Clerk Beck, could we please get a roll call?

Mayor Tapia Vega.

Here.

Mayor Curtem Barnes.

Councilor Bolier.

Here.

Councillor Friedman.

Here.

Councillor Gallegos.

Good evening.

Councillor Gianova.

Here.

And Councillor Jensen.

Here, Mayor, we have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

And I know Mayor Proton Barnes is stuck in some traffic, so he will be here shortly.

We'll begin tonight with public inputs.

And just as a reminder, we will have a public hearing later on.

But this is public input.

We will.

Well, if you want to speak, please fill out one of the speaker request forms in the back or through the glass doors there and hand it to our amazing city clerk.

You will have five minutes to speak.

We will begin tonight with Karen Norbeck.

Karen Norbach, 800 East Genesio.

Good evening.

I'm here to give a couple of shout-outs to city staff tonight.

The first one is for the changes to the development review process.

Later tonight, you will be the first council to experience that change as you weigh in on a sketch plan at a point in the process where you can truly give feedback that can make a difference.

Years ago when 40 North was first in motion, residents from Anna's Farm in Indian Peaks filed an appeal of the planning commission's decision on the project to the council.

Watching how that council came to life and engaged with the developer and the neighbors to provide input early on in the process was enlightening.

Ever since I've wanted to see that become part of the process.

Twenty-six years ago, I started talking to former city administrator Gary Klepaki about trying to save some of the land in the Domenico farm across the street from the Thomas Farm as development plans were being discussed.

There was an article in Organic Gardening Magazine about something called a CSA or community supported agriculture.

It was a new concept at that time.

I took it to Gary and started painting a vision of incorporating it into the plans for the Domenico property.

Later there was an article about chefs growing their own produce for their restaurants.

And since there was a commercial component plan for the entrance to Anna's farm, just east of the Domenico property, I added that to the vision.

I asked Gary, what if this area could become a vibrant community center, which would also help save some of the farmland.

It could honor generations of Lafayette farming families while providing organic produce for the community, educational events, and perhaps the potential for other opportunities not yet envisioned.

Gary, being a Minnesota farm boy, was intrigued.

However, the plans for the Domenico property were eventually backburnered, and so was this idea.

Today those plans are back on the table and are called 40 North.

The land that is now the Thomas Farm was planned for housing.

It was once part of the farm of Anna Wanica and her husband William Thomas.

Anna was the daughter of homesteaders Adolph and Anna Wanica.

William died in a mining accident, leaving Anna with nine children.

She was later married Frank Greenley and had two more children.

She divorced him ten years later and raised her 11 children alone on that farm.

In 1995, when development of her farm was imminent, Doug Connero and his wife Dana Caulfield pulled off a last-minute rescue of Anna's house that was slated for demolition and moved it across town near the Rothman Open Space, where they restored it to its former glory.

In 2002, neighbors successfully lobbied the city to purchase a property as open space.

In 2004, I approached Gary again, suggesting we take the CSI ID, CSA idea to the Thomas property.

He was in and told me to find him some farmers.

I did.

A visit to the property with this idea in mind captured everyone's imagination.

Now the ball got rolling.

We went to Lowsack and the council and received support for the idea.

Gary formed a working group and we figured out how to move forward.

Here it is.

Gary said we would have to lease the property to a farmer, but the city charter did not allow for the leasing of open space.

So in 2005, he got a question on the ballot asking the voters for approval to lease for agricultural uses.

They said yes.

A call for farmers went out, and the farmers from Avondanza Farms, I found for Gary in 2004, were selected to take on the first lease in 2007.

One of the applicants for that first call was Wyatt Barnes of Red Wagon.

I still have emails from him in my file asking questions and offering suggestions.

Isabel Farms Next to COVID, the lease, followed by Red Wagon.

In 2012, the barn was built.

During the celebration, Mayor Cutler presented me with a mayor's citation of Excellence Black in recognition of my vision and work on this project.

So I hope you can understand why I'm so proud to be here tonight to talk about the Thomas Farm and to say thanks to the staff for ensuring that we keep this important and unusual part of our community vibrant by working out a plan to subsidize the water rates.

This was a cutting edge project back in 2004, and now it has become another part of why Lafayette is such a unique and special place to live.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Barbara Patton.

Good evening.

I'm Barbara Patton, 2389 Indian Peaks Trail.

I'm the president of Indian Peaks Master Association.

I have been on the board for four years and I'm in my second year of being president.

We have 1,398 residential homes.

We have four quarterly meetings, one annual meeting, and a quarterly newsletters, and we are a very communicative board.

Everyone has my email, my telephone number, and most people I'm sure know where I live.

I also spend a lot of time visible on IP Trail and Wanaka Lake Trail managing our Zeriscape projects.

I am very accessible.

So why am I telling you this?

Because when I opened the city survey about the new zoning proposals, to my dismay, I found survey questions asking if zoning should be changed to allow commercial businesses on the corner of the courts along Indian Peaks Peaks Trail and Wanaka Lake Trail.

No one in Indian Peaks has ever brought this idea of commercial business being allowed to either myself or any of our board members.

But more importantly, no one from the planning commission, planning office, rather, ever reached out to us, the 1,398 property owners, to ask what we thought of this zoning change.

Indian Peaks was developed under a PUD and has an HOA with covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

In order to change the zoning from residential to allow commercial businesses, both the PUD and our C C and Rs, which do not allow commercial, would have to be overturned.

1,398 families bought homes in a residential community.

We all had a choice.

We could have bought homes closer to the commercial district areas in downtown Lafayette, but we didn't.

Another zoning proposal in the survey asked if multi-family buildings should be able to be built in our mostly single family neighborhood.

Once again, these are not allowed under our PUD and our HOA covenants, but we all knew that when we purchased our homes.

Indian Peaks is a 30-year-old stable, peaceful, well-maintained residential neighborhood.

This is not a 30-year-old urban blighted area that is up for redevelopment and reimagining on how it should look and function.

No one asked that Indian Peaks be retrofitted to fit some new planning idea learned at a planning conference.

This idea to rezone Indian Peaks Trail and to allow commercial in the corners of Indie Peaks Trail and Wanaka Trail would destroy the very character of our neighborhood.

In addition, it would pit neighbors against neighbors.

How?

Well, the sheer inequity regarding where the commercial businesses are would be located is unfair.

Let's start with the fact that the zoning proposal lets Lafayette pick winners and losers.

The winners are the corner houses that can convert to commercial and ostensibly make money, which I'll get back to in a minute.

Meanwhile, all the other homeowners on the court see their property values drop because if someone is looking for a home in what looks like a residential neighborhood but arrives to see a house for sale next to a bicycle shop or a coffee shop or a cafe whose nighttime trash attracts rats and inherent parking issues on top of that, you are going to move on to a different street.

But even that won't assure you and residential court because you will never be able to know when the two houses at the end of the courts will be converted to commercial uses.

So uncertainty reduces value.

This pie in the sky idea is unsuitable for Indian Peaks.

Could this idea be suitable for brand new development?

Absolutely, but not for Indian Peaks.

Now let me address the chance of commercial viability on Indian Peaks Trail.

I drove around Lafayette to count the number of empty commercial spaces and buildings because I'm that kind of nerd and found 28, which include 10 empty spaces in the new building right next door here.

There are already three coffee shops within one mile of Indian Peaks Trail.

Many of these empty commercial spaces are on more high traffic roads than IP Trail and Wanaka Trail.

Yet they still fail.

Businesses need traffic volume to succeed at the very least, which is the antithesis of how Indian Peaks Trail and Wanaka Trail were designed to function.

But more importantly, on page 23 of the PUD, it says protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods by limiting traffic volume, limiting access, traffic speed, and through traffic.

Number four says design the internal streets to encourage local traffic only.

Commercial businesses along Indian Peaks Trail Trail have zero chance of thriving.

The commercial zoning would only serve to diminish the value of the other homes and cause friction among our neighbors.

In conclusion, we ask that this be removed, these two zoning proposals that target Indian Peaks and will only ruin our wonderful neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Before we move on, I just want to uh say please uh don't clap, don't cheer, uh no reactions.

We want to make sure we maintain the quorum.

Uh, this is an official city council meeting where we are conducting business.

So while I understand you all want to have your voice heard, you have the opportunity to do so.

You will have the same five minutes to speak that anyone else can.

So please, again, no clapping, no cheering, uh, please, no reactions of any kind.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we will hear from Frank Archoleto.

I'm gonna pass these out to you here.

This is uh basically uh news here, and what I'm gonna speak about basically your moratorium.

The moratorium was basically broken.

We went ahead and they buried a person yesterday at the cemetery, and I'm all for that, and I'll explain to you exactly why and how it happened.

Thank you.

First and foremost, I'd like to welcome Kyle to counsel here.

As you all know, you did put a moratorium on the cemetery.

Well, yesterday we had a burial up there, and this is what it's all about, and I'm all for the burials, but during the process of the diggings and all that, they did hit a coffin there, and which I have stated many times before throughout the years, when they did hit a coffin, they would move to the right or to the left to continue the digging here.

And that's been standard procedure for over 70 years, and I know that for a fact.

I've been up to that cemetery many times when they were gigging when I was youngster.

But anyway, I would like to thank you all because you are all together and you are all involved with the cemetery here, and basically you lifted the moratorium by allowing that burial yesterday, and I'm all for that to help the families out.

Basically, you have contracted with Christopher Keller, L I N C partners, L L Contracting out the burials of the cemeteries and all that.

And he stated I met with him three times up there.

He wants to work with the people.

So you have 150 letters that went out.

There are over 200 for sure.

People that still need to be buried in the cemetery up there.

Folks, we need to work together on all this here to allow the people.

Dig it, and if there's not a coffin directly underneath it, well, that's a different story.

But if they'd already hit it to the side, let them move over and continue the digging.

After all, folks, they pay for these plots for years and years and years up there.

It's a shame to not allow them to proceed with the burials.

Now, all the state, once again, you either broke or lifted the moratorium.

So now everybody else that needs to be buried there should have the equal opportunity to be buried in the process and allow the diggings to happen.

I know it's been hard and all that.

The cemetery issues have been going on for many, many years.

