All right, I'd like to call to order the meeting of Lafayette Planning Commission for January 21st, 2026.

Maybe we have roll calls.

Yes.

Chair Thomas.

Here.

Vice Chair Phillips.

Here.

Commissioner Herejee.

Here.

Commissioner Lehman.

Here.

Commissioner Metler.

Yep.

Commissioner Watson.

Here.

Commissioner Wilson.

Here.

Thank you.

All right.

First off, we have public input.

If we have any members of the public that wish to speak regarding items that are not scheduled for a public hearing, if you're here for anything other than our main agenda item, um, please fill out a speaker request form in front of the podium.

I don't believe there will be any of those, so we'll move on to the next item on the agenda.

Approval of minutes for December 10th, 2025.

Um, do we have a motion on approval for those meeting minutes?

We have a motion to a second.

I'll circumvert.

All right.

Meeting minutes for December 10th are approved.

Um we have um, I'd like to see if we could get consensus.

We have election of chair and vice chair this evening, but we'd like to see if we can move this item to the last item on the agenda, just for the purposes of the public.

Is everyone in agreement?

Okay.

All right, so we will move on to public hearing um regarding the sketch plan this evening.

Um public hearing for sketch plan application for a mixed-use development at the southwest corner of Arapahoe Road and U.S.

Highway 287, known as the range at Lafayette.

This was noticed in the Daily Camera on January 9th, 2026.

Planning commission will review and provide comments on this application.

We'll consider the record, which includes planning's uh city planning staff's report, presentations by the applicant and the city's planning staff, and any public comment received during the hearing or um prior to the hearing as part of the record.

Commission will evaluate this proposal based solely upon the record and the applicable criteria established under the municipal code, which are highlighted in the staff report.

Commission's role this evening is to review and provide comments on the application.

The comments we provide will be documented by staff and provided to city council before its review of the sketch plan.

Following City Council's public hearing on the sketch plan, planning staff will compile the planning commissions and city council's comments and provide those to the applicant.

All right.

Um I'll be doing the staff introduction and then we'll have the applicant's presentation.

That'll be followed by the staff analysis.

And then there will be the public hearing and testimony, opportunity for the commission to ask questions of the applicant and staff.

And then finally, there'll be time for review and feedback.

The range at Lafayette, formerly known as Kensington, is located southwest corner of Arapaho Road and U.S.

Highway 287.

It is currently in unincorporated Boulder County, and an annexation application has been submitted to the city, which will be reviewed later on in this process.

The property is within the urban growth boundary for the city of Lafayette, and the comprehensive plan designates the land use as adaptable commercial when it is to be developed.

I'm going to go over the proposal just really very briefly here, but it is proposed for mixed use development.

It's 40 acres in size, and that is kind of the gross area of the size of the site currently.

Once it there is right of way dedicated to the city that will shrink down to approximately about 34 acres.

You can see the residential units there in yellow and orange, and there are a total of 448 of them.

They are in townhome condominiums and also multifamily.

And then there is a total of 157 square foot of commercial space, more or less, and that consists of the large format commercial, and then you can also see the standalone commercial pad sites along U.S.

Highway 287.

And then if you notice, there's also another commercial piece on the corner of one of those multifamily buildings there, a little space there right along the major street that runs through the middle of the property.

One other thing to point out is in the southwest of the corner where you see that gray rectangle.

That is for future development.

It's a one-point acre site, and the use has not yet been identified.

The application has some contemplated code modifications, and that will be from the Lafayette zoning code that's allowed under a PUD application.

And for residential development, we're looking at a proposal that includes some building setbacks along Arapahoe Road and U.S.

Highway 287.

Building height, and that would be varying heights of up to 60 feet for the residenti units where 35 feet is allowed within the underlying zone district of R4, and lock coverage.

For commercial development, there are no modifications requested.

But the future commercial development down there in that southwest corner is they're requesting up to 60 feet.

Again, more 35 feet is allowed with the underlying zone district of R4.

So the sketch plan purpose and process.

But it is an opportunity to review a development concept early in the process in order to identify major issues.

And the sketch plan provides a forum for not only staff but the community and appointed officials to provide feedback to the applicant again early in the process.

Later, there will be an opportunity once future applications are submitted to the city that will have more detail and the engineering and various reports, including drainage and traffic studies.

So there'll be more analysis and presentation at that time.

For this meeting, there is a public hearing and testimony, but there will be no PC motion.

Rather, the planning commission and the community will provide feedback to the applicant such that they can provide direction to the applicant for what they'd like to see in future applications.

So just to go over what we have, and we don't have in a little bit more specificity, specificity.

Close enough.

Okay.

I think I can say that word right now.

We have sketches of the site plan.

The uses generally have been identified.

The code modifications that the applicant is requesting at this time are identified in the plan.

And there's public land dedication on the site.

We'll be talking about that.

And there's a preliminary utility plan.

And it's, I think it's important to note that again, we don't right now have a traffic study architectural elevations for detailed utilities or other engineering.

That will come again later with the preliminary plan.

And then we have a note here at the bottom.

The sketch plan does not bind the planning commission or city council to approve the preliminary plan, nor does it confer on the applicant any vested rights.

So just once again, it's preliminary review, looking for your feedback before the engineering goes into the plan.

The staff has identified six key topics for feedback.

And this was really generated through the staff's review of the site plan.

Um look at the comprehensive plan, the criteria for the planned unit development PUD and feedback that we've received from the community.

It has a certain amount of complexity to it.

And I wanted to say that the staff has provided the applicant with a 16-page comment letter already that details a lot of the more technical aspects as well as some of the aspects that we're going to see tonight.

And what staff wanted to do was to help focus the commission on some of those key topics that we feel are most necessary for the applicant to receive good feedback.

So the commission can ask anything, but we are specifically looking for discussion on the following items.

So that's going to be zone districts and the appropriateness of those, compliance with a comprehensive plan, building heights, and then we have commercial intensity and residential density, diversity of housing types, and public land dedication.

We'll be getting into those in the analysis section.

And so now I turn it over to the applicant for their presentation, and then I'll be back with a staff analysis.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you all for joining us tonight and allowing us to present our project.

Before we dive in, just a couple of quick introductions.

Again, I'm with Kensington.

We're the contract purchaser of the site and the developer of the site.

But they'll be here if we have any questions or need their specific expertise on anything.

We did dive deep into the details with in terms of questions or feedback.

Tonight's presentation will start with some background, a couple items that Andrea already hit in a little bit more detail.

We'll go through some regional contextual items.

Look at that legacy Lafayette comprehensive plan, and then get into the details in terms of project overview, the zoning and the plat, residential details, some parking, circulation connectivity, and then the public land and some landscaping items as well.

I'll have some additional points, and then we'll be happy to answer any questions and look forward to your feedback as well.

So, like Andrea said, the southeast corner of Arapahoen 287 is where the project is located.

It's also bordered on the west side with the future Aspen Ridge Road, and then on the south by Lucerne.

It does have two parcels that we're referring to as the range at Lafayette Annexation number one, which is the larger parcel, and the range at Lafayette Annexation number two.

And again, those are based on that annexation submissions that have achieved substantial compliance up until the point.

The existing conditions on the site, it's currently zoned agricultural in unincorporated Boulder County and does have the single family home in the northwest corner with some existing outbuildings as well.

Looking at a little bit of the broader contacts context through the Lafayette comprehensive plan, you can see where the site's located in that blue square on the upper right-hand corner of the diagram.

A few things to note, it is currently outside the city limits, which is why we're going through that annexation process.

It's within the urban growth boundary, and it is designated as adaptable commercial.

The red circle in that area denotes a community gateway, just in terms of it being at the corner of what will be the edge of Lafayette should the property get annexed into the city.

One being Arapaho Road, and the second being the North South Highway 287.

And both of those items, the community gateway and the enhanced transit corridor, have provided some input to how we have laid out the site and the mix of uses on the site.

So just understanding we understand how important the comprehensive plan is to designate and provide direction on development in Lafayette.

And so throughout the design process, we've really tried to focus in on a few of the planning frameworks and the a few of the subsets.

So creating that connected community through the multi-use mobility, enhancing a strong economy by providing a diversity set of housing and building strong economic impact through diversification of retail opportunities.

And then supporting community character through the opportunity of neighborhood design and providing opportunities to utilize Lafayette Arts and Culture.

And then finally trying to advance that environmental stewardship by making sure we're designing around infrastructure resiliency, sustainability, and health and wellness via the amenities on site and opportunities for retail that supports healthy options.

Within that adaptable commercial designation on the comprehensive plan, we've worked to incorporate some of those urban design principles, being integrating the residential and the retail together, encouraging that residential over retail building structure, creating some attractive streetscapes, and then using the standalone residential areas as a transition to adjacent neighboring communities.

As we move through the details of the site, hopefully that becomes a clear picture of how we've utilized these points in determining the site plan.

So a bit of the project overview just in a little bit more detail.

So as Andrea noted, the site is 36, just over 36 acres in total.

That does include about two acres of public right-of-way dedication around the outside adjacent to Arapaho and Highway 287.

Moving from left to right along the eastern portion in that yellow color is 105 three-story townhomes with proposed tuck under garages.

Is the proposed multifamily.

Those are four stories in the center that step down to three stories on the book ends outside of the L-shaped building, which is entirely four stories, but does have first floor retail along the bottom of it, as denoted in that red.

You can also see a few of the gray boxes.

Those are standalone single-story garages as well as the amenity center that's in the center of those multifamily buildings.

The dark red around the outside and towards the bottom is the retailers.

That is 156,000 square feet of retail approximately.

There's the specialty grocer, which is in the south east corner, and then additional outlots, and again that first floor boutique retail opportunity at the bottom of the multifamily building.

The site access, there is a single access onto 287 with a new access that would be a right in right out.

And then there's obviously the Lucerne access.

There's two points accessing Lucerne to the south.

That East West Drive intersects the future Aspen Ridge Road, which will provide the only northern access onto Arapahoe Road.

And so considering our access points and just the you know the enhanced transit nature that the comprehensive plan designates that Arapaho Road and Highway 287.

We've really tried to lay out the site to acknowledge that and then to incorporate the surrounding areas.

Um, so the goal is to mirror the retail that uh is situated to the east and then to the south as well, and then try to quickly transition that with that multi-use building to the higher density residential before transitioning and stepping down to the town home product that would provide continuity with the future development of the silo project to the west.

So the proposed zoning obviously, as uh Andrea pointed out, um, three really three zoning districts that's currently proposed, P being the public land dedication area, which we'll discuss momentarily, uh, and then two others the residential R4 and the C1 commercial.

The R4 district, which includes both that town home and the multifamily area, um, we're requesting some targeted variances across the setbacks, the height, the density, and the coverage.

Um we acknowledge in staff's report that some of those setbacks may need to be adjusted and changed based on the traffic study and how the actual interior roads are designated.

Um, so that that process will be adjusted and acknowledged once we have that full traffic study completed.

Um the density requirements is noted at 42 for the dwelling unit on the multifamily, and just to clarify, we did take the current uh number of units, so 443 by just the area that's comprised of that uh multifamily building, not of the whole site.

So that is driving up the density calculation as it is based on the individual lots and not necessarily the whole area.

Um the two height variances for the multifamily uh and the townhomes, the townhomes are contemplated at three stories, and again, the the multifamily is contemplated at four stories.

Some of those architectural details obviously were in the conceptual stage.

Um, so we're working through what that maximum height is, and that's currently designated as you know what's the highest architectural feature that we're projecting over those uh current conceptual elevations.

So the hope is that as we move through the design process and hone in on some of those items like the height of the gabled roof or the height of the pitch roof, um, we're able to reflect that in whatever request we're making.

But this is the maximum height that we're contemplating with those architectural features.

Um additionally, you know, with the the multifamily apartment buildings, really the desire is those center sections and the else, the L building to be four stories.

Um, and the intent behind that is to try to achieve some additional goals throughout the site.

Um, so that strategic use is trying to include things like appropriate outdoor space, green space, uh outdoor area and amenities, supporting the comprehensive plan by providing those mixed-use buildings, so with the residential over the retail, um, adding a diversity of housing by being able to include the townhomes and also supply affordable housing within the project as well, and then all while working in with the requirements of the potential retail users, which we're trying to bring in super high value retail users, and typically they have site requirements which include parking and overall site designation.

So we believe that utilizing some strategic height increases uh will allow us to achieve multiple of those goals throughout the comprehensive plan as it influences the site.

The C1 zoning district, there are two designations.

So the overall C1 doesn't have any proposed variances, and then the C1 for the future development does have that increased height.

Um so it's it should just be noted that the staff report we acknowledge requested additional information on that future development.

We are the contract purchaser for this site, and there is at this stage the intent is that the underlying landowner maintains ownership of that parcel.

And so there is we're working with them to provide some additional information around that area in future submittals.

And it should be noted that there is a possibility that that C1 district becomes part of the R4 district, but again, we're working with that underlying landowner to provide some additional information.

Just a quick detailing of the proposed subdivision of Platte.

Again, you can see how this is broken up into those commercial lots and residential lots.

And so this is what some of those areas were based on when we talk about coverage and density, where we're taking the total units divided by the individual lot and not necessarily the overarching project.

You can see that the town homes are divided up into two overarching lots, and then those would be kind of minimized as we work towards for sale product for those town homes.

The residential details, again, 105 townhomes, condos, a mix of two, three, and four bedrooms.

The apartments, 443 units, a mix of one, two, and three bedrooms.

And then that important note that provides hopefully that key benefit of justifying the height increase, uh the height variance is providing that 12%, which is 41 units of affordable housing at 80% AMI.

Working through the parking details, you know, the some of those goals that we talked about with green spaces and public amenities, land uses, they have push and pull parking, is obviously a big component of that, and so we're requesting a number of parking variances for the overall parking based in uh both a multifamily apartments and commercial designations.

Um so for the townhomes, um, it would be required that we would provide 263 parking stalls.

We're requesting to provide 252.

Um there are some supplemental spaces that are planned along Aspen Ridge, so that would provide an additional 35.

The apartments, we would be required to provide 605 units.

We're requesting to provide 520.

The commercial space, we would be required to provide 783.

We're requesting to provide 768.

So in total, the site would be required to provide 1,650 parking stalls.

We're requesting to reduce that down to 1,535.

Obviously, there is that supplemental uh 35 plan for Aspen Ridge, um, which would net an overall reduction of 80 spaces.

Just looking at um the vehicular circulation, you can see again the access point on highway 287 coming across the site east-west to connect to uh Aspen Ridge.

The goal of that is to provide parallel parking uh as well as what you see highlighted in yellow, which is a bike lane that we connect to the bike lane that's planned on Aspen Ridge, and then we have the two access points to the south.

Um the comprehensive plan really talks through the grid system, and while we tried to provide that internally with some of the streets, um, we're limited on our access points to the major thoroughfares.

So, in our preliminary conversations with CDOT, um we're limited to just the Aspen Ridge connection and a single access point to uh highway 287, and so really that grid system has to become internal without those external uh interconnections with major thoroughfares.

The pedestrian circulation, um, what we tried to think about is how do people move to the site, um, whether they're coming from neighboring communities, or how do they and how do they move throughout the site once they're in uh internal, whether they're living there or visiting.

So, obviously, we have the connection points with the bike lane that we noted to Aspen Ridge, and then you can see the green uh along the outside and throughout the internal uh residential areas.

That's the extra large multi-use path.

The goal is to provide access for people uh to the connection points to adjacent properties, move them through the uh residential areas, connect them down to the retail spaces, and also make sure that they have access to any potential open space and green space in the area.

It's also worth noting the red circle.

We're contemplating the proposed BRT station that's proposed at this area.

And so the goal is to ensure that there is large format access for those using alternative transit to get to that area both from the site and from outside of the site.

Obviously, that is just a proposed location.

We don't have any additional information from CDOT for the BRT station at this time.

And just looking again, zooming out and how our interconnection relates to the broader community.

You can see that those the bike lanes are planned and do coordinate with adjacent pedestrian activity, the multimodal transportation paths connect into regional trails, both future and current.

We did meet with LOSAD, and we understand that their recommendation is cash and loo.

We would love to hear your feedback as well.

We are just over the public land dedication total by about half an acre.

It should be noted that there's some land area that was not included in the overall calculation.

It was the interior roads, and so the required land dedication may go up just slightly, but we feel the overage is going to cover that, so there wouldn't be any reduction.

It should be noted that we are requesting the 50% reduction for the townhomes and the apartments based on the private amenities.

So you can see those highlighted with the pocket parks and the indoor-outdoor amenity spaces that would take the use of those residents interior to the site.

The overarching public land dedication area is located in that northeast corner.

It is adjacent to the detention pond.

We've had our goal is to activate and amenitize the detention pond itself to provide additional usable area above what would be the normal usage of that pond just to provide additional area around the public land dedication area.

And then the items on the outskirts is just about ensuring public access along the trails into that site and then with the planned BRT station, making sure that there's public access through the public sphere to that proposed BRT station.

In general, the overarching landscaping, it's just noted that we're providing four and a half or the landscaping required, excuse me, is just over four and a half acres.

The overall landscaping provided is just over six and a half.

It's important to note that the commercial is slightly under if we look at that commercial land area from the subdivision, but focusing the landscaping on sort of that main east-west strip, and again for the public uh uses both in the manatee area and specific green space, the uh overarching landscape again is above what would be required.

So, just a few additional points.

Um, it's important to note that you know, while this is the first iteration of the site plan that we're presenting to Planning Commission, it's not the first iteration of the site plan.

Um, we've taken a number of community feedback opportunities and staff feedback in generating this revised site plan.

The previous site plan had significantly higher units and densities with a single purpose residential, and so the goal was you know to iterate and to provide something closer to uh the comprehensive plan goals.

Additionally, um the traffic study and the historical building study are two that will be completed and provided with the preliminary PUD.

Um staff's report notes the desire for the main east-west drive to be a public road, and we just like to note that we're amenable to that being the public road as we move forward.

It's noted as a private drive now with public use, but that's something that can evolve as we continue to work through the design process.

Um, we would like to note one of the main things we heard is uh the traffic uh concerns along Arapahoe, and we'll continue to work with CDOT and coordinate with their plans moving forward and how that may or may not impact the project.

And lastly, we understand that that corner to the north is that potential community gateway as it may become the corner of Lafayette if this property is annexed into the community.

And so while we're still obviously conceptual here at the sketch plan stage, we've tried to integrate the legacy Lafayette comprehensive plan items that we discussed in a project that you know supports that connectivity and mobility provides housing diversity, uh increases economic vitality, and uh provides a neighborhood character for that plot of land, and hopefully creates a meaning for meaningful transition between what is a commercial corridor and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

So thank you for your time.

I know the staff has those discussion items, and so we look forward to hearing your feedback on those items, and obviously we'll be available for questions and comments.

Thanks.

Okay, so on to the analysis, and we'll get to those six identified key elements that we want to discuss just right after quick uh slide on what it is that we use to evaluate the sketch plan, and is the comprehensive plan, the zoning code, and within that zoning code, the PUD regulations.

So the comprehensive plan is the document that sets forth the city's goals, policies, and urban design principles, but not all goals, policies, and dime design principles must be met.

The range has also been evaluated for its alignment with the housing policy and urban design principles for adaptable commercial land use designation.

The zoning code, so zoning districts, um building setbacks, building height back, building height, density, and other zoning provisions are all included in the zoning code, and within the zoning code, all regulations must be met unless they've been modified through the PUD process.

So the PUD is required by the city for a project of this size, and PUDs allow for variations to allow for flexible design and to meet comprehensive plan goals.

So the first key item here is the proposed zone districts.

The applicant is proposing both R4 and C1 as shown here.

And R4 is the residential zip district, C1 is the commercial, and it allows for retail uses.

Do align with what the applicant is proposing for the uses within the site.

The adaptable commercial land use designation does promote mixed use development and adaptable commercial urban design.

The planned unit development criteria allows for variations to the underlying zone district, as just mentioned earlier, and that's to help really foster creative urban design and meet comprehensive plan goals.

So the staff feedback to the um that was included in your agenda memo is that the staff is requesting greater integration of land uses as a result of um the land use designation.

Zone districts may be modified at time of preliminary application, depending on how the site may potentially change.

And the question for the commission is do you agree with staff's feedback or have any additional comments on the proposed zone districts, R4 and C1.

Are you asking us that now or later?

Sorry?

That'll be it'll be later.

We'll have our questions in a little bit.

Okay, so um we get next into the second key element, which is alignment with a comprehensive plan.

And for the adaptable commercial land use designation, there is an evolution of existing commercial development.

As you know, the range is currently a vacant site, except for that existing home on the northwest corner of the property.

But the vision for adaptable commercial is to provide guidance on how large format commercial spaces can be transitioned over time into high quality walkable districts.

Staff feels that the proposal reads most similarly whether they propose to evolution number one, the one on the left.

And there you see where the commercial buildings are generally standalone.

There are large expanses of parking lot, and then kind of in a different area of the property, you do see some other commercial uses and residential uses.

Staff would like to see the applicants strive for a site plan that is closer to evolution two, if not evolution three.

Evolution three also being what the ultimate desire is.

And so what you start to see in evolution two is more integration of uses.

There are fewer standalone commercial sites, and you start to see office and inline retail up there at the front of the property and getting into the back, then we still have an integration similarly to evolution one with residential and commercial.

Evolution three gets further along within that progression where you see the elimination of those kind of standalone commercial sites there and getting into more mixed use, and some of its vertical.

So you see on the bottom of the plan on evolution three, where you have a combination of office and retail, and that may be a two-story building, or it could be potentially just be a one-story building.

So again, staff is looking for something in the future that is closer to evolution two or evolution three, the ultimate design.

Within adaptable commercial, staff has identified six different urban design principles to talk about.

And the first is mobility, and that's about connected network of streets.

And it includes pedestrian bike connections that form the complete mobility network.

