a lot of local folks and um as their as their consultants, and they're trying to really make this a hyper-local place, which I think is awesome.

Yeah, those are all those are really excellent points, and it's not to diminish any of that.

Um I think my only concerns are that you know the volumes themselves, okay.

We we we understand them as what they are, but for instance, like the I'm looking at the plan, and there's no break between the workspace and the bakery itself, it's just the workspace and the bakery.

So, you know, pulling that material around to talk about it as a work volume versus the retail volume.

I mean, that all immediately changes this sort of sense of like somebody thought about that.

You know, it's not just like oh, you know, here's the line where we can't afford any more siding type thing, right?

Which is which is common.

I mean, we have that, but even if it is through even if it is through some way of rendering that material, a way in which to kind of bring it around, and as you say, say through like a frame from the top and around, so that you can read it as two really distinct pieces and say, hey, that's where they make it, and this is where we buy it.

We buy it under the blue top.

It's it's kind of like becomes its own selling point.

Yeah.

So if we're not pushing it, we could talk about the duck and the decorated shed.

That's just if we could do if we wanted to do it.

Totally.

Totally, totally totally game.

I'm just trying to say that if we're not um if we're not um encouraging the applicant and the architect to kind of like push things, then we're just going to get the more of the same half-baked ideas, not no pun intended.

You know, so um I'm just the the thing before us is the eight foot setback and the extra parking spot.

Yeah, there's nothing we can say or do about the rest of it apart from call attention to our well, no, because we have that the PD is those two things, and then the spar that is site plan and architectural review.

So we're within our our preview to have some commentary about architectural review.

The question is whether the board, you know, whether we all agree that yes, this is something that we should condition or you know, think about you know, extending this idea or or or not.

Commissioner Phillips may say no, no, yeah.

I mean, I'm I'm a little throwing shade on me.

No, I'm not the I'm not I'm not the architectural expert that you guys are, but I I do worry that there's a lot.

You know, if this was in a downtown setting where there were buildings on either side of this, and nobody was gonna see that this that this roof ends uh where it ends.

Okay, it's it's a it's a facade basically, but but in reality, this this site's gonna be really active on that northern side.

It's gonna be very evident, you know, it's it's gonna be very visible that that that ends the way it does, and it it does look a little it.

I don't know how good abbreviated.

Yeah, just it will it it will it I'm worried it will look like it was stuck on top, like you said, and so I don't know.

I I'm not an architect, I don't know what might be done that's reasonable that could help with that, but it does feel like it's a pretty abrupt top there.

And the fact that there's nothing going on underneath it.

I mean, not even the bottom actually finds its way up through some line to help you feel like it's an actual object.

Well, I don't know if we know that there's um a vaulted space in there.

I don't I don't think so.

Yeah, um there's no sectional cut, so I can't tell, right?

So um, but I guess we're not we're not designing the project, we're just encouraging um a way of looking at it that's a little simpler and a bit more powerful based on what we're trying to do for the city, right?

Yeah, that's another idea.

Um, and this is where we always come back to how do we form a language, you know.

I guess it gets back to those our two favorite words harmonious transition.

Is there a way to encourage this the visual from the north to have a more harmonious transition?

Um there's a there's a little words of transitioning to south of it is a liquor store, right?

North of it is a blue building that's gonna be torn down, probably.

I think she's referring to the length of the building, the transition from that blue roof to the flat roof, or like what is there a way to is there a way to massage that a little bit?

Um yeah, I just I wouldn't want to um take that back.

Any other any other thoughts or any um would you like to propose language of of a particular condition or so?

In the past we have conditioned something, yet we haven't seen the we haven't seen it, right?

We haven't we've made a condition.

We the applicant can or cannot does not could or could not do it.

It's not like mandatory.

Right.

I mean it should be though.

I mean there were times that we've done that, but it didn't have something I have a couple comments off of that.

So um I like what I like what I've seen.

The the alley traffic thing answered most of my questions.

Um it's a small project, and I think it's great.

Um they put this top on an extra cost, I don't think adding more of that helps.

Um especially cost, we gotta be cost conscious.

Um two things I would recommend though is on the north entry, you've got that slope coming down, and you say it's guttered.

I've done a lot of these things in the mountains, and you get snow and something.

You gotta really be careful over that entry how you treat that.

So make sure your architect does that maybe guthering doesn't work when you've got snow loads up there, too.

And the one thing we didn't talk about was the trash closure.

And um, it's been my experience that those need to be real durable materials because they really get beat up quick.

Ballards of the front are better material.

But other than that, I love the project.

Yeah, your pitch is like an eight almost.

Like it's really steep, and so that snow is gonna come straight down into that front entrance in a way that you could put feet on the metal.

There's ways to address it.

Of course, you can do it.

I mean, I'm just saying that there's a there's there's a the pitch, this pitch is beautiful.

I mean, this is like something like you you dream about, but it's a relationship to the box underneath is missing, it's cut.

And so and that little that little protrusion again is also I can see it in the elevation.

It's trying to tie into that like black or brown band as it goes around, but you're never gonna perceive it that way.

Your vision is like if it is a cone, it's not like flat like that.

So again, it has nothing to do with not is it like okay, harmonious relationship.

Of course, there's a nod to the pitches of the residential street, the scale is as it is.

I I think the big windows are quite you know lovely in terms of bringing light in because you'll have north for light as well as the the east light coming in, and um you know it's it's it's a metal roof.

You've got some heat gain in there that you have to kind of consider uh it's a volume of light combustible roof piece there, but I'm just trying to find a way in which we could ask the applicant to consider move turning that siding that that wood siding all the way around so that it feels like there's a cut piece that's really deliberate that's put in.

And I think part of it is the the requirement to um articulate the side walls, so that's why you know that's why it's got that kind of edge edge where it where it is.

Um yeah, so I don't know if you know if if the roof could extend back further, but then you you run into but you could extend the siding further, so you don't have a stucco wall right there.

Yeah, you could just around, right?

So that becomes a volume, and then it's being like so.

Basically you just extend the siding on the south side all the way further back, all the way to the back or further back so that it seems like a rack all the way around.

And it feels like a place.

I mean, so you mean that this the cedar lap would extend out?

Yeah, and what what they run into is I think it's a 40 foot maximum length.

Um somebody from planning can or 50 feet.

It's a 50 feet of I just sorry, I think.

That's okay.

That's you know you're on it.

Um so and that has to be articulated differently.

Well, you can.

Um that's it.

Okay, so do we want to do maybe just a straw pole on um because we can add a condition on a spar, right?

We can okay.

Um chair as long as it's directly related to one of the um review criteria.

Yep.

Okay.

Do we have anyone who would like to craft some language around that, or do you have those criteria?

Um Commissioner here.

I'll go ahead and say I would vote against the condition.

So if you're gonna do a condition, please do it separately from the main motion.

Uh once again, we're redesigning somebody's building, and it's not really in our purview beyond the code requirements.

Yeah, and that's why we're sort of put a lot of effort and have reasons for why they're doing things the way they're doing them.

And so now all of a sudden to jump in and say, oh no, wait a minute, we're gonna change the design.

Well, and it's I don't think it's more part about um we have this architectural review, we have these um, you know, we have these these stipulations that give us an opportunity.

My question is um, would anyone agree to um would we agree to any formulating any kind of language around that?

Who is in favor of of pursuing that?

I am okay.

I'm not in favor.

Okay, all right.

So I've got two.

Okay.

I think that we we don't have enough folks to develop to to add that condition.

So moving on to um anything else on the spar aspect.

Sorry, before we totally abandon that, what would a reasonable like I understand what we don't want to require somebody to extend this metal roof unnecessarily all the way to the end.

But what what kinds of solutions might address?

All it is is extending the siding further back so it doesn't look so that it's saying this part of the building is the making space, and this part of the building is the the selling space.

Would that be actually divide?

But on this side, sure.

But on this side, would you would you want to maintain that?

Would you divide that?

I mean, it's just it's sort of to me, it's like it's just there's it's there's like other things stuck on top.

Uh I mean, if you know, if money were were no object, it would be extend the roof back.

Well, but they can't do that because of another code requirement that we have.

Yeah, and we wouldn't want to require that.