And it was basically staked out, not plotted right directly and all that, as far as the plots and all that, and that's why the overlappings occurred through all these years.

But yet, there was never, never, never big big problems with it because they went ahead and just moved lower a little bit to bury the people.

And that's what masks can use all now to stand together with everybody for the city and the rest of people that are need to be buried to allow them to get buried.

Common sense, folks.

Nothing but common sense that's been going on so many years.

I think maybe basically what happened is uh rich the judgment as far as what happened at the cemetery for all these years by hitting maybe bodies, hoffings and that recently.

There's nothing new.

There's nothing new.

Like I stated, I I met with you know, with Christopher, ahead of discussions, and I had an opportunity to speak for the Smiths up there yesterday when they buried them down in the Paris Field area, the original part of the field down there towards the fire department.

And they they appreciate it.

They appreciate as far as the city allow them to bury them.

And when I was up there last week, when they're taking it out up there, city staff was there also.

And also, during the gig, your state archaeologist was also there.

Don't forget that.

She was also there.

So her recommendations as far as should be positive.

Allow burials to continue.

I don't want to see that and stop the burials at the cemetery for all the people that have the permits basically to bury their loved ones up there.

This is a hard issue, folks.

I know it is, but yet on the other hand, we must do right for justice to serve the community that's been here for a hundred years or more.

Allow them to be buried.

Some of these people have plots go back to the 70s to the 80s to the 90s.

They purchased them.

They own them plots up there.

But thank you very much.

And um, I do appreciate all of you working together because you're all involved here.

All staffs involved with this here, but now that more to him has been lifted, it has been broken.

So there isn't no reason that nobody else cannot have the opportunity to bury their loved ones.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Lutta.

Up next, we'll hear from Vicky Ewan.

Hi, I'm Vicky Elen, 303 West Simpson Street.

Tonight I want to talk to you about a landmarking application Doug Connero and I filed last month for the Coca-Cola Patent Gars Highway Bar sign on public road, which is owned by the city.

We believe the sign makes the definition of a landmarkable structure prescribed in our city's landmarking ordinance, but the city attorney disagreed and rejected the application.

That's why we're coming to you and the HPC.

We no longer want to rely on city staff to properly administer this sign.

Despite a legal agreement requiring Laura to maintain this sign, which is an appendix H of our landmarking application, nothing has been done in the 10 years the city has owned it.

Some staff members have tried to keep the sign from deteriorating, most notably Susan Booker and Bridget Keating.

But I've heard directly from others over the years that they don't want the sign to be maintained because it advertises Coca-Cola.

This has all culminated in a July 3rd, 2025 request for proposals issued by staff to give away the sign, potentially to someone outside of the city or even state, and also pay relocation expenses.

This RFP, appendix K of our application, was issued with no public notification of counsel in advance or request for council input.

This is problematic for many reasons, including one that should be a particular interest to council.

That's because the sign doesn't only advertise Coca-Cola, but also Pat and Garr's Highway Bar.

Pat Wright was the co-owner of Pat and Gars, and she was also Lafayette's first female city counselor.

Doug did incredible research into this and wrote about it in appendix F of our landmarking application.

Pat Wright was elected to City Council in 1969, and meeting minutes showed she immediately began having an impact as a counselor, willing to stand up for the average citizen.

In 1970, Pat objected to the council going into executive session to discuss appointing a new counselor to a vacated seat.

Instead, she publicly advocated that people who ran for counsel in the last election be given preference, including a woman who had lost only lost by 14 votes.

As our land at landmarking application says, Mayor Lamont Does disagreed with Wright, and it's recorded in minutes as stating that quote, it felt good to have a woman counselor, but more than one would be questionable.

He felt that council dealings were more familiar to men than women.

Lamont Doe's has a Lafayette Park named after him.

All Pat Wright has is a sign that's fading into oblivion.

That's why we're asking city councillors to take action by filing our application to place this sign on the Colorado Register of Historic Places.

State landmarking regulations allow landmarking requests from the owners of signs, and there are currently four signs on the Colorado Register of Historic Places.

Landmarking the Patent Gar sign makes it eligible for state grants to protect it in perpetuity.

In fact, we might not have been in this mess had the sign been landmarked ten years ago.

Part of the city's City Council Handbook, Section 8.

We are requesting a council consensus for scheduling an agenda item at either the council's February 17th meeting or your February 24th workshop to discuss either council or the HBC filing our landmarking application with the state.

For full transparency for the public, we believe our question of agenda item consensus should be brought up by a counselor at tonight's meeting and not after the meeting by a proxy process conducted by administrators.

We also would like council to ask staff about fast tracking the update to the historic preservation chapter 47 in the city code, in part to clarify the discrepancies in the code that refer to sign structures and landmarking of objects.

This chapter 47 update was part of HPC's 2025 work plan and has now been extended into 2026.

You may not think all of this is necessary because you may have received information from city staff about an application in response to the RFP.

Doug and I are excited about this and believe this applicant is committed to preserving the sign.

But this application has been pending for seven months while the sign deteriorates every day.

Also, the applicant could eventually sell the property to someone who sees no need to preserve the sign.

That's why we urge the council to publicly discuss whether the terms of any agreement to give away this sign should require the new owner to seek landmarking of the sign.

This requirement could be negotiated in exchange for city funding to help restore and preserve the sign, which could be similar to the amount the RFP stated that the city was willing to pay to remove and transport the sign.

Thank you.

Five seconds, baby.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we will hear from Grant Swift.

Good evening, Grant Swift, 6080s Genesis Street.

I'm here tonight to talk about open space.

From that time, I then joined the Open Space Committee, and for the last 30 years or so, I've been involved with open space.

So I'm pleased that the majority of council have taken an open space tour, and I'm offering the tour to those of you who have haven't.

The tour takes about an hour and a half to three hours, depending upon the level of questions you have.

Thank you, Counselor Barnes, for holding the record.

And if you're interested, please reach out to me, uh, email or text.

Um, secondly, I'm here to talk about as your chair of open space.

Um we are thrilled that Wyatt and is wanting to renew his lease on the Thomas Farm.

He gave us a tour last year, and he is doing a fantastic job.

So please approve that.

Lisa Grant.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Michael Watson.

Hi, I'm Michael Watson, 708 South Carol Avenue.

Friends, neighbors, Mr.

Mayor, people of Lafayette.

I ran for City Council back in November.

And as evident by my seating position in this room, I did not win.

Nevertheless, I did a whole lot.

I met a whole lot of really amazing people around town.

And if possible, I'd like to stay involved in whatever way I can.

I started my attempts to step into the world of politics because, quite honestly, my conscience leaves me no other choice.

I firmly believe that the city of government that we are under is broken.

Our people are divided, and our economy is operating well, only for the wealthiest among us.

In the time since the election, I've continued the conversations that I've that I was having.

And I've joined several groups seeking to build communication and solutions between the sides.

If anyone here would like to sit down and have a chat to help me brainstorm solutions for taking back our democracy, please reach out.

You can find my contact information at Mike for Lafayette.com.

As evidence of a broken system being exploited to the detriment of the common person, I would like to highlight two issues.

The first is the mere dimension of legal of legal nonsense that we are about to enter into, the quasi judicial hearing.

I'd like to tell a story.

This story starts, like all good stories do, with the aristocracy of our motherland, Great Britain.

Specifically with the right honorable Lord Robert Norman Edmiston Edm Edmond Edmiston.

Lord Edmaston, you see, owns a company, I am group.

I am group, in turn, has a subsidiary named I Am Properties.

I am Properties is the primary financier and sole partner of Kingston Developer Development Partners, the privately owned for-profit entity attempting to develop a piece of our neighborhood to suit their for profit um to suit their profit motives and to bring a fat return on investment to the pocket of Lord Edmondston.

The mechanism Kingsington has at its disposal to accomplish this feat over the objection of our local citizens is the quad quasi judicial hearing that we are about to enter into.

That and a team of full-time lawyers and the financial backing of a billionaire British lord to employ specialty law firms to run our city into the ground if we rule the wrong way.

You see, these firms operate the same way that the Mongols did when burning their way through Russia and Eastern Europe.

Make an example out of those who resist to cow the rest into submission.

In all likelihood, if the city council is not incredibly careful in their ruling, we would lose any court case.

This is because Lord this is because Lord Edmondston's lawyers will claim that his financial interest, which has taken the form of a corporation, has the same rights as a person, and that among these are the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, namely due process and equal protection.

Now, a bit of a history lesson here for those who are not constitutional scholars by trade.

The 14th Amendment was added as its numerical value would imply after the 13th, which was ratified in 1865 to enshrine the principles of the Emancipation Proclamation into our Constitution.

After the Civil War, during Reconstruction, the 14th Amendment was ratified to grant full citizenship, equal protection, and due process to formerly enslaved people and their descendants.

Please let the ludicrousness of this situation sink in.

The muddied interest of Lord British billionaire has incorporated a legal front in the United States that claims the same right as a person and will seek redress before the law if our elected officials don't bend to their desire.

To further their case, they're claiming the rights granted to protect formerly enslaved people from the cruelty, mistreatment, and racism of the of the former slave owner class.

John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens would be deeply angered to see their handiwork so used.

I'd like now to turn to another land use battle that's been quietly burning through Lafayette over the past several months.

This one is not pitched between a small city and a giant corporate and a giant corporate behemoth.

It is between our own city government and some of our most vulnerable citizens.

It is not about the development of a large parcel of land for financial gain.

It concerns the last piece of real estate that any of us get to occupy, a cemetery plot.

Late last year, the city put a moratorium on new burials where they organize for ground penetrating radar to be brought in to survey the grounds.

If you want to learn more about this, please refer to Karen Norbach Substack or go to watch the previous city council meetings.

I have a neighbor, a dear friend of mine, who has given me love, support, and advice over the years that I have known her.

She's one of the best people I have ever met and has lived in this town for well over fifty years.

She is in her eighties.

Her husband passed away quite a few years ago and was planted to rest in a double plot on the same side as he occupied in their bed at night.

Well, I believe and hope that she has many more years to share her love with those of us fortunate enough to know her.