And it also talks about with mobility breaking up sites into walkable blocks.

And those two items really go together.

Once you have a network of streets, you're going to that will really necessarily necessitate blocks.

And what the comp plan is saying is those walkable blocks are important in and of themselves.

And in fact, it goes on to talk about an ideal size of about 300 feet for a given side of the block.

The staff feedback on that is that the design should be incorporate what's being talked about by the comprehensive plan, incorporate public streets and allow for a grid to develop, especially not only now, but over time to set the stage so that that evolution can happen.

The second item is streetscape design for the secondary streets.

And the streetscape design takes a look at those streets and pedestrian and bike connections and looks about how to facilitate walking and biking.

And with that comes landscaping and amenities, and they should be should include street trees, planters, public art, and public seating as well.

The staff feedback on this is that the applicant should design the private road, and that we're talking about the private road that runs through the center of the site.

They should consider very strongly looking into creating that as a public street, and the applicant did just talk about that as well, and that it would meet the vision.

It would include the bike lanes, the sidewalks, street trees, and amenities.

Help create that sense of place.

Okay, the next one is building siting.

And here's a lot of emphasis on orienting buildings to those street corners on the grid.

And then there's also the integration of the different uses, residential.

Comp plan talks about residential office entertainment, and that helps to create that activity and vitality once you start integrating the uses rather than separating them out on different sides of the site.

The comp plan talks about standalone residential and in terms of it being accommodated as a transitional land use to surrounding existing neighborhoods.

And as you know, the applicant had put up what is adjacent to this site to the west, and that is the silo neighborhood where there is where there will be more residential neighborhoods to the west there.

Again, the staff feedback talks about greater integration of residential and commercial uses.

And staff has also talked about looking at those pad sites the way they're designed now and combining them to create inline retail to provide some more sense of sense of place.

Right now, as you see them, they are kind of surrounded by a parking lot and not walkable between between them.

Finally, staff recommends that more vertical integration of uses occur on the site, vertical, meaning more than one story with different uses on each floor.

In terms of parking areas, the city encourages minimizing some of those, the size of some of those parking areas, and locating where possible parking to the side or the rear of the buildings.

The amount of surface parking should be reduced through the use of shared parking, and where possible parking should be located to the side of your buildings.

So we are kind of mirroring exactly what the comp plan says here, feeling that that is appropriate for this site.

In terms of retail, the comprehensive plan talks about large format retail being integrated into other uses to form a cohesive development neighborhood.

And that the comp plan says that we should encourage development of residential and office uses above retail spaces.

Staff's feedback to the applicant is, and it was included in your agenda memo, that the large format retail store should be incorporated into the neighborhood through multimodal connections, building siting and amenities.

And we leave that up for the applicant to see how that can be worked through.

Okay.

Okay, on to the next item, which is building height.

And the applicant talked about this a bit, and there's an acrester in to increase the height of the residential spaces of the residential units.

And so we have the multifamily units shown in orange, which are proposed to be up to 60 feet in height.

As the applicant said, you can see on the two edges that they would be lowered from the four stories down to the three stories.

And then we have those townhome condominiums shown in the left.

The applicant is proposing up to 50 feet for those.

And so what you do see is a bit of a transition in height, as talked about in the comprehensive plan of going from taller heights at the center of the property to the adjacent sites.

And so we're going from 60 to 50 across Aspen Ridge Drive in the silo neighborhood, not built yet, but what's been shown on their plans is about 30 to 35 foot residential dwelling units in townhome configuration.

So the comprehensive plan does feel that larger, taller buildings can be blended, and the way it's talked about is can be achieved by careful attention to scale, height, and architectural design.

So we will see more of that with future applications.

The staff is requesting more information on the need for the building height requests.

60 feet for a four-story building.

Does seem potentially more than is needed, but it's again this is just a sketch plan, and so we will get more information on that.

Same thing with the townhomes proposed at 50 feet.

That may potentially come down a little bit as we get further information.

And then staff is encouraging the applicant to further integrate commercial and residential land uses, and that could result in a more evenly distributed building heights.

So another way of looking at things.

The question for the commission is does the commission have any additional comments about the individual building heights proposed or current proposals approach to providing transitions between the different land uses.

Adaptable commercial and the comp plan talks about diversity of housing types.

And the application includes three housing types.

So from the comp plan perspective, we have multifamily and townhome condominiums, but 12% of multifamily units would be affordable.

That word was left out there, sorry, but the 12% would be affordable, and that is considered a housing type as well.

So again, three different housing types.

Staff is encouraging that the 12% multifamily be expanded to cover all of the units within the site.

So it'll be the town home plus the multifamily youths, and 12% based on that total number of you units.

Do you agree with staff?

And are there any additional comments about the level of diversity of housing types or the amount of affordable housing included in the sketch plan?

Public land dedication or PLD can be met through this plan through provision of trails, so you can see located on the perimeter of the property and along it around the corner around that pond or detention area.

The detention area is not included in the calculation.

And the code requirement is that public land dedication be provided at a rate of 15% for residential land, 12% for commercial land area.

The project was brought to LOSAB earlier this month, and LOSAB recommended that the applicant provide cash and loo rather than the proposed location and configuration as shown.

And so that does the commission agree with LowSAB's position.

And I think we want to sort of focus it for the planning commission on is the land shown here for public land dedication suitable.

Is it suitable as PLD?

All right, and then we get into commercial intensity and residential density.

And just to talk about it a little bit, um the comprehensive plan and the code do talk about rent intensity and density.

I think from the staff's perspective, we've talked a lot about having a grid of streets of creating full streets with amenities and civic spaces.

And that is really, I think the way that you can create a good project by creating a sense of place, and it's not maybe so much of a focus on the density numbers themselves, but rather how it can be made into a livable, desirable new neighborhood.

However, the proposal is for 156,000 approximately of retail and uh 763 surface parking spaces, and then we need a little more information to calculate residential density and the lot coverage is proposed to be increased.

You've heard me say this before, but the overall project from staff opinion would be for better integration between commercial and residential land uses, and this would allow for reduced parking, efficient land use of and spread through the density throughout the site.

So does the commission agree with staff's feedback or have any additional comments about the level of commercial density and resident commercial intensity and residential density and the integration of commercial and residential uses and the amount of surface parking proposed.

Okay, so that concludes the staff analysis and in terms of public notification.

The city met requirements with posting the property and notice published in the daily camera, and property owners were notified of the public hearing tonight.

Property owners who live within 750 feet of the property.

The questions for the commission that we went through on the presentation are all listed here on this slide together.

And we do hope that you do focus on these and provide any other comment and thoughts that you do have.

All right.

So moving on to public comment.

Um, at this time we will hear from any interested members of the public who may wish to address the commission about this application.

Um please fill out a speaker from uh speaker form if you have not already and take it to our clerk.

Um so we'll invite the first speaker to the podium would be Karen Norbeck.

Karen Norbeck, 800 East Geneseo.

Good evening.

I'm going to take you on a trip down memory lane.

When I moved here in the 1980s, growth grocery shopping was limited.

Eventually, Albertsons built a store right across the street from here.

Walmart came to town, building next to it and later expanding.

Then Walmart decided a more visible location was needed and planned to move out of town.

Former city administrator Gary Klopaki was hired around this time, and he convinced Walmart to move to its current location.

Albertsons began making noise about moving, and Gary stepped in again and facilitated a new store closer to 287, creating a new shopping center, the Wanaker Marketplace.

To make this happen, the city bought the old Albertsons building.

Then Albertsons left the entire state, leaving behind their two empty boxes.

The new Albertsons finally became Sunflower and then Sprouts, splitting the building with goodwill.

The city tried to fill the Walmart and original Albertsons buildings, but Walmart would not allow any type of competitive retail into its vacant building, so it just sat and sat.

Meanwhile, across South Boulder Road sat another empty box that had been home to a country general store, which had gone out of business.

In 2002, Flat Irons Church signed a five-year lease for the building, a prime retail location against the wishes of the city administration.

The Walmart and Albertson's Plaza continued to sit deserted.

Finally, in a controversial move in 2010, Gary broke at another deal, this time with a growing church, and it took over both buildings, leaving behind another empty storefront, which is now Jack's.

In 2018, Gary made a deal to get a coal store on 287, adjacent to other boxy stores, the new tractor supply and 24 hour fitness, just a stone's throw from Walmart, leaving an empty coals in Lewisville.

Why am I telling you all this?

Because in 2018, the city set out to update our comprehensive plan.

And all this was very much in the forefront of our residents' negative memories.

I served on the city advisory citizen advisory committee for the 2003 comp plan update and also on the COCAC for the update that we now use, completed in 2011.

I attended every meeting, not only of the CAC, but all the meetings for the public to give input.

Right out of the gate, residents were talking about the issue with abandoned big boxes, asking what could be done.

This led directly to the creation of the adaptable commercial typology, which is described as providing guidance and recommendations for how larger format commercial spaces could be developed or evolve into other land uses over time.

It provides prototypes for how these areas could be redesigned as walkable high-quality districts around Lafayette that aligned with the overall urban design principles of the comprehensive plan.

I've attended every Kensington related meeting, beginning with the original plan before Edgar appeared on the scene with this second version.

The first version was bad.

This one is worse.

I've seen Edgar so many times now, we are BFFs.

He's very earnest in these meetings as he shows us the adaptable commercial graphics and points to the one they are trying to replicate.

But that's not how this works.

The graphics show how redevelopment could be achieved.

It's not a pick which version you want to build from scratch option.

The idea is to start with the final graphic so we aren't left with the same situations our residents remember from the past.

Check out page 154 in the comp plan.

It shows the layout of a regular shopping center before evolution into an adaptable commercial area.

It's just like the plan before you tonight, a big box and parking behind a row of commercial paths along an arterial.

I agree with LOSAP.

There is nothing appropriate for a public land dedication.

The proposed PLD is laughable.

The continued use of the term open space in the narrative should be ignored.

Open space is a specific term in Lafayette.

It does not mean little pockets of green within a development.

Regarding the request for a 50% reduction of the PLD for their private amenity, I did some research when Medtronic asked for the same thing and discovered that this code language was written before we had the Bob Berger Rec Center, which perhaps it made a bit more sense.

But an upcoming increase in our property taxes will revamp the rec center and cash in loo is much more valuable to the entire community.

This plan is nine mile corner 2.0.

There is no vision here, nothing unique or creative, just overwhelming height, density, and that strange unknown in the southwest corner.

This is an unacceptable plan.

Thank you.

You may remember seeing those same drawings during last week's land use code meeting during Elizabeth's form-based code presentation.

Those drawings caught my eye last week because I had seen them during Kensington's presentations at their neighborhood meetings.

Edgar Crockett told us that Kensington's site plan was aiming to be between the first and second of those drawings.

I didn't bring this up during our land use uh code meeting because I knew the Kensington presentation was coming before you today, and I didn't want to cause any quasi-judicial issues.

So I talked individually to Elizabeth after the meeting.

I told her about Kensington using these drawings as evidence that they were conforming to the comp plan, and she said no, these drawings are not meant to reflect new development.

Instead, they're meant to show the progression of how an existing big box site can be adapted into an adaptable commercial site.

Nor are these drawings included in the comp plan as a sort of smartest board.

Developers can choose from.

But this development sketch plan is not in keeping with the adaptable commercial aim of the comp plan either.

Another thing we discussed during last week's land use code meeting is affordable housing.

We are hopefully looking at a new land use code that is much more sophisticated in terms of affordable housing fees and incentives than we have now.

But as I see it, the advantage to the current code is that planning commission can recommend and council can determine whether incentives should apply at all in this development.

I've been to all of the neighborhood meetings for this project, and we were told during those meetings that the developer is asking for four-story buildings as an incentive to build affordable housing.

Tonight we heard from Ken, we heard that Kensington also wants that incentive in order to provide minimal public amenities, including a PLD that wasn't endorsed by LOSAP.

Kensing is Kensington is proposing building 12% of its 343 apartments at 80% AMI affordability, and none of its 105 townhomes.

If I did the right math right, that's 41 affordable apartments out of 448 total housing units or 9% affordable, which is substantially lower than the city and county's 12% goal.

Earlier today, I sent an analysis I had written about affordability and incentives to staff to send to you, and I see that it's now in your packet.

Basically, what it said is that market rental rates for apartments at Nine Mile Prana and Avalon next to City Hall rent for hundreds of dollars less per month than the maximum rents allowed at 80% AMI using Chaffa's Affordable Housing 2025 income limit and maximum rent tables for Boulder County.

So in essence, Kensington is asking for multiple buildings that are between 15 and 25 feet taller than allowed under code to build so-called affordable apartments that they can legally rent for more than the market rate apartments at nine mile just across the street.

Why would we give them that?

Thank you.

Next up we have Preston Patton.

Hi, my name is Preston Patton.

I live at 2389 Indian Peaks Trail in Lafayette.

Just a couple of comments before I start my prepared remarks.

They're asking for almost double the city's height limit in its code.

Using a Yiddish term, all I can say is what Hutzpa.

And I heard a lot about residential over retail.

Right behind this building, there's a large apartment complex with residential above and retail on the ground floor.

It's been there, I don't know, three, four years, and there's exactly one retail space rented.

So maybe there's something wrong with that concept.

And the third point I wanted to make has to do with bait and switch by developers.

I don't know how many of you were on the commission when the silo project was approved.

My friend Doug Gottfried, who unfortunately no longer lives in this country for very unfortunate reasons, uh, was so excited about approving that project.

I remember having a beer with Doug and him telling me, oh, it's going to have craftsman style homes with wood exteriors and this community supported agriculture area to grow crops, and a large silo with an observation deck with the best view of the mountains in Boulder County and an organic restaurant serving food from the community supported agriculture.

Well, I encourage all of you to take a drive to silo, see what it is, and you can look in vain for any, any of those features.

They were promised to this commission and to the council, and not one of them is there.

So I'm used to density and height.

And I want to commend this commission for preserving the character of Lafayette.

Mostly single family homes spread out, room to walk, room to play, room to live.

I don't think we should be tinkering with details of it.

My number one concern is traffic.

Twice a month, I pull out of Forest Park Circle onto Arapahoe Road to head east up toward uh nine mile corner to get my haircut, and I get a perfect view of the westbound traffic lane on Arapahoe at 8:30 in the morning.

And I'm telling you, it is a parking lot.

The cars are bumper to bumper and they are not moving.

They're just sitting there from 95th Street to 287.

And the poor people who would live in this community couldn't get out onto uh Arapaho, even at a traffic light at Aspen Ridge because there'd be no room to put their car in the westbound lane.

I know that staff provided you with a packet.

I provided you with a little packet of my own.

The first item in it is an op-ed, the Daily Camera was kind enough to publish for me, makes the point that Lafayette should put prioritize citizens over developers.

It is the citizens that you were appointed to serve, not developers.

The Kensington people are fine people.

Edgar Crockett in particular has been unfailingly courteous in all the community meetings, but you were not appointed to serve their interests.

You're appointed to serve the interests of the community.

At the beginning of this project, my wife and I started a change.org petition against it.

And in the packet I gave you is the cover sheet of the current front page of that change.org that shows 200 and 2,369 signatures.

And of those signatures, nearly 1,000 are residents of Lafayette.

Your constituents, nearly a thousand of your constituents have signed a petition, put their address, and ask you to reject this project, reject it outright.

And the simplest way to do that is for the city to never annex this land.

Kensington, Tebow, nobody has any development rights in this land under the Lafayette Building Code because it is not part of Lafayette.

And so if it's simply not annexed into the city, uh you don't have to worry about rejecting this proposal.

In addition to traffic, there are water issues.

Now developers will say, oh, we'll bring our own water.

But in the uh article from the Daily Camera, you'll hear a developer admit that bringing their own water doesn't include the infrastructure, the storage, the transfer, and the treatment required for that water.

And if you ask a Jeff Arthur, the city uh public works director, what is driving him crazy, what is driving up residential water rates, and causing a financial crisis, frankly, for the city, is that prior councils did not plan for all of those infrastructure costs.

So every new project that gets approved is going to add further pressure to the residential water rates.

And again, you're appointed to serve the citizens.

You're not going to be serving me if you approve a project that is going to add to massive traffic jams and drive up my water rates.

In the article, you'll see a quote from the mayor of Westminster that says the pressure for increased development in this area is absolutely insane.

The last piece in the little packet I gave you is a list of comments.

These are from the original proposal for Lafayette Marketplace, but I think they're all equally applicable to the current application.

I think the slight reduction in homes from the original application to where we are now makes no difference.

It is, in the words of the uh mayor of Westminster, insane to build a massive project at that corner that the roads simply can't handle it.

CDOT will tell you they're at least 10 years away from any meaningful change to Arapahoe Road, and I thank you for your time, your dedication to our city, and uh all you do for us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If we can please um refrain from clapping.

If we can please refrain from clapping, that way everyone feels equally able to state their opinions in this public meeting because this is a legal proceeding.

I understand everybody has a lot of charged opinions, and um that's completely understandable.

We have uh two more speakers, I believe, maybe more than that.

Um we have Ron Spaulding next.

Good evening, Planning Commission, Ron Spoting, 1326, uh Radaway Lafayette.

I just want to say that uh this is tough to follow Ms.

Norbeck, Ms.

Ullen, and Mr.

Preston Patton.

I agree 110% with them and everything they said.

Also, I agree completely with all the staff's comments and analysis in their letter, attachment A on the range, sketch plan.

Staff has done a very thorough and detailed review, so I will not have any specific comments.

This is the first annexation coming before the planning commission.

It's huge.

This is going to set a precedent, which you know, and we're all aware of.

All the comments are just right on, and you all are going to side about that.

However, one little thing I noted, because I'm anal in material that came out on page eight.

Erie's comment that the detention pond is in the northwest corner of the site.

It's not correct.

It's the northeast corner of the site.

That's just a little, you know, thing like that that I'm reading all the stuff through.

But I have some comments I want to make at the macro level, which may not be 100% appropriate there for this.

But I have uh concern with the uh major electric and water infrastructure.

Now I don't I don't know how all the process goes, but uh when I was looking at uh the review of the material, I was wondering if the city includes Excel from the electric or Northern Water, I think Northern Water, when they're external agencies for view and comment on annexation or development.

I mean, this is pertains to everything.

I just don't know if they do or don't.

Because uh I guess somewhere along the line, they need to weigh on, they need to weigh in on canate supply.

Uh I did find locate tonight that uh Lafayette and XL have a 2016 energy action plan.

Never knew about that.

And uh that goes back away, and it was uh finalized in July of 2016.

I was wondering if it's updated.

I did review it, it's 33 pages, it's pretty general, but the population then was 2014, we're in 26.

The population has increased significantly.

The residents uh back in 2014 to 2026 has increased significantly.

Looking at that plan, there were projections by Excel as to what would happen to Lafayette.

I don't know if that's been updated, and that's a concern because it's going to affect everything that you're going to be reviewing.

You may or may not know that our local town, Lewisville, has been having intermittent power outages for the past several weeks.

I mean your planning director lives there.

But they don't know what's going on.

It may be from the wind, it may be from what happened with the Marshall Fire, and the city of Lewisville is going to be uh having a meeting sometime soon when they figure out what's what.

Uh one other point I want to make is that uh we've adopted a new building code here where everything has to be electric, no gas, so there's no redundancy built into that.

We need to provide uh for solar on the roof, we need to plug, we need to uh supply for EV stations, and we have uh uh requirements for uh fire suppression, and also people are buying a lot more EVs.

So this also factors in is as to electric grid in this area, in fact, all over.

That's a concern how this comes up in the future, and I'm wondering where our two infrastructures water and electric come in.

And the last thing, as we all know, we're in a drought situation, and latest news is that the Colorado has been the worst drought since they've been taking uh uh since they've been taking statistics.

How's that going to affect?

And you may or may not know that the Colorado River Water Compact is up, and they have to the end of this year to figure out how to get together, and that's our seven states, all right?

Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California and California.

Serves 40 million people, 30,000 in Lafayette.

They haven't reached an agreement.

I'll bet you a thousand dollars are not going to reach the agreement by the end of this year.

The federal government will stop in, Department of Interior will set will set uh requirements for that.

And you know, if you read it, CSU did a study, everybody's known these studies, Harvard.

We are in grimdark straits for the whole whole Midwest.

How's that affect little Lafayette, Colorado?

So when we're looking at all these developments coming in, and it's only specific to this one, and all the comments are great.

But we, and it's probably more appropriate for city council, we have to keep what's going on in the world.

Here we are, Dan here.

And it's going to hit us hard.

And what I might mention to council, maybe one thing we could do, you guys can't do it, but maybe we could enact a moratorium for maybe a year.

We've done things in the past when we had the uh wells and all that, and hold off to see number one, what's going to happen with the Colorado Water Compact, how it's going to affect all of us, and number two, which it didn't mention, Senate Bill, uh 24174, which staff is very well aware of.

We have a strategic growth element and also water element that all municipalities have to come up, submit to the legislature, and especially on the water element, estimated water.

Where are we going to get the water?

Do we have the water?

Every time the developer comes in, I bought my water from uh Joe Schmoe out there in uh Grand Rapids or somewhere.

I'm not being funny, but is that water going to be there when this comes up?

We don't know.

Just a few comments to think about in the future.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Again, please hold your applause.

I understand the urge.

Tyler Johnson.

Hello, I'm Tyler Johnson.

I live at 1047 through Arapahoe Road, uh, right across the street from uh the Kensington development of the range.

Um I've seen for 27 years the developments in Lafayette from the Walmart being built to the lows being built on top of a lake.

Uh the same with that King Supers and all the other things around us, and I gotta say, this is not part of our town.

Um four stories is just way too big for us, um, especially when they're gonna be pointing straight into my window at night.

I can already see the low the lows, the King Supers, and the Chick-fil-A logo blaring into my window at night, keeping me awake.

Um nobody has given us any thought or consideration for the rest of us.

We are just push aside and have all these developments just be pushed down our throats.