I'm just trying to understand what solutions might exist to adjust.

On the um on that little perspective, it looked like it was a a stucco siding that went a yellow kind of.

I think it's it's it's painted fiber cement board all the way around.

Yeah.

Why does it show differently on the schedule model?

I think it just we just couldn't see the individual boards, but in the in the packet it's it's all um cement board siding with the exception of the cedar lap siding.

Right, so the little the little front part is the cedar.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, so it would be extending that cedar around to on the south side, but the north side is where people are coming in.

Yeah, and and so it's it's a small, it's a small thing where you can project that roof a little bit further out and create an actual line to say that's the making space, and here's the retail space.

It's just it it's really minuscule as far as how you can make it off to achieve that.

Project it out in which what direction?

Sorry, I don't you could either project the roof out a little bit.

What do you mean when you say out, sorry?

Do you mean that one?

No, oh I mean further up north, more than north.

Oh, oh, overhanging.

Yeah, and then create an actual kind of like separation between that mutual space and the making space.

So the volume acts as a making space and then the retail space is like its own little pod.

You're kind of like saying that and the roof really then makes sense.

That's then it's then it's a connected here's the retail space, and the blue roof is over the retail space.

Yeah, yeah.

And you think that would happen just by extending would that be in keeping the pitch the same, or would that be flattening?

Um you may come down the tiny bit, but you already have quite enough founder to achieve your or you could you could say that um but the the boards themselves become bigger at the retail space and then get smaller at the making space.

It's just things like that.

Just to call out the difference between things.

Well, we don't have the votes for this, for why are we still talking about it?

Because there was a question.

Yeah, I mean I was I am a I am a vote and I wanted to.

I think it sounded like it was more a process question if we were to do something.

And it's a we are architectural review board.

Um back to we should have two separate um we only have a single motion.

We should have um should there be suit two separate motions here.

Yes, because I do believe we have two resolution.

We've already a site plan and one for the PUD.

Do we have that language?

I am sorry if we didn't get that from packet.

It is also in the packet, but two, the two left okay, yeah, okay.

I'm just yeping on page.

Does the packet have the conditions?

Do we have to read the conditions?

I have the conditions as well.

Is that in the agenda memo, Amelia?

It is in the staff report.

I don't know what it's thought.

We had two motions.

I mean, there are, yeah, I can't.

I just saw the one in the um in the the script that I was looking for.

It doesn't have the conditions on the same page.

Well it says so okay, so maybe this isn't helpful, but it says so on I don't have the actual packet packet, but on the fifth page of the memo, the report, it says there's the recommendation which does have the staff the staff conditions outlined, and then in the proposed motion language section, there's an option for approval and denial under PUD and SPAR.

It's my understanding that if the application if the motion were stated this way with the conditions in the staff report, you would be adopting this conditions as written in the staff report on that page five.

That's correct.

This is on page nine and ten of the PDF package.

I think what we're still just talking through through the discussion portion of this.

Um I think you know, moving towards downtown and moving towards what the process is for the site and proposed uses and what the spar and the amendments we're talking about.

The parking makes sense and the setback makes sense.

Like those both seem yeah consistent and good.

Yeah, definitely.

Very true.

Yeah.

That's what we're still doing.

Right.

Would anyone like to make a motion on the motion for approval?

Uh I move to approve PC resolution two zero two five-06.

Approving the daily greens PUD with the conditions all aligned in the staff report.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, motion is second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Motion carries.

All right.

So the PD is passed.

Moving on to SPAR.

Um well, I think we're going to move forward without you know conditioning anything.

Wait, because we love what this project is going to be, and we're excited that you'll be in town.

I think I am anyway.

Um, so don't definitely don't want to screw it.

I if if you had the opportunity to just talk about this a little more for the architect, not required by us, but you heard some ideas here tonight that might be interesting to chat through with uh your architect and maybe maybe there's some new ideas that could be considered that wouldn't you make it impossible to do your project.

And I just want to um because sometimes we forget um in the analysis portion of the of the packet, it does say you know, the architectural criteria promotes our harmonious transition and scale and character of the proposed building to surrounding land uses, the quality and overall design is compatible with the location and proposed use as demonstrated by building elevations.

Any diverse architectural treatments are integrated into the overall architectural theme in order to avoid a cluttered appearance, building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets are visually attractive in proportion scale and relationship to one another in the building in each building.

So I I say all this just because um I know we don't like to redesign buildings, but this is these are the things that are in our code that give us language to use to evaluate these things.

They are all subjective, they're subjective things, absolutely.

But there are a lot of people in our community that understand and and appreciate them, and there's a reason they're in our code, and I don't want to just gloss over them.

There's a lot of fantastic things about this building, and sometimes when you come up with a design that's good, it's it gives you even us even more like, oh, but what if you did this one?

And um, I understand that the full board is not interested in in making some of these massages massage items put down into written terms.

Um, but I think as are the commissioners that you've heard some ideas.

Um we've got the code language in here.

Um I also understand if you don't have the appetite to go back and do anything more because it's been so long.

So um puts everybody in a tough spot.

So with that said, anyone would like to have further spar discussion or make a motion.

Yeah, I just thanked uh for their comment, which is we have in the past conditioned some changes if there has been something that dramatically different from the neighborhood around it or that in the series and so it's not like we don't do it.

No, I know, but on the other hand, there's this we seem to get into this nitpicking, you know, move a window here, move a door there thing, which is I think is is way beyond what you know the intent of these regulations are.

I think it's really hard for us to sometimes interpret intent and also when a lot of it does it either is or feel subjective, that just feels really hard.

Yep, this one.

No, and I think that's why you know people choose to be on this board and to to put forth those and just you know we all respect each other's different opinions because we all have different things to bring.

And so I think um paying attention to that is is important.

Um so would anyone like to make a motion or any other discussion?

Make sure and to you will make a motion.

I move to approve PC resolution 20 25-07.

Approving the daily grain spar with conditions in the staff report I second that all in um is there any further uh discussion?

All right, all in favor?

Aye, any opposed motion carries.

Thank you very much.

One thing, Paul, I think you did an outstanding.

We've had a lot of users come in and talk this and you are well prepared and articulate and passion.

So thanks for that.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, next item on the agenda is to discuss the development review process, including potential modifications to the sketch plan process.

We will now hear from staff.

Yes, and this is just like a really high level overview, and it's at its very like a wait.

All right, we'll take a couple minute pause.

Yeah, we take around 15.

Do we need to take a five-minute call up?

Okay,

Yes, and then this makes it sound like it's a you know very broad, but it's really about a couple distinct things, and it's very like preliminary, and then part of it's just kind of to kind of update you where we're going with uh where we're going with kind of the draft LUC in terms of process and uh just bring you up to speed a little bit, and also once that goes out, we'll probably point out a few specific process uh sections for you guys to take a look at.

So agenda, we're gonna talk about uh potential sketch plan updates in the interim, and whether we think we should move forward with that before adopting it with the full land use code update, and then just like I said, an update of the uh land use code process and in a couple specific areas.

So this is this is the current regulation requirements for the sketch plans and preliminary plans.

They're the same.

Not going to go through the same through the whole slide, but you know, there's uh pre-application and a couple different public notice periods, both the intent and the neighborhood meeting before the submittal, staff review, and then obviously going to PC with those different uh your different kind of motion options there, decision options, let's call them.

And then the fact that council only hears it if it's appealed by the applicant or city council initiates a review.

And this, you know, it's a bit problematic and cumbersome, and it doesn't get well.

So some of the flaws we see in it are that, you know, as I said, no city council review until final PUD when they're ultimately the ones going to be approving the final plan.

So and that's kind of unusual.

I haven't really seen that in other places.

Um then we define it as a review of a concept plan or sketch plan in the code uh with the and it really says you know, we're evaluating evaluating the appropriateness and identifying major problems.

However, the requirements of process are the exact same as a preliminary plan, which combined with the fact that we have these uh specific PC action options like approve, approve, uh deny, remand, it makes it seem like it's a different type of plan than what it's really intended to uh in our opinion.

And in most codes, when they have a sketch plan or conceptual plan, it's really just to give feedback and and it's a it's a you know a toe touch just to check the water.