If tragedy were to happen and she were to pass away tomorrow, well, her soul would be reunited with the love of her life.

Her body would be denied the land already paid for.

Needs to needs to move to rescind the moratorium on burials and allow people access to the land they've already paid for.

One more of you needs to second, then four of you need to vote for this most basic measure of decency and justice.

Please make this happen tonight.

Do not punish grieving families for the sins of Lafayette's past.

You have the power to fix this one small issue, and with great power comes great responsibility.

Getting back to the land use matter at hand.

I'm gonna finish.

Getting back to land use matter at hand tonight.

I know that nothing that I say or do in this at this point in the meeting can have any effect on the outcome of the quasi judicial hearing we're about to enter into, but I would ask everyone in attendance to keep this question in mind as you watch the proceedings.

Is this really the best we can do?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we'll hear from Cherry Schuler.

Hi, good evening.

This is gonna be very short, but um I'm Cherry Schuler of Cherries Cheesecakes and Delights right here in Old Town Lafayette.

I um I'm a retired U.S.

diplomat, and we came here, my husband and I and our son, and we opened up our business, which um before we opened, we went through all the process of getting our permits and applying for grant.

diplomat, and we came here, my husband and I and our son, and we opened up our business, which um before we opened, we went through all the process of getting our permits and applying for grants, and the problem I have with that is that um I don't think they're dispersed fairly because I've met many business owners and even people who have come into my shop, and I talked to them about opening up their business bakery just like mine, and they got the full max.

I got a thousand dollars, and they said, This is for your sign, and then I feel like wow, all these people are opening up, they're getting money.

I applied for a grant just like they did, and I'm in old town, and I got a thousand dollars for a sign, and I didn't think it was fair because I had to pay a lot of money, my money to put into a building that I don't even own.

And the thing is, whatever money I make, the city makes money too because we have to pay the tax.

So um I'm saying that to say that I'm getting ready to expand my business, and I have to apply for another permit, which I hope it doesn't take forever because I'm shutting down in March and going to a new building, which I have to build that out, and I hope I don't have to lose my employees and then lose money because it takes so long to get a permit from a with my general contractor.

The other thing is um fairness.

I put my signage out on public, and I take it in every day.

Then I not maybe five months ago, I decided to put my sign out on public and baseline, and then a city worker brought it to me and said, Oh, you can't have this on baseline.

I won't call the other business name, but I'm sure you pass by it every day if you go up and down baseline.

That sign has been out there and it was told to me by Bridget, oh, signs aren't supposed to go out on baseline.

But that sign is anchored there with a lock, and I told the person that brought the sign, my sign to me that it's not fair that somebody else can have their sign on baseline, and I can't.

The location of I'm in the lumber yards, and the location of my business is in the back.

The other businesses, well, business is in the front, and they're going to be seen.

But if my signage can't be on baseline like their sign, it's not fair.

And my thing is I think it should be equal for everyone, not just okay.

Well, you can't do that, and I'm gonna bring your sign back, but they can leave theirs out and have it anchored to a mason block.

So that's the um problems that I have, and then uh I think that's it, because the sooner that we get our permits and get business going, the sooner you get money.

And we have been doing very well there, but we're gonna do better because my thing is I will be able to hire a bit that I'll have a larger location.

I'll be able to hire a special needs adult or two.

And then I also entertain a lot with the senior citizens.

That's senior citizens and the special needs adults.

I work with the friends of Broomfield, and that's a big thing for me.

But if the longer I'm delayed, the longer I'm risking losing great employees, and I don't want to have to do that.

And with I don't know what the process is as far as how long it takes somebody to look over a permit.

If you have everyone in place, your contractor, your architect, your architect, architect engineer.

It shouldn't take as long to look over the paperwork and say, okay, we'll give you your permit so you can get started, and then you can get money rolling back into the city.

So I'm just asking that you talk about why does it take so long to get a permit and also with the signs because it's not fair, and then also being fair with the grants because my husband works with me too, and he's a veteran, and I'm like, why are we not getting what everybody else gets?

So it's not right if I apply the same paperwork and I'm not getting that max grant, and then I'm having to use my retirement money to put into the business when I could get that just like everybody else does.

So I'm just asking that everyone be fair and not take so long so that we can get our business up and running again because we enjoy being in Lafayette, and I don't even live in Lafayette, but I have my business here, but I love being here and taking care of the customers that come into our shop, and that's very important to us.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Up next, we'll hear from Samantha Brown.

Good evening, everyone.

Um, Samantha Brown.

Um, I would like to bring the topic of wildlife predators and the city limit for discussions.

Uh on January 20th, 2026, Lafayette Police Department reported two separate coyote attacks on the small dogs in people backyards.

None of the attacked dogs survived.

For the four days later, on January 24th, City of Lafayette open space post a video of Bobcat along along the Cole Creeks uh trail.

Based on imagery, uh the Bobcat on the video is within a few yards uh of the main trail, and it means in a very close proximity to the people houses.

So bobcat safety I would like to bring to your attention today.

Bobcats are relatively new wildlife predators uh in Lafayette.

In my 15 years I've been living here.

This is only in the last few years I hear about them.

And it's probably because they're so new, it's probably good time to think how to manage them to minimize negative interactions between people and this elusive cats.

Bobcats are opportunistic hunters, and in addition to the typical diets of rabbits, rodents, and birds, they can target dogs, domestic cats, and backyard chickens.

That's what applies to the city of Lafayette.

Um, despite relatively small size, bobcats unknown killing animals much larger than themselves.

Um bobcats attack on humans are considered to be rare, but happens time to time with the kids experiencing more severe in injuries compared to adults.

Um, in addition, bobcats living in a close proximity to the people can become habituated and accustomed to human presence and may lose natural fear of people and the result may resort to attack instead of running away.

Um, with the recent side trail closures along Cole Creek Trail in West Lafayette, the more enticing areas are created for bobcats to call homes.

This bring bobcats within a few yards of people's homes and within about 0.1 mile from the playgrounds of Ryan Elementary School that educate the kids as young as four years old.

The neighborhood around Rhine's elementary school is also home to the flock, local flock of turkeys.

And bobcats are considered to be main predators of Turkeys.

Little kids and turkeys and bobcats, that sounds like a recipe for potential disaster.

I don't have any answer, but I would like the council to evaluate if we as a community should encourage bobcats moving closer to our neighbors, neighborhoods, or should we take opportunity and discourage bobcats nesting near populated area?

One of the preventative measures to push bobcats in extensive open space to the south and west of Lafayette and away from neighbor neighborhoods and schools would be to allow people, especially people with the dogs back on the closed trails.

Dog scent would deter bobcats from open space areas and away from the um from the people's houses.

Alternatively, uh I would encourage city um the city council consider to do analysis of wildlife resources to ensure that pop bobcat population can be sustained within boundaries of open space.

Um however, in my opinion, with the Turkey's wandering around neighborhood, it will be very difficult to keep a Turkey predator bobcats away from people too.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, we will hear from Ron Spalding.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

After listening to all these presentations before me, I'm almost embarrassed.

I get up here and make my comments, which appear to be so insignificant.

I'm sure it's a lot of tough issues coming up here, but one of them is important.

So I want to come here and I want to compliment a Colorado Hometown Weekly reporter, Julia King, for excellent January 28th articles in the Hometown Weekly on the January 21st Planning Commission meeting regarding the Kensington development, which is the big deal tonight.

But also she reported on Lafayette's lawsuit.

We're in step with Aurora, Orvada, Glendale, Greenwood Village, and Westminster.

Lawsuits against government polis and the state on the strategic growth laws and other legislation.

So the mirror of legislation, which undermines the city's local homeroom authority.

It's complicated.

I think you're all aware of it.

I applauded the council, last council months ago when they took that up.

You had the full support, I think the city it is a big deal.

In the article that she wrote, there was to be a virtual meeting with scheduled for Tuesday, January 27th, with the presiding judge and the attorneys on both sides of the parties to discuss this litigation.

I've tried to search, I'm not that good, and to see if the meeting actually took place.

I couldn't find out.

So a request I have or comment is could our city attorney update the city council and residence during the city attorney's report at the end of tonight's agenda.

I don't know if it's on the agenda.

This is such an important topic.

Not for us, for the whole state.

I don't know if many of the citizens know about it, but it overall, I mean, it's gonna have input annexations to votment proposals.

Uh that's all I want to mention right now, but that is extremely extremely important.

And if not, I'm sure it'll come out of the paper later.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

I don't have any more speaker requests, but I know a few forms came in.

I want to make sure of the four.

Yeah, one caller.

One caller.

Yeah.

Caller with the phone number ending in 234.

Speaking is permitted.

Caller with the number ending in 234.

You're free to speak.

Do you have any more forms?

I do not think.

Okay, I'll just ask one one time.

Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to speak who has not spoken yet?

Not seeing anyone, we will close public input.

Thank you all so much.

And we will move on to tonight's consent agenda.

A few items on tonight's agenda, including item A, which is the January 20th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

Item B, which is first reading of ordinance number four series 2026, amending chapter 4, fees of the code of ordinances to update planning and building department fees, and item C, resolution number 2026-4, authorizing the city manager or public works directory to execute and submit applications to Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District related to temporary use permits and for annually renewable perpetual water contracts for the right to use Colorado Big Thompson Project Water under CRS 37-45-131 and approving such applications and contracts.

Is there any items council would like to pull?

Not seeing any, I will take a motion.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed saying no?

No one opposed.

That passes unanimously.

Moving on.

We have one proclamation tonight, which is Black History Month.

And Mayor Protem, I believe so black yes.

Ah, got it.

Thank you, Mayor.

This proclamation for Black History Month, February 2026 reads, whereas Black History Month is celebrated nationally every February to recognize and honor the lives of accomplishments and perseverance of black Americans.

And whereas the origins of black history date back to 1915, when Dr.

Carter G.

Woodson founded the organization known today as the Association for the Study of African American Life and History.

And whereas in 1926, the same association chose the second week of February to coincide with the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and President Abraham Lincoln.

And an appropriate time to sponsor a national recognition of black history, which has now expanded to a month-long recognition.