Um I just don't think it's great.

Uh the water, I am also concerned about that.

We're farmers, and we have to consider the uh canyon river, the canyon ditch and the gun, not the gun is in the Davidson ditch right there in front of me.

I get kind of short end of the straw on the water a lot of the time, and I have assume, however, everyone's gonna work that water out.

I'm a little concerned on that.

Same with the traffic as well.

I mean, not to try to beat a dead horse here, but that is going to be a massive issue.

Pulling out of my driveway in the morning, I have to go eastbound on a rap hole every morning and trying to look underneath the cars between that one inch gap to see if there's any tires underneath there to tell if I'm clear or not to go, is very difficult every day, especially if I need to bring big heavy equipment out and to go harvest my neighbor's fields for hay and trying to bring a massive tractor that nobody cares about and tries to very selfishly try to pass me on the double yellow line into oncoming traffic with inches to spare between them and the car and the head on car with them is very terrifying.

Um to add hundreds of people trying to use that road every day is just gonna make me even more scared, especially with the Aspen Ridge going right across the street.

That's makes me very nervous because my driveway is right there too, so I'm gonna have to battle a third direction of traffic every morning.

Um I just wanted to give my own little invite little voice there on that one.

I don't got much else to say, but thank you all very much for listening.

Thank you.

Next, we have Shauna Brown.

Apologies if I've mispronounced.

All right, Sheena.

Sheena.

Okay, sorry.

Hi, my name is Sheena Brown.

I live at 1447 Timber Trail, part of the silo development.

First and foremost, just want to say thank you all for giving us the platform to listen tonight.

I know this is probably not an easy nor a pleasant job to listen to us all come complain to you.

So thank you for doing it with such grace and and for just taking these positions in the first place.

My assumption being that this is not um, you know, a million-dollar job is that all of you do this because you care about Lafayette, the community, the citizens, your friends, your neighbors, and so you very likely have a lot of the same issues and concerns that we face in your own neighborhoods.

Um, and so I'm here instead of focusing on data, which I had a lot of um things written about a lot of my neighbors and people that you've heard speak, as well as those of us who have written in have emphasized the data.

So instead of that, I'm just going to go to kind of more of the emotional concerns and aspects.

I would say while echoing those neighbors in terms of just doing what's right.

Um, I think that in general, this job and planning or planning when well done is about not what you can do, but what we should do and how that's going to impact all of us currently as well as the future.

And I think that this plan is asking for you know, just a heck of a lot.

Um, so I would encourage you to just think about your citizens and neighbors over developers and their promises.

To echo um Preston earlier, I'm a member of the silo community.

It's been a really unfortunate experience for all of us where we were promised so many things, not just by the developer, but by city and planning, and we're now told because of economic circumstances, none of that is coming to fruition.

So we've all bought homes without backyards with a promise that we would have at least 40% open space, and you know, that there wouldn't be these certain types of neighbors, we'd have trail access and all these things.

None of that is coming true.

Um, and with that, that doesn't impact necessarily this property, but I think it's a slippery slope when we allow developers to make promises that are not completely fleshed out as we're seeing here, and that in the future might turn out to be who knows, a four-story hotel on that kind of mystery piece or parcel that we see there and other things, as well as the traffic issues and the impact on the trails, the bus stops, and the things that are um there, or as well as the neighborhood just spoke, the agricultural land.

When we think about diversity, I don't think that should just be affordable housing, which as another neighbor um pointed out is not truly affordable and is actually above the rates being charged by the full-priced communities that are adjacent.

Um, we did a lot of work in this with the Thompson Thrift issue at a property just a little bit up of proving that their AMA is not really, or AMI, excuse me, is not really um helpful to teachers, to doctors, to firefighters, to those that we really want to bring to the area.

Um, and conversely, we'll have an if issue on drainage as we've seen at Nine Mile and those living in Arapahoe Ridge, Stonehenge, um, silo, the traffic.

I mean, getting out of the neighborhood during any time during rush hour, 287 is already backed up to Walmart with the addition of I think I was writing some some quotes down.

The they were talking about mobility, maybe when walking around this sketch plan, but let's not rely on hypothypotheticals and hypotheses or hopes and dreams.

I think the statistics that they cited were that they envision 105 townhomes with they're going to ask for 252 parking spots, 443 apartments with 520 parking spots, and then retail with 769 parking spots, which is lower than what city would ask them to do.

Realistically, what that's going to mean is people parking on side streets, parking on Aspen Ridge, parking in the silo community, and that's not going to alleviate any of the traffic issues we already currently face along 287 and Arapahoe, especially during rush hour, we're getting in and off of Lucerne or getting into Boulder on our two-lane road following this development and the developments of silo and those that will be happening up and down Arapaho will add additional strain on a two-lane road that CDOT is not planning on widening.

If we see this sketch plan, there will be no future potential for widening that.

So I think planning is considering that now, not going, oh shoot, in the future when we just can't get in and out and we're seeing you know accidents.

Um, I think that you know, the diversity should also consider the agricultural neighbors that we have nearby.

When we talk about diversity these days, it seems that we're just talking about affordable housing.

And I think when we think about a diverse community and what attracted all of us to Lafayette is what we see on the signs outside, we're building an inclusive community.

And inclusive doesn't just mean we all look a little bit different in terms of height, weight, gender, skin tone.

That means also taking stock of where we've been and historically and where we're going in the future and how I think we intermix those.

Agriculture has been such an important part of Lafayette's history and what draws people here over the community over.

We don't want to be another Thornton or even Louisville or somewhere beautiful.

We want to be Lafayette and asking for these variances in both height and density and an annexation of this will completely change the structure of the community that borders that land, and also those who might look to Lafayette in the future and consider is that a really a space I want to live, or does that just look like every other city that's nearby?

When we're looking at the trails and open space too, they're putting a lot of it along a very busy highway corridor.

This is not a peaceful nature trail.

So when we hear open space and sustainability, to me, I'm not taking a peaceful walk while there's traffic just whizzing by me on 287 or riding my bike.

So I just think it's a bit comical.

And then the economic impact, just to paraphrase what everyone else has said, I think large format format retail has not really served Lafayette well in the past.

The adjacent landowner that owns both Kohl's and uh 24 Fitness is proposing an Echo Suites hotel just over Lucerne Drive because he said that during economic downturns, those businesses both filed for bankruptcy, and you know, he's struggling to keep uh retail in the space.

Karen did a nice job of outlining how historically big boxes looked in Lafayette and with e-commerce and the advent of online retail.

I don't think that's going to change or get better.

So is large format retail really what's um going to be an impact on Lafayette versus something that will draw people in and be truly unique and different, but would also have an a positive economic impact on our city.

Um your time has been expired.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Well, in conclusion, I just support you to support citizens over developers, as I know you um took these positions to do that and not just uh succumb to the bait and switch of developers as we've seen with the silo community and so many other recent proposals.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um Michael Watson.

Uh Mike Watson, 708 uh South Carolina Avenue.

Um first of all, uh special thank you to Edgar, like fantastic presentation.

Um he's incredibly articulate and easy to follow.

And so because of that, I'm actually concerned that the presentation that he gave might be missing a few slides.

Um he started out with the the planning frameworks that he identified.

Um honestly a lot of them I didn't see any actual mention of in the in the presentation.

Um, and maybe maybe I missed something, but um community character and environmental stewardship seems to be somewhat lacking uh from what Kings and King's Intending is saying.

Um like any time a developer or any time anything is is happening, I I think there's a tendency to throw around a lot of buzzwords.

Um, and things like environmental stewardship or community character or all these like fancy affordable housing, all things like they're they're fantastic buzzwords.

The issue is that when we're speaking language, like those those words actually have meaning.

Um, an environmental stewardship um is not by any definite by any accepted definition paving over a set of a set of uh of the open space and then putting in a lot of parking lots and uh and houses and development and big box stores.

Um I mean I could consult the dictionary to double check, but I'm very confident that I'm correct there.

Um the public land dedication, uh which is supposed to be kind of their their preservation of of open of green space or green, whatever, whatever we want to call it.

Um that's kind of that's laughable.

I mean, a tiny sliver running.

I mean, it's people of other public commenters have talked about this, but it's a tiny sliver of walking trail right along a very busy road.

Um, uh a lake and a little circle trail around it, like right at one of the busiest corners in northern Lafayette.

Um that doesn't seem like environmental stewardship to me.

It does not seem like community character.

Um talking about community character, I think the community has spoken in the comprehensive plan of what we want the community character to become, specifically the evolution one all the way to evolution three.

Um the presentation that I saw wasn't even evolution one, it was evolution like 0.5.

Um, and I may not have the qualifications of Charles Darwin, but I am quite confident that I've never seen concrete evolve.

Like once you cover up a space of land with concrete, and then you put more concrete on top, and then you put a concrete roof on top of that.

Um that's set for the next 30, 40 years.

Um, it's not going to evolve from from evolution 0.5 uh to evolution three magically.

Like that's just not how reality works.

Um, and so I would I would urge you to to vote against or deny this petition.

Uh simply because the packet obviously is not complete.

Uh they listed some planning frameworks uh in the early discussion um that were not represented in the uh in the actual presentation that was given.

Um and I'd like to see them come back uh with an honest presentation talking about the the return on investment that they plan to see from developing our our land.

Um and then include specifics about the damage that they're um that their development will do to our local environment, specifically around water, which I think Ron Spaulding didn't know.

It's an outstanding job like going through kind of the the state of our water supply here in uh in Lafayette, Colorado.

Um I don't know if anyone's been paying attention to the weather.

I've actually been enjoying like going outside and running uh for for the entire winter now.

I mean Christmas Day, I did a run around Wataka Lake, and it was beautiful sunny weather at about 60, 70 degrees.

Um and we've been getting a lot of that.

The problem is we have not got any moisture.

Um and as our moisture level uh uh decreases and our our our water reserves uh go down, um that now is not the time to be to be throwing in a bunch of houses.

Um I mean uh that if you have a a like lawn and or a garden and everything, in the event of an extreme drought as California has shown, people can just stop watering their lawn, they can be they can conserve water.

Humans need a definite amount of water in order to survive.

Um, and so the more humans you pack into a space, the less flexible our water supply becomes.

Um and so I don't believe that that's in keeping with any form of environmental stewardship.

Um I think that that Edgar uh does a wonderful job kind of spinning the interests of of Kings and Ton and then making it seem like this development is good for Lafayette, and this development is something that Lafayette needs, um, and that it's some sort of altruistic uh endeavor that King's Inton has to help us manage our land better.

Um but it's not, it's money, it's it's pure and simple money.

So I want to see like what what financial figures are they looking to get in?

What is this?

What are their their mystery like high-value um big box stores that they're gonna be bringing in?

And does this represent the the interests of the people?

Um and I think if you listen to any of the public comment that you that you just heard today, uh I haven't heard a single member of the public speak in favor of this development.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Again, if you could hold your applause.

Um Richard Benzel.

Richard Binzel, 1917 Stonehenge adjacent to the project.

Thank you for your patience and my getting up here.

I was practicing for the Broncos weekend game with the seven-year-old, but the seven-year-old one.

But go Broncos.

Um, have a job of doing what's right, and thank you for that.

And I think what is clear is what's wrong.

What's wrong is this proposal is the wrong proposal for that space.

It is completely out of character of Lafayette, it's completely out of character of that corner of what will become Lafayette.

And I think what's most important to realize is if that space is annexed, it becomes the gateway to Lafayette.

And what do we want people to think about as they come into Lafayette?

You have an icon right behind you.

That's the icon for the city of Lafayette.

Lafayette for the folks at home.

And when you drive along 287, and you look across that property, you see the back range, you see the outline of Long's Peak, which is the icon of Lafayette.

And if you have a development of 65 feet at that location at the gateway of Lafayette, you are defiling the very icon of Lafayette that you are here to serve and protect.

So there is no rush to develop that parcel.

I think it's irresponsible to have a project of that magnitude on Arapaho until C DOT implements the Arapahoe transportation plan.

Maybe that's a decade away.

Okay, we wait a decade.

Let's not put the wrong thing there, and then it's irreversible.

And not let's not put the wrong thing there that destroys the very icon of Lafayette.

So please protect the icon of Lafayette.

And within the purview of what action you may take at this stage in the process, your feedback to Kensington is that no, no, and no, will there ever be anything on that parcel that exceeds 35 feet?

Because anything that exceeds 35 feet obscures the mountains that you can see so beautifully from there.

Come out of the lows, I'm sorry, yeah, the lowest parking lot, you see this gorgeous view across that property.

So anything that violates the current height restrictions is destroying the very icon of Lafayette.

And so that is probably the single most important actionable item that you can take at this time, is to be to give the feedback.

No, no, no, we will not allow any variance in the height restrictions.

And that's a way of balancing the size of this project, the size of what goes on to that parcel, and keeps it in character of Lafayette.

So no, no, no, not above 35 feet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Oh, got one more Jennifer Henriks.

Thank you, and thank you so much for really considering what you're hearing and considering all the comments that you've been receiving, certainly about this project.

I, as many others have attended many of these uh range meetings, so um, you know, when I look at sort of what was presented today, I to be honest, have really not seen much of a difference in terms of them incorporating changes.

Um you know, as you go back to your drawing board and and look at this, but really considering how this how does this really fit in with with Lafayette in our character?

I mean, we've all moved to Lafayette because we love open spaces, we love the charming small town feel, and we love our views.

Clearly, this is gonna heavily impact the views.

This has been demonstrated.

Uh, this is also going to open up requests for other heights, right?

From other developers.

So this is kind of a slippery slope if we even go with this.

Um another thought I had as we're talking about traffic.

So I live 1492 Cross Creek Court in Lafayette.

I'm over uh 95th on Arapaho.

Well, when already the traffic at 3:30 in the afternoon is building up.

Major, major.

I can sometimes not even get into my driveway into Cross Creek forever.

Um we have heard how this is gonna impact people even just down the road.

I mean, this is absolutely huge.

It's also, I feel like there's a danger with this.

We saw what happened with the Marshall Fire and how people could not get out of the neighborhoods.

Um I look at this huge amount of land, not enough access points, already so much traffic.

How is this gonna really?

I feel like this is really dangerous with fire.

Um, I also look at this seeing how paving over this huge amount of land.

We've heard about the water issues.

Um this is further going to decrease our water supply because we need these open spaces to be able to capture groundwater.

We have a detention pond right there.

We know that this area is very necessary to capture groundwater.

Um another point I feel like um, as we've seen in the plans and the city staff is certainly addressed, but the way this is laid out, um, it does not foster community.

These are just independent boxes set along to get from one box store to the next, you have to get into a car to drive.

That doesn't foster walkability.

If we wanted to maybe access across the street, God, you're gonna take your life into your own hands if you're gonna try to cross the street somehow.

So maybe we would have to make an underground under the street to connect these areas.

I don't see that in the plans anywhere.

Um and then again, height, right?

We live here for your views and our open spaces.

This really goes against what we stand for, I feel like in everyone that lives here.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Again, it's a good hold your applause.

Um, is that is there anyone else who'd wish to speak?

Um if you'd like to um come and bring a slip up to the clerk.

Thank you.

Or you can just come to the dais and just state your name and address.

Okay, hi.

Um, I'm Nadia Gaukler, and this is my husband, Andreas Gapler.

Um, I'm also a refugee from New York.

And my husband is a refugee from Germany.

We moved to Lafayette about like in 2012.

And I remember when we came to the city, uh, now it's a city.

Um, I asked him, is this Lala Land?

Uh it was very open space.

Enjoy it.

Uh it won't be it won't be saying the same.

Uh the one thing that, you know, I remember living in the city in New York, what makes really the city livable is Central Park.

What is Central Park here for us here in Lafayette?

What is city?

You know, what is Central Park for us here in Lafayette?

The one thing that we cannot make more is land.

And it's very precious, and when we look in developments, and we're not talking about just the main all developments, but when you know, we want to build on the land or looking how to utilize the land, we really need to be very responsible and really looking into it with what we're doing with the land because we cannot make more of it.

And I just want to thank you all for um you know standing for this for us here as uh citizens in uh for Lafayette.

But the one message I don't want to make is that really think about what is Central Park for Lafayette.

This is something that is very precious, and any land that we may want to use and build on, we really need to be very responsible for what we're using it for because there's not going to be any more of it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um does the applicant wish to respond to all of the public comment that was just received.

We'd like to give you that opportunity.

Um just on a couple of the the major points.

Um obviously, like we talked about with the traffic.

Um, we understand that that's a that's a huge point of emphasis for the community.

Uh and so, in conjunction, you know, we're we're in the process of getting that traffic study completed, um, which will help identify any of the major issues, and and again, CDOT is part of that a referral agency, um, but B will be a partner in um determining what the impacts of our development will be on Arapaho Road uh and any of their plans for the future and how that that may or may not need to impact um potential right-of-way space or how we may um you know uh obtain access permits.

Um so we'll again continue to focus on that as we continue to have those conversations, have some more uh actual traffic study plans um to get those details.

Um additionally, um uh I've noted you know, water.

The the development is uh obviously going to be responsible for bringing their water shares, um, and so we will follow that as a part of the the code compliance um to bring the required uh watershares to the project.

Um those watershares will be dedicated to the city, and then um through that process, obviously there is the audit of use, and so um what we'll lean on the the city code for for those water issues and making sure that we we follow those and bring the the appropriate water shares for both the residential and the retail use.

Um then in terms of the the PLD and the public land dedication, um, some of the major things that we had heard um for preserving those open spaces is that that area in the corner um was sort of that naturalized area.

Um, and so the focus was bringing the the open space um and trying to preserve that as that corner.

Um that's where the intent started and where it came from.

Um so just some additional background on that.

But again, you know, we recognize that the low the low SABS recommendation is uh cash and loo rather than public land dedication uh to potentially use those funds for um areas that might have more beneficial areas based on what the community is talking about.

Um so otherwise, you know, like we've said at the neighborhood meetings, we appreciate uh the involvement that your community has, uh, both in neighborhood meetings and at these uh planning commissions and and city council meetings.

So we've obviously taken a lot of their feedback um tonight.

We'll hear yours as well and look at how we can integrate that into the plan moving forward.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, um public uh comment period now closed.

Do we have uh questions for the staff or the applicant for staff or the applicant?

Uh point of order.

Was there any um people watching who phoned in public comment or any of that?

Do we need to address?

Okay, okay.

Thank you for the reminder.

All right, would anyone like to kick off um initial questions for staff or the applicant?

Go ahead.

Actually, I like to start with the city attorney.

My favorite place to start commissioner Phillips.

So I I just want to confirm because we're we're now in a different process.

Right.

Okay, so we have sketch plan with us, which we used to have also in the past, except that now we no longer vote quote on anything.

All we do is as individuals make our comments and um to clarify that.

So so under our ordinance number 25 that was passed in last year in 2025.

Um, yes, the sketch plan and preliminary plan process was updated.

Uh so now the planning commission will provide review and comments on the application.

Um it would be best as the commission proceeds with this discussion and then considers what comments to provide that it's not necessarily one commissioner's comment, but that hopefully at least a few commissioners um are in agreement or a majority of commissioners are in agreement with the comments that you uh would like documented for the applicant.

Um it doesn't have to be very formal, uh, but uh we will not actually be taking a vote of any agreement on those comments, yes.

And the city would be no vote tonight, no, there will take it.

And the city council will also have the same process after us.

What I'm a little unclear though now, because this has changed is we have an annexation combined with this.

Is the annexation going to happen before the city council has sketch plan after?

No, um the annexation that yeah, no, I'm happy to answer that.

So the way that uh the applicant has um with the applications of the applicant has submitted, uh the annexation is um basically pending until all of these other applications, sketch plan, preliminary plan, final plan, subdivision plat zoning, all of those development related applications will uh proceed through city review, so that the city council is not making a decision on the annexation until the proposed development has been uh fleshed out and reviewed by the planning commission and city council.

So that annexation is the first of the very last steps in the process that this proposed development will go through.

Um so it's in that that is all likely to happen.

Those final approvals, including the annexation, are all likely to happen at the same meeting.

They don't have to, but that's um the process that we expect uh the city to follow here.

And what that does is it gives the planning commission and council an opportunity to fully review what the applicant is proposing before you know the applicant is uh bound to do that, and the city makes a final decision to allow that, you know, so that that annexation only happens at the very last process once you know what will go on the site.

So we can legally bind the applicant to do things before they're annexed into the city.

No, you no, you cannot.

So that all happens at the end of the uh review process.

So only when the city is ready to make a final decision on the P the proposed PUD, the proposed subdivision and the proposed zoning will council then uh approve the annexation.

And so all of those things you know will be drafted so that the approval of a final plan, final plot, and zoning will be subject to council also approving an annexation ordinance.

Okay, and the issue of annexation by Erie was brought up, and um understanding is that could potentially happen if the once an IGA expires, if we do not Lafayette does not annex the property, that's correct.

Okay, I want to make sure I understand your question.

Um if you could, yeah, I'm sorry, please rephrase your question since you brought the theory IGA into it.

All right, so if Lafayette decides not to annex the property, um Erie, due to state rules because of adjacent proximity, whatever, could in theory annex that property, correct?

Correct.

So currently, for the public's information, I know many members of the public do know this, um, but there is a uh intergovernmental agreement with the town of Erie, uh under which a number of matters are addressed, but one of those matters is that uh Lafayette and Erie have agreed to their essentially their areas of influence or their growth boundaries.

Um and while that agreement is in effect, which is at this point um the initial term is until June of 2029.

Uh Erie and Lafayette have agreed that this particular parcel under review tonight is on the Lafayette side of that uh boundary.

I I will say if that agreement uh does expire in 2029 or is not renewed by the parties, it's unclear.

Um it's unclear if that will stay within Lafayette's uh uh annexation boundary or if Erie could annex it and uh pursue development um on that parcel.

So but until 2029 at least we have the sole right and ability to annex that parcel.