Um, some of the kind of potential sketch plan interim, like the ideas that we've come up with.

Again, we have here we have pre-app conference, intent to develop, neighborhood meeting, staff review, PC action.

That's kind of the basic process.

We're thinking, again, this is very early, that we go kind of pre-app conference.

We only do one of these uh outreach, and these are both, you know, this one's online, but it's still mailed to everybody within 750 feet.

The neighborhood meeting neighborhood meetings noticed with everybody, uh everybody within 750 feet.

So we're thinking we just do one of those, uh, if given they're kind of redundant, and then we do staff review, and then we have a public hearing at Planning Commission for review and comment, and then we also have a city council public hearing for review and comment.

So at the end of the day, each each method has three public upper public input opportunities, it's just they're done a little differently.

Um then there's not a vote, right?

With in this one.

Yeah, exactly.

You just give feedback and and it's up for the up to the applicant, and if they hear kind of different feedback from you and city council, it's kind of up to them to kind of balance them out and and figure it out.

And that's the way it's been in other jurisdictions I've worked in.

You guys just get up there and kind of just get to talk and tell them you know what they work really well.

That's where this redesigning stuff should go.

That's what you should have put up here opportunity to do that.

Yeah, I'll have to get on board the same thing.

I didn't put on here the half an hour time limit we're including with the sketch plan.

Perfect.

Well, also, I I mean, sorry, we're interrupting here.

No, no, no, please.

This is meant to be more of a back and forth.

So it feels like one thing that happened in that sketch plan review that we heard recently was there was a concern that we were we were sending a strong message with an approval.

And if we didn't put I at least I feel like I heard if there was something that we didn't say in this process and approved, and then they came back and we wanted to say it later, we had sort of precluded ourselves from doing so.

So I kind of like this because it eliminates that.

Yeah, you didn't get a second bite at the apple.

We don't think that's what it really says, but like it I we that there was some confusion there, and and it was clear that the language, kind of like I laid out in the last slide, that language and the sign of the submittal requirements and how refined they are, all lead you to believe it's a different type of plan and review and and process.

So uh so yeah, here we go.

Wouldn't contemplate approval or denial, and it kind of refor reinforces the non-binding direction, eliminates the appeal process, uh, and and it just bakes in city council review.

And then you know, we want to go to more conceptual plans.

Like there's certain things in reviewing other municipalities, or certain things they require, like tell us the number of units, tell us the percentage of open space, tell us the height, but like show us generally locations of you know, pedestrian and and vehicular circulation.

And so there's certain things that are capped, and there's certain things that are general, so you know certain things, but how they arrange it on the property and how they lay it out might change based on feedback and based on further development of plans, engineering documents, things like that.

Uh so that's one thing that we wanted to do.

We haven't really talked exactly about how that looks, so kind of if we're given kind of the direction to move forward with this, we'll kind of further uh refine the kind of how conceptual we go.

But you still, I mean, so there's still or is that further down a final city council?

Yeah, yeah, and we haven't put that on here, but that would be the next step is the final plan.

Yeah, yeah.

And we were gonna talk a little bit about that with the next section, kind of where we want to go and whether or not uh, you know, one is whether or not the community supports it through the process, but also whether uh we look at doing it now with this in the sketch plan update, or with just keep it in the land use code updates.

I'm a little, I guess kind of want to delve deeper into the city council review and comment.

Um I can see some potential issues with that.

Number one, obviously, that we say, well, this, and then you know, then you give them the chance to review and comment, and some of them just might decide that they're architects and they want to change things differently.

Um but when it gets to the city council, that's not really the issues at that point.

I mean, the city council's focus should be more of the higher level issues, not the stuff that we wrestle with.

So I guess I'm a little concerned as to what that's gonna open up if you add that city council review and comment, and how's that not gonna work?

Because again, they come back and say something totally different than what happens.

Yeah.

Well, and I think the next step, you know.

Yeah, I've got kind of two thoughts on that.

One is like at this level, we should be looking at all of this, looking at high level stuff.

And so it should be about density, building heights, open space, uh, maybe buffering, uh, ways to mitigate impacts, things like that, higher, you know, like you said, you know, bigger picture items uh at the sketch plan stage.

And also, like if they if they get feedback from you and there's some particular item that they disagree with and they don't like, they should daylight that at city council and be like, this is what we understood from planning commission.

However, we we disagree for these reasons, and we think this is a better route, knowing that ultimately that's city council is going to make the decision.

So it gives them a chance to daylight those types of things.

Now I'm relatively new still, but in my experience in general, city council often gives fair amount of deference to planning commission feedback, and it seems like that's the case.

Not if you have a former planning commissioner on there.

On so that doesn't happen very often these days, but yeah, and yeah, and you know, the other thing with the with the sketch plan is with the new code, we're hoping to move to less PUDs.

Again, that's got to be better through the entire process.

Uh and uh I don't I'm getting it in front uh ahead of myself, so I can talk a little bit more about that later.

But is there any more questions on this kind of slide?

What's the city council?

The current city council review of sketch plan is appeal, or they can initiate initiate it.

Yeah, they can appear.

Applicant can appeal, or they can initiate well, I just proposed preliminary.

What's the difference?

Are you about to get there?

You know what?

I shouldn't have made that one proposed.

I should have said preliminary.

I got a little, I was trying to like put a bunch of potential and proposals in to make it sound like we're not actually saying this is gonna happen, and so that the community knows this is very, but the preliminary is the actual preliminary plan process, so I should have left that preliminary proposed.

So that's my time to say that's getting changed.

That happened after the sketch plan.

Well, well, in a okay, actually, would there, yes, sorry, I'm getting I'm getting confused myself.

There still is the potential to streamline this with getting rid of the redundant outreach and just going down to one.

Uh, but that also plays into uh kind of the way we're going.

So this is kind of optional, is like do we keep both neighborhood meeting and intent to develop, or do we look at just reducing that to one with this two?

So there is a proposed element to there, right?

I forgot about it.

Sorry, but remind me this is like the process we would go through a sketch process and then go through a preliminary.

Correct, yeah, and then go through a final.

Final.

Yeah, and the final you don't see only city council sees under our current.

Yeah.

So I mean, let me take an example of something that that happened once.

Um we approve this uh indoor storage building.

I'm aware.

And then council subsequently turned it down.

Now, in this structure, because they're not actually passing anything if at that CC review and comment that point they're they're like, no, we're gonna turn it down, but they can't because they're not voting on it, right?

No, but they can say they could give a very strong language that they don't understand, they don't think they could approve it based on the comprehensive plan.

I don't know what their reasoning was based on the zoning, and uh uh and then the applicant can walk without spending a bunch of money on design.

Makes sense.

Yeah.

Are we good?

Did you have something, Zach?

Well, and could we talk through for the preliminary?

Because I still learn some of the specific lingo here.

When we say preliminary plan and final plan, is that the same thing as a preliminary final plat?

Or are those yeah, they can be big, yes.

They could be a part of it if you need to plat the property, they would all be wrapped into the same uh same process.

Okay.

I mean, it would they're separate things that they would get, they would go like they would move through the same process.

Okay.

I think I had a different question, but through you discussing about some stuff you explained it.

So I'm still learning all the stuff too.

So now we're gonna move on.

Like, so this is we'll we'll come back and try to get like kind of your thoughts on this at the end, but now we're gonna move in kind of to the broader and fly.

It was the same one at that meeting earlier, I swear.

It's been up here for a while.

Yeah, well, I also spilled dinner on myself here, so it's kind of flying around right in that area.

Uh so we'll go on to the broader land use code update process.

So, and again, this is really just kind of how it obtained how it applies to the to the sketch and our concept plans, and then a little bit to uh to the kind of preliminary plan, final plan process.

So, again, we've already covered this.

We're gonna treat this feedback uh considered by both planning commission and city council.

Because we're not gonna be moving everything through a PUD too, we want to try to create a similar kind of optional conceptual review for what we're calling major spars or major site plans.

We might go to site plan in that process, so that they can hopefully get out in front, because if it's controversial case, just because it's a spar, not a PUD, we still want them to give them the option to come before the decision-making bodies and get early feedback.

So we still want to build this process in, even if even if we're not using kind of the PUD version of it now, that we have now as much.