And whereas observing Black History Month provides the opportunity for reflection and to gain a deeper understanding of Black American history, including the centuries of struggle for equality and freedom.

And black whereas Black History Month also celebrates the achievements and contributions the Black Americans have made in shaping our country, society, and communities.

And whereas the City of Lafayette has made a commitment to establishing and maintaining a welcoming, inclusive, and just city for all.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby recognize the month of February 2026 as Black History Month and encourage all residents to observe this month with appropriate reflection and to continue our efforts and ensuring that Lafayette is a just welcoming community.

So moved.

We have a motion.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Is there any discussion on this proclamation from council?

Mayor Proton.

Thank you, Mayor.

I would just like to say that Black History is happening in Lafayette.

I'm part of that as the first African American black person on the Lafayette City Council, and I think Mayor Pro Tim.

But I'm not the only one.

And we're lucky enough to have a member of the Black community right here sitting with us this evening.

There are others.

You've probably heard me mention Jessica Watkins astronaut, yes, uh astronaut who may be the first person, uh, first woman on the moon, first person on Mars, potentially.

We'll see.

It's kind of a big deal, right?

Uh, but if you've been to East Simpson Coffee, and if you know of Adderly Arts, please recognize that these are members of our community and of our um the black community and Lafayette, and there are many others.

I'm not gonna sit here and go through all the list of all the others.

Uh, but this is a thriving community, nothing's nothing's perfect.

Uh, we're still working on it, but very proud to be here.

And uh I look to continue to build the black community in Lafayette.

So thank you so much.

Any other counselors who would like to discuss?

Councilor Gianon.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to add my uh support for the black community and really all uh members of our community.

I think Lafayette's doing a commendable job to ensuring that we do have a just and welcoming community, and I want to continue to push that forward uh in the future.

Thank you so much.

Any further discussion on this proclamation, Councillor?

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

I I just I love Black History Month so much because of how American Black History Month is.

Um, African Americans predate my ancestors in this continent by 300 years, and and so just leaning into that and celebrating that this history is very deep and very rich.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

I'll give the opportunity.

Any other counselors any further discussion on this?

Great.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say no.

None opposed.

That passes unanimously.

Moving on tonight uh to regular business.

Um, and we will begin with the Thomas Open Space Lease.

For this, we'll turn it over to our deputy director of Parks Open Space and Golf, Dennis Warren.

Okay.

Good evening, council, mayor.

Thank you very much.

Uh, my name is Dennis Warrington.

I'm the deputy director of Parks Open Space and Golf with the Community Services Department.

And I'm here to uh give you a presentation on the Thomas Open Space Lease and uh some motion language in our uh lease coming up, hopefully, with uh Red Wagon Farm.

So our agenda, I'll go over uh the background and uh lease terms, who Red Wagon Farm is, and you see the motion language.

And also, I just want to let you know that open space and Lafayette is here to serve the community by protecting habitat and ecological systems.

We provide passive uh recreational opportunities on our trails and and uh support the stewardship of agricultural lands in the open space system.

Uh the location of Thomas Farm is just on the northeast side of Wanaka Park.

For those of you who were on the Capital Improvements Bus Tour last fall, uh we did stop there if you remember.

Okay, as a uh background, the farm uh did belong to Anna Wanaka and her husband William Thomas.

Anna Anna Wanica was the daughter of Adolf Wanaka that the park and many other assets in this town are named for.

Um there was in the uh late 90s, early 2000s a proposed development that was going to go there, and uh it fell through.

I'm not sure what happened, but uh the city had the opportunity to purchase that as open space, and in 2002 they did so.

Uh the entire farm is 13 and a half acres, and that uh includes 12 acres that uh we actually uh throw vegetables and flowers and other things on.

Uh there was a community-led effort shortly after that uh by residents to change the municipal code to allow leases on open space.

They weren't allowed before that, uh, specifically set up for this farm so that we could then have a tenant farmer that could lease the land and come in and grow vegetables, and that passed in uh 2006 and shortly thereafter, we got our first tenant farmer.

In 2012, the barn was built to support food processing and produce sales.

That's where they do all their washing and have their farm store there, and they produce herbs, vegetables, and flowers that are available for public purchase.

Uh we do have goals for the uh farm.

It is to be chemical free and have organic practices with uh locally grown produce.

This reduces uh miles driven, uh so it promotes more of a circular economy, and also it's to acknowledge the uh agricultural history in Lafayette and uh preserve some arable land.

You know, there are uh quite a bit of agricultural lands in Colorado that are disappearing.

I looked it up in between 2017 and 2022.

Colorado lost one and a half percent of its agricultural lands, which is a 1.6 million acres.

Um and then also, you know, we provide public opportunities there.

We have school visits, uh, we have several youth core activities there, and this upcoming year we are partnering with the History Museum for some additional education uh opportunities for the lease program.

Uh there have been three tenants since 2006.

Uh traditionally uh the lease was three years, and the tenants pay their own utilities and raw water separately.

Uh the property does lack a traditional source of agricultural water, and what I really mean by this is it doesn't have a ditch that flows onto the property that's usable to grow crops there.

Um in 2024, City Council did authorize a uh extension to the current lease for the tenant Red Wagon, uh, and that was a cost-sharing arrangement for the uh raw water.

And then uh last year we issued an RFP through Rocky Mountain, well, bid net Rocky Mountain e-purchasing system for a new uh five-year tenant on the farm, and uh of those we received one application.

So, as far as the new uh lease terms, this five-year term, it better supports planning for crop rotations and soil amendments for the uh tenant out there.

And due to the water increases, you know, open space is going to fund 80% of those water costs.

Uh the tenant farmer will pick up the other 20.

It's also written in the lease that if they exceed 15 acre feet uh in a calendar year, they have to pay the full costs after that.

That did not happen last year, just so you know.

Uh, it also states that the farmer is to use uh uh chemical-free practices.

Um it's also a good benefit to open space itself because if we didn't have the farm there, it would definitely increase our operational cost to try to turn it native and maintain it uh like uh some of our other lands here.

Um again, the lease states that the farmer is to be uh chemical-free and the property to be used for educational opportunities.

And our respondent is Red Wagon Farm.

Um they have been there since 2022, they're a great partner with us.

Uh they operate a seasonal farm store, and they have locally grown flowers, herbs, and vegetables.

They provide UPIC flowers uh, you know, throughout the summers, uh few other things too with the vegetables.

They do operate a year-round CSA, which is the community shared agriculture.

Um they uh do use a lot of regenerative processes like composting, soil amendments for plant health and water savings, and then for a lot of the food that they don't sell uh or don't use, they do uh give that extra produce to hunger relief programs in the state that benefit uh a larger surrounding community.

So with that, are there any questions?

And also we do have the motion language here as you'll be seeing this in uh two weeks for the second reading.

Thank you so much.

Any questions from council?

Councilor Jensen.

Do you ever rent the barn out for events?

I looked in the lease line, didn't see anything that mentioned that, but it seems like it might be a way to support the farm by getting revenue from people and want to have birthday parties or whatever, you know, weddings, whatever at the barn.

Yeah, I'd be happy to look at that.

I have to read the lease again.

I I believe it's allowed there.

I don't think that we have done that before.

It didn't, I couldn't find it, but again, you know, legal documents and finding all the fine print can be difficult sometimes.

But it occurred to me that we might get some extra revenue for the farm if we allowed it to be used for, and I don't know, Marilyn.

Do you know if the lease allows that?

Um I don't I I know that the lease does not specifically refer to events, but as the landlord and owner, we uh I think there's there's language in there about working with the um tenant if there was a need, but the lease also gives the tenant the right of quiet enjoyment, which means that they have the right to use the property and for us not to interfere with farm operations.

Um that said, I do know that this lease has some uh has language in there that would allow us to work with the tenant on something like that, but we couldn't just step in and hold it.

That's that's it's just something to think about in negotiations with them, and it might be a way to help them bring down their costs as well.

And I don't I you know, just to support the farm, not to be a revenue raiser for the city, but just to help.

Yeah, it's one thing to consider.

I was in there a couple weeks ago and they were cleaning a bunch of kale or stuff that grows well in the winter.

So well, maybe you can look into it and maybe just drop us a note about what you find.

That would be lovely.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions from council?

Councilor Friendland?

Question about water.

Um I think I I asked about this when this came back up for renewal before we have this new process.

Um I'm curious.

So 80-20 split on 15 acre feet per year on what they use up to 15 acre feet.

Up to 15 acre feet per year.

How much do they well?

I guess it depends on the season, right?

That is true.

So last year they used 11.

Okay.

So but so they probably won't go over that, depending on how things go.

Um how did we land on the 80-20 split?

Uh so the current the way that it was split last year, it was so up until 2024, the cost of an acre foot of raw water was 297 acre feet, and then it jumped to 1,290 something, and then it jumped again to 1566.

So for the first year, uh, we kept it at that 297 rate, and open space picked up the rest.

Right.

Um, I did a little bit of math, and it seemed like 80% was right there on that line.

So I just took it forward.

And um, and also legal did suggest that having the percentage in there would be better than at one 297.

Yeah, because it's gonna change.

Thank you.

Um I mean, I think everyone's worried about water right now, right?

So it's like, you know, but I will say I'm glad that we're supporting such a great farm.

I'm a winter CSA member myself there, and they make great stuff, and I'm glad that we're able to help um have such a great local community asset.

So thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from council?

Please.

Councilor Gianola.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I also had a question about water, and I think for the public's benefit, would you mind just saying a little bit about the raw water?

Where does it come from?

How does it get to the farm?

Just to give some context around that.

Okay.

Um you can correct me if I'm wrong.

The raw water line comes from Goose Haven.

It comes down 287 and turns west on Baseline Road and literally runs underneath the eastbound lane.

Uh I don't know how large that pipe is.

Um really large pipe.

It is tapped off that raw water, it comes into a irrigation shed that's right there on the farm where it is metered so that they know exactly how I get a report, you know, every single month through the summer of what they're using uh so that they're getting billed correctly, me and finance as well as the farm.

Um and then that raw water just continues on down baseline to where it gets to the treatment plant.

Okay.

And I mean, when you say raw water, this is rotter that's just coming directly from Goose Haven, untreated through the treatment plant on baseline.