So does the option exist?

So I think I know the answer, but I'll ask it for everybody's edification.

The council could not agree to annex but deny the development application.

Is that correct?

They're bound together.

Could they agree not to agree to annex the property but not do to to uh that that prove the development?

That could conceivably happen.

However, this um applicant in the petition for annexation has preserved the right to withdraw uh the application if um I'm sorry, the annexation petition if the proposed development applications are not approved at the end of the process.

All right, thank you.

Absolutely.

Well, we're attorneying may I guess can you um yeah, would you mind talking a little bit about we are working on a new code with new zones?

Um and given the timing of this, I'm wondering, can you um comment at all on how we should think about timing with regard to the future zones versus these zones which we're being asked to consider today?

Um so yes, so because we are under our current code, they have proposed zones that are adopted under our current code.

Um I what I can say right now is that there will be opportunities if it depends on when our new code is adopted.

Um there will be opportunities for the city and the applicant to discuss uh how the uh city and the applicant are going to proceed in terms of zoning and our new regulations and all of that, but it's a little too early to say um whether today's code or our new land use code will apply, but because they've also applied for a PUD and you're considering this, you know, again the a concept plan, a sketch plan tonight.

Um and they've uh and they're doing that because they presented a PUD, it already gives that flexibility to consider you know future zoning of this property um, you know, in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

That's something you have to consider when you're looking at a PUD sketch plan is uh does the proposed development um with whatever zoning it ends up with, is it furthering the purposes of the comprehensive plan?

Um and at the same time, I of course have to uh I don't think I have to remind the commission, but but for the public's benefit, uh you are still bound to consider the current criteria in our PUD code tonight.

So I guess the answer is there's there's flexibility there, but but for certain you need to uh consider our PUD criteria and our comprehensive plan at tonight's meeting.

Can I ask that question?

Absolutely.

So can we uh reverse or commissioner?

Just make sure to speak into the seem to be quieter tonight.

The mics um so I was just um gonna ask our attorney about um flipping what commissioner Phillips so eloquently put.

If you go through the whole process of the uh you know all the plans that have to be done for the applicant and not annexed, it's you're saying well, it's kind of like what you know right.

What about the other option, which are the opposite side?

Is that it's very clear that there's a there's a sense of not annexing, but you know all those all those development plans are there.

So yes, you've gone through all the um exercise to make sure that you've met the criteria that we're you know putting forward for zoning and all the other things that are being talked about today.

But then there is also the fact that you can say yeah, that's that's fine, but we're not annexing.

Is that possible?

Possibility, and to be clear, that's council's decision, not mine.

But but I hear you, but like the city, so that and that is solely that's an important point.

That um is entirely the city council's decision under state law.

Um they do have uh very broad authority to uh decide whether to adopt that annexation ordinance or not.

Um, and that is that can be in light of all of these development applications that will uh go through the city's processes um and other considerations.

So uh that is council's decision.

Um I guess regardless or in conjunction with uh the development applications that'll be reviewed.

Okay, yeah, so it's really good question.

Would anyone like to start the questioning?

I can start a question for staff.

Um just from the process referral agency side.

Can you talk through at this time any conversations with the fire district or Excel or Northern?

I know we're really early on, but what what are those conversations look like for this current sketch plan?

Um yeah, we have um talked with um we have sent out referrals to fire and also to Excel.

And Excel, I think felt that it was too early to be um to responding to to the development.

And uh FIRE has not provided us with much in the way of information that would be pertinent to what we're talking about today.

So we will need to wait for that preliminary plan to come in with more information and more comments from outside agencies and our different departments within the city.

Thank you.

I actually have a question that may seem new to some of you.

I'm I'm new on the planning commission, so I have not sat through these public meetings.

I've not sat through uh anything with regards to any of this yet.

We're ripping off the band-aid.

Yeah, we are I'm just gonna go straight for it.

Um I really appreciate everybody coming and talking today.

I do understand that it's difficult to take time to you know get over your nerves to sit up here and talk about something.

Yeah, I know that's very challenging.

I have done it myself, and it's tough, and I appreciate you all coming and speaking about it.

Reading the packet, listening to everybody.

There's something I'm just gonna ask like the big global question because I've got details and I get questions, but the big global question.

We have this awesome compan that is very clear about the adaptive commercial space, and the comp plan is not that new.

There's many years where the comp plan has been in existence that has these great illustrations on what's possible and all of these things.

And I was reading in your application that you've been to the these community meetings and taking staff feedback and community feedback and integrated that into this plan that I have in front of me today.

I'm very curious, given that how we ended up with, as one pub public commenter put it, uh, version 0.5 on this camp plan.

To me, I mean, Greenfield development's really uh I think a great opportunity to do something new.

Um, to me, this feels like it's something we've seen for 20 something years.

So I'm curious.

My question for the applicant is how how do you feel that you integrated what I assume is a similar flavor of public comments and integrated what you see in the comp plan as being adaptive commercial use.

How do you feel that this and I realize it's a sketch plan for sure?

I mean, this is not a highly detailed plan, but it's pretty detailed.

I'm curious how you feel that that represents the city's comp plan in terms of the adaptive commercial typology, and then some of this feedback that you've gotten from the community up until now.

Sure.

Um, so I think uh Preston hit on it.

Some of the original design plans um before this plan again had a significantly higher density, um, not as much diversity in that in the housing types and unit types.

Um, and so we tried to a diversify the housing.

Um we talking diversify like more affordable housing where it was all apartments before.

So it before it was exclusively apartments, um much larger buildings.

So you know, it was three or four large buildings with all the units uh incorporated in those single few buildings.

Um, and so then this plan obviously breaks those buildings up, adds some four potentially for sale units in the townhomes, and then also increases the affordability by providing um some affordable units as well, um, and then trying to incorporate um some of those uh residential over retail, so that little uh space under one of the large buildings um and getting that true mixed use where you have residential above retail, um and on the comprehensive plan, um it does address greenfield developments and that you know the adaptive commercial principles should be used in the design, um, and then also discuss how those developments can evolve over time, and so the the balancing act is trying to utilize some of the initial code concepts that we're bound under in terms of uh parking requirements, adjusting those down where we can, um, and then also trying to find that balance of well, what does that mean?

Uh because we potentially can't provide a hundred percent shared parking uh at this point, if that makes that makes sense kind of in in addressing multiple uh aspects of your question.

No meaning of change since days.

Um we have the we have the floor, and we're we're public comment is over for now.

Thank you.

So I to just simply uh to sort of you have on commissioner's comments here.

And you've heard it from uh very knowledgeable member of public right now that that adaptive commercial is really the transition of big box to something else.

You're on a virgin site.

You have the opportunity to use some of the most amazing planning principles in the world.

New urbanism, there's like all kinds of things out there that you can research about how you would change the nature of the very typical as just mentioned something we've already seen where there's a big box, and then there's like some development uh residential or something out there, and it's all in one spot type thing.

Um, and instead turn that model into something much more like a neighborhood, so there's other kinds of uh options there for a greenfield site.

So I'm asking, was it just simply you know no time taken by either your planner, your architect or yourself, or you know, can see to say, hey, we have an opportunity to showcase something really unique to really understand how Lafayette sees itself and its identity, and instead, what you presented to us is something quite typical.

I mean, you'd see it everywhere, right?

So I think that's the struggle here.

We're trying to find a way in which you're using adaptive commercial or you know, as a catch word, but it's really not really part of the Greenfield site.

It's supposed to be for other things based on the comprehensive plan.

So I think myself, I'm struggling to see where those great planning principles are on this site at the moment.

And you know, we can get down to all the the details of open space and required detention and all these things, but concept itself is missing, and it's just like anything else you see across 287, where there's a big box and there's a dress room, required through, and there's like residue.

Which is that was you mentioned that in your presentation, that's the context, but that's eerie.

That's theory right there.

We're Lafayette and the comp plan is it's yeah, yeah.

We are we're not eerie.

Right, and so the thing is that the public here is very knowledgeable about that comp plan, and they're asking you to rise to the occasion and give us something really like about who laughing at it is, and it isn't eerie and it isn't typical, like you're showing us let's try to hold our applause.

Thank you.

Um I do I have one more, I have one more thing.

Um, so for the staff, you know, I'm just kind of going through like the first page nine of this thing.

I was trying to so what has been brought forward?

C1 and R4 is the zoning that's being suggested here.

Is that something that staff proposed or the applicant brought forth?

Yes, it's part of the applicant's proposal they brought forward based on the uses that they were closing.

So the question I would have for staff is that would you be able to?

I'm asking, what was there, weren't they any other zoning options like MN or MX, where your you know the things that you've made comments on, which are really great because I agree with many of the comments that you've done on your analysis, would allow for the things that you're looking for, which is that connectivity, that walk walkability, a little bit of height to be able to kind of animate integration of the commercial rather than you know these kinds of very siloed type of developments, uh bifurcation of the site.

Here's the commercial, here's the residential, right?

So if you changed that zoning, you suggest that maybe the application would then have to understand that oh, okay, that zoning is going to drive the way we approach the site.

Was there any conversation about yes?

I think from the staff perspective, we actually looked at it in the reverse order.

We re-reviewed the application that was submitted to us with those two zone districts.

And I think the way we put it in the um staff memo in the presentation is that we are looking for integration of uses, and once we get um uh a resubmittal with any changes at that time, it would be um the time to start looking whether or not that zone district that's been proposed suits what's was being shown on the plan, and if there might be a uh a zone district that might be more amenable to what the applicant wants to do.

Yeah, the applicant may already be looking at other districts in conjunction with you know whatever they're looking at and may come back with a different zone district or a different configuration of those two zone districts.

Well, I think, yes, okay, sure, they'll come back with a different plan, but they'll still have R4 and C1.

And I'm asking, would you encourage the change to something else so that when they do come back, they're actually coming back with something more meaningful rather than what we're seeing and a little tweak here and there.

Right.

Again, I think it's about creating no go ahead.

I think it's about creating um creating um a compliant plan with a comprehensive plan.

And once we have that, again, I think that that's when the time for a potential district zone district comes in.

Okay.

I just think that it it it sounds we don't have other zone districts.

So right now we have, I mean, the the two that are proposed are the two most intense commercial and com and uh residential zone districts.

So you're talking about like maybe the future zone districts that we're working on through the land use code update.

I'm actually I'm flux about that.

I mean we have PODs all the time.

We do, and they always have underlying zone districts.

That's how Lafayette processes PUD applications.

So you're able to amend those, but you start with the base zoning.

So it's C1 or R4 or C1 that allows for residential as a as a mixed-use uh mixed-use building complex is how we phrase it in our code.

So um we have three residential, three commercial uh zone districts and an industrial zone district right now.

The land use code update that we're working on in reaction to the 2021 comprehensive plan that we updated will align more with the comp plan, but right now we're kind of in an in-between stage.

So thanks.

Okay.

Can I say a staffing question?

Go ahead.

Um can or I think it's a staff question.

Can someone talk to us about this BRT station planning process?

Like what how does that happen?

Are they looking at underlying are they looking at the surrounding development when they make that decision, or is the development being driven by that decision?

How how is that happening?

And an underpass or overpass because people live on the other side of that street.

Um I'll do my best.

Um so there is a plan for uh BRT station, I believe on both sides of 287 in this area, and there is discussion about an underpass.

Um funding of that underpass, I don't think has occurred.

Um, and you know, the what we hear from uh RTD is that yeah, they would like to see um that accommodated on this site or in the general vicinity.

So that will be something that we tackle in more detail as the next application comes in.

But yeah, there is contemplation for both better connectivity across under 287 and um and two BRT stations on either side of the road.

So we have one to accommodate and then uh town every has one as well.

And so is it from your understanding that we would sort of see a proposal come in from the developer of the site and try to integrate, like we we as the city would say we want the BRT station here, or the developer would tell us.

It really comes from RTD in terms of I mean, like that there may be alternative locations they could consider.

I think there's been some discussion from what I understand in talking with our traffic engineer about that being internal, like you uh the bus would come into Lucerne and then locate somewhere, like not just pull off a 287, but actually make that turn, have a station and then get back on 287 to continue going.

So those details are all like still pending in those conversations or are gonna happen in a more significant way uh as we move forward with this than they have so far.

So C dot would be the ones who say we want it here, and then it would be our job to figure out how to do that.

C dot and RTD, because it's RTD that actually runs the bus portion of it.

So it's uh multi-jurisdictional kind of conversation.

Sounds like fun.

Okay, so they they they but they they would sort of tell us and then we would have to make it work.

I'm trying to imagine how we plan for that now with this plan.

Yeah, I mean um I'm guessing that it'll be more that we have a conversation about it.

I don't think we're not gonna have uh an opinion like they're not gonna just tell us it has to happen here.

We're gonna have a conversation about where it works best for the site where it works best for the city.

And then, you know, uh what makes I mean and I think it all will kind of hinge on are they really just pulling off a 287 and having like you know uh you know a pull off for the for the bus, or are they actually pulling into the site?

Um and then in which case there may be potential for it to occur on the north or south side of the CERN.

So it is just in this general vicinity at this point that that that's what they're asking for.

Commissioner Watson, you had a oh yes uh I I just wanted to hop in because I had that underlined also to be our T station.

And my big question is is it a bus stop?

Or is it a real light station?

And as Commissioner Wilson brought up, if it's a real light station, I see absolutely no place for it to be.

And I find it interesting because the proposal impresses very much how important it is to have the BRT station within a thousand feet.

So I'm just kind of curious too, where it's gonna be either is it just gonna be.

But if it has to be accommodated, then this you know, this uh um on this site, then we're gonna get those details through this.

Right, it just phase bring it up because if it's gonna be a real light station or big part of that so-called green space.

Um, but another thing I uh as far as the detention pond, has anybody looked, is that a real pond, or has it always been a detention pond?

I'm just curious.

It's a detention pond, it hasn't been.

Uh, it's currently not in the city, it used to be owned by Erie.

Has it always been a detention pond, or was it a pond once a time?

Yeah, I think it was a pond once upon a time.

And I I'm just curious because it's they talk about large common area in the northwest corner.

And then the next page they talk about the northwest corner will remain to naturalized space, which to me means maybe it was a pond once upon the pond, but it's I'm just curious.

I don't know the the history of whether or not it's a pond or whether or not it was a pond.

We don't have that drainage study yet, so that's what's gonna kind of help inform like how uh from what I understand and talking to the public works department, it's not always wet.

So um, like it it is it serves more as a detention pond than it does as a as a pond that that functions like year-round that actually contains water.

So it is more, and I don't know historically whether or not that was always the case.

It's a natural drainage accumulate there, which allowed the formation of a wet line when there was wet round.

Yeah, enough water to be have be a wetland.

Um my concern with it is that okay, so now all of a sudden it's being called a detention pond, and a detention pond is detention for runoff from streets, buildings, etc., which include all kinds of chemicals, which if there was any wildlife living there, if it becomes officially detention bomb pond will be gone fairly rapidly after a few rainfalls that drain into there.

So I think the way we're we're dancing around the situation is what we're saying is we would be approving the conversion of an occasional wetland into just a sterile detention pond.

Understood.

We'll have that clarification for you through future applications.

So and since I I'm still yakking about the pond, I I noticed when Erie uh with their comments, they they talked about uh they want the drainage for this pond to go elsewhere to does the owner anybody know where this drainage is gonna go.

Yeah, I can answer that.

There's um there's gonna be there's an existing outfall structure that's located in the pond.

Um that outfall structure is filled currently, um, so it's inaccessible.

So the comment that we we believe the comment that Erie's referring to is that there would need to be either that outfall structure would need to be opened uh to be able to be utilized again uh to connect into this the major stormwater system that's there, or a new stormwater access point and outfall structure would need to be put in place because that one again currently is uh plugged.

Okay.

Well, I'm glad you're there.

I have two more questions just for you right.

Uh and one diagram up on Asper Ridge Drive shows a stoplight there.

Correct.

And is that gonna happen?

Uh that's the that's the intention, as far as we know.

Um, we're um trying to incorporate the Aspen Ridge design as you know, silo has a portion of Aspen Ridge that's in coordination with us.

So um that whole cross section of Aspen Ridge and the signalized intersection is a a part of a discussion um with the city on what that aspen ridge drive actually looks like, and then B a part of the the C DOT recommendation on what that access point onto a raplico road is ultimately gonna look like uh as part of what will be an access permit to a rap a hill.

And then B a part of the C dot recommendation on what that access point onto a Rapplical Road is ultimately going to look like as part of what will be an access permit to Arabajo.

Okay.

Thank you.

Also, too, on your private drive.

It's it's just right in right out onto 287.

Correct.

That's what it's contemplated as now.

Um and that again will have to be flushed out with our access permit with C dot and the traffic study will be a part of that as we apply for that for CDOT to say, you know, what can we do here?

But in terms of what we're asking for, it's a right in, right out just based on the volume of traffic and the lanes you would have to cross.

Um it's not feasible to make a left hand turn there.

Yes, and I know I look forward to to see you know how you figure what evacuation plans would be for this area.

Uh Summer brought up about the Marshall Fire a few years ago.

And I I just look at this and it looks very very congested.

Are you familiar with the Marshall Fire and what happened?

Are you okay?

I look forward to see how you address that.

Yeah, it's um so you know, like I said, we're limited on some of the access points on Darapahoe and Highway 287.

Um the goal is to provide a sufficient uh access, and part of that will come from the traffic numbers in that traffic study.

So these are the the existing plans now, but some of that traffic information uh and use along the streets will designate what those roads uh actually are designated as and then what the traffic volume is expected to be on those.

Okay.

Will you be looking at reducing unit counts and density if if the traffic studies show that it's going to be unsafe to get the residents of your development out?

I mean, if if safety is obviously a primary concern with any development, so if the traffic study has those you know designations, then that's a consideration that we'll absolutely need to make.

There you go.

Um sort of more detailed questions.

I'm curious.

So I see the the standalone garages there.

Are those right?

Those gray.

Correct.

Yeah, the three gray boxes.

Yeah.

How the how tall are those?

Single.

Just single story, yeah.

Single story.

And I'm curious about they seem to be kind of like cutting off the social space there.

Is that from the residential?

Am I reading that right?

Like they're kind of a little barrier between the residences and I think the sort of civic area of this development.

Oh, you're talking about the the amenity space.

Yes.

Um, it is located in between that residential building specifically and the amenity space that is adjacent to some additional parking.

Um, so the main area just to the north of that is a pedestrian walkway that would bring people, you know, to and through that amenity space and across the site.

Um, but in terms of the parking, it's in line with the the regular surface parking adjacent to that garage parking.

But somebody's gonna walk from the four-story mixed use through the parking structure to get to the pool room or whatever that is.

Ideally not, uh, because we have the the planned multi-use trail, that extra wide trail that runs through this section of the site.

So the goal would be that they would come out of this building, they would come up and over through that use, and then we have additional sidewalks that are planned from these buildings up into the front entrance of what would be the amenity space.

Okay, I mean, it seems a little strange.

It seems like a little bit of a strange layout to me for that purpose.

Um but um I'm curious about I noticed the reference to the grosser and you know, specific types of uses.

Is would that be committed?

Are you like envisioning committing a space to that, or are you just saying this could be a great space for a grosser or something like a grocer?

Um so we have folks that are interested that we have discussions about um and are hoping uh to bring them in.

Obviously, um they have certain requirements before any of their names could be made public in terms of the the development procedure.

Um so we do have uh folks that we're hoping that we can present as high value retail users, um, but that's subject to proceeding down the development pipeline.

Okay, but I've heard comments from some of the public that they had a developer previously, not you, uh, say that there would be something that didn't couldn't happen, it turned out, and they were left feeling like they didn't had a bait and switch situation.

So I just want to make sure we're clear.

When we say this is a unit for a grosser, if this one doesn't work, it's not something else would go in there.

Is that right?

Or is it gonna be like the stripped digital?

Not necessarily.

Um the the designated uses are because we think we have uh good relationships and and potential users for those spaces.

Um if something were to happen, it's not that that remains that usage.

Okay, yeah.

It's it's because we have somebody that that hopefully will fill in that space at this point.

Okay, thanks.

And I heard you reference a few times mixed use buildings.

Am I reading this right that there is one and it's that little red corner of that one building?

That that's the mixed use building.

That's right.

Wow.

Um I uh I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

Um and then um, okay, I think you I noticed a reference to events and gatherings, I think in that detention pond area.

Uh not necessarily.

Oh, wait, no, no, I I wrote it down because it was really good.

Activate and amenitize the detention pond.

How can you describe a little more?

Sure.

So obviously the underlying exterior space um is you know above and beyond what the detention pond design is.

Um what we've been able to do on some of our other developments is most of the time those detention ponds um sit empty, and so you can have strategic design with your landscape architect with your civil designer to help A kind of channelize the water so that when the normal rainfall happens, um it's localized, it's not filling up.

Um, and then you can use that space that's above it uh as something that's a little bit more activated with additional paths, additional walking services, um, so something that's not just your typical detention park.

So are your other developments where you do that at the intersection of two major highways?

Yeah, when you're talking about sort of activating of a detention pond.

Because I imagine an amphitheater, I'm landscape architect, I'll throw myself under the bus here.

We see detention pond, we think amphitheater.

With the highways.

Sure, and I don't think an amphitheater is uh the goal for that.

It's just taking um that area and trying to maximize the use out of it.

Yeah, I I just returning to the comments that driving by that area, it has cattails and it looks like a wetland.

It makes me feel like it's probably pretty wet there a fair amount of the time to support that kind of uh vegetation.

And so it I think it would require some significant changes to be useful in the way that you're saying, and it just feels you've also talked about keeping a naturalized area naturalized.

So I feel like those are a little bit in conflict, and it's something I'm curious about, you know, in future plans, how you can have both in that same spot.

Okay, sorry, keeping going.

Um I heard saw reference to these, I think out built, I think these um smaller pads, um commercial path feeling like an urban main street, and I was or I maybe I misunderstood.