So it'll hopefully look very similar.

That's our kind of early thoughts.

And then it would be required, you know, there's certain triggers that would just require it, you know.

In some cases, it would be optional, uh, and and then certain major development applications and how we define that's to be determined, but then it would be a requirement for those types of projects.

And this is kind of a draft thought process, and this is way more similar to the way most communities do it.

So we have the the sketch and preliminary plan, which is kind of the other pre-amp, the to develop neighborhood meeting, that kind of stuff, and I'm not gonna go into details because that's not really where it changes.

Uh you know, the proposed sketch, you just eliminate one of those.

Then you go to the preliminary, and then instead of only CC or PC reviewing and commenting, CC city council takes action at the preliminary stage.

And this is more at like a 65%, you know, whatever number.

People like to throw out percentages for design, but you know, 65% design, so there's preliminary utility plans, there's preliminary grading, preliminary drainage.

There's not things like uh uh utility profiles, so you're not looking at kind of full design, and then getting council to make an action on that, and then going back through with the final, and that's just administratively approved as long as it's substantially substantially similar, consistent with what was approved by council, and there's ways of you know, there's ways of of limiting that.

You can you can build in, you know, the number of units can't change at all.

You could say number of units can't change by more than x percent.

You can say if it's a commercial project, you'd say building square footage can't change by more than X percent or it can't change at all.

There's ways that we could condition that and put criteria on that in there that that kind of defines what is substantially consistent with the preliminary.

But this is this is uh, like I said, it's it's more common.

It also gets them in front of city council before they spent 100% design so that if it were to be denied, they're out, you know, 60, 50, whatever percent of their total soft costs on their project.

So that's kind of the way the future uh code update is is going, the draft one in it's early.

There's still lots of process left, lots of community involvement.

So uh, but that's kind of our thoughts.

That proposed final not going back in front of anyone.

That that's surprising to me.

Um you're saying that's that's common in other things.

Yeah, that's not, yeah, that's not uncommon.

Uh I just I guess I'm just thinking about it.

It always seemed a little strange to me that the final plan was reviewed by city council and not planning commission because we are the body that might be most likely to be able to do a deep dive in these drawings, look at the technical documents, and and so it in my mind it makes sense to do if PC reviews and comments for post-sketch and review and comment at preliminary, then we do a final action at final.

That makes more sense to me.

Um, because then we can actually take all that previous information and um so that surprises me that we wouldn't that that's how other municipalities do that.

And I mean, I will do a bigger like survey uh, you know, as we as we kind of move into this, but yeah, it's very common.

And then the idea is that at that point, technical review is what's being is what's occurring.

We're talking about inverts of pipes, we're talking about you know, technical expertise that that really shouldn't be subject to uh you know public opinions and and things like that.

So it and like I said, it's also a way that the applicant has some assurances before they go, like there's a clear and objective path forward.

There could be kind of no surprises to them because the project gets political or whatnot.

You know, I know that we're not supposed to ever make decisions based on the number of people in the room opposing things, uh, but you know, certain things pop up sometimes, and it kind of removes that that part of it.

So, but this does you talk you mentioned earlier that you know this wouldn't necessarily require some close conditioning on large scale.

So, you know, like we had this this issue with uh silo where you know all of a sudden they're coming back and it's a very different plan, but on paper, it could look you know number of units and whatever could wind up looking roughly the same, but it's a completely different looking plan.

Yeah, and I would argue that that plan wouldn't have been met the definition of consistent, substantially consistent with the approved plans.

You know, obviously if it's if it's not tied to a specific unit count or a specific area or something like that, or or amount of open space, you're you are relying on some discretion by the director to make a call and say, no, I I don't feel comfortable approving this.

This is even though your same unit count, you're the same commercial space count, your open space is the same, you've changed the orientation around completely.

This is even though your same unit count, you're the same commercial space count, your open space is the same, you've changed the orientation around completely, you know, there is something you have to rely and and uh yeah, I found that most most uh most directors want to take the the conservative path and and not getting hot water uh and and the applicant knows this too, like they can't be making just it shouldn't look it has to pass a straight face test, you know, when you look at it that it hasn't changed that much.

That'd be nice if that were the concept.

What happens if if uh if there is substantial change, then what happens in the sketch, they go back to it.

I mean, I would think it would it would be kind of a call.

We haven't really thought it through that much, but in my mind is if the things that were approved at sketch, density, size, open space, if those things all stay the same and it was just a completely reconfiguration, and that could have impacts on adjacent properties that didn't previously, then maybe we just go back to the preliminary.

You know, that could be kind of a determination, but if it's clearly not complying with what was approved at sketch, which it would have had to at preliminary, and then it would have to change at final, then they would have to go all the way back to to sketch.

Uh would be my my thought.

Again, we haven't fully baked this out, and obviously we'll look at other jurisdictions regulations and and see, and you know.

Well, I see and that's the thing.

I mean, I agree 100% with Darcy, and I just because other jurisdictions do it a certain way, to me, is not oh, well, we have to do it that way.

I mean, that's nice.

No, but I think you know, again, we do things a little different here.

Latvia, it's a little different.

And we have our own ideas about certain things, and I think having a final PC approval on a final project, I think, is of great value.

Well, I think I think the idea is that you would have that final approval at that step before the staff reviews it because you're going to be agreeing to or disagreeing with or commenting on those high-level pieces that really actually have an impact on the project.

And then when it comes to the invert, I know I'm not an engineer, I can't do it, right?

So those kinds of technical issues, perhaps maybe the clarification of what the staff will be reviewing might help, you know, and what the final would be, and then to consider language in that section saying that planning commission has the uh you know, has the it's in their failure week to do the final approval of these high-level pieces that will not be changing based on you know their we have no opportunity to condition under this structure, only the city council.

Yeah, the zone review and comment.

Well, you would you would recommend conditions to city council, and it'll be up for them to further them and then also make additional conditions if they felt that, and then you would have to rely on staff to see those conditions implemented.

So that is a part of it, and you know, there is a we always do that.

I mean, that's neither here nor there.

So I just like to clarify that if we may have been missing a column in this slide that would help the change to the final isn't really an impact on planning commission.

Like right now, planning commission takes an action on the preliminary plan, but that it's 60%, 80%, whatever we call it level design is what you're seeing right now.

So the difference really is that city council is now seeing it's a question for city council to say, like, are you comfortable seeing the same level of design as planning commission and and making an action on it, and then we're really transitioning to what is largely engineering level review to get it to final uh and this is for bigger projects that have you know turning radiuses and different elevations and you know all of that kind of detail that we don't ever bring to you as part of a and we don't really discuss it at city council level either, it's just completely baked.

So when Jake talked earlier about like trying to buy us some time with these spar reviews, and then you're gonna have a few more conditions.

This is kind of in that same vein where we're trying to advance getting these projects to you because there is some sense of frustration from applicants not getting a response from planning commission or city council for too long, and then we we have to do that review, but right now we're doing that review up front.

So it's it's like a lot of time to get something to like a hundred percent level designs before it comes to planning commission or city council, in which case, like if it blows up, there's a lot more frustration, and so some of the you know the sense you get from applicants that I'm not ready to make any changes.

This is like I've gotten to that level, will also should relax.

So these labeled the same thing, and they're not okay.

PC review and comment under sketch is we're giving you our thoughts.

We're not conditioning or not voting on it.

Whereas you have the same language for proposed for them, it shouldn't, it should be PC review and action, not PC review.

And and recommended review and recommended.

So it would be a it would be a resolution recommending.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what we're thinking.

He's still there the whole time.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't know what was going on.

For me, what comes to mind with this is the review that we just did of the phase two for the silo, where we had residents come to us and say, look at what the architectural images look what the renderings look like, and then look at what it looks like.

I mean, it is not the same thing.

And so there's sketch plan, there's preliminary, you know.

At what point, you know, you can't condition a negative, you can't condition something they haven't done.

You can't you can't list all the things that they cannot do.

So you know, how can you how can you say your architectural um final designs need to look like what you're selling everyone?

You know, how there that needs to happen too.

Now, I don't know if that means, you know, is there a is there an architectural review under final plan instead of instead of just that I don't know what that looks like.