Okay.

That is a whole different set of pipes that sends that water back up from there and goes to the halting tanks.

Okay, so this is sort of on the way to get it treated.

They get a little branch off and have access to that.

Okay.

Exactly.

Super, thank you.

Councilor Boolean.

I believe you had a comment.

Thank you.

And thank you, Dennis, both for uh the presentation and for the tour this past September.

Um, I hope everybody gets the chance to do it next year.

It was a lot of fun.

And if I recall correctly, there were some kids uh taking senior pictures when we pulled up, and so we we interrupted them.

Um I I guess I have two questions.

First was I think you mentioned that there was only one bid uh this go-around um with great respect to Red Wagon Fire.

I think they've done an amazing job.

Was that surprising to us?

Would we have hoped for more competitive bids?

I wasn't surprised about it.

I actually I uh about two weeks after it had been opened.

I logged into BidNet just to check it out, and I saw where it had been downloaded eight or ten times.

So I knew that other people were looking at it.

Um but it's it's hard work, like they're not in it for the money.

Yeah, well, and that and that brings me to the second question.

Similar to Councillor Jensen, I also was wondering.

I mean, it I for me, I think this is one of the most iconic structures in Lafayette.

It's really beautiful, and and if there's ways that with a potential lessies uh agreement that we could explore revenue sharing or future things, I think that'd be really interesting to many of us.

Okay.

I would love some merch as well.

Okay, all right.

Any other thoughts or questions from council?

Mayor Protect.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, and thank you for the presentation.

I met Wyatt a long time ago before he came here, and he's a great person.

I love to see the different cultural events that he had there, so I'm looking forward to them getting on their feet more and uh maybe him starting some more of those really authentic uh cultural events there and recognize the history of farming and agriculture, making hopefully making connection when we start to look at the history because this was a great an agrarian location.

So what is it about Lafayette that makes it a great place to grow food?

So hopefully he'll get there.

I know farm work is not easy, and uh I see him a lot of days out there on his own getting it done.

Yeah, that was we we definitely had discussions about that.

Um, it's a lot of work to put on a program.

That's why we're trying to partner in like with the history museum and other places to help with that.

Um, because I mean at the end of the day, we we really did want someone who could be good at farming and not just uh giving getting shows and stuff like that, but we are increasing them, so that's good, you know.

Yeah, so hopefully we can actually do the events.

People do them, so I'm gonna say I didn't mean for him to do the events, but um and I was curious how people access.

Do you know how people access red wagon farms?

Obviously, you can drive a car and turn off a baseline, but there's path access, multiple path ways of getting there pathwise.

I know people have to carry food, but how do they how do a lot of people do you know how a lot of people get to redwages?

Oh, like to go there and buy produce.

I I actually don't I I don't um I'll ask um Amy.

She runs the store.

I mean, I would imagine that a lot of people ride their bikes there.

I mean, my wife and I have walked up there, you know, we're walking around Wanaka and got a bag of tomatoes.

So I can ask what her thoughts are about it.

I'd be curious if because we're we we're I I'll just everybody ask how do you get there on a bike?

And do people come there on bikes and uh what's that experience like?

I do have one more question, and that is um because while as Councillor Friedman and everybody else here is concerned about water, um does are there any water reduction practices?

And I think the answer is probably gonna be yes.

Um so I was just wondering if there he's trying as his best he could to get like water tolerant plants and maybe permaculture and things like that.

We actually so yes, I mean he was able to utilize a lot more drip tape last year, which really helped.

Um, and he got some more uh covers for the crops.

We also did a large irrigation project out there that I led with a contractor because a lot of the lines you know were leaky and older had just been mistreated.

But uh open space did do a pretty decent job on a we replaced about a hundred feet of line and actually moved it away from his tomatoes and then were able to inspect more, so it worked out really well.

Uh we did that early in the season too, and I didn't I didn't hear from Wyatt once about breaks, so it was good.

I'll take that.

Yeah, but then yeah, they're just you know, they're just they are using a lot more uh compost and other stuff.

I read the list of uh some of the Omri certified products that they're using out there uh to help with gross, and it does cut down on to help with growth, excuse me.

Uh it does cut down on water use.

Great, thank you.

Those are thank you so much.

I don't believe there are any other questions from the council.

Uh we have a motion on the screen.

I move to approve on first reading ordinance number three, series 2026, authorizing the lease of the Thomas Open Space for Agricultural Produces between the City of Lafayette and Red Wagon Organic Farm LLC.

Second.

We have the motion.

We have a second.

Uh any further discussion on this matter?

No further discussion.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed saying no?

No one opposed that passes unanimously.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh, we will move on to our next agenda item, uh, which is the public hearing for the sketch plan review and comment for a mixed use development, uh, the range at Lafayette.

And before we begin here, I just want to make it clear that this is well, this is the first time since the change to our code that this has actually come to council this early in the process is sketch plan review, but there will be public hearing tonight.

There will be testimony, but there will be no official council motion.

Uh there's no formal decision decided tonight with the sketch plan.

I just want to make that clear before we even begin the presentation.

But with that, I will turn it over to our planning and building director, Stephen Williams.

Good evening, Mayor.

Uh, city councilors.

Uh, tonight's public hearing is uh request for city council to review and comment on a mixed use development proposal uh called the range at Lafayette.

It's located at the southwest corner of 287 and Arapaho.

I also just want to mention that Andrea Mimnall has been the senior uh planner, project manager on this and has done a lot of work.

So tonight's agenda.

Uh it's a little unique in that council, as the mayor has already said, is not required to vote, and there's no motion to take on a sketch plan review.

Uh so the agenda is outlined here, but I'll introduce it and then we'll turn it over to the staff or the applicant for their presentation, and we'll come back and I'll provide you with a high-level analysis.

Uh, and then there'll be an opportunity for council questions, opportunity for uh public testimony, and the applicant to respond to that testimony.

Uh and then we'll conclude with council discussion and council comments.

So, as I mentioned, the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Arapaho Road and uh highway 287.

It's surrounded by several uh different jurisdictions.

It's got unincorporated uh Boulder County to the north, Erie to the east, and then uh Lafayette to both the west and to the south.

It's also surrounded by a couple of different land uses.

Uh the development uh within unincorporated boulder uh north of Arapaho is largely residential.

Uh development to the west within Silo is entitled for residential development, and then development to the south and to the east uh is commercial.

Uh the process uh or the process for annexation has already been initiated, and we'll get into that a little more detailed here shortly.

Um, and then uh kind of important to note that this property is in uh the city's urban growth boundary, so it's kind of been planned for potential development in Lafayette for some time.

Um the other two um components um or kind of history items related to this application is the 2019 IGA with the town of Erie that anticipates this property developing in Lafayette.

Uh this agreement also includes a revenue sharing component uh for both nine mile, uh, which is developed already within Erie, uh, and this uh the subject property.

Uh that agreement also contemplates uh attracting quality and comparable anchor tenants, uh and it's a 10-year term that could theoretically expire in 2029.

Uh in 20 the in 2021, uh the city also adopted our new comprehensive plan, log like legacy Lafayette.

Uh and that uh one of the main changes that you're gonna hear kind of repeated tonight is that adaptable commercial was a new land use designation uh through that uh comprehensive plan.

Uh this area has been designated commercial and prior comprehensive plans, but the adaptable commercial piece really emphasizes the integration of land uses and within a commercial or previously designated commercial area uh land use integration here really means residential use.

So uh quick overview of the applicant's proposal.

It includes zoning, so commercial uh C1 is regional business district, as well as R4, which is high in high uh density residential uh development, other to two uh land use designations proposed.

It includes 448 uh dwelling units.

Uh those residential units are largely concentrated on the northern portion of the property.

It also includes almost 160,000 square feet of commercial space, and that 157,000 uh feet reflected there.

Uh is just um kind of taking into account the buildings shown in red.

Uh the future development parcel on the southwest uh portion of the property is not uh included in that uh square footage calculation.

Other things to kind of note within this site plan is the detention facility located in the northeast corner.

And then the applicants project narrative and materials also indicate that this property is going to be phased with the commercial area reflected in red in the bottom right corner occurring first, followed by the residential, and then lastly that future development parcel occurring in phase three.

Can I ask a question?

I'm having trouble on the picture that we have, which has a legend for those colors.

So there are two browns on the legend.

Oh, yeah.

And they there only looks to be one color brown in the picture.

So I'm trying to figure out what.

Okay.

So the condo townhome development is reflected here, kind of more in the yellow.

And then the two tones of brown kind of reflected here are really to indicate the two different heights, which we'll get into later.

So where they're kind of bar billed at the end, that drops down to three stories in height, and then the main portion of those buildings are four story, as is the L-shaped multifamily apartment building reflected there.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

So kind of stepping back a bit, I think you guys have seen this before, but just to kind of remind folks of where we are in the overall review process.

We've gone through three steps of the annexation, and that's kind of been initiated, and now we're three steps into the preliminary plat review, and those are all associated with the sketch plan.

So all those sketch plans include several plan sheets and clarify the general parameters of an applicant's proposal.

They are not required to include critical engineering analysis such as traffic studies and drainage reports.

That'll eventually inform the city's overall evaluation.

No formal decision, as mentioned already, probably mentioned it a couple times, uh, for the city will occur until the very end of the process, which is shown in the very bottom kind of right corner.

Um, and that's kind of the reason for these columns.

So there's all of these different application types will align eventually and come in with an application proposal that includes the annexation, the zoning, the PUD plat, and then staffs also anticipating uh what we call SPAR or site plan architectural review for some of the commercial pad sites.

Um that's optional, but that's the direction this application is headed based off conversations with the applicant.

And at that point, some of those commercial tenants that we don't know now will staff's anticipating they'll be revealed.

And then the other piece to kind of clarify is that we're here, and that that engineering analysis and those traffic studies and that information is the next step once we get into the preliminary plan review.

Um, and then kind of honing in a little bit more on what a sketch plan is.

So the intent of the sketch plan is to provide staff, planning commission, council as well as the public with opportunities uh to review and comment on a proposal early in the design process.

Council's review tonight is not binding.

No vote or resolution uh is associated with the sketch plan.