Can you talk about where there's an urban main street in this?

So the goal is to provide um that east-west drive is more of that main street um throughout the site, because that that's the but isn't that like the side of a big box store and the back of two multi-family buildings.

I that doesn't feel I'm curious about how that's gonna have a urban main street feel.

I think it's gonna feel like the back of a bunch of buildings that you're driving into, right?

And I think with the the architectural obviously hasn't been designed for the full apartment building.

So that wouldn't necessarily be the back of it because that is uh a main street or trying to be a main street, there's ways that that architectural front can feel like the front of the building, access points for residents, um access to the the sidewalks that are there.

Um we are trying to do um the parallel parking with the bike lanes, uh and again those those larger use paths uh to connect into the adjacent properties across that as well to try to give it that uh sort of urban street feel.

Those sound like good things, um, but to me it having the side of a big box fronting onto that is really gonna be adverse to that goal that you have, as well as like that big uh parking adjacency there feels adverse to that goal.

So if that is the intention to make that more of a main street feel, I I would encourage that to actually continue across the entirety of that street rather than sort of on one half of it and being a little bit lost on the other half.

Plus conflict with the parking and the cars pulling out, you've got bikes and parallel parking.

That's the real thing.

Well, I think the thing is you made a significant point here.

The actual concept of the design doesn't really lend itself to any kind of like internal main street.

What you're doing is you're moving traffic through.

Yeah, and you're divided the site to help you do that.

And so you're parking or you're going through, you're never really experiencing anything except you're in your car to get somewhere.

So that's not what a main street feels like.

We're supposed to slow down, get the sense of like, hey, this is a natural place.

Where's the place part of it here?

There isn't one at the moment.

Thanks.

And just one last question.

Um, you mentioned that they the we've been encouraged to go for Bianlo for this public uh land.

Are you open to that?

Or does this that does this suggest that you'd rather do this than you are planning to do this instead of the pho?

Not necessarily.

It was just the we meant with LowSAB, they recommended cash and loo.

We understand that there's a number of bodies that review this, and so that was the presentation that was provided to the LowSAB committee.

Um, and so it's just a matter of getting all the the committees that are responsible for providing feedback, the same information.

Um, but I think the cash and loo, obviously, if that's the recommendation, then um that's a that's a viable option.

Okay, so does that mean that if you did cash and loo, would this go away?

That's what I'm wondering.

The minimum that you're showing.

You fell in the sidewalks and the detention pond and go cash and loo, and that becomes exactly when it's already not another building or concrete.

No.

There's an importance of green space and outdoor amenities and you know, areas that are green and open.

Um, and so this was localizing it again around that northern corner.

So there may be some adjustments um to bringing in, you know, different amenities directly to the townhomes or the apartments uh with that green space.

Um, but the green space will remain in one form or another.

And then includes the pocket parks you talk about.

Correct.

There was one shopping block.

Yes.

Yes.

I feel like somewhere in the presentation I heard a comment around the height increases somehow being tied to the affordable units.

Was that was that correct that you're doing the height the height increased because of needing more units for affordability, or what's the correlation?

Sure.

So uh in as a part of the goal to get uh affordable housing and some of the other you know goals that we're trying to hit with the the housing diversity, um, the affordable housing, um you know, making sure that we have some of that open space, uh the green space, um, and making sure that we're complying with uh hopefully some of our high value retail users, all of those things need to balance out in terms of how much parking we're providing.

So we're trying to reduce some of the parking, how much of that open space that we're we're trying to provide, so we're trying to maximize that in addition to providing some affordable housing, and so we feel like using some strategic increase of height allows us to check multiple of those goals.

So on that note, I've got a question about phase three, which I feel like it's gonna be a third rail question.

Somebody mentioned, and I don't know if this is you question, staff question.

So you don't know what it is, but you're asking for a variance to 60 feet from 35.

So it feels like maybe we do know what that is.

I'm hearing maybe that's actually going to be incorporated into the R4 zoning down the line.

It just that's such an interesting thing to have left out of all of these faces, and I'm very curious, just because it seems like there's been some discussions since receiving this packet about what that's going to be or could be or something.

I mean, the asking for a hype, a significant height variance to me indicates that there may be some thought about what that could be, which I don't know if you can elaborate on.

Uh, but that the whole thing's just a very sort of curious little corner of this project.

So you're curious if you can give us any more information about what you see happening there.

Sure.

And I think staff's report said the same thing of in order to evaluate any sort of variance, um, more information is required.

Um, and so like I uh had said during the presentation, I'll just reiterate the the current uh contemplation is that that space is retained by the underlying landowner.

Um, and so we know that there's additional information that needs to be provided in future submittals for any potential variances that that are requested.

Um, and so as we get more information, um that may that may change again.

There's there's the opportunity for it to turn into R4 from C1.

Um, but I think the bottom line is at this point, you know, with your comment with SAF's comment, more information is going to be required for for that area for sure.

I mean, I have a concern with the these height variances across the site and how pretty like packed in a lot of this housing is you know, solar shadows are significant for the quality of life of people living in these things.

If you're gonna have permanently icy sidewalks during the winter, it's a huge issue for landscaping, not only for the survivability of your landscaping, but for maintenance, and if you're constantly having ice sidewalks because they're icy all winter, you're killing everything around it.

There's a real sort of long-term maintenance situation, I think that presents itself here, and that really affects the quality of it as a living space, I think.

From these these huge height variances.

Have you guys done solar shadow studies or studies are sort of considered?

I mean, I just think about putting 60 feet, 27 feet setback off of a rapahoe, and in the sort of dead of winter, how much that's gonna shade a rabbit hole in the sidewalk there, and I think that's gonna make a huge difference, not only to the site, but just to everybody passing through there.

I'm curious how far that you've gone on modeling sort of these height uh exceptions for these buildings.

Sure, at the conceptual plan, not far.

Um, that's typically on our list of things to do as we progress through kind of that preliminary plan and get some more architectural elevations and details around the site, but in terms of the conceptual level, um, not enough to answer any of your questions about that.

Okay, just something to think about as short as time goes on.

We do still have winter here, even if it doesn't feel like it right now.

Um I have a question.

So I think that I think the idea of like landscaping and walkability and uh trails and things of that nature to help animate the site.

Um feels very token at the moment.

It feels like a little narrow strip on a the most bicep road.

We know it's like a four-lane highway and plus.

So was there any kind of a con conversation about the setback conditions here from staff saying, okay, you're gonna need to pull this back and add more greenery, more walkability, more trails, and then cut through the site in some way with that in order to you know relieve the edge.

We're giving you feedback on what we've we're seeing as planning commissioners as well as you've heard from the public.

How are you actually going to feel like you're going through a trail or connected through some kind of greenery that really is meaningful when it's located in like let's say 10 feet of an edge all the way around with like that with detention pond, which is unfortunate.

Um so any conversations about that and these pocket parks that are kind of being discussed as amenities, um, feel extremely remote from anything that really connects something together.

Like there's not that doesn't feel like a concept landscape concept plan really kind of supports living well here.

Um so I'm just wondering if I had a chance to kind of think about that as an overall idea, because right now, if I look at the parcel, which is the parcel where the apartment buildings are, we've got them sectioned out plat-wise in terms of a town hall plat and the commercial plat and then the plat there.

50%, it's a nine-acre spot because that's what your table tells me.

50% of it is parking.

So there's nothing really nothing like a green going on there.

So landscaping going on, there's no real park there to sort of make it the central park idea where I'm going to live there because there's a huge park there that I can kind of visit every day.

Can't do that because there's parking everywhere.

So I'm just I'm gonna challenge you because I can see that you really want to do some of these things.

You're just at this preliminary stage, um, to to try and integrate some of that into your uh into your project here.

Thank you.

And this was in you know, the narrative which I wrote down is that there's a common area open space that can be programmed as a neighborhood family amenity as well as uh a flex space for events and gatherings and many retail choices at their doorstep.

And I I'm just it's it's sort of the same thing of like people are gonna leave their apartment.

I mean, they're gonna go down to their garage, they're gonna get in the car, they're gonna drive through, drive through, and then go back home because otherwise they're walking through a parking lot on a giant site to go to a big box store, which then they're gonna carry something on.

It just feels like there's not um I don't know, it's not it's not uh it's not a neighborhood, I think.

I think there's uh it's apartment buildings built next to a big box store, um, which given the narrative, it it seems to me that that was the intent is there to have these gathering places and these things, but if all of the public landspace is being eaten up by the private amenity space for the apartments, then I don't know what gathers people from outside of the community to visit the space short of pulling in, parking, going to the big box store and leaving.

There is no enticement for others in Lafayette.

There's kind of no gathering place for people in the city.

None of this is restaurants where people are gonna come sit on a patio because it's against 287 and all of this traffic.

It's just again, I your your narrative makes it seem like we want to get there, and I want to encourage you guys to get there because I think the potential exists in here, but right now this sketch plan shows me nothing that's bringing people into linger to stay to uh oh what was it?

People encourage people to dine to walk to linger, all of these things.

None of that do I see happening here.

There is no enticement for that whatsoever.

Okay.

Uh, from what I'm seeing.

Even for the people who live here, let alone for people who might visit the space.

Could you speak a bit to the height?

Um four stories uh with a 60-foot height limit, that's 15 foot floor to floor.

So, how on earth do you need that um for for residential?

Yeah, so again, uh the contemplation was around what's the maximum that those buildings could be for that four-story height.

We're still obviously conceptual working through what the the actual architecture is going to look like.

Um, and so a lot of these are contemplating gabled roof or pitch roofs.

Um, and so some of that increases the height based on you know floor to floor and then the pitched roof at the top.

So the hope is that as we get additional details and as we hone in on what that architectural feature actually is going to look like, or able to actually pinpoint directly, you know, from finished floor to building height.

What is that true elevation?

Um, the understanding was here's the absolute maximum that it would ever be for those four stories, and then we'll work through specifically what the architectural uh elements may be that drives that.

Um have you considered um there's we we talk about mixed use in the comp plan, and we when we think of mixed use, we think of actually mixing the uses and not just mixing them on, not just having them in different places on the site.

Um you've got that in that one location.

Have you thought about stack?

I mean, would you consider uh stacking other uses and and actually mixing to create this neighborhood and to create you know more retail below why is there no office shown?

Um that's not a use that's in this you know if if I really do want to stay in my neighborhood and walk to my office, um, this could be a pretty appealing place to to live and help kind of reduce some of that traffic.

Um yeah, go ahead and you can speak to that.

Sure.

So some of the the multi-use availability again is dictated, you know, we have the 343 units that we're proposing.

Um, and so some of that is utilizing that extra height to get that first floor amenity space um in there.

So I think we would need to look at it further if we were gonna provide additional uh retail spaces and how that would affect the unit count and where those would be laid out at.

I think it's more about moving things on like moving some of the retail under rather than adding more or just just reconfiguring so that you don't have boxes that you drive around over here, and then over here is where people live.

Very flat or very tall.

There's nothing in between.

Yeah, there's there's ways.

I mean, we have all seen it.

We know that this can be done, and I imagine you've done it in other places.

Um, so we're asking you to do it here and be a little more thoughtful on how you make this neighborhood because this is a neighborhood that um that you would be creating if if this were to happen.

Another question, um, I know of specific large um box stores that have successfully very successfully put parking underneath their store.

Um, would that be an option here?

Or and if if not, why would that not be?

That would be a real easy way to create a lot of green space um it on this site.

Yeah, it would uh it would need to be a discussion with you know the proposed retailers, um, and that's always uh uh a big item for them is how the they're parked.

Um so ultimately it would it would be need to be a conversation with them as a third-party potential user for the site.

So I have a question about the map boiling as well.

Um Commissioner Phillips is going to ask, please.

All right, so a number of things.

Uh first I'll start with staff, though.

Um so I guess what one of the things I'm confused about is the location of the BRT stop about as far away from the residence as you can get.

Yet when I look at our gem of affordable housing, Willoughby Corner, I see four bus stops located all the way around the development.

And so I guess I'm a little confused by the sort of the tentativeness I'm getting about oh well we have to see what RTD whatever says.

If we can get four bus stops there, and it's not anywhere near a major highway, I'm sure we can do better with this development.

Yeah, so this is the direction so far that we have gotten from RTD.

And I'm not exactly sure what their can strengths and opportunities are along a busy highway in terms of being able to pull over and pull out again.

But it's certainly a topic that can be further discussed.

And we have discussed with the applicant and in our comments to him that it is a bit of a walk from that proposed BRT location as you see it on the plan over to the residences.

And at a very minimum, that we would want to have clear paths that make it an enjoyable experience to get through the residential area over to that stop rather than working your way, for example, through a parking lot.

I I realize that if you ask RTD what they want to do, they'll do what's best for the efficiency of their bus line.

We want what's best for Lafayette.

So perhaps you guys could be just a little bit more forceful when you're talking to RTD and see what we can do.

Our transportation planner has been working primarily with them, who is generally um cognizant of these types of issues.

But we can work further.

You know, I think it's just early in the game again as a sketch plan.

But we can work on that further, and your point is well taken.

So in the uh package, there is that mention of something that is required by Erie because we recently approved a water storage facility in that neighborhood.

So to me, this might seem a prime opportunity to open up discussions about maybe getting funding from multiple places for an underpass, because they could then that utility line could be done at the same time.

So maybe that might be something to look into because we keep talking about underpasses for 287, and somebody says, Oh, we don't have the money for it, everybody wrings their hands and walks away.

We got to stop doing that.

We've got to force the issue, we've got to make it happen.

Um let's go back to the developer.

Thank you.

So one of the problems we face up here is by nature, we have competing interests.

Your interest is to maximize your profitability.

Our interest is what's best for Lafayette.

And I understand that.

Within that context, however, um, in terms of planning, and I know the city attorney is going to want to box my ears when I say this.

But um PUD for us, right?

Planned unit development, you know what that is, where you ask us for variances to our code, is like let's make a deal on TV.

All right, we allow you variances under the aspect of we get something from you in return that we want, something for the community, that kind of thing.

When you couple that with an annexation, and that's like the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket, because we are the city council.

Well, it'll be the city council.

You can ask for anything, however outrageous, and if you really want to come here that badly, you'll make it work.

Okay.

Um, what I've seen in your initiatives is about the most paltry leased community interests.

It's just, oh well, we'll give you a little bit of affordable housing if you give us all these variances on height.

I mean, that's just that's just pure nonsense, particularly when you're considering affordable housing to be 80% of the AMI of Boulder County.

You know what 80% of the AMI of what Boulder County is?

Can you tell us what that number is?

Uh I can't off the top of my mind.

How about 80 something thousand dollars?

Okay, how many people in this room make anywhere near that?

I'm sure there's some do, but I I suspect most of us don't.

Okay.

So that's a nonsense number.

I think you need to look at Willoughby Corner, where we're moving in a range of 30 to 60 percent of AMI are in those ranges, right?

That makes sense.

80% of AMI is just a nonsense number.

It doesn't apply, it's not affordable housing, it's just a number.

Okay, what else do we got here?

All right, so um what was brought up was that we were um in in a lot of work that we have done on our not on our comprehensive plan, but now in our rezoning.

And the three diagrams were put up about looking at how um you know your and that design is really designed for converting an area that already exists into something else.

Okay.

Since you don't have to convert anything, why not go for option three, which is the best from the beginning?

Why settle for option two?

And I agree, you're not anywhere near option one.

You're at point five at best.

So I think that's something that really you know needs to be looked at.

Option three gets rid of a lot of parking.

Discussed.

Yeah, and again, I I understand this under the context that again we have competing interests.

Okay.

Your interest is profitability, ours isn't.

But somewhere we've got to find a middle ground.

Sure.

All right.

Then let's follow up the sustainability.

So you did make it a uh there was some mention made, of course, about charging stations.

And that's of course what's in code.

So that's what we require you to do.

What we want to see is how you're going to address rebuilding practices, renewable energy for your development, um, anything you can do along those lines of sustainability.

Okay, sustainability, not meaning, oh well, you know, how many people can we come into a building.

We're talking about real sustainability here.

Okay, uh, it's done with my rant.

Thank you.

Thanks for your info.

I think that's a really great um we haven't really talked about the sustainability.

I mean, here we are.

We've got 50% asphalt and maybe less building, the impermeability.

The impermeability, yes, is yeah, quite attention pond has been filled up.

Yeah, it's already and then some performance.

So we're not talking about like token sustainability, like, yeah, you can put a solar panel up there.

Yeah.

The actual concept of the plan can be designed so that shading and you know uh the sun and the wind and uh the landscape can aid in bringing down the temperature or you know, making sure that the building materials are very sustainable, and you know, all the things that are we all love to talk about, but we never see in practice, and we want really to get people to sort of like stop making these statements and not coming through with them, you know, and say I'm we're gonna be sustainable because we're gonna put a charging station in.

It's an opportunity.

Yeah, there you go.

There it is, an opportunity.

So I think again, these planning principles that are out there in the world that are actually being practiced in actually parts of Colorado here in Longmont and so forth that are showing you that it's possible to do these things.

I'm not seeing any of these things can be incorporated into your project and um make it shine rather than right now the it's quite quite dull.

There are any other questions.

I have kind of one more question.

My last question, I swear.

The oil and gas cap the cap well, where is that?

It is approximately there.

Nice.

If I had the plus or minus.

So I realize it's been kept.

Uh I realize that I mean there was a huge story.

I think it might have been early last year that all of these capped wells in Erie turned out to not have been actually kept and that they were still leaking despite all of the assurances and whatever that they had been appropriately done, which I realize is not something that anybody can necessarily control if we say it's been capped according to you know regulations and whatever it has.

Sure.

However, sometimes these things leak.

So I'm just curious, is this well, I guess I challenge you to think about that going forward because building on a site that has a known abandoned capped well in a place where we know that companies don't tend to always follow best procedures when capping things is introducing a potential environmental hazard into a densely populated residential area that you were building.

Yeah.

And that is certainly something to think about, whereas if it remained agriculturally zoned and outside of city limits, that is much less of a risk than it would be in the scenario.

I don't know what the answer is in terms of what sort of mitigating things you can do about it, but I just we haven't talked about that yet, and I feel like it was a real sort of moment that was mentioned in the application and then moved past.

And I think it's more important than just a cut just one sentence.

Sure.

And uh, you know, we'll we allow our consultants and our professionals to evaluate the documentation that Erie provides on the um the cutting and capping that they they did when they were responsible to do that.

Um and then there's also you know on site testing and inspections that we'll do uh as we move through the design process of soil testing and and environmental factors as well.

So all of that's considered as we continue to move through the process.

Yeah, it's just the subity and areas and sort of a dire straits at the moment from uh from developing something that was contaminated, but they didn't understand the extent of the contamination.

Then I certainly think the city of Lafayette would not like itself to get into the same circumstance without thinking about it ahead of time, knowing what we know.

Neither would we.

Yes, hopefully.

Um question regarding the the density calculation.

Um are you planning?

It seems like to be to be a transparent and to be um to do it right.

The density calculation needs to be reevaluated.

How you've how you've calculated it per the staff.

Would you agree?

And can that be modified?

We can modify it.

Um however, is most beneficial to the staff.

Again, we took the density as you know, the law area uh of the individual parcel over the the unit count.

Um so if that needs to be reevaluated based on how staff would like it presented, that's something we'll absolutely do.

Uh also future submittals.

Does it reflect the net density with um without streets, parks, or other public land areas, or does it?

So the the easiest way I can pop this back up.

So the the current density calculations are the unit count over the indicated lot.

So 343 units over um the specified lot around the apartment project, and then 105 units about uh over the sum of the two townhome lots.

Okay.

So it did it is including the streets.

It is not, it it is strictly just what's shown in uh the internal streets.

Yeah, it is yes, okay.

Not the cross street uh east west.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

I have another question since returned park density.

Um according to the documentation, we're guessing we're gonna build let's see, 448 units, uh 254 units with two plus bedrooms.

We're only gonna get 52 students out of that to go to the schools.

I think you know, I'm really I want I want to see I want to see how the math is and math.

Sure, and that's one that we rely on the referral agencies that staff sends out.

So we rely on the Boulder County School District to provide their letter of what they um they account for back to us.

So that's that's not a number that we provide.

Uh we just provide our unit count and proposed uh bedroom breakdown, and then they evaluate it based on whatever math that they do, and I don't know what that calculation is, and then they provide that that response back to us through via staff.

So this question has been asked before in other applications, and I and this instead of just going, oh well, would staff please go to the district and find out how they actually calculate that number?

Because that number makes no sense, and as you know, I have a lot of experience in school bus transportation, so I I can easily see considering that all of the schools are either across major roads and also some distance away.

Elementary, middle school, and high school is gonna require transportation.

Okay, so that potentially turns into a road issue, okay, and a bus stop issue and all those other kind of things.

So could you please find out for them exactly how they come up with that number?

Thank you.

And just to tie into that, I I hope it's I just want to reiterate what uh Commissioner Phillips said for the developer in the city.

I I think our underpass or overpass needs to be on the bucket list.

I look at this uh diagram here, it shows where all the parks are close by to that uh site.

And holy cow, you have to cross a wrap hole course across two there's no parks.

There's no parks in that area according according to the math, they're all far away up to cross 287.

So please put it on the bucket list.

Um question for staff.

I had asked earlier today.

I don't know if the information was gathered yet.

Um the units counts that have been approved for silo phase one and two and for 40 north.

Um which are not obviously completed.

I haven't done that.

Was that yeah, that's what I have lots of things that I have in the zone.

Um currently entitled for 478.

Um their PUD amendment, which we have started that process.

Uh looks to reduce that number by about 100.

Um, and then 40 north uh current entitlement is right around 420.

42.

Um we are the uh city council is working on eventually get to some inclusionary zoning.

With developments, not that we have enough large-scale developments left anymore.