Maybe it needs to be more of a specific architectural review at preliminary plan, so that um well, that's what it would be, yeah.

We would be reviewing architecture at preliminary, so and that's the other thing.

It would happen a little earlier in the process, so it would give uh, you know, we're obviously working towards more clear and objective standards in our architectural standards.

So, in a way that gives us specific things to point to, but in a way that that limits like how subjective you as a commission can be in asking for certain things because you really have to tie it down to more clear and objective standards, like you know, you have to have a uh you know, 30 feet, and then you have to have a uh uh what's the word I'm looking for?

Uh uh a recess or uh you know a building transition.

Yeah, and so but the good thing about it is it gets you a chance to look at it earlier.

So if we are making changes based on code or if it's a PUD based on slightly more subjective standards, that it's earlier in the process, so they can go back to the drawing board and then they can also take it to city council and say this is what we heard from planning commission, these were the conditions they put on it.

Here's how we responded to their application, and here's what we're showing.

I think that's and I guess that's an important distinction.

Is there going to be time for them and a requirement for them to respond to the the first body before they go to the second body at both of those phases?

I think there's certain things that definitely, like if it's an architectural thing, if it's a uh you know, we we want this open space to be larger, or we want yeah, those things, yes, they should be they should be reflected and changed.

Uh if it's some minor fits, some minor more technical matters, then not necessarily uh, you know, or if they want to disagree, if they want to say, you know what, we think this meets it, we want to go to city council and we want to say, we'll say this are we where the conditions of approval from planning commission.

Uh we don't feel they've met X, Y, and Z, and then it's up to the applicant to get up there and go, yes, this these were the conditions, but here's why we think they're they're overreach or not appropriate or not applicable or how we've met them, even though staff doesn't agree with that we've met them, and then they argue their case.

So it's kind of up to them to pick which one they want to do.

Well, and it's up to you guys too, to some degree, like if you wanted to condition that they make a change prior to going to council, and you wanted to see what that change looked like, then you're not advancing them to city council.

You're asking for them to make the change or come back and present to you before they advance.

Otherwise, it's like Jake explain like that applicant, if it's softer, may want to see whether or not council agrees, and then it could be in the same situation once they get to council, whether or not council decides that they agree with your condition, and then whether or not they want to see the change relative to like before they actually make an action on it.

So I've been in council meetings where or PC meetings where they've actually remanded it back, had them come back, make the change so they felt comfortable with whatever that change was rather rather than actually make make it condition make a condition, which is a little less certain for you guys.

So how are they work PUD and the SPAR?

I mean the PUD and SPAR would all be under proposed preliminary if we had those items currently.

Not necessarily.

First of all, some the minor spar and major spar is how it's in the code currently.

Minors would be all administrative.

Right.

Majors would be it since it's a use by right.

I don't think we want to require a sketch plan.

I think they and I think in a really reality, if it's a use by right, if they want to move into uh like a final plan, they can, but it would still go through planning commission city council.

I think we haven't fully fleshed this idea out, but in my mind, a sketch plan would be optional for those types of projects.

And it would be when they know it's controversial and they voluntarily opt into it, and it would probably you know be a conceptual plan.

Uh they opt into that because they don't want to do a bunch of design work and be told no.

So we still need to work that out of whether there's a mandatory kind of preliminary spar stage or if they just go through the final.

Given that a spar, keep in mind will have clear and objective standards.

There's there's not gonna be any negotiation of design standards or development standards with the SWAR.

They should be it should be black or white, clear and objective.

They're meeting the code, they're not.

But the TUD then would come with at that same time.

Well, they wouldn't have in many cases they won't have a PUD.

Well, hopefully they don't, yeah.

And then that's the time it would usually be linked together.

Yeah, and I don't think we've talked about yes, then it would be, or we haven't talked about how we're gonna do PUDs in my mind.

The way we do them here with the like overlay to Frank's point, it's a little different.

Uh and it's not typical.

Usually it's a straight zoning to PUD, and the underlying zoning goes away, and you're just zone PUD.

Right.

And uh, and that's what the zoning map shows, PUD.

Currently, our PUDs don't show up on a zoning map.

You know, they show up as the straight zoning.

Uh so we've still got to work through some of those type of issues.

Uh so it might not be a spar if it's a PUD, it's just a PUD.

Right.

So it where you made the change PC review and recommend it, might also be remand.

Is that what you're thinking?

Maybe like planning commission is recommended.

I don't necessarily like that idea, but I'm not the boss.

We don't do it frequently, but we can do it.

Like in those cases, if this is how this moves forward, it would be PC recommending approval or PC recommending denial, but either way, it's going towards city council for action.

Well, we have a third option.

We can reman it back to staff and the applicant and say you need that.

We're keeping that option, obviously draft, but that that that third option is being kept in this proposal.

Yes, I appreciate all the errors from my table, but I was taking a positive outlook and saying we're recommending, we're moving forward.

But yes, like PC could recommend denial.

They were making a recommendation.

Yeah, yeah.

They're not denying it, they're making a recommendation, and then they would recommend denial, and then it's kind of up to in my uh other jurisdictions I've worked at, then the applicant could decide, you know, do they want to go back and try to improve it and and run it back so they can get a better recommendation, or do they want to go to city council, show what they've changed and show how it addressed the reasons it was denied.

Uh I've seen that too.

Like so, I think the next time we see this process, we will we probably want to add here's the three, here's the options that can come out of each stage.

Well, and for the I'll clarify just because I may change purpose too.

Um, but like for the remanding piece, it would basically be like you have uh you would be considering denial.

You'd have to have the same type of criteria, and and in order to not deny it, you're asking them to make this change because you're not comfortable with whatever is that is you know outside of the review criteria.

So that's probably a safer lane than something subjective, like, you know, I don't like your architecture, I'd rather it be this or that, right?

So um again, all like this is a murky area for us to have a conversation about, and I think that's part of the reason why we haven't come back to you with it because the code update is still being flushed out.

So there's and there's a lot of moving pieces to that.

So it's it's you know, like right now, if height doesn't change at all, like I'm gonna expect that applicants still come in and ask for some sort of latitude on a 35-foot high limit, right?

And we are trying to move away from that with the PUD, not having PUDs, that's what they use it for.

So their avenue will be to come with a variance or to have some other height exception process.

That's what some jurisdictions do.

Yeah, and and to some degree, having a height limit is a tool, right?

Like if you have a high limit of 35 feet and we want affordable housing and they provide affordable housing, then they get to go up, right?

Or if we want ground floor retail, like but those are all the things that we need to hear from you about through the land use co-op right as to where we want to have flexibility and for what we're so we actually don't really have a third option.

We don't can't remand what we would do is we would have to approve but heavily conditioned no, you would have an option.

You I mean you guys actually separate options.

Well, we're not denying it, we're just telling you go back and do some more work.

The way I've seen it happen, and I've not had this conversation with our attorney, but is where it's like we have our choice of either to deny you, right?

Or if you want to come back, like if it gets to that point, right where you know, like, or if you want to make a change and come back, then we'd rather have you keep your application open exactly rather than start all over again.

So that's but they're making a recommendation of denial.

What do you mean?

Well, they would be that's the case.

No, they wouldn't be making a I mean, they would basically just be continuing the meeting and having them make a change through their application through the process, then we would handle it, we'd say, okay, you know, this is what we're not denying it.

This is what we want you to do, and we're tabling.

Tabling the meeting to make circle.

Yeah, do they address it?

You want them to address it.

No, and they can't feel that there's no decision.

These are all operative options.

We we haven't made any decisions.

We have to take this to the community, we have to do a lot of uh thinking about and talking about it and outreach.

So but there's there's different ways to opt.

We're hoping that the code is more predictable for everybody, and that we're not asking for these things that are outside the bounds of the that's the goal, right?

So we hope we're not in this realm, but I do want to be able to talk you through your choices.

So I think while we're also just commenting on everything on here, I I personally the move towards the proposed final being staff.

I think like the right sizing the impacts feels good.

I think I definitely am interested in what those asterisk marks look like of like you know, if something's are increasing a certain amount or what that what that deviation looks like.

We start to see what that list yeah, you know, bootboarding it.

So yeah.