Uh, we're just asking for review and comment on the direction of the current proposal.

The informal process is unique, but is really intended to provide applicants with initial feedback before significant money is in invested in their design and in compiling those engineering reports and advanced designs and development details.

And then I think it's also helpful to um because this reads very similarly to other development applications, it's important to kind of understand uh what the sketch plan requirements include and then what they don't.

And I know this is a little redundant.

Uh, I apologize, but I do want to make it clear.

Uh so the sketch plan application does include uh narrative, uh, several plan sheets, site plan sheets clarified, uh it clarifies the proposed land uses, it identifies their requests related to their zoning designations, as well as what they intend to modify relative to those uh zoning districts that are proposed.

These include certain setback variations and building heights.

They've also clarified their public land dedication request and provided sketch drawings related to grading uh utilities, parking, and vehicular circulation, but these are very preliminary at this stage.

Um it's also unique this application type that I want to make sure this is clear too is that staff has gone through and provided detailed uh summary of our comments on this.

Those are 16 pages of comments, um, but the applicant has not responded to those yet.

So that's just how this process works.

We've given them a very detailed review, which we assume would be uh incorporated into future submittals, um, but they have not yet responded to it.

So there'll be some aspects of like tonight's thing where we talk about building height, and they haven't calculated it.

Probably how we would calculate it in terms of how we measure height, and that will adjust their overall request.

But that's just kind of important to understand.

The other thing we don't have is comprehensive referral comments.

And so we had some confusion and maybe frustration at Planning Commission over where the BRT stop would be located, and we don't know that yet.

More detail will come as we get more application details.

And then lastly, this is just kind of a summary of how both the staff memo and the future analysis that I'll be going over later has been organized.

So we've identified six key topics for feedback and six kind of questions.

And this is really kind of due to the scope and both the both the broad scope and the preliminary nature of this application.

So we're asking, you know, to provide kind of a high, we're we're providing a high-level analysis of the proposed proposed zone districts.

We're assessing the proposal's compliance with the key elements of a comprehensive plan, and we're providing initial feedback on the proposal's request to exceed building height maximums as well as what they're proposing for their commercial and residential mix, uh, the diversity of housing types, as well as the housing affordability, and then we're asked asking uh for direction on the proposed public land dedication as well.

And this is how that future analysis when I see you in a few minutes, uh, is organized as well.

I'll turn it over to the applicant.

Good evening, Mayor, city counselors.

Uh my name is Edgar Crockett.

I'm the development services project manager for Kensington.

Thank you all for your time tonight.

Um, we're excited to present our project and have uh your feedback and comments.

Uh before we dive in, um, I do just want to take a moment to briefly introduce the project team.

Um we have uh myself, uh Kensington, we're the contract purchaser for the development.

And then we have Cage, who is our civil engineer and PCS group, who's our land planning and landscape architect.

I'll be walking through the presentation, uh, but they'll be here if their expertise is needed for any questions that come up in the future.

Tonight uh we'll run through some background and overview.

Um we'll hit the legacy Lafayette comprehensive plan and how the project aligns.

We'll review the overall project programming, discuss the zoning framework, and then cover some details around residential area, parking, circulation, connectivity, the public land dedication and landscaping, and then we'll hit some additional points at the end, um, and then we'll welcome uh your feedback and questions.

So, as uh Stephen hit, um, the project is located at the southwest corner of Arapahoe in Highway 287.

It's bordered on the west hand side by the future Aspen Ridge Road, uh, and on the south by Lucerne.

It is comprised of two different parcels, uh, the range at Lafayette annexation number one and annexation number two, um, both of which have achieved substantial compliance, uh, as some of you here are familiar with.

Uh today it's zoned as agricultural and it's located within unincorporated Boulder County.

It has a single family home with some outbuildings located in the northwest corner.

So, while this is the first time that you all are seeing that this plan, um, I do want to acknowledge that this is not the first iteration of this plan.

Um, so the process began back in 2022, um, and it has gone through several iterations.

Um, so those iterations were driven by a few key factors, um, which each sort of have their own goals and ideals for the site.

Uh, that includes community feedback, staff comments, the comprehensive plan goals, the intergovernmental agreement, uh, as well as project requirements and feasibility.

The original plan back in 2022 had 650 rental apartment units uh at up to five stories that dropped down to 600 apartment units and up to four stories, uh, and then was revised again down to its current plan, uh, which is approximately the 450 unit overall reduction of about 200 units uh included in this submittal, which does include the 12% of those apartment units uh at 80% affordability.

Um we've also generated the development around two committed retailers.

They're the large format general merchandiser and the specialty grocer, both of which have achieved their corporate approval for this site, and that's based on this current site plan.

With these retailers and the project as a whole, we estimate that there's approximately 80 million of new tax revenue over the next 20 years, which is comprised of a couple of different revenue streams, revenue tax streams.

Between both of those retail anchor tenants, that doesn't include the retail outlots.

And additionally, it also includes approximately 1,200 construction related jobs for the project as a whole.

While we can't specifically name the current users at this time for that, the general merchandising acre and the specialty grocer, we're very excited to bring those folks to Lafayette, and we're we believe that once we're able to release those names, we believe the community will be excited about those users as well.

I mentioned some of those key factors that have driven the site plan.

Um of which is a big influence from that intergovernmental agreement or IGA, as Stephen stated, developed in 2019 and has that 10-year period, so approximately three years away from potentially expiring.

The agreement does dictate that this parcel can be annexed into Lafayette while the nine-mile corner across the street was annexed into Erie.

It does require that relatively equal anchor retailer on both parcels, and nine mile is comprised of the King Supers, the Lowe's, the additional retail outlots, and some rental apartments.

The range then has committed that general merchandise anchor, the specialty grocery retail outlots, retail rental apartments, for sale townhomes, which would mirror the nine-mile and comply with the IGA.

Looking at some broader context within Lafayette, as noted, the range is up there in that blue square in the top right-hand corner.

You can see a few key points to highlight.

So as we stated, it's currently outside the city limits, which is why that annexation process is required.

It is within the urban growth boundary as dictated by the IGA and the comprehensive plan.

It's adjacent to that community gateway.

This was annexed into Lafayette.

It serves as the corner of Lafayette at that area.

And it's also bordered by two enhanced transit corridors, as noted in the comprehensive plan.

That's Arapaho to the north and 287 to the east.

And so we understand how important the Legacy Lafayette comprehensive plan is to dictating and guiding development within Lafayette.

And so through the design process, we are we've taken these into consideration and will continue to take these into consideration as we move through the development process.

But we've really chosen to focus in on a couple of frameworks within the planning frameworks that it dictates.

So creating a connected community through the multi-use mobility, enhancing a strong economy by providing a diversity of housing and building strong economic impact and diversification, supporting community character through neighborhood design and opportunities for integration of Lafayette Arts and Culture, and advancing environmental stewardship through infrastructure resiliency and sustainability, and then access to health and wellness via amenities on site and opportunities to access retail, which provides healthy options.

Both that we've taken into account and will take into account, and that's integrating residential and retail uses, encouraging residential over retail, creating attractive streetscapes using standalone residential to create thoughtful transitions to neighboring communities.

And then these are also, of course, in conjunction with other factors that govern the site like the IGA.

And so getting into some of the details of the actual project, it's 36.24 acres.

That total acreage does include approximately two acres of ride-of-way that will be dedicated around that exterior perimeter of the site.

Along the eastern portion, as shown in the yellow, are the three-story four-sale townhomes with integrated tuck under garages.

In that two tone two-tone darker orange or brown, we show the 343 multifamily apartment buildings.

Most of the building are the four-story centers, which do step down and articulate to three stories at the end.

And then the L-shaped building along the bottom right hand side is a completely four-story building with a boutique retail opportunity on the first floor.

You can also note the gray buildings are single-story standalone garages, and the amenity center is located in the center of that project as well.

There is in the red, you can see the 156,000 square feet of retail, including our large format general merchandiser, the specialty crossher in the southeast corner of the site, and then additional retail outlots again shown in red on that eastern section.

In the north, as Stephen indicated, is the detention pond and the public land dedication area, which we'll discuss in a moment.

The site access is limited to a right in, right out along Highway 287, and then the future access along Aspen Ridge to the west.

There are two access points proposed on to Lucerne to the south.

Overall, the site plan is designed to consider the surrounding use areas.

So the transit-oriented nature of the intersection as indicated by the comp plan with the Arapahoe and Highway 287 of those enhanced transit corridors.

The proposed zoning, there's three proposed zone districts.

The P for the public land dedication, the R4 for the residential district, and then the C1 for the business district.

Within the R4 district, which includes both the townhomes and the apartments, we're requesting some targeted variances within setbacks, height, density, and coverage.

For the multifamily building, we understand, as Stephen indicated in the staff report and comments back to us, that some of the setbacks may need to be re-evaluated once the traffic study is complete and the final determination of what the road designations actually are.

So they may be adjusted after that traffic study is completed.

The density is also currently based on the unit count over the subdivided area.

So just specifically the multi-family area and just specifically the townhome area, which is driving up some of that multi-family density to 42 units per acre.

The height request from 35 feet to 60 feet for the multifamily buildings and up to 50 feet for the town homes.

It should be noted that our architectural elevations are conceptual at this time, and these are the maximum height requirements to the highest architectural point, which does include some of the pitched roofs, the peaked roofs that again we're contemplating with that conceptual architecture.

So as the architectural elevations develop, our goal is to refine that request and only request what is necessary for those three-story townhomes and four-story apartment buildings in that center section.

The request for that four-story again is really designated around having a four-story, and that the intent behind that is to create some better outcomes across the site.

So we want to support the comprehensive plan by being able to provide some strategic retail under residential, provide diversity of housing with the townhomes and the affordable housing within the multifamily area.

We want to ensure green space and outdoor amenities.

We want to generate economic development required by the IGA with those high-value retail users, and they they come with their specific site requirements.

We believe that utilizing some strategic increases in height will allow us to achieve multiple of those goals while maintaining project feasibility.

There is a 60-foot height variance requested for that future development.

And as staff noted in their report as the contract purchaser of the site, that area is currently contemplated to maintain to be maintained as the as ownership of the underlying landowner.