But I think one of the issues that's being missed with that is you say great, we have inclusionary zoning, and therefore we have affordable housing, but they're all in this piece of the development.

I think it's important that we make sure that with inclusionary zoning, and when we ask people to do affordable housing, that it'd be spread throughout the development.

And not create some kind of you know, oh yeah, that's the the poor people area, if you will.

Okay.

Staff or the applicant.

All right.

If there are no more questions, we will return to discussion.

Um we will be closing the uh public hearing.

So the item for discussion is the sketch plan application for a mixed-use development at South Southwest Corner of Rappahoe and US Highway 287.

Um as a reminder, our role this evening is to review the application using the criteria set forth in the city's development zoning code, the current one, and the comp and the comprehensive plan, and to provide comments on the application.

The comments we provide will be documented by staff and provided to the city council before its review of the sketch plan.

Following city council's public hearing on the sketch plan, planning staff will compile the com the commission's uh and city council's comments and provide those to the applicant.

Um first off, we've been here for three hours.

Would we like to take a break?

And we would.

Okay.

Let's take a 10 minute recess.

Um, thank you all for the public for being here.

You're absolutely welcome to stay.

And um, we're just gonna take a 10 minute break and collect our ourselves.

Thank you.

Let's take a break.

Yes, we opportunity.

Um is there anyone who would like to start the discussion?

Um, I'd like to kind of frame this a little bit because we got these specific questions for commissioners.

Um, and yeah, put that up on the um so that we can kind of have an outline within each of these, we can discuss the apple applicable things, the things that have already come up, and some of the questions.

But this can kind of give us an outline so that otherwise I think we could be here for a long time.

Um, so would anybody like to start with the first one?

Oh, and one more thing as a reminder, we are analyzing this based on the requirements in the land use code.

So referring to that section in the land use code would be really helpful, referring to specific sections in the comp plan.

So that it's really clear to the applicant, and obviously, so we have our legal so we make Maryland happy.

Would anyone like to start regarding C one and R4 zoning?

Yeah, just I I mean, I think some of the comments made during the earlier questions were helpful in this regard.

It seems like yes, the current C one zone and the current R four zone do seem like the best fits for exactly what was proposed, but it seems like we see the PUD as an opportunity to do something different than straight up C one and R four zones, and that that the comments from the both the public and the commission reflect a desire to see that.

So while I do understand why C1 and R4 were selected, it feels like that's not really the most relevant question, and the more relevant question is what kind of mix would we like to see?

Um and I think some of the previous comments were helpful there.

I don't remember the exact section of the comp plan, but refers to that.

Maybe someone can help me who remembers well.

Clarification about that.

I definitely didn't know that we didn't have options apart from R and C.

Um, and then it's one, three, two, three, four, whichever that one that works.

But because the applicant has specifically referenced the um pages 150 to 156, which talks about an adaptive reuse situation.

Therefore we're we're saying, well, it's not really that.

So does the zoning really have that same viability to it because we're looking as you see or something?

Mixed use, mixed neighborhood mix or other things which don't exist at the moment, but we're trying to find it.

Well, and that's since we have this current land use code to start with, that's kind of where we have to where we have to start to modify.

Do we have a collectiflex yet officially?

No.

We still don't.

That would be where I would go with this if we could do that.

We call it a collectiflex, and you got it.

They don't have to do C1, R4.

It can be all of those under that designation, and then the future it could be evolved to something else.

I think that the commission has expressed that were this to be C1 and R4, we would want to amend it in a PUD anyway.

Yeah.

Um, to look like a different mix.

So I think the more helpful feedback for the developer is we want to see we'd like to see more of a mix.

I think the comment was made earlier that the narrative was really nice.

Like it would be nice to see a site plan that actually reflected what was in that narrative, which feels quite different than what's ultimately pictured, but but the narrative was great.

We actually would love to see something that does more of that.

Um, and I think regardless of which zoning was selected to underlie the plan, we would be trying to design a PUD program that allowed this mix that we have in so let's see.

Staff specific feedback and additional who got some additional comments.

Um staff specific feedback on the zoning.

Um they think that it's appropriate under as an underlying zone district.

We're just kind of expressing some frustration with the fact that those are the only two choices.

Um staff is encouraged encouraging these two zoning uses to be more integrated.

Um other additional comments on the C1 and R4 underlying zone districts.

Um I can I can I can see that the need for a I just almost want to wish we could reduce the size, but that comes up later on as far as you know, put all the businesses together on the salsa private role.

You think that that is a good thing or not?

I think there would be good thing, but as far as the first question, I agree with the C1 and R4.

Should we move on to the next item?

Does commission agree with staff feedback or have additional comments about the alignment with the comprehensive plan?

Um yeah, I I mean I think it was pretty clear from discussion both from staff feedback from public input from I think a lot of our comments that uh there's a lot of opportunity provided in the comp plan about adaptive commercial use, and this uh sketch plan doesn't really reflect those opportunities and the vision I think that that embraces.

Um so I mean I I agree with staff's feedback here in that we could better see that embodied in the next iteration of a plan that we that we see here for sure.

I think there's and I understand that you know the applicant did not want to put so much energy into something here, but it's such an initial stage of the process, which I understand.

Um I kind of understand that.

Kind of don't yeah, um it sounds like this has been through a lot of conversations already.

It sounds like there has been um, you know, you heard something about a 16 page uh pages of comments.

Um sounds like there's been a lot of feedback, and and we're still not getting something that's reflective of what with what the comp plan is shown.

Um so sort of the inherent problem is that the comprehensive plan is aspirational at its core, and it is where we want the city to go on into the future.

It's not a code requirement.

So from the developer's perspective, he's kind of like, well, okay, I gotta make sure that I fit code, but on the other hand, I have to make a nod for the comp plan.

I think it would be more helpful if the developer looked at complan as this is really important, and you want to fulfill as much of this as you can, not as little of this as you can to get away with it.

Because again, this is where we want to be, so your development is going to be our future.

So, you know, give that some more thought when you're looking at at and at the comp plans like, okay, how can we best fill a lot of these, even though they may not be required by code, still you're building our future, so go by what we want in the future, not what we've been doing in the past.

I think that's especially relevant in that this is an annexation proposal, you know, it's not something we're obligated to do.

If you're trying to entice the city into annexing this property into the city boundaries, I would hope, think, you know, assume that there would be an overture made towards meeting some of the goals of the comp plan more than I think I see reflected in its application personally.

Uh so I think that's I don't know, again, a missed opportunity.

I'm gonna keep using that word because I keep I I do there's just so many opportunities, even from a preface, a professional standpoint to do something really cool here.

Um that I think personally I would enjoy playing around with some of these things a little bit rather than just putting you know a drive-thru in a big box store and calling it a day, which is just me personally, not something I'm recommending to you.

But um yes, I just think it's relevant that uh if you're if you're asking something of the city and of the planning commission and asking that we bring this into the community, more attention paid to what the community wants and what the community feels that is important to that existing community.

Um, I think would be I don't know, show us that you're paying attention.

And I think I I don't think that anything that we are asking for or are going to ask for or any of our comments um preclude the amount of of um retail space that or the the things that you want to do.

I don't think that any of this is good.

It we have all seen these kinds of developments done and done well and and more integrated and aligned with some of these goals in the comprehensive plan.

Um we know it's possible.

Um that's why it's in the comp plan, and and yes, it's aspirational, but it's also not impossible.

So um, I think that's yeah, and I just to be just to put a point on it, and I think we've said it, but just to be clear, I think on the adaptable commercial graphic with the evolution, like I think the direction is be aiming for three, not one, with the idea that in the future someone else could turn it into three.

I think we everybody was pretty clear on that, and that feels like a good a good target to be aiming for if you're looking for any kind of guidance on how this could be adapted to be more um consistent with the vision.

It's it's one more one more note.

I we haven't talked about this, but uh one of our public speakers referenced being farmer living across the street on Agland.

Um, I think the the companies with this zone with this area, this adaptable commercial assets for transition, and I know we referenced transition to the west to the other residential development, but there's a very stark transition to the north, which is agricultural, and maybe there's some opportunities to think about that transition as well across the Rappahoe.

I mean Arapaho is too narrow for what's happening around it, and I know that's not something you guys can control, but it I just wonder if there are ways to reflect that a little more uh in the design.

Um I'd just like to read that adaptable commercial portion of the urban design principles out of the comp plan.

The vision for adaptable commercial is to provide guidance and recommendations for how larger format commercial spaces could be developed or evolve into other land uses over time.

So it's when we were doing this, it was because we had several of these spaces in town, and how can we make sure that we integrate them?

And there was a lot of conversation about about infill development and doing it the best way.

This is not existing, this is all new, and what an opportunity you have to do something really cool in a town that is laid out pretty clearly how that could be done.

Um so the um there's one more portion I wanted to read.

Um I'll leave it at that.

I think one more oh yeah, yeah.

If they are if we're if we're giving feedback and um providing like references for your applicant, you know, there's there's lots of articles out there on 15 minute cities, transit orient development, new urbanism, all kinds of things that will help bring together the larger kind of wishes and desires of the call plan, technically, you know, as well as what we've done from the public.

So using those references to look at this as Greenfield site, and you're quite right, it's it's not likely use, it's it's quite new.

So I have an opportunity to do something there.

Yeah, and well, on that note, you we've talked a little bit about this BRT station, we don't know where it is, we don't know exactly what's envisioned.

I understand there's a lot of players, it's complicated.

But I wonder if there's an opportunity to be actually trying to imagine where this where that station could go to have to serve the neighborhood and to serve Lafayette in this design and sort of start integrating that a little more into the layout.

Um that would really help, you know, make sure that I think residences would be nearer to the station, and um folks that need to some of these uh commercial spaces that might have smaller volume products that are more likely to be carried by someone going on a bus or maybe closer to that.

Maybe there would be ways to be a little more creative around that too.

Um, and I know that that's not all your in your control, but it sounds like there may be some possibility that if we had a good idea of how that could work really well, we could be more assertive with uh with the transit system and try to get them to adapt our vision and to have this developer be a team player with CDOT.

Hey, look at this cool thing that we want to do.

Here's how it could be.

Um put you know, putting it on the north side, and here's where we think the underpass should go.

And we've already talked to Erie about this pipeline that we know has to cross underneath 287, and this and um that kind of this is our frustration with planning commission is that we we have to be in a vacuum up until tonight, up until or a few days before we don't know anything about these developments.

So, but we keep asking for underpasses, and thank God we're gonna get an element.

Underpass or overpass.

And if you're talking about the BRT stations, like and look at those not just as a standalone thing, but as a nexus where, okay, so if you're gonna have a station there, then have a bunch of bike racks there.

Yep.

So that you know, people who are live a little bit too far to walk, but can still bike and then lock their bike there and then get on the bus.

And we can make it a convenience, make it something that works, not these isolated features scattered all around.

Any other thoughts on alignment with the comprehensive plan?

I mean, it's kind of a big question.

I'm sure there's other people let's let's keep going.

I'm gonna push that out.

And I have no idea where I'm even gonna land on this, but just thinking through one of the policies on the comp plan talks about every neighborhood being within a 10-minute walk of a park.

And I know in this current iteration of the layout, I understand where LowSAP is coming from with not doing a dedication.

But I feel like with a different iteration that maybe more relates to the true vision of the comprehensive plan for this area, there would be an appropriate park somewhere in this.

Well, you gotta make a distinction here because this is important in our code, I believe, unless it's been taken out in large developments when you're saying they have to have a park turned into let's have a playground.

Now, if anybody has ever been around the city in the middle of the day, gone to the playgrounds or ghost towns.

Playgrounds are not an amenity necessarily anymore that people want open space, open areas where they can walk, they can you know have playing, you know, pick up games of soccer or football or or whatever, just a general open material area versus the dedicated playground is it also allows the opportunity for a view corridor, you know, have an open space.

We we thought we were gonna get that with silo.

Um that was one of the you know, there was gonna be this big beautiful open space um that's evolving inward.

Um but have it having that um ability, and then it's pulling people to the inside of the site, pulling people to to that open space on the in and and um that that uh path around the perimeter of the of the site is um that's that's awful.

It's just that it's awful.

It's a great weed bank.

No one will go there.

The use of the word trail is where I have an issue with that one.

That's that's not a trail.

Just like these other things are not open spaces, like that is a buffer from the street that is gonna get nobody wants to be on tossed gravel store, but it's not desirable.

Yeah, that's not it.

Um 287.

Some sort of thing.

I think that the sidewalk shouldn't be right where it is, it needs to be more integrated.

Correct.

And that barrier could be the buildings, you know, sorry rather than it could be the office and it could be the offices, it could be but that's a good point.

Look at look at Walmart, okay.

Yeah, part of that or not getting approved, something they didn't want to do and weren't required to do, was you notice if you if you're on 287, there is actually a wall there, there is a barrier to the parking lot.

Because of the grading.

So you can put a barrier there, it's not you can't do it or shouldn't do it.

It is a possibility.

But that's more of a retaining wall.

But it was put there as a site barrier.

Well, and I think I made the point earlier of like if you're if you're talking dining and lingering and people spending time here, if you mirror that, you put the buildings against 287 as a barrier.

The sound barrier is the safety barrier actually.

Then you're creating opportunity within the site for like, hey, I might actually sit on a patio if I'm blocked from the highway.

Is that yeah, plus then you've got west facing patio in theory, west amenities.

Who doesn't want to sit there?

These are rare opportunities in Boulder Captain.

West facing patios using the view court or um very desirable place for a tenant to come put in patio seating.

Well, while we're talking about this art connectivity, I I know that this is a sketch plan, but this map A is like for me a very unhelpful map.

I I'm looking at it, and not only is that underlying layer very out of date, I mean still still showing a lake where there's a hardware store and a nail salon.

Um, but but also like these these lines, I don't they're like, I think supposed to represent walking paths, but they really make no sense if if you look at what's on the ground.

Like this one goes straight through pillows, I think, through the middle of it.

Um so it's just not a very useful graphic.

It it also draws the distances, the walk time distances as the bird as the crow flies across very large highways.

So I just don't even I don't really understand these maps pulling.

Yeah, let's pull the page 37.

Or just in general, pull up the case.

I would just think we're gonna be able to do that.

I would encourage a revisit of this.

Um, you know, as another example on this map Forest Park is circled as a parking toggle between Forest Park is not actually a park, it's a it's a subdivision sort of 60-story park in there.

But it's okay, but it's um and it's quite nice.

Actually, it's a it's a good example of how to have a nice green space with retail on each side and mixed use.

Um it is quite it's not dense at all, so it's probably not appealing for today's developer seven, but it's very it's a very nice.

It's a great place to under and discover.

It's a great place to be under actually discusses.

That's true.

Anyway, I just I I I would love to see in the in the next iteration if if the intention is to show connectivity between this site and parks.

I think a little more effort on this one would be really helpful because I worry that what this really shows is that there isn't any connectivity.

Yeah, also the 30-minute walk to Forest Park, there's no sidewalk along the map.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

There's you take your life in your hands to that's the pedestrian.

Because I like going when you always discover where everything else is you could walk in the world.

Yeah, but we can I guess the original question was do we feel like depending on what the reimagination looks like to be a better conform with the comp plan that there is opportunity potential for some sort of actual open space, some sort of something honoring the site, honoring the oh that would yeah, that would be up to low stuff.

But uh it is okay.

Yeah, I I I yeah, this is the one I'm talking about.

Yeah, this map.

I'd like to see actual like park space integrated as part of this that I think is available to the public and not just an amenity for residents.

There is no city park.

Well, there's no access to anything.

No, there's no city park in that entire between 95th and there's a nice golf course that you can't be on.

Well, I think that then makes the question.

Um it's it's always quite interesting when we get these applications that the entire site has to be somehow programmed.

Why you could save money on your foundations if you stacked a little bit um with retail and then you know, housing above, and then alleviate some of that for the park that you're looking for, a real amenity that helps you know draw people towards uh things.

So again, it's about those planning principles that are missing here, these are just simply on the site because they they fit like you know, let's sprinkle some here and sprinkle some there, and we've got like we filled it, great, but you know, um architecture 101.

You don't have to fill the whole site.

Allow it to be just have the road happen to be the barrier.

Yeah, yeah.

And we have policies too in the comp line around preserving and protecting lands that benefit wildlife.

Right, and just obviously I don't know the full scope on what that history of that corners look like, but you know, when I hear detention pond, I think about it getting scraped and that there's native grass, which then turns into weeds, and it's not really gonna be an environmental.

It's gonna be a detention pond and it with all like we said, with all the permeable impermeable paving and roofs, it's just gonna be full.

Yeah, it's not gonna be a full literature.

Yeah, we're gonna and it's it's kind of interesting.

I'm just I remember we'll be commonsing archaeological survey where probably who they would be.

And I don't know if that's something that might be applicable here.

I know it's not city property now or it's hasn't been advanced.

Yeah, I don't know if that would be something we can see the whole by the way.

Um yeah, I don't know if that's might be something in the future.

Yeah, because you talked all that one of the next timers in town here, and they're free-fiance stuff all the time.

Sure.

So I don't know, there might be something to put in check.

Um but I I did appreciate staff's comments as well in this section, and I I do agree with that feedback as well.

Um make sure um we didn't really talk about the um I guess we kind of talked about the connectivity incorporating public streets, grid network to develop over time.

I think it's interesting.

It's not really a grid network that will develop over time.

It needs to be in place because it's going to they're gonna develop the school.

And I would quibble with that little, you know, and and design a grid network.

Um but at the same time allowing for, and again, we've seen this done, um, allowing for a view corridor, allowing for open space that's that's in the middle that's closer to the middle, um, rather than the perimeter.

Um yeah, the walkable blocks.

I don't see that here.

No, yeah, if you measured it across, I did that.

So the yellow section is a little shy of 300, but the length is a thousand.

Yeah, so on the middle section, it's 400 by 500.

So that's not really a block of snowball.

So you walk in two.

Well, yeah.

And if I'm a if I'm a five-year-old and I want to ride my bike to the park, yeah.

That's scary.

Um other comments on the zoning specifically or on the comp plan specifically um in regards to staff's comments or expanding on those.

I um I remember um where was it in staff's comments, the suggestion that these little individual commercial spaces be conjoined into a strip.

And I'm actually kind of curious about that.

I've seen I don't think we're looking for like um strip mall version of that necessarily, but there's a version of that that you had in mind, and so I don't I'm curious about how that would be done to make it not feel just like uh a strip mall that you have to drive to each storefront to, even if it is linearly connected.

So I so I'm you know, you guys do more of this than I do, so uh you probably have something specific in mind for that, but I was a little less clear on that comment.

Yeah.

version of that necessarily but there's a version of that that you had in mind and so I don't I'm curious about how that would be done to make it not feel just like uh a strip mall that you have to drive to each storefront to even if it is linearly connected so I so I'm you know you guys do more of this than I do so I you probably have something specific in mind for that but I was a little less clear on that comment um trying to find which I'm trying to do that I just needed some technical the the idea that rat I think the idea that they're not just these isolated little uh things you have to drive around and to it we'd agree with yeah yeah yeah I also am concerned that maybe they're the isolated units because we're selling individual pad sites and then we have individual property owners who then sh should they in the case of several public comments referenced uh decide that they no longer want to stay in that location that then they control what use goes into that empty storefront for the foreseeable future and we end up with just another corridor of empty buildings because somebody else is in control of what kind of use goes into that space which is always I'm curious how and maybe it's a question for staff how other cities have managed that in the past to dissuade these large box developers to to put those kind of restrictions in place um and how that's done.

I I didn't think about that here it's funny I was gonna ask the city attorney because I just wonder with these large boxes is there some way the city could put into the contract saying if you go out of business the city gets right a first re refusal or something like that.

So you don't have a thing where Ms.

Karbeck mentioned about the wall or generally the Alberts and so I don't I lived through that also.

Or you have an empty store because Walmart doesn't want to sell it to anybody and same thing with King Supers pretty close up and other complex they're not the landowner correct it's a separate person.

Yeah so you can't say well we can't with the development group I mean the there's lots of things that are possible by contract so but that's that would be down the road.

Okay.

Bringing it up about the empty stores.

So I think what you're referring to the building siting um standalone commercial pad sites are discouraged in favor of grouped inline commercial buildings oriented towards streets and street corners as shown in adaptable commercial evolution too and ultimate project exhibits.

Yeah um again more vertical integration between the proposed commercial and residential uses is encouraged so we're horizontal across the site um and that vertical integrations um that really needs to happen.

And along the street front it says that maybe that's how it doesn't feel like a strip mall.

Yeah yeah um which seems important and I you know I don't want to be a jerk but I appreciate the little mixed use corner there but like really I I feel like calling saying that that one little example of retail on the bottom of one corner represents a mixed use community feels that's that's a little offensive.

I I don't think that that's a reasonable attempt at what mixed use is although I do appreciate that it's there at all I doesn't feel like it is enough to qualify.

And I think allowing flexibility in these uses because yeah they might want to be an office they might not just want to be retail they might want to be um I I hear what some of the public is saying about the the newer retail that is sitting empty and that's that's certainly a concern so I think we need to be to allow some flexibility for different types of uses not just um that's where I'm asking why I'm asking about office um and um that's where that if we if only we had a form-based zoning code in place that we could that we could lean on a collective stuff but a lot of is it fair to say city attorney like of course we have to review this under the current code however we are working on a new zoning code that is public all the conversations have been public you can hear what's being discussed and how the city is thinking about its future so there's certainly a lot of guidance there um that might be helpful if you're trying to figure out what what would be a development design that might really get folks excited in the city it feels like that proceeding of what's being discussed would be a really helpful place to look for for some ideas of where you know where things are headed where where folks want to see this city go.

But right as it stands right now is there a way that this applicant could be could be brought in under that new zoning code or is that just not even no it's definitely a possibility and I would uh it sounds like you probably want to provide a comment to that effect for the applicant.

Okay.

So and that's what I think yes it's a possibility.