And there's like I said, there's different ways I've in previous jurisdiction I worked at you couldn't increase your unit count by more than five percent.

That sounds like a lot, but it's really not.

Like if we had a 27-unit townhome development come in and they wanted to increase five percent gives them one more unit, like at the end of the day, it's not a good thing.

Which is when it's when it's 400.

400, yeah.

Yeah, then it's a much bigger deal.

So we've seen so many of those, and I you know if it was before your time, but like we've seen multiple large scale developments, and so that's that's nerve-wracking to think about making that big of a change.

Yeah, and it could be proportional, it could be you know, there's lots of ways we can try to try to address that uh so that it, you know, it doesn't change and it also it would be you know, you could tie to both unit count and a total area, which would kind of limit it, and maybe they could do more units, but they would still be limited by the area, so you know, maybe the overall change is it's really it's not a change in the impacts of the project, it's just a change of kind of the reorientation of their spaces and how they're how they're using them.

But well, we don't need to get into the weeds on that because that that's we've got plenty of work to do on that.

And I think this conversation leads me to kind of our questions for you.

I think one of those has probably been decided.

So uh, like kind of you know, thoughts and direction from PC is you know, advance the code update, the sketch plan code update ahead of the LUC update.

Yes.

And if so, is that lighter touch just focusing on kind of the sketch plan really is that what we should do and save the bigger change for the land use for the full land use code update?

I didn't, I mean the bigger change being the final being administrative and the change for the entire process versus just kind of that sketch plan process.

And I think based on our discussion, the answer should clearly be yes.

Uh because that's that's there's that's a bigger, much bigger change, bigger implications.

There's a lot more work that needs to be done uh trying to design like what is that criteria look like for substantially consistent uh and those types of things, or whether not it's even appropriate, and that's something that's a bigger change that you know, probably the community will want a larger say in too.

Um and then like just kind of what are your thoughts on the the sketch plan changes or any other thoughts in general.

Yeah, do you guys have feelings about the neighborhood meeting versus an online forum?

And do you understand what the differences are?

Because we can explain that too because the part of the process of I don't mean it might even be like your second slide where we go through the criteria of what all the steps are, but we're having three touch points, or we're suggesting three touch points for the proposed sketch plan, and a neighborhood meeting is just that, right?

They tell seven, you know, everybody within 750 feet that this is happening, and they go to some location, usually it's confluence or something over here, and they present what they're proposing and they get feedback and they have to collect that feedback and kind of carry it through.

The intent to develop puts a little bit more on us on staff.

We get like a conceptual level drawing, and we post it on our website and it goes for 10 days, and whatever comments we get through that period is what we get.

So they do the same mailing notice.

Yeah, the same mailing notice, right?

Yeah, so um, but it's it's a little different, a little less in like a little less formal than actually.

What keeps you from doing both both in this day and age?

Yeah.

Nothing other than like honestly, like the I think that there's been like it's it's also um it's also a little bit confusing to our like I think the residents, right?

Like when we have an application, we've had one come through where they probably had three different neighborhood meetings and three different attempts to develops, and they really haven't moved that far along in the process.

And every time we have a new neighborhood meeting, there's an expectation that something's changed, and it really hasn't.

Um so um, but that's you know, associated with an annexation.

So I just think that you're not getting a lot of different comments and really the purpose of the sketch plan, like is to hear from planning commission and just and from city council.

Like it's it's it's really optics.

And whether or not the public feels different about coming to a neighborhood hearing or a public meeting versus a public hearing, because all the the differences is whether the comment before the presentation is made or part of the presentation, then it becomes part of the public record.

But again, non-binding decision, so it's a little hard to put in my mind to attach a public hearing label to that meeting, but we can if it if it helps.

Those are the kind of things we want to make sure we get feedback from you before we come forward with a proposed code language.

Well, the difference is a neighborhood meeting is the public to look the developer in the eye and ask them questions.

Whereas you do that online intend to develop or whatever, I mean it's a very removed process.

They can look at something, but they can't really ask a question.

But some people would much prefer that and they will they will sit there and really dive into those drawings and then they will have a response or they will and so I think I think I mean I it may be more work.

It then both are important, it seems to me that both serve their own.

Well, one option would be to have an intent to develop through the sketch plan and then a neighborhood meeting through the preliminary plan.

It's it's just you get a neighborhood meeting that I mean the neighborhood meeting is gonna happen at the preliminary plan, or you actually require them to do both at the preliminary plan and really kind of lighten the load for the sketch plan because like Jake said, it's kind of a temperature check.

Like a lot of these things that drive a sketch plan are things that either are an annexation or something that's bigger, and like they're wondering whether or not planning commission supports something, or city council supports something before they go in and spend lots of money to to you know, like whether or not they're headed the right direction.

There there are other options too.

We could we could advertise a neighborhood meeting, and this will this will be much easier when we have our new case management software.

We could notice the uh the neighborhood meeting, and we could include you know, a link or uh uh uh what's the what's what's the QR code?

QR code, the thing that's COVID saved, uh the QR code into the letter, or do something like that that refers back to the case that they can go on our uh on our public-facing case management software, and then they would be directed that if they have comments uh respond within X number of days and and have that.

So there's yeah, there's something we could do to capture the people that can't.

Yeah, it's the same the same reason that we want to allow people to to be part of the public hearing online for these meetings because people that can't get to a neighborhood meeting because they've got kids to take care of, or they are disabled, or what you know, they're having that both of both of those ways to do things.

I just would hate to take away one places for input.

I don't want to do like virtual meeting for neighborhood meetings because that causes huge problems because we want to have a close to the that's not me but I just need to be able to virtual to to opine digitally or or go to the well and their advantages.

Some people can't make it that night or they don't feel comfortable.

There's other reasons.

Yeah, imagining your um conveyo kind of thing you've done, you know, just giving people a way to comment on something if they can't attend, but also giving them an opportunity to attend seems like seems like the right thing to do in 2025.

It also is like you know, some of our I mean, not uh not everybody that does these are big developers, that's something else consider 750 feet.

Uh, what did we have in that last one?

An old town 400 addresses, 400 in some addresses, and having to do that twice the way it's currently.

I mean, we could bake it into maybe one pro one letter too.

There's things we could do, but uh you know, there's diminishing returns too, especially at this early in the process, which was Stephen was getting too when they're really trying to get in front of the decision makers, they're gonna hear from the public and they're gonna know what the public's concerns are, regardless if we if we do it at a neighborhood meeting or intent to develop or both, they're gonna hear the big issues uh and and have to address them.

But what they really want to know in the sketch plan is what do you think and what a city council think?

But I I can tell you um with with great confidence that there's going to be a lot of people upset if they take away neighborhood meetings on the sketch plan.

I don't think that's we're not yeah, we're not we don't and I'm not um yeah, we don't think that's important.

We don't want to take away the neighborhood meeting.

The most people it seems to me, and I can be correct if I'm wrong.

We have better comments and more turnout at neighborhood meetings than we do with the intent to develop.

Yeah, can you guys talk through you know not asking you to pull up a spreadsheet, but those intent to develop pages like generally how many people do we have commenting on each project?

Laura would probably have a better idea on that intent to develop how many and it might it might swing wildly depending on the project too.

But it does mean it's controversial a lot, a lot being like a hundred or yeah, let's say yeah, and it you know the other factor is is administratively the intent to develop is a much bigger burden on staff, and so it's like where do we allocate our resources to is are we better off spending it doing development review and writing staff reports and presentations and all that versus I think a lot of people have the impression that oh, if I just I make a you know that it's it should these digital tools that we have should be pretty simple to gather that information, but apparently that's not the case.

So you've got to make it this is one of the there's a give back to that accessibility where you've got to make every page accessible in some and that's a little there's there's a I think bringing that to light and making sure everybody understands what that lift means because people just if if you don't have that people just say, well, why why aren't you allowing everybody the the way to communicate their their voice that they need?

So um I don't have an understanding of what that looks like, but I've heard about it, so I'd like to know.

Um so how you are you gonna do the public commenting?

Is that gonna change when public's been allowed to comment during a review?

Is that gonna be during proposed sketch?

For yeah, they'll comment at a meeting, yeah.

Like the same way.