And so we're working to gather additional information on the for future submissions on that request for variance, whether it maintains a C1 district with a variance or potentially gets into the R4 district.

We acknowledge that more information is required to analyze that, and that'll be provided in future submittals.

Just a quick overview of the designation on how the site will be broken up in the subdivision of Platte.

And so again, these areas are what was utilized to calculate some of those variances in terms of coverage and density.

You can see how it's broken up there into the site areas.

And also it should be indicated the larger lots around the townhomes.

The townhomes would be one individual lot and then kind of minimized for sale.

The residential details.

So again, the townhomes condos uh highlighted in yellow is 105 units broken up into the contemplated two, three, and four bedroom units.

Um, and then the 343 units uh in the multifamily is uh a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units.

And importantly, again, one of the key benefits uh associated with the increased height allowance is the project is committing to that 12% of the apartment units, which is 41 units, uh, as deed restricted affordable housing units at 80% AMI.

As we talk about some of those interconnected goals, um, parking is a big part of that equation.

Um, and so we want to try to prioritize parking, but prioritize minimize parking, um, but balance that out with the requirements of our retailers and ensure that there's sufficient parking for our residential areas so that there's not overflow parking into surrounding areas.

Um, so we're requesting a couple of parking variations across the residential and the commercial use.

For the townhomes, um, 263 spaces are required.

We're requesting to provide 252 units, uh, spaces.

Some of those are supplemented by the uh idea of the the 35 spaces along Aspen Ridge.

Um that's subject to what the actual cross section of Aspen Ridge will look like.

For the apartments, 605 are required, and we're requesting to provide 520.

For the commercial, 783 are required.

We're requesting to provide 763.

So total on site, the requirements would be 1,650.

Total on site provided would be 1,535.

There's the 35 additional, which are supplemental along Aspen Ridge, which is an overall net reduction of 80 spaces.

Looking at the vehicular circulation plan, um, again, I want to acknowledge those those sort of transit-oriented corners of Arapaho and Highway 287.

Um, there's a main internal drive that runs east and west.

Um, it has parallel parking and bike lanes as indicated in yellow, which mirror the proposed uh cross section of Aspen Ridge.

Uh the comprehensive plan does contemplate 300-foot blocks.

Um, and so we since we are limited to a single access point along highway 287 and a single access point along Arapahoe Road, which is Aspen Ridge.

We have to try to focus on those internal blocks being internal to the site rather than the full through through streets, which again are limited based on those intersections out to Arapaho and Highway 287.

The pedestrian circulation is a key focus.

You know, taking how do we allow for pedestrians and those utilizing alternative forms of transit to get to the site, and then once they're on the site, how do they move safely and comfortable comfortably around the site?

So again, the bike lanes are highlighted in yellow, which will connect uh that main east-west drive to Aspen Ridge, and then there's that extra wide multi-use path uh around the perimeter and throughout the site highlighted in green, which will provide access to the outdoor amenities, will allow transportation from the residential areas through to the commercial space, and then we'll allow perimeter access around the exterior of the site and connect back to the regional transition and additional trails around the site.

It's also important to note, as Stephen indicated, we are contemplating the BRT station, which is uh currently denoted there in red.

And while we need additional information, we want to make sure that there's potential access provided to and from uh the contemplated areas of that BRT station.

And so this is taking a step back and looking at the more regional connectivity.

So you can see how the connections expand beyond just the project site.

We've coordinated paths and access points with the adjacent communities.

We want to make sure again that there's direct access to that VRT station and that folks can move both safely internal to the site and to get back to the rest of Lafayette through the either existing or future trails and paths.

I do want to recognize we did uh meet with LOSAB, and their recommendation is Cash and Loo for the open the public land dedication.

We're excited to hear your feedback.

This is the same information that was provided to the LOSAB committee.

So our public land dedication area includes that north east corner of the site, which would be around the detention pond and not inclusive of the detention pond.

We would look to activate the detention pond itself to provide some additional usable area in and around that.

The perimeter area would help ensure public access through that multi-use trail, both to the public land area as well as a public space to get to that potential BRT station.

We would be requesting a 50% reduction for the multi-family area and the townhomes for providing some private amenities in terms of the pocket parks and the amenity center, which you can see highlighted there on the plan.

Overall landscaping, we prioritize the residential spaces overall.

The required landscaping is just over four and a half acres.

We're providing 6.6.

We should note that the commercial area is just slightly below the requirement, but the excess is located really around that east-west drive and more towards the residential areas of the site.

So just a few additional notes from the planning commission comments.

And while we're working while we will work to refine the overall height requirements of the three and four-story buildings, they will ultimately require variances.

And our goal is to utilize that excess height in the apartments to balance the goals of the comprehensive plan, the IGA, and the project feasibility.

We've worked to provide some strategic mixed use with that first floor retail opportunity on the apartments.

We recognize that there can be some struggles with commercial vacancies.

And you know, even the adjacent project just outside of City Hall is an example of a vertically integrated mixed-use project that isn't at full capacity.

And so the location of the range is even less urban than that area.

And we believe it would make it more difficult for large amounts of that vertical mixed use to be filled up appropriately.

So the design, the site design is provided in a way to strategically provide that opportunity while setting it up for success in addition to the balance of the retail provided.

Finally, there were a lot of discussions about the Biggs box retailer and the IG with the IGA requirements of providing relatively equal anchor tenants between nine mile and the range.

We believe that our committed merchandise general merchandise acre and specialty grocer not only meet that requirement, but are two users to be excited about, and we're excited to release those names when we're able to.

So those areas of the site plan are indicated and conform to those requirements.

And so with the additional help of the increased height of the apartments, we're able to utilize the rest of that land area for the diversity of housing, the affordable housing, the outdoor amenities, and other retail opportunities.

Excuse me.

Just a few general notes.

Like I said, while this is still the conceptual sketch plan, this is the first time you're seeing it, but it's not the first design update that we've gone through.

And really, we're trying to balance that push and pull of the different requirements between the IGA comprehensive plan, community feedback, and project feasibility.

The traffic study and historical building study will be submitted with the preliminary PUD.

And then staff noted the potential of the East West Drive as a desirable drive to become a public space, public access, and we're excited about continuing that conversation and definitely open-minded to that becoming a public road.

Finally, we know that the traffic is a major concern with the residents, especially around this corner.

So we'll continue our conversations with CDOT and the Arapaho Road and how our project will affect their projects and vice versa.

And that'll come with more detail as we get the traffic study in place.

So we know that the comprehensive plan provides that development guidance and the adaptable commercial process really looks to that ultimate project as the final evolution of the DAP, the adaptable commercial designation.

With the additional requirements of the IGA to provide equal retail tenants, there are some kind of competing goals for the site.

While we can we will continue to ensure that the site is set up for evolution as the market shifts.

So again, we've worked to uh provide a site plan that maximizes the amount of goals that we can achieve, including that creating that strong economy with the potential of that 80 million in tax revenue, creating new jobs with the retailer and the construction of the project, providing economic diversification with our committed retailers, adding a diversity of housing with the townhomes, the apartments, and the affordable units, uh, and ensuring that this becomes a part of that gateway to Lafayette as the corner of Lafayette in the future.

So thank you for your time and consideration.

Uh I know that staff has a number of those discussion points, um, so we look forward to hearing your feedback on those and are happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

I'll apologize in advance for the lengthy presentation.

Um at the sketch plan stage of a PUD staff rely a lot more on the comprehensive plan uh to have to uh evaluate application types uh relative to the development proposal.

Uh we've provided context on those on the proposed zone districts as well in relation to how they fit within that adaptable commercial land use designation.

Uh the applicant is also responsible for clarifying, so all those staffs really working to hone in on uh certain topics.

It's also the applicant's responsibility to identify their deviations and where they need feedback from you.

So Kensington is aware of the six questions, and I think feels that those are the critical points for you guys to also provide direction to them on.

Um, and then we've also reviewed it in relation to the proposed zoning and considered the PUD criteria.

There was an attachment to your staff memo that went through all those specific uh PUD criteria as well.

And under the current city zoning regulations, a PUD application is required for this type of application, uh, both because it's a mixed-use building complex and because all residential development over 20 units requires a PUD as well.

Um the PUD lastly is also the means for the applicant to request those variations that uh that have been identified tonight.

So I won't uh go over this again, but this is just the organization of those questions and the organization of the following uh staff analysis.

So beginning with uh the proposed zone districts, uh the two 2021 comprehensive plan designated this property as adaptable commercial, uh, and that uh previously it was just designated as C1 zoning.

So the two uh zoning districts proposed tonight are R4 and C1, and as I mentioned, those are the most intense residential respectively, and commercial zone districts uh that we currently have in our code.

Uh and I think they're generally probably appropriate for what the comp comp plan designation is for adaptable commercial.

And I think just as an example, right?

You wouldn't we have C1 up and down 287, um, that's the primary zone district, and that is our most intense uh commercial use.

So just matching intensity with intensity, um, R4 zoning allows for the multifamily apartments proposed and allows for the attached uh town home condo product.

So generally those seemingly are appropriate designations.

That'll probably look at this more like a mixed use district and apply one zone district to the area.

But right now we're reviewing it under our current regulations.

But I do want to kind of clarify too again that you know silo is half developed and immediately to the west of this development is silo like entitled, and they're coming in through an amendment, so we can't talk too specifically about that, but it is residential development to the west as well.

And staff has provided some general comments on.

I mean, we're gonna get into this later as well in terms of building siding and whatnot, but in terms of the C1 zoning designation, and Edgar already kind of mentioned this too.

Uh we have uh because adaptable commercial also talks about transitioning land uses.

We have suggested that the future development pad site shift east and that the R4 district uh continue south all along the uh western edge of this site so that it the full property transitions better to the and title development within Silo.

And then uh in terms of um alignment with the comp plan.

Um a lot of uh I think these slides and a lot of our analysis kind of kind of reference back to uh what's in our comp plan, and this is just one of those illustrations.

So the comp plan technically kind of anticipates existing development, and that's the uh site plan uh shown on the far left, and then shows uh three phases of development that could occur occur within adaptable commercial zoning.