Because if we yes, it's a possibility.

So basically taking into account um they're asking for all these things in the PUD, but looking at what the what the future zone, what the future zoned use would be for this area and um working from that basis.

Correct that's it, okay.

I mean, that might be wise as well because the timing is a little uncertain.

You might find yourself in that position.

It would just be a really good effort to um yeah, to know that the city is in this position would be nice to so element seven sustainable infrastructure would be something they should look at.

It goes into a lot of things about building and that kind of stuff, infrastructure investments.

And they had a lot of strategies under there too.

So I'm picking out individual lines, but just look at that whole section and see what could be applied to this development.

All right, can we move to question three um regarding the level of commercial intensity, amount of residential density, integration of commercial and residential uses, or the amount of surface parking proposed?

I think there's this interesting, like very dense tall residential, very flat spread out commercial.

So it's sort of it's like neither thing.

You mean you could spread up a you could take the height down on the residential a little, you could condense the commercial a little, you could reduce the parking a little, like these things could happen that could bring a little bit more balance, I think, to the height and the spread of all these uses of the site without actually really impacting the total square footage of either of those uses that gives you more sustainability, gives you more of all of these things that we've been talking about that kind of creates a more cohesive, I think, development across the whole board here, and then creates opportunities for more of the things that I think we've been looking for, that the comp plan's looking for, the community's looking for.

Um just seems very interesting to me that it's like how high can we possibly get away with in this residential, and then how much parking could be possibly put between how much asphalt can we put between these one-story single-use buildings that share no amenities and and anything.

Um that I mean, I don't I don't think the overall mix of things is wrong necessarily, and I think that you know it was brought forth that nobody's arguing with that.

There's commercial residential in the site, and I just think how it's distributed.

Um both horizontally and vertically could be looked at in a way that creates opportunities for other things to happen on the site besides paving.

Yeah, I'm getting the sense.

I I think folks agree, but tell me if not, that we'd like to work with you on parking.

Um if if a design could come forward that you know accommodate would accommodate all these ideas that we're talking about here, and it means that it's harder to make the parking work that's required that we want to work with you on that in the PD.

I think we're I think we're the the new land use code, especially is going to have a lot of um yeah, ability to cut down parking, not as much not as high of requirements.

Um we want to encourage bus rapid transit, we want to encourage biking, um, all of that stuff.

So having ways to um we just don't we just don't need this much parking.

It's just not necessary.

Well, the coals and uh tractor supply are perfect examples of asphalt wastelands.

It's empty yeah, yeah, it's like break it up, move it around, put a put other things in there.

It doesn't have to be solid parking, it could be small stuff.

I mean, something that's different and that works.

Prioritizing shared parking too.

Because if you're gonna do whether it's the mixed use and combination of apartments and commercial, if they're basically the two barbells with parking in the middle, they're intrinsically going to go to their half of the parking lot.

It's gonna be more efficient, less all over the place.

The circulation in here feels really discomforting too.

Yeah.

Like I was trying to understand the internal circulation with the grid, but also just if I were on a walk or a bike exploring this neighborhood, I wouldn't know where to go to anything.

It's just it isn't intuitive from airlock level.

It's as I mentioned earlier.

If we have another uh oil and fire coming.

They try to get out of there.

I asked about this last week at the at the working group meeting, and the fact that we had the South Point neighborhood.

Yeah, um, they could not turn on to 287 the um at the time they so they had to go across 287.

Um understandably the fire department had blocked that road, but um until you've gone through something like that, it's hard to um understand how that feels the fear of the fear of being locked into your neighborhood.

And those are single family homes, those are not um apartments.

Um there's not 400 some units.

Um so that really has to be considered, and that and that might be the thing that drives down density in my mind because um now we're looking at silo has 378, 40 north has 420, and this is 488.

Um 52 school children.

But we have only 52 school children.

It's a lot of cars on around the one on emergency.

That's that's a lot of people.

We gotta change our code though, because it's our code that says all right, you know, you have to have required to have whatever many exits specifically for fire has to have this.

And so we need to look at our code again and change that in light of fire experience.

And it makes areas like this harder to develop, and it would recognize that because of the streets that it's on, and you can't have those curb cuts that close to the intersection.

So then connectivity to the other neighborhoods around becomes makes that equally important.

Yes, exactly.

Through streets, grid.

That's where the grid is is so important and um all right, back to the uh commercial intensity, residential density.

Um, how do we feel about that?

I'm still a little confused about how the density was calculated and why staff had a comment about I guess I should have asked this earlier, um, about that it would be higher if if it were calculated the way that I don't know if you could speak to that real quickly.

I believe in their plans they were calculating what I recall, and I didn't look at them as carefully as Stephen and Andrea, but they were on the plans, they were calculating it's like 13 DUs an acre across, they're spreading it across the entire site.

Our code says we take roast density, so before right-way dedications and all that, and and we didn't have an exhibit that showed that.

So I kind of, you know, it's a little bit of an exercise and arbitrary line drawing when you have horizontal mixed use.

So I kind of tried to go down the middle of the east-west road where it was split between residential and commercial, where it was residential and residential across from each other.

I included the whole area.

I included kind of the surrounding property, not knowing how much they had to dedicate for aspen and Arapahoe and Turn Lane.

And so there's questions there, and then also what do you consider the pond?

They kind of drew that all in the commercial area, but in reality, that could be kind of allocated in different ways for the different uses.

So that's why I kind of came up with the range.

One, because I I couldn't exactly figure it out due to just I don't know what's being dedicated at this time at this level, and then kind of how they allocated the pond, because you know, I mean, you can make an argument that the pond is falls closer to the residential.

You could lump that whole pond into the residential density if you want.

Like I said, it's it's a bit arbitrary.

Our code doesn't provide a ton of guidance or any guidance for horizontal mixed use.

So I just did my best to give a range of what I I think it actually is using gross density.

I um I I heard the applicants say that part of the reason I think they proposed this parking design is because this these commercial uh potential tenants are have very strict guidelines around what kind of parking they need.

And I guess for for us, I I wonder if there's ways that or if the city had has ideas of how we could be creative about is there something else that could be provided to these types of tenants that would make them willing.

I mean, I've seen big box stores in cities, they do it somehow.

I I know that that's not what's happening here, but I'm just wondering if they're thinking about your underground parking idea.

Like, are there things we could be offering that would create an alternative to this that those tenants would actually be attracted to?

So you're not we're asking you to do something that's gonna make it harder, it sounds like to find one of these tenants.

And I'm just wondering if there's a way to we could help with that.

Do we know of anything?

I mean, I feel like I see in a lot of these sort of infill developments where you get um rather than surface parking, a lot of the ground floor where it's not retail is parking.

So it's you know, so you get your residential lifted up, you got ground floor parking where it's got sort of a nice facade along the street, so it feels very pedestrian-oriented.

So you don't have so much surface lot, but because we're I think we're gonna have a hard time meeting or like retail on the ground floor, mixed use sort of ideal, just I mean, we're seeing it now.

I mean, I think there's ways to integrate that mixed use development where you do have parking that's nearby things that's sort of integrated with commercial that might help cut down some of the surface parking, but it's still quite adjacent to some of these big retailers.

Like I think about the garage, the whole foods and boulder.

The question is where is the parking requirement coming from?

Is it our code that creates the parking requirement?

Or does whoever the retailer is come and say, I need these many parking spaces.

I'm guessing it's the code.

Oh so they're they definitely do have.

I mean, yeah, they obviously a big box doesn't want 10 parking spaces, but within that flexibility, I don't think they're the ones saying we have to have X hundred parking spaces.

But didn't we just hear the applicant say that their tenants require a certain amount of parking spaces?

Yeah, so maybe maybe this is also an invitation if you're talking to one of those tenants and this is a big issue, and you can come up with them with a creative proposal.

You know, I think what I'm saying is I'm not trying to make it impossible for this kind of business to be here.

I'm just trying to figure out how we make it collaborative possible without sacrificing our vision for the community.

So if there are creative solutions that are available that you come across, I mean please do incorporate those into your plan to share with us.

Well, I think the other thing is here is that the staff identified that there's needs to be more integration between the commercial and the garden.

If you if you silo these spaces out, you are then gonna require the parking that's required for the spaces, right?

So it's based into one, two, and three, or three times it's gonna be, and that's convenient for them to be able for the developer to be able to just sort of here's one, I don't have to do anything to do with the other part of the site.

It's it's just easy, and we're trying to make it more complex so that the complexity is then reflected in the fact that the city is a diverse place, human beings are numerous, and you know, you're taking out the complexity of being a human being by just dumbing it down with there's a parking spot and there's the retail.

So if the integration between the two things are there, then the solution to park a car might also come with it.

So I think I think we we can say, hey, you want to come to Lafayette and be a retailer here?

Welcome.

You just need to realize that we're a biking, walking, public transportation type of city, and here's how we're gonna manage stuff like that.

And there's a reason people want to come here.

Yeah, that's the reason.

So it's a marketing.

We're enticing.

I I really miss my neighborhood target in South City, um, Missouri, South St.

Louis City, where they um took a big box and they wanted it to be a bigger box, so they put the target they put the parking underneath and everything.

And it was um, yeah, it was in a more urban part of the country, but um it was just a great experience going and shopping there, and um, there was only you know, three or four deep cars in front of the in front of the store, and that's um I know that it can be done with a with a large format retail store.

It's not um, and of course you go to cities everywhere um usually outside of this country, and that's they they do that all the time.

So there's a target on 16th Street, where there used to be.

Yeah, probably not up, but it's possible.

Um I think about what with this intensity and there's really very little commercial actually happening across the project, and you know, pairing that with the really good points about how it's almost like the intensity of the lot isn't even facing the highway, it's facing the ag across the street in the county, and that there's some there's gotta be something here around it's it's more of just a softening and a smoothing of you know a large portion of the lot having more of that a mild small mixed use that does turn into something less intense, and I don't know, just thinking through the different ways that that then relates to the block block faces or the comp plan, it just doesn't have to be these two, but there's clearly a hard line between this side of the street is this and this side of the street is that and that's not that's not what's shown in that um ultimate um graphic that's shown on page 156.

It's integrated, it's um it's mixed around it's um that's how a that's how a neighborhood is activated all throughout the day throughout you know um rather than just having no man's land retail um resiliency of small users, small renters, it's not you know, not being heartbroken that we don't get through three more national chains on a street either way.

Okay, but yeah, and then and the national chains are are used to go.

I mean, you don't have to provide them with a pad site.

Um they they're used to going into unique building, it's not that used to put Bank of America banks in all the different places, and you can modify you can modify your program to to fit into unique spaces, yeah.

Digress.

Um more about the um integration of commercial and residential or the amount of surface parking.

I think we've kind of have we have we wrung that one out.

Mix the uses.

Yeah, mix the uses, actually mix the uses and not just um does the commission agree with staff's feedback or have additional comments about individual building heights or the current proposals approach to providing transitions between land uses.

I'm not hearing any just any real concrete depth or justification for any of these major height increases.

And I know we're really early on and we're not gonna have a lot of concrete information, but it you know, it's relation to the nearby projects, it's relation to the site in particular, but the opportunities of being greenfield.

It just feels like we're wringing a towel for as much as we can off of this parcel.

It doesn't really feel like we're we're doing what this property is so uniquely capable of doing in this part of the city.

Well, if you took a site section, we'd notice that it is actually quite high, and to make it higher makes no sense, actually, does it?

With potential architectural elements where you might do a gabled roof, or you're gonna put a fourth floor patio, which is gonna be awesome, but it's gonna be a four-story block.

Right.

And then it it does start to ruin the character and the feel, and you know, I feel a certain way that there's a gas station currently on my look at the mountains.

I wish it wasn't, but that's what's on the other side right now.

Well that and then we have also argue that the other side that um you're blocking you're blocking the views from the highway and from the retail area, but not um but yeah.

Well, and I mean I I just maybe a devil's advocate here, like to me, this property on the corner of 287 in Arapaho is an appropriate place for some commercial.

I mean, I think that's why it's adaptable commercial and the comp plan, like it's this is not a this is not a scenic corridor.

This is this is 287 in the outskirts of the city, which might, if this goes forward, be part of the city.

So I think that it's worth saying when we think about growth.

This does feel like a more appropriate place for some of this than certain other places in the area.

Um, but I do think there are ways that these transitions could be more graceful.

I feel like if you did three two over one over two-thirds of the lot, you would get way more units and more commercial without the heights.

And I I that was my initial thing too, is thinking through it's two highways.

This is like the spot.

But the I I feel like there are just the so many of the conversations with the working group and some other projects that were or some other meetings we've had where we talk through people really care about the height.

Yeah, really, really there's a huge sensitivity.

I get that there's been a lot of conversations about that.

Um, but we again we have these two very competing um needs, and they're both listed in the comp plan, which is the the housing, the missing middle housing and um and height and um density and this is a very hard needle to thread.

Yeah, so I'm gonna also throw things this out since we are having a conversation, a discussion about this.

Is there anything here that says that you have to have this much commercial?

Could it be more residential?

Is I think that's what you're saying, right?

In a way, but you could you could scrape off like a third of that commercial side add more residential as well as integrating the one one over two years, Jess.

Um that gives you the feel of the small little neighborhood type thing.

Yeah, versus these little corpus towers just kind of sprinkled with the parking islands.

Yeah, yeah.

And and you're right, maybe maybe there is a middle ground somewhere in here that's a good thing.

Yeah, I think it's shorter, it's shorter Carbusian towers, it's shorter towers in the park.

Yeah, it's not towers.

It's um, but then you can tuck your you can tuck your parking underneath the building in some places.

Um kind of like the I I the west side of 95th Street is closer to South Boulder.

There are those town homes where there's the parking underneath them with the weird triangular trusses.

Yes, not absolutely new, it's newer, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

I think it's in the Lewisville Park, but yeah.

I think that's affordable housing, right?

Really?

Yeah.

Cool architecture for affordable housing.

Well, I mean, I do think that this corner lends itself to having commercial, obviously.

I mean, this is not a place that you want to put people living necessarily, like it's only getting busier, there's only more traffic.

Like there is a quality of life concern to be made about if we were like, hey, this should all be residential and let's stick everybody on 287.

I think without a doubt.

But I've been thinking about this, and you know, Lafayette is the final boundary of Boulder County, and we are at this agricultural edge.

And like you can see the line.

You can see the line where everything's just coming up right to us.

And I feel like we kind of have to hold the line a little bit.

And I think about what else in Boulder County is 60 feet.

What else?

What else in the county 60 feet?

Why are we six?

Why would this be 60 feet?

And the 60 feet feels like I'll be honest with you.

The 60 feet to me feels like how much you think we can get away with asking for.

Yeah, and then when we cut back to 40, then everybody will be happy.

Or something.

I just like, oh, here's a 60-foot building that is undescribed, and we'll get back to you on whatever that's gonna be, but we will just want it to be 60 feet and trust us, it'll be fine.

It gives me pause.

I I just think it's for the agricultural use for the farms next door for everything.

I realize Erie's run away with things, and we can't do anything about that because we cannot, and that ship has sailed.

But we can do something here.

We can do something here, and I think it's such a funny, like, yeah.

If you take an elevation and just like you know, farm single family residential, you'd have 60 foot towers, then it goes back down.

It's so out of character for Lafayette for this whole area for Boulder County for East County for you know, I mean, I realize the pillars are moving, but just everything about this place, this location.

I'm not against the commercial on any of these things.

It just feels like the emerald city, like you come over the corner and there's just this huge building here.

Like, where did this come from?

Because it doesn't go with anything else here, which is not to say that we can't build and shouldn't build, and all of these things are necessary, it just feels very disrespectful to I don't know, everything around it to me.

That gets to the transition piece, and thinking about that transition from if this is truly gonna be the new edge of the city, like down into the ag it would be nice to see more transition.

Yeah, I mean, you're driving down a rabbit hole, and it's just like oh my gosh.

Or what's north of that property is not agriculture, it's stone edge.

Yeah, okay.

So that's a residential development, very low density.

But it's not so it's not a transition from farmland to that, it's transitioning.

But it sounds like there's there's some like there are farmers and the people moving equipment, yeah.

Yeah, they're they're more in front, they're more north of Silo than they are of this development.

And I mean it's the sort of but it's the character of Lafayette in East County and this whole area.

I mean, one of the best things about living in Lafayette is within five minutes, you are in agricultural land.

I mean, that that's I think what defines Lafayette as a place in some ways, which can't prevent us from building, and this is never what I'm advocating for.

I'm I'm I don't think we can hold this sort of place in time where nothing ever changes because that's obviously not realistic, but this feels like it's very much a swing in the opposite direction of everything stays the same forever.

This is a big change.

I mean, residential building height maximums within the silo PUD range from 35 to 40 feet.

I would be curious to know how tall some of the ones that are built are um because they sure seem tall.

Um correct, and you look at it and you got 60 feet, 60 foot buildings.

I was looking at the pictures that were provided.

I thought, oh, I'm this is downtown Denver.

Yeah, stuff.

I I just can't see I just can't wrap my head around this.

Oh, by the way, here we want 60 feet or I just I think that'll be that's just a kind of a non-starter.

Yeah, it's it's like Commissioner Phillips said what's the trade-off.

Oh, by the way, to get to build a I don't yeah, if it's 60 feet, it has to have all you know, the parking has to be hidden.

Like all the parts of the streets.

Do we know how to be seven feet?

Are the new ones are those oh those have to be the town zones behind the lows?

Those apartments or Uriah, yeah.

I'm just curious at the end of the day.

I think I want to say three stories, yeah.

Three stories, those aren't sixty feet.

Well, I don't think so.

I don't think they're sixty, but they're up there.

But again, that would be if it's a four-story they do be tall.

I mean, they're not if sixty.

I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to this, or maybe somebody knows if if um those are not 60 feet, 60 feet is gonna read really really tall.

But I don't know again, that's a 15-foot floor to floor height, assuming they have flat roofs, you know.

Even uh I mean, even 13 feet is a lot.

That's a very high ceiling.

So I don't think that's what they do.

I it's the baseline development that's gone out their own seven, those real tall buildings.

Those might be like 60 feet.

The ones that have the garages against seven in Erie.

No, yeah, I guess technically like once you go out to 25, there's those that new baseline development that's got out.

I try not to look at them.

I think they might be 60 feet is my point.

I think that might be closer to that range if you look at the pitch of the roof and sort of the top of the gable, that might be kind of the 60s.

I think we all agree that 60 feet is not um and and I think we agree with staff's feedback.

Need more information um that's just very, very tall.

Um next question number five.

Uh, do we have any additional comments about the level of diversity of housing types or amount of affordable housing included in the sketch plan?

So that was silo version two that we were very disappointed with.

And that's the same concept that they don't, it's like, oh yeah, this whole block is you know, duplexes, this whole block is this and that instead of you know throwing in all different variations.

So no.

And I would just I would just encourage the applicant to think about if you if you allow more affordable housing, you're you're getting people in the door of your development, you're getting people into the neighborhood, and you've got to start somewhere, and then they move that's that's the whole idea of missing metal housing.

You know, you start people somewhere and then they want to stay in their neighborhood, so they're gonna move up to the next next you know, unit size or the next unit you know level.

And um it's just tiresome to not see nobody ever says this is the this is the percent, this is the amount of money we have to make per unit or per whatever.

Um that's never quantified, so we never really know what's what's really feasible as a percentage of um of affordable house affordable multifamily units.

Like what is that magic number?

I know it's gonna be different with every project, but um it's gotta be better than that.

So the other part about that is that we are only seeing two housing types again.

Yeah, the town hall uh product and the um multi-family uh apartment product.

There's tons of other things out there that are not integrated into this project, which are typuxes or triplexes or even courtyard conditions and the court the courtyard quadple quadplexes, which could lend themselves to like you know, having uh a great little like this is your pod, and what there's an it's open to the sky, and there's a courtyard out there, it could be quite beautiful, but there's nothing like that.

It's it alleviates the parking issue because you're you're not worried about having to park every all these kinds of excellent ideas that are out there in the world that show that possibilities of how we can actually up the number of housing typologies that are available or the price points that are out there, the AMIs that are required based on the city and and yeah, yet we only have tools here.

Some I think you're right, let's encourage to see to seek out more options here.

Valuable.

I'd ask never any tiny homes.

Never ever.

No.

On the on the aforementioned.

I would say you could put it on the big box because it's a plot through.

Yeah, I mean the the opportunities you think she's joking.

I know it's I mean something up there.

You could put a garden number.

Yeah, I always know it has been done.

It has been done so many times.

I always I always wonder if the things like the tiny homes in Colorado are uniquely difficult because it's just from dedication costs for water and things, like how much are you gonna be able to do that?

Yeah, those those barriers have to be dropped.

Well, I know there's phase three, which is doing nothing at the moment.

So there's a big cottage court.

Yeah, that'll be really cool.

I think 60 foot.

12% of it being some percentage of AMI, 80 at a minimum, or I guess a maximum.

And then no, no, no, they say if you look at the no, I'm saying us talking through.

They say the 80 is the minimum.

So it can go up, yeah, not below 80.

I think that percentage definitely needs to calculate the holistic amount of residential units.

It's not a percentage of apartments.

I feel like we probably are all in agreement that it should reflect the total unit count.

Okay, I agree.

Yeah, and I I mean I would I I would love it if if that percentage of 12% could actually be divided between the housing types.

Like it'd be great if there were some townhouse affordable town home options in here as well as affordable apartments for renters.

Yeah, and um kind of trying to diverse.

So that's all that we come into the practical problem, and that's why we have to have inclusionary zoning first, because the AMI now they're doing is with rental apartments, which they can control.

Okay.

Once you get into town homes and stuff, you know, then they're selling them, and that needs inclusionary zoning because then you start getting into market rate affordable, permanently affordable, all those concepts, and that we can't do that on the fly here.

Yeah, not at this level.