So that's part of what we're asking.

Like you would hear it kind of like the folks that commented on the hotel prior to a meeting.

Oh no, that's just general public hearing.

Right.

So that's that's a public meeting, right?

That's the only time they would have it.

If we want to have a public hearing, then we would pause during our presentation and that's our PC review and comment will be a public hearing under or it could be a public meeting, but you can use that information because you're not making a decision with that information.

You're just giving them feedback.

So if there's something they said that, like, oh, that's a good point.

Like that's we I should include that.

There would be nothing I that would preclude you from being able to do that.

The sketch plan and preliminary preliminary would be a preliminary hearing.

So the sketch plan is the only thing that's a question.

That's PC action in that column.

So then we are taking action, so therefore, that's the current, that's the current system.

I thought I was like, dang it, I had another mistake in there.

And then I saw current.

So that's that's what we are dealing with today.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were.

I think I wow, we're just giving random feedback.

I think the hearing, I like the hearing better because I didn't I learn a lot in the presentations.

It feels really detached, and people give comment before they've had the benefit of hearing from the applicant.

So if it's if it's a sort of a toss-up, you know, I I think it makes more sense when they've gotten a chance to hear the presentation and then respond to it.

Isn't that a strongly held feeling?

Yeah, no, and one of the I mean kind of desires is to remove that murkiness.

So probably move more towards public hearings where we can and not have I mean, there's gonna be like we don't have an opportunity, like we don't have an application to present to you tonight.

That's gonna be their only avenue for it.

But if it is like it is kind of awkward, and we have these ones where like the PUD technically is what drew drove the public hearing tonight.

A spar is a public meeting, right?

And never the two show mix.

I'd rather it just be consistent and we don't have to tell a resident that yeah, you can talk about this, but you can't talk about that.

It just doesn't make any sense.

So um we're we're kind of leaning that way anyway.

But that I'm I appreciate your guys' um opinions and feedback on what that actually helps from that side of the table.

So other thoughts, any um, I just want to reiterate the how much of this process is beginning to be codified in the new in the draft land use code.

Um I have not been able to look at it in the last few weeks, so I'm just curious to hear we're still working our way through the process section, but this is kind of the direction we've given and stuff.

So and some of it came as you know, result of kind of the the last asylum one and lessons learned and stuff.

So uh we're that's our intent to head there, but again, there's lots of public process left.

And the recommendation from our consultant was to not have um, like just for the sketch plan was to not have a um the public form, sorry.

Yeah, intent to develop yeah, intent to develop piece to just have the neighborhood meeting.

So that's where they are suggesting we go with that.

And they're also suggesting I think they we use the terms uh review and comment, they're just talking about feedback.

So like that's what their table reflects right now.

So once we get to that stage for you guys to provide that, like we'll want to know what language makes more sense for the general public to kind of understand, or if it really matters at all.

But um, they're trying to, or their recommendation is kind of right sizing a sketch plan for it not sounding definitive, right?

It's just uh a process for you guys to comment more informally on an application.

So the way silo then was handled, of course, went back to the city council.

City council came and told them no or told them you need to do this.

They they restated a lot of you know reaffirmed the planning commission's thoughts and told them they could remove sorry, remove move on to preliminary.

So it's kind of like I guess under our current language it would have been like approved with conditions kind of uh but that's we want to move away from that.

Uh but that's we want to move away from that.

Do you have any indication if they're doing that or not?

Uh we met with them once uh and they have definitely made some changes around uh units and and mixes and stuff like that.

Uh it was a preliminary kind of meeting.

I don't know.

Do you have anything else to add on that?

Uh they pinned down ADUs a little bit more, committed to a certain number of ADUs, I believe.

And uh yeah, I mean, they we've I think essentially had a pre-application meeting to keep them going on their preliminary plan.

Um, and they indicated that they were intent on moving forward with that preliminary plan.

Um so um we'll do that as soon as we have an application.

Because is that when when our sketch plan remand got appealed and went back up, then they they still didn't have a binding, their decision wasn't binding either, even though it went to the correct correct.

Yeah, if there's something that comes up that wasn't mentioned at preliminary, you know, that doesn't preclude you from from bringing up the topic that wasn't mentioned, like that you still have that ability.

So yeah.

Yeah, and that's I mean, so the second piece of this, like, and again, we don't we're trying to move away from PUD, so it's kind of hard to talk about uh the submittals for a sketch plan or a preliminary plan.

Um, if we don't have that, I think we'll have that for affordable housing and a few things anyway, but the the size of the application is one of the things that I kind of also recognize is like basically for a sketch plan because it has every application component that you guys get with the traditional development review application and every application component that the public usually sees, it looks and feels a lot more baked, right?

And it's not supposed to be.

So I think we'll probably try to figure out like and it's similar to what we're talking about with getting a preliminary plan designed to a certain level.

It's just much earlier on in the process where we're we want to right size that and get it to like you need to know X, Y, and Z in order to comment on this, and they don't necessarily have to have a landscape design.

Like we're gonna have landscape standards, and we're gonna they're gonna be current, and like their densities and amounts and dedications are all gonna be set.

And if they're meeting that requirement, that should be great.

And if they're not, then they need to talk to you about it and get some feedback.

Otherwise, it really shouldn't be part of that initial conversation.

We should be talking about the elements Jake went over, you know, densities, height, um, you know, mixing uses, that kind of thing.

So but does that make sense to everybody?

Pre-baked.

What?

Pre-baked.

Pre-baked.

Yeah.

Can't get off the bakery.

Is the preliminary plan too late in that in the process for us to be delivering the kind of feedback that you've heard us try tend to deliver?

I mean, in my preliminary, if it's a preliminary plan, you know, then that implies that it's a PUD, right?

So that implies that they're gonna be asking for some trade-offs from our code, which also means that we can ask for some trade-offs from their design.

So that does give you more discretion, and that's also a reason to get it to you earlier in the process so that you can make those comments and they can make and they can make those changes, or or not, try to argue, but you know, they theoretically they would make those changes uh and and incorporate that.

So it hopefully gives you you know, you're not seeing things at like a spar level where it's it's gone through numerous reviews and it's demonstrated it meets you know our approval criteria, you know, it's a little different with the PP.

So you'll have that opportunity, hopefully.

There's nothing else we can move on to discussion.

So I I tried, I tried to get a second meeting or re-schedule that first meeting in October because the eighth is canceled for the religious holiday.

I can't pronounce it, so I'm not gonna try.

Uh thank you.

And uh I learned stuff about Frank after sending out that email.

Yeah, I'm a Semitic neo-pagan.

Apparently, that's one of the groups that celebrate that.

So I said, um hang in.

Much like I did with this email, I'm moving on to the next topic.

Uh so I looked at the 15th, and uh Frank once again came in handy and pointed out that the youth advisory uh committee was having a hearing that or is having a meeting in this in these chambers and it was a candidate forum, so they were filming it.

Yeah, and you know what, we can't we can't kick them out apparently.

So we lost that, so we're gonna just be proceeding with the 22nd.

We do have a sketch plan that we think will be moving forward that date, and then uh we're hoping to have uh one additional spar also uh on on that night's agenda.

So we'll see.

If we're fast, we've got the 22nd, not the eighth.

No meeting the eighth, no meeting the 15th.

We weren't able to schedule that, so only the 22nd.

Yeah, and we're fine if we're fast enough, we might get the sketch plan update language to you so we can advance it to council because it gets tricky getting anything in front of council uh during an election year.

So um getting that to them in November because you've got to do first and second readings and you do for any yeah, code change ordinance, yeah.

So gotta be the same group.

Yeah, exactly.

So yeah, I don't I think I noted this.

I have uh I'll be flying back from a work champ on the 22nd, so theoretically I'll be here, but if there's a channel issues, I would so I don't know if you'd need me to know.

I haven't heard we haven't there's anybody else have concerns.

You that was the 15th you were gonna be gone.

You're gonna be in bed the 20, whatever number we're saying.

Second box.

I mean, yeah, it sounds like we'll have quorums, I don't think it'll be an issue.

Change the nobody nobody office is on here anymore.

And yet you're gonna be building a brand new building.

We'll see.

Um to your point about the 25 versus 20 feet, it was all over the place and everything.