Uh staff finds the existing uh development application to most closely align with evolution one, the one that's second from the left, uh, where it shows uh commercial development uh along uh an arterial street and then it transitions to residential development uh closer to the local streets as intensity kind of lessens.

This is the mirror image of what uh uh Kensington's actually proposing.

Um, but it also includes like some significant design elements that you'll see repeated throughout these um plan sheets, and one of the ones that we hone in on kind of throughout the development criteria is the inclusion of uh public streets, and so public streets are uh fairly critical for a number of reasons, um, but they are uh the kind of the genesis for setbacks, building orientation, and then core multimodal connectivity elements that um public right-aways just kind of inherently provide.

Um you can think of the situation kind of on the left or existing development uh that is all commercial, it kind of feels like the entire thing is a parking lot that doesn't have any great separation between like doesn't have a curb or a raised sidewalk, doesn't have tree lawns those kind of things, and so that's why staff is uh pushing for the inclusion of public rights away within this proposal.

Um and then we get into comp plan is kind of multifaceted, so there's a number of slides related to uh section two here alignment with the comp plan.

But mobility uh talks about connected uh streets, and that's again for uh both pedestrian and bike uh connectivity, and then breaking up sites into smaller blocks that are more walkable than large uh spanses.

Uh the comp plan specifically talks about 300 foot distances to try to uh create those more walkable blocks.

Uh so staff again is just requesting or recommending that we incorporate public streets uh and and then also like we know that we're really kind of focused on this east-west connection, but we're also kind of pushing for north-south connections uh to be uh facilitated for the future.

Um Edgar's kind of mentioned already that we have heard from CDOT in terms of proximity to uh this intersection, but they're not gonna allow for any direct access points off of Arapaho, so Aspen Ridge would be developed as part of this, and that would allow the other access point, I guess, um coming from the west, but it would come down Aspen Ridge and then connect into that main corridor.

Um but so our focus would probably be on getting uh north-south connector or connectors uh through that southern portion of the site because they don't have anywhere to go uh north to Rappaho.

Um and then streetscape kind of falls in with uh the same same thing, but it is more related to landscaping and the amenities that get included in planters, public art, public seating, that type of thing.

So again, another reason why we're encouraging the inclusion of publicly dedicated rights away.

And then moving on to building siding.

This is again still related to rights away because that's like if you think about it differently, this is all kind of one site, or we're not breaking it up into properties, and we don't have that detail yet in terms of how this is all going to get subdivided or potentially subdivided, but rights away provide that setback as well as building orientation, which is another criteria we're getting into.

But the building siding talks about the integration of residential office entertainment activity for you know and entertainment for activity and vitality, and then it encourages orienting building to the street.

So we've heard that you know these two uh users are relatively set, but in including uh this as a right-of-way could give us an opportunity to have the other users along uh 287 actually orient to uh what we'd probably identify as like a more main street feel uh that goes through this, and so that actually also kind of gets into that activity and vitality, and so does uh the uses.

So, you know, a few of these uses are uh designated as potential drive-throughs.

We're looking for you know more inline buildings that create that walkability.

There's not a lot of walkability associated drive-through uses.

So but building siding, getting that street, and actually kind of clustering some of those pad sites and having the orientation uh be more directed towards that uh main street.

Uh and then parking areas is another one.

So uh we are to encourage the minimization of parking.

So you've heard from the applicant in terms of like they are asking for variations in terms of not providing enough parking.

It's not one of my major concerns with this application, if anything, I'd be encouraging uh looking for opportunities for more shared parking and other opportunities to reduce that parking.

Um, and so you know, and and then we have reason to support that for both the affordable housing piece as well as the BRT.

So we've mentioned this one, but Aspen Ridge is also designed for a bus route as well.

So there's really a great opportunity for parking reduction because of the multi-mode multimodal opportunities on this site.

Uh, and then retail also has its design kind of principles as well.

Uh large format retail is to be integrated into other uses and to form a cohesive neighborhood.

Um, and then you know, the cities to encourage uh office uses and retail and residential uses, excuse me, above uh retail spaces.

Um we may not get that through this phase of the design, but um getting more opportunity for that, clustering those buildings and and actually getting that right away and then having the building orientation would be great gains uh through this application as well.

So this is just kind of the summary of all five or six components that are tied to the comp plan that we find that it most reads most similarly to the uh commercial evolution one project, and that we're really encouraging uh it to at least facilitate future phases of that evolution, and we think that incorporating the public streets really focusing on enhanced mobility, uh streetscape amenities, and then that building orientation are key elements or facets on on how to get there.

All right, that gets us through two, we're on to three.

Um so the commercial intensity uh and residential density is how we're kind of framing this one, uh, and we're generally just trying to get some initial feedback on uh what's proposed.

So when we're talking about commercial intensity, it's really just the the floor area.

The main uh thing to kind of keep in mind here is that although we're quoting you know the 156,000 square feet of retail, we have an additional pad site that's unknown in terms of the additional floor area.

Um, but this is C1 zoning.

Um, and again, this is one of those things where you know moving that use uh over to 287 and extending residential uh south along Aspen Ridge uh seems like an opportunity, uh maybe also an opportunity for shared parking.

Um, but in general, I don't know that I I mean I guess I'll get into the residential and then I'll uh uh step back uh and talk about where where staff lands.

Um but this so the sketch plan reflects the residential density over the entirety of the site, so over 36 acres.

Um this is where it kind of gets a little squishy in terms of where this comes in relative to our new code.

Um, but right now that R4 zone district is what allows for 18 units an acre, um, but it's just for that R4 area.

So they would be needing an additional uh density.

Again, the comp plan also suggests that we should support that in areas where we have multimodal transportation, also in areas where we're including or getting affordable housing.

So there are opportunities there.

It's a little bit to be determined in terms of how we calculate that.

And there is the potential for us to kind of still have we have zone districts in Lafayette that have kind of a dual, like the one I can think of is C1 M1 zoning designation, and that's for Lafayette Tech Center.

So we could do something like that here.

But I think we can be nimble with our current zone, or it could end up falling underneath our future zone district.

But really, I'm just trying to get some initial feedback, and I think the applicant needs initial feedback on is the overall number of units something the city is supportive of, is the overall amount of commercial floor area something the city's supportive of.

So we're gonna get into building height, which is considered separately.

So building heights next, and just we've kind of touched on this already, but just so everybody's clear the buildings in yellow are shown at 50 feet.

The darker brown areas are shown at 60, and they're supposed to drop down to 50 feet on those kind of barbell ends for five of the six buildings shown there.

And then the residential or not the residential, the commercial shown in red, um, are generally one floor.

We're anticipating and shown at a meeting the mac the maximum building height of 35 feet.

So most of the other areas do require some sort of height variation.

We don't have anything to respond to in terms of a use for the future uh pad site, so it's kind of hard to comment on that one.

Um but in general, you know, I've seen most developments uh occur with 10 to 12 feet of latitude, you know, for each floor, which suggests that we don't probably need 50 feet for a three-story building or 60 feet for a four-story building, they should come down as we mentioned earlier and Edgar alluded to, uh, they're also measuring that to the peak of the building, and our land use code uh measures to the midpoint of any pitched roof.

So that is likely to come down as well.

But um, and so this is another one where it's a little bit moving.

Um, but your feedback on three or four building, you know, three or four story buildings and whether or not you know what heights uh might be supportable or you find to be uh compatible out here would also be helpful.

And for context, uh silo has been entitled for uh two and three-story buildings immediately to the west, and those building heights range from 35 to 40 feet under their current application or their current entitlement, I should say.

Um so yeah, we're just asking, and then the other kind of you know, this is again a cost thing we understand, but should those overall heights be distributed a little bit more evenly throughout the development, it would also bring the taller buildings down.

Um, and then getting into number five diversity of housing types.

Um there are technically two, um, the condo town home product shown in yellow, and then the multifamily apartments.

Staff is supportive of including multifamily affordable units as a third designation for housing types.

Um, but in general, we do look at like this adaptable commercial area differently than we would look at an exclusively commercial area.

So if there were 400 units proposed in an entirely residential area, we might be pushing for three or four different housing types.

But when we have a uh adaptable commercial use where it's already mixed with commercial, um, those housing types seem reasonable.

Um it's really the amount and then some of the impacts like the height that we're looking for more feedback on.

But if you have different opinions and staff, I'm also happy to hear that now too.

Um then the other thing we we pushed uh a little bit more on is that there are 12% affordable uh calculation is based just on the multifamily.

So we would like them to base that uh on the entirety of the development, and that would bring uh the units up by 13 from 41 to 54, if I'm remembering correctly.

Uh and then lastly, um the proposed public land dedication uh is around the perimeter of the property, and the applicant uh included a 50% reduction to the residential calculation.

So residential is required to do that at 15%, and commercial is at 12%.

So their calculation uh factors in that 50% reduction based off of the amenity areas that Edgar mentioned, uh, and then they also clarify that that detention area is not included in their calculation.

They took this to LOSAB and LOSAB expressed concerns with the location along the two major highways, as well as how you know an amenitized pond would actually be utilized given its location right next to a major intersection.

And ultimately they are recommending cash and loo rather than a public land dedication.

So council's feedback on that part of the request is also welcomed.

Lastly, Planning Commission also reviewed and commented on this same request on January 21st.

They generally agreed with uh staff comments on the proposed zoning, encouraging more alignment with the comp plan, uh the need to better integrate the land uses.

Um they also agreed with LOSAB on the uh PLD uh being a fee and loo uh planning commission uh expressed concerns over the proposed building height and as well as both the amount and the depth of the affordable housing that was proposed or is proposed.

Uh and then they also uh made comments and um had suggestions about the amount of civic space and green space included internally with the proposal, especially for the residential portion of the development.

That concludes my overview.

Happy to answer any questions you guys have.

Thank you so much.

Uh so just a reminder to council, just so we follow the agenda correctly.

We are at this moment not giving any feedback and not discussing anything.

This is our chance just to ask questions.

We will then have uh public testimony and then it will come to us for discussion.

So at this moment, uh, I'm sure there are questions for staff or for applicants.

Anyone counselor