But we can we can make that suggestion and make that comment that we would like to see that as we develop that part of our code, we'd like to see that um on the development of this scale and of this importance, we'd like to see the developer work with the city on that kind of that kind of plan.

I know.

Do we is there is there a version of this where we also see through the creation of diverse housing types, a small area of single family homes that act as that sort of vignette.

I know we have a high saturation of single family, so it's probably not the thing that we're needing from a housing diversity standpoint.

Yeah, I think the idea, yeah.

I think the idea, like Commissioner who just said that the cottage homes or like a four-plex townhome surrounding a courtyard space, some really creative ideas here besides a row of townhomes and block movements.

Um we can do better than that.

Um diversity of housing types, um, last question.

Last question.

Uh do we agree with Low Sav's cash and loo recommendation or have additional comments about the proposed PLD?

Um, but I understand when Low said their I mean their perspective is open space, which is not open land, two different concepts.

Yeah.

So when they look at this, obviously that this is doesn't qualify for open space from the perspective of wildlife corridors, what they look at.

Okay.

Doesn't necessarily mean we can't say, okay, that's nice, but maybe we want park land somewhere in the middle.

So and that's why they uh open space and cash and loo we can use to buy land elsewhere and not develop it or whatever.

And of course, the question is Homework is a cash and loo.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, it's defined in the cross for a short owner.

No, it's in the code if we want to look at it.

Is it formal or children?

How many acres equals this?

I I feel like the comments from the public and the comments from the commission, this this proposal of the of the kind of open space on the site feels um sort of insufficient to serve the site.

Um I think at least I'm curious what others up here think.

Like I feel a little, it feels a little premature to decide on whether we want cash and loo or a proposal of open space with this proposal.

Like with this proposal, it doesn't seem like folks are super excited about this.

But maybe with some of the other things we've been talking about, there is a design that feels really good for this.

And maybe that would be preferable to cash and loo, but it's hard to say, right?

Well, somebody referenced Central Park.

Why not have a big park right in the middle?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I think conceptual it needs that.

It needs, and that's where you know, if we could connect it over to, for instance, there's I forget what exactly is happening on the north end of silo where there's some green space.

Uh or you know, connecting to that and having some continuity there.

Um, whether it's maybe it's not open space per se, but it needs to be a pedestrian connection with some with some outdoor space.

Um yeah, that's really interesting.

You mentioned that, like you, you know, you talk about an anchor store, how about an anchor park?

That's the new idea, right?

Yeah, you and I just I just remind myself that you know we've seen these examples everywhere where you and I think somebody just mentioned there's there's a football pitch or a baseball thing or something like that that draws families and people and picnickers and all that sort of stuff that goes on in those journey.

Yeah, shouldn't we exactly there's people out there, there's pickup soccer games, there's and people space are like you were saying, people are drawn to this community.

People I go there because we want to visit the park, and I don't live in the area, and I always have tons of neighbors from the area bike through and go to the library and come back with my I used to go to King Supers.

Maybe go look at South Point, that's a perfect example.

There's a piece of land in the middle there was initially supposed to be reserved for school, and the school district gave it up, and they turned that into a combination of there was a playground, but a small prey ground and a couple of different large fields where the community could come and congregate for whatever reason.

And it was right there in the middle of the development.

Right.

Can I just think like for for use on site, right?

If we're reducing parking because it's supposed to be VRT, and then we've got last mile on the bike and whatever.

So we're encouraging people not to drive, not providing an on-site amenity for any kind of outdoor space.

Functional outdoor space.

Yeah, it's totally against the idea of like, okay, so you want to live without a car.

We're not going to give you any kind of space minus a detention pond.

You can go stick your toes in.

Like you know, it's if we want this to be like a self-contained community, it has to have the amenities that you would expect there, and some kind of recreational space, some kind of gathering space, some kind of programmatic, you know, third space, outdoor space.

I feel like it's necessary to have on site, which I would encourage the applicant to consider.

And I do, I mean, I do agree that it's too really for cash on those things.

But given the size of the site and the concentration of residentials, but there's no sort of outdoor space.

And just the idea that you know people are people are annoyed about the height request, but again, you could couple an outdoor space um with a view corridor and um kind of allow for that to still happen.

If this private drive became a parkway, but we're all of which was like a green area with the view and the whole thing.

That'd be nice.

Yeah, really nice.

I think about like you ever drive down you know, seventh where it splits in Denver, and there's just like people running and people with dogs and people playing sports, and like that's a very desirable place to live, and it's just such a beautiful thing.

I think that would no breathing room.

No, no, this is real, everybody's up on each other's it's all parking business, it's suburban development, but yet it's still packed in.

I don't know how you managed to achieve that.

Yeah, so it's supposed to have a community garden, and then it's not a mic.

I think the way it's drawn was also like when you see all the parking spaces on it, it just feels like it's all it's all it's all it's all micro.

So all right.

Are there any other um items that we've not yet discussed in response to you know the questions from staff?

Anything else that came up from the public?

Um, anything else we haven't talked about at length here.

I mean, I think we talked about it, but um I'm still real curious about this phase three, given that we I think we know potentially what it is, uh since we're asking for a huge hype variant, since there seems to be some indication as to what phase three might be.

Well, I'd love some more information.

I just think that's a traders, yeah.

Helpful for the whole nature of the site to have a little more insight onto what anticipated use.

That's 60 foot.

That's personal.

It doesn't it doesn't help anybody to not have transparency.

Just there's something there, it's like a huge it's just a huge open space that's not a parking lot, so it's just a real intrigue.

Yeah, exactly.

That's the soccer pitch.

The only other the 60-foot tall soccer pitch.

The only other like really small thing I've been thinking about or mulling over looking at this, is just whatever that minor relationship is gonna be with with what the current plan is, and this may completely change, but the the back side of that large pad.

I'm just imagining just the semis that are gonna have to go through that, and then there's just the eight homes.

That's the thing.

Just thinking about that as a I mean, also from a public safety perspective, that's gonna breed bad activities.

But it's a good example of at the very least putting some of the parking back behind the building and making that a shared making that the shared parking and then having retail space that you walk next to as you go to the front of the building, so you park behind that big pad, you still have your service areas on the south side.

Um, but and landscape that, I mean, right now I wouldn't want to live in those townhomes.

When you look at big boxes, what are they?

Three sides.

Yeah, they're just big blank walls.

Why not have retail incorporated all the way around it?

Yeah, yeah.

Or stores and residential for that matter.

That too.

Why not?

Yeah.

And then you got all your space for your park.

Oh well.

Um, I still am really concerned about connectability and the amount of units um given the safety issues that we have seen in the past month to weeks.

Yeah, um, that's just a big concern.

I don't know how we've really addressed that in our land use code.

I don't know how you know um I you know, I'm I'm pretty pro, I mean density density, but I'm pro like let's build in a way because I think that is sustainable.

But if you don't have the ability to get people off the site, um that's scary.

Yeah, I don't know how that gets dealt with.

Um, but but um anything else then didn't the state come up with some new kind of fire requirements, so we incorporated Jake.

So we incorporated Jacob.

Didn't that happen?

Sorry.

Yes, the oh I'm forgetting the the acronym is uh yeah, wildfire urban interface or yeah, yeah, we're I mean we have some areas that are in certain zones that requires like certain building materials, uh uh certain defensible spaces, things like that.

Um I'm not real versed on on fire evacuation, but I've gone to a few conference sessions on it, and it seems like the big things are for good evacuation or proximity to high volume streets.

Uh uh distance, I believe was the other one from those high volume streets, and then uh I think density uh or density was on that inverse relationship, but if I remember correctly, I'm going off memory here.

But I think the point of that session was it's a lot of the exurban, exurban living and long curving roads that only have one point of access.

Uh are there were the real issues.

This was also in California at a conference in relation to the California wildfire, so it's a little different.

Yeah, okay.

Well, um, you know, developer folks, thanks for hanging in here with us.

Um appreciate the chance to give me some feedback.

You've got to be very open to receiving it, so hopefully this is helpful what you were gonna play poker with those folks.

So what you needed um from this conversation to have a better sense of what is gonna make the city excited about a development on this parcel.

Um there's a caution, however, I would like to throw out there.

Um you can come back with all the feedback that you've received.

There's still the possibility, and that's a risk you're willing to take that council may not accept.

So it's a question of weighing that for yourself.

Well, and just so that we're absolutely clear, you know, the the loss for Lafayette, if that were to happen after 2029, they would be it, you know.

That's a that's a lot of sales tax loss.

So we are you know that is something that we uh are aware of, and um so all sorts of things in the balance okay.

Thank you.

Uh if there's no other staff, do we feel like that's you've got the comments and the feedback that that are needed?

All right, thank you all.

Um we're gonna move on to the next agenda item.

Um we have to um elect uh chair and vice chair.

Um right.

I'm gonna go ahead and read through um some of these requirements that we have each January.

A new chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected by the commission for a one-year term because we have a public hearing on tonight's agenda.

Um we are moving the item to the end of the meeting.

We already did that.

At this time, I will call for nominations for the commission chairperson.

Um after the nominations, each nominee will have an opportunity to speak on it, including whether or not they accept the nomination.

Please feel free to nominate yourself.

Nominate Chair Thomas to continue on.

You take the punishment so well.

Um do you have to accept that primary before we second?

Or are you just bullying you into it?

I was gonna say I will accept the nomination.

We second.

Would anyone else like to be nominated or to nominate themselves?

Or we are no.

It's not that bad.

All right.

Um we have uh a nomination.

Um since there are no other nominations, do we do we um myself?

Okay, or do we how do we need to do that?

No, there's no ballot process for the other admission, but um okay.

I remember would be great.

All right, move to approve Chair Thomas to continue on for another year.

Second.

All right, we have a motion.

We have a second, oh no, second is needed.

Um please indicate your vote by yay or nay, starting uh individually.

So let's start at that point.

Yay.

Yeah, yay.

Yay.

Yay!

All right, I will now call for nominations for the vice chair.

Um I would like to nominate uh Frank Phillips for vice chair.

We have a nomination.

Are there any other nominations?

Any other nominees?

I'd like to nominate Commissioner Wilson.

Okay.

Oh do we accept our nominations?

Are there any other nominations?

I would say raise health, but that's not accurate.

I'm sorry, she's such a difficult shirt with the vice chair does.

It's basically just me sit in on the meeting when if I'm not able to chair.

So we had a yes or no.

I'll accept the nomination.

Okay, then I decline.

Oh shake up.

All right.

I see the writing on the wall.

Oh, goodness.

All right.

Uh, we have a nomination.

Um may we have a motion to elect Commissioner Dottie Wilson as vice chair.

Commissioner.

So all right, do we have a second?

Uh no, no second is needed.

Please indicate your vote by a yay or nay study on the left.

Yay.

Yay.

Yay.

Yay.

Oh, yay.

Yay.

Come on, good for you.

Yay.

All right.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you all.

Um I think we only have left on the agenda.

Um, Commissioner comments and committee reports, and then comments.

Are there any commission comments?

I just want to welcome um Commissioner Laman.

Commissioner Daniel.

Um already contributed a lot, so we're very excited to have you.

Um great to have fresh energy.

And thank you for having me.

Yeah.

Sorry to be here.

Any other commission comments?

Thank you for your service as vice chair.

Commissioner.

It was rough.

You're welcome.

All right.

Any department comments?

I do not have any updates for you right now.

It we will be canceling next week's meeting and likely the first meeting in February.

Hope to be back by a second meeting with uh a spar, possibly two.

Uh, but I do not believe we'll have anything for the first meeting in February.

I have no major updates on any projects that are happening right now.

Do you have any anything that comes to mind?

I've been trying to try to think of stuff the last week or so.

Just schedule wise.

Um we already mentioned that um city council will be convening uh next Tuesday for a working group session to talk about the land use code update and inclusionary housing, and then they will consider this application that you consider tonight uh on February 3rd.

So February 3rd, that's Tuesday.

Will the council working group be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel?

Like in respect to can you can you remind us?

Um sorry, oh walk again.

Um can you remind us of the timeline for the land use code adoption?

We are still targeting uh in the first quarter beginning uh second quarter of the start.

Of this year, okay.

We've got some left to do and see what feedback we get next week.

But yeah, that's still like a little done.

All right.

I'd like to do you have more to work.

No, no, sorry.

Hopefully we can make it quick.

I don't think it's I do apologize.

I I uh should have brought this to you at a at an earlier meeting, but I've never worked in a community that the planning commission had a work plan.

So uh this was a little bit news to me, and it was we put it together.

Uh we need to have it ready for uh city council at their February retreat.

I mean, luckily the work plan for planning commission is pretty straightforward.

Uh I kind of just laid out the bullets straight from the uh memo and the uh analysis.

So ongoing responsibilities for it's a two-year work plan now, too.

This was a first for all boards and commissions.

This year's a double develop a two-year work plan.

So ongoing just review development applications and make recommendations of city council or final determinations depending on the application type.

Service aboard of adjustment, um including hearing and deciding variance requests and certain appeals, and then reviewed development and zoning code amendments and make recommendations to city council.

That's kind of the bulk of what you do, and that's uh ongoing responsibilities for 26 or for the uh 2026.

The first half we have kind of what we were just talking about, complete review of the land use code update.

We provide a recommendation to council, and then we're just kicking off the South Boulder Road Area Plan.

So you will be uh engaged in that as we move through that area plan.

Second half, it's again continue working on the South Boulder Road Area Plan, and then looking at initial discussions and activities related to uh comprehensive plan updates, and uh then following 2027, hopefully making the first half making a recommendation regarding the South Boulder Road Area Plan and then finalizing comprehensive plan amendments and making a recommendation to council.

And then following 2027, hopefully making the first half making a recommendation regarding the South Boulder Road Area Plan, and then finalizing comprehensive plan amendments and making a recommendation to council.

And we didn't really have anything scheduled in the second half.

Some of this might you know kind of bleed over until the second half, but then obviously we'll try to get out in front of a 28-29 work plan a little earlier.

And so if there's anything you think that should be added here that were that we're not that we haven't thought of, we'd just like that feedback tonight so we can add it to the work plan that city council takes to their retreat.

But I was under the impression we were going to start once we're done with the land use that we were going to start revising the building code.

In my experience, there's usually a building code advisory committee, but as it might it might be different here, but I haven't.

Every time I bring up change, you know, putting in new sustainability requirements, I go to, oh no, no, we're gonna do that in the fall.

We're not doing that now.

So I've never worked somewhere with a planning commission was involved in that role.

But disappeared.

The the IECC takes a lot.

I mean, some of the new plan, like now that we're adopting codes on the three-year cycle.

Oh, is that what it is?

That's yeah, so the I the ICC comes out with new building codes every three years, and then like Boulder takes their code and and massages it and tweaks it.

Sometimes they do more.

Denver does the same thing.

So is that the amendments?

Um, you know, yeah, we I don't know what the Lafayette because I just haven't worked with it directly.

We'll we'll be updating them this year.

So uh the target for adoption in August.

Yeah, yeah, that's but when but when the IECC is amended and and and massaged and tweaked, it's often it's so onerous, and it's really um it's really difficult, not just for architects, and you know, we we made through it, but it's it's difficult for small business owners to hire people professionals that are needed to to enact the code.

So if you can make it just the the model code as much as you can, it really does help um.

And I understand that things that's what we always in general do with every of the various codes as the updates come out.

We don't necessarily adopt them, sometimes we wait to the one after for whichever reason, but it doesn't stop us from making certain amendments or additions that we would like to have locally.

And I thought this was our opportunity to beef up the sustainability requirements that we have all I thought all in the past for saying, God, we wish we had this in the code.

So when are we gonna do it?

Is that more like items of the development code then that we would capture?

Yeah, okay.

So instead of less and less and like things well, I mean, for example, I mean, the only thing we require now, right, is based on the number of parking spots, you have to have recharge a couple of you know, recharge stations, you know, uh least charge stations and then and then recharge ready.

Capable and ready, for example.

Residential, again, there's no requirement for solar of any kind.

There's just oh, I don't know.

Is there a requirement for soil ready?

Commercial, I believe it's 40 percent, I believe, is what the the number that sticks out.

But there's nothing you know required for for anything else.

So I think we could potentially I'm not looking at substantial number of changes to turn us into boulder.

That's not the idea, but there are some things we said we'd like to have, so why can't we do it?

All right, um connected with our chief building official on some level, um, but I haven't had a robust conversation with them about the um engagement plan.

I don't know if you remember what that involved last time, but we'll I'll talk to them before we meet again, and I'll give you guys an update what Jake will give you an update at the next meeting and clarify um what those opportunities are and whether or not planning commission has historically played a role.

Sounds like you're asking to get an update uh as part of um this code change and be able to provide some feedback.

So we could look at what other communities are doing, for example, see hey, you know, is that possible?

I mean, yeah, if nothing else, let's just at least look at it, if nothing else.

Yeah, no, that's part of the analysis and part of what my expectation is for that update, and I'm sure that's part of I mean, it definitely goes to council for um adoption.

So um, but I do know Lewis Phil, I think to Thomas's point, just updated and more or less took the approach.

My understanding, I should say.

I don't know for sure because I wasn't part of those discussions or wasn't at those meetings, but my understanding is they adopted the 2024 codes without very many amendments for the same purpose that uh Chair Thomas has suggested.

We currently have pretty significant, very unique amendments related to E D and P V chargers that are um you know beyond.

Yeah, uh yeah, they are they exceed at the time the city wanted to kind of be out in front and and lead that discussion and um and and that's where we are right now.

Um I Kevin will have to explain Kevin, the chief building official how 2024 codes are more or less uh in line with where we stand now.

They still honestly compare to what we have, they may not be as robust um as what we adopted previously uh in terms of those pieces.

But I think that part of the conversation, at least from a sustainability lenses is beyond EV and PV.

It's how are you building those buildings and you know the efficiency and building materials?

I mean something just construction solution window.

So it's a pretty uh involved conversation, but uh we'll get back to you with uh what the plan is for engagement.

And I don't think you know not having something in here precludes you from adding it to it.

Uh but we just want to get this to city council.

I I'm not expecting a lot of feedback because this is a little bit different commission than a lot of the other boards of commissions, and that they have kind of a mission and they're proactively doing things where we're more responding to things, so I don't anticipate a lot.

Uh but with your blessing, we will forward this on.

Uh I think we do have a motion.

We did one question, one question.

You you brought up the vision zero stuff quite a bit.

Is that something that we might want to be thinking about?

I don't know if it's a problem.

Yeah, division zero is transportation related.

Yeah.

I don't know how we well, we've already the this council itself has already adopted the number of provisions under vision zero.

But again, my issue is not with adopting provisions, it's you know which ones that which provisions they they adopted, you know, which were basically oh, it's stuff we're either already doing or stuff that doesn't cost any money versus what should we be doing.

But again, I think that's more councils pre-perview than ours.

Okay.

I would be curious because it keeps popping up about some kind of interface with um the with BBSD with the school district and saying how how do you calculate these?

Um we've been we've been hearing, I've been hearing about overcrowded school, you know, school classrooms at Ryan and all these schools, and oh, we're they're only 80 to 84 percent.

Um, and you've got a thousand units or more that are still yet to be complete.

But you know, they didn't tell you which schools it's across the district.

Oh, so if you if you want to if you if you want yeah, if you want to be busted all the way into Boulder where the uh enrollments declining but you can but you can't be bust all the way into Boulder because it can only be bust to your neighborhood schools.

Exactly.

BBSD does provide the the schools specifically in their referrals and where where they would be, where they would be attending their home school essentially.

If the school refers you, then you can get transportation.

If you do open enrollment, then you can't get transportation.

I mean, I'm more than happy to ask the the school facilities planner if he would like to uh present or or provide us, you know.

I don't want to, you know, just jurisdictional respect.

I don't want to meddle in in like you know, questioning his numbers.

I will tell you I do.

I mean, one thing to keep in mind multifamily numbers constantly come in low throughout my career.

People are always like surprised by those numbers, but what we have to take in mind that I don't know the demographics here, but in the previous jurisdiction I work for, the average uh uh there's 1.87 people per multifamily unit across the city.

So if you have 1.87 people per unit, how many of them are couples, how many were single people now, whatever's left over, the only ones with kids.

So it it is a pretty low number.

Uh so I I know that those numbers seem low relative to units, but it's comparing them to like a single family home, which again in former jurisdiction had closer to three residents per unit, you know, so it's almost one and a half, you know, times more people.

So lower income affordability that would mean then.

You have a lot more people living in yeah, but they're yeah, but I assume is they're using citywide demographics based on survey uh tracks and blocks and the that's what we want to know.

We're not asking we like them understand how to and and the fact that okay, you've got all these units that we've approved, and we know we'll be built at some point, and we've got this big crunch of this kind of backlog of units that haven't been built yet, and they're still saying, Oh, yeah, we're fine, we're fine, we're fine.

But we're hearing it they're not fine.

Yeah, um it'd be interesting to know how they're doing with cumulative too.

Like, are they incorporating these other plans that they've been evaluated but haven't been built yet?

Yeah, that's that's is their own.

I get the sense that they're only looking at currently this is the percentage of of you know full we are and not what will be what how full will be after 40 North's button.

Nothing.

Like I thought this was gonna be a two-minute presentation.

Right.

Um I will move to adopt the planning commission work plan for 2026 and 2027 and forward it to the city council for review.

As amended.

As a minute.

Otherwise you won't put that in.

What do you want me to put in?

Which part?

The school part or the building?

Both I mean the school part, I don't think it's a work plan item, really.

And it's just uh it's just a reach in the I mean, you're right, but the other one is could potentially become a work item.

I will put it in there with uh explore opportunities for planning commission to be involved with any building code updates.

We'll couch it like that.

Sounds good.

All right.

Do I have a second second?

Oh, we got three seconds.

All right.

All in favor?

Any closed?

Motion carries.

Um is there any other comment?

Or are we ready to adjourn?

Move to adjourn.

All right, I second that.

We are adjourned.