Yeah, uh and that's because our code says it can be 25 or 20, depending on the classification of the street.

Uh low we had this conversation a little bit.

Uh public is clearly not an arterial.

Uh if it's a collector, it's 25.

If the local is 20.

However, we've moved away from defining streets with using the old terminology of local collector arterial.

And our code hasn't been updated to reflect that.

And I think that led to some confusion, and I think different people thought of it differently, and that's why you saw it used interchangeably, and I do apologize.

So that's that's kind of how that came out.

I noticed I was like, okay, it sounds the 20 there, 25 there.

Uh, but so yeah, the code the code allows each.

And in my mind, I think you can make an argument either way whether public is a is a local or collector.

Uh the number of I just mean the comment because it's we appreciate the numbers change every few pages.

Yes.

That's consistent in the I think it was pretty consistent in the staff report, and it got a little different in the resolution versus the presentation.

So uh yeah, apologize.

Uh it is both.

So we just have to determine what the classification of public is.

So you need to hire a proofreader or something.

We are proofreading a lot and doing a lot of staff reports, and you know, we're doing our best, and we're still we're still improving.

Uh unfortunately we'll get there never be perfect.

Um if it was perfect, what would you do?

Those are the part.

Yeah, yeah.

And and you know what?

I encourage you if you see something early, like get it.

Let us let us know early, and we can at least get it in the record at the at the beginning and say, you know, yes, there was a there was an error on page seven of the staff report, it should read this and this.

Like we appreciate that, and then we can read it into the record the correction.

You know, it doesn't look great for us, you know.

Two other ones.

There's some there's uh there's a really great software out there, it's called AI.

Help them have a lot of ones, grammarly.

So yeah, there's different people that have different thoughts on AI and how well they like their writing going through AI, but uh yeah, yeah.

How does our council feel about use putting our our language through AI not in the public meeting anyway?

Um other um commissioner comments or is there anything else that we yeah um umSAP had its monthly meeting and um they had uh both the city administrator there and the new CFO, and they had a financial update where they review both the two funds, the legacy and the post in terms of where they are now and what how much money they have, and uh kind of rebalance the funds a little bit.

They're now also initiating a review of their existing property list in terms of some properties were bought, so they have to kind of review and kind of re-number priorities as it were based based on that.

Uh coming up, they're gonna be um scheduling a joint meeting with the Erie open space, and Erie is indicated that it is very interested in cooperating with Lafayette on a potential open space buys certain properties adjacent to baseline leading down.

Um their mayor is actually indicated some interest in that as well, but uh our our group is not at that point yet.

Uh over 400 people attended the migratory bird fest.

So that was a very successful um operation by the group.

And then coming up this Saturday, there is an open space day.

Um couple hours on Cole Creek where I'll be volunteer and we'll do some tree planting.

Um that's it.

All right.

Any other committee reports or commission comments?

All right.

Um any other department comments.

I mean, I guess I would just encourage you guys if there's anything else you want to talk about.

I know we've the other thing besides uh sketch plan application that's been talked about as it was tonight is architecture, and what when we get into the that section of the code, or if you want to just talk about where it stands now and what we're you know where we should land, but I think everyone understands that it's pretty subjective right now, and so if we want harder and faster regulations uh to impose, then we need to get that through the land use code update.

Um but if you guys have any questions, or if you want to have another session where we talk through it and then just reach out to us.

So is there is there current language on in the code now?

So the code is really trying to work towards the phone form-based standards, and that's not something we've had a draft to review yet, and we've gotten snippets of where that's headed, and and that's gonna be a lift because it's a new um new approach to it, but it's also gonna be um you know for new development or redevelopment, but not like necessarily for existing um development or you know, we're gonna have to draw the line, it's probably gonna be a complete redevelopment that would allow for a form-based code kind of or maybe an addition of a certain size.

Um, but those are the things that we'll have to, and that's really about more massing than it is about like finishes and um, but it would talk about window placement and some of the stuff that we talk about now.

But um, but yeah, I just want to make sure that you guys are comfortable with both I guess what we can regulate at this time and then also um where we're headed, and make sure that if you want a significant change that or you're expecting a significant significant change that that's actually captured through the code update.

So yeah, I think that as that language comes up, we'll just have to have to review it and um yeah, understanding that things that are subjective still need review and oversight, even though they are subjective and that people will disagree that it's still something to wrestle with.

So yes, no, I think we don't have design guidelines that are that robust, right?

And so um, if we want to have something that's uh something we can hang our hat on, and we're not you know we're reaching or you know, having a harder time like putting the condition to compatible, right?

Like, and then the the thing that I guess I always struggle with with Lafayette in general, right?

Is that we have like this desire to be eclectic and it's listed in our car plan.

And there's there's eclectic and then there's messy, right?

Yeah, so uh right, and there's no definition, right?

And so there and and some developments very subjective.

Yeah, I mean, all and it may be that like I mean, I think we're finding a lot, like when we look at old town, is that our regulations like need to be different for old town.

Then that's part of the reason why we have all these PD allowances for downtown.

But if it was somewhere else, we may not be that tolerant of them.

Um but it's historically, yeah.

We have an example, yeah.

And this is sorry, this you you you you started it with.

No, I didn't, I didn't as an example.

I I had strong opinions about whether or not the old King Supers should be painted, and I felt very strongly that it shouldn't be.

I understand that the the you know they chose to go ahead and paint it, and that's an example of like if you looked at all the masonry in that area, it was somewhat consistent, it had a consistent tan look, it had a it was built at a similar time.

The library is here, the small strip mall, you know, the the King Supers, and now you've got an inconsistency, and so you've got a building that's very large and all painted, and so things like that, there's there's no language that we could consider that at you know, and it was just um it's it's it's hard to to make a consistent place and without you know, I don't want to be too too prescribed, but it be you begin to get this hodgepodge effect, and you can't take paint off masonry, it's a it's a very permanent thing, and so um here we have this kind of development that had a certain era that had a certain consistency right at the major intersection in our town and doesn't have that anymore.

Well, and the the the reason for that is that that original entitlement didn't require it, yeah.

Yeah, like it is it had six conditions and they were mostly related to parking.

I think there were one like setback thing.

So as we go through applications, if that consistency or like if what we were promised, right, or or offered, and if it's not actually like codified through that approval, then you don't have that ability.

So it's the timing of it, right?

Like our regulations like just in and of themselves, the code doesn't say that you can't paint a building, but if you had a PUD or if you had a specific development plan for a certain area and you they were aiming for consistency and you want to have that continue beyond the initial build, that has to be built into that approval.

So and there's ways to do that.

It's just we have to also reconcile a lot of like what seem to be kind of competing objectives.

And if we're eclectic and we're prescriptive, you know, like what's the right balance, right?

So well and it's about it's about that harmonious, you know, how can you encourage harmonious materials and not you know, so it's it is very it is some very specific language, and I realize planners aren't architects and vice versa.

So um it's hard to find, and I don't I don't know where to what would be some good, I guess maybe that's a question for the consultants.

What is some good codes that we can look at um as examples as precedents that have found a way to to find this language still allow for design, you know, um differences and and creativity, but to have you know a little bit more cohesion so that you don't yeah, and it might be that you know development of a certain size that cohesion is what you want, and if it's you know I don't know what the size is, but for downtown it's 7,000 square feet generally, right?

Or one property at a time, like it when you have that ownership up front, like collective, like you can make those decisions, but when it's a 7,000 square foot lot next to another 7,000 square foot lot and they're different ownership, like it's not the first person necessarily in the door that gets to set the architectural.

But we're gonna have we're gonna have a lot of these info projects, and we know that we're gonna have a lot of this.

So how can we help guide without dictating what these designs look like so that we can make sure?

And I think you know, sidewall articulation is one of those things and massing, and and um there's lots of those ways that it can be done.

Um color and paint and those things do have impact too, right?

So hard to recognize it was just a it's a lot of paint, it's a very large building and it has big impact.

Yeah, yeah.

Anybody else have any comments?

You want to talk about alleys or anything?

You know, we both have our things.

We all have our things.

All right, uh, would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?

Sorry, all right.

We are adjourned, thank you all.

First, you were gonna sit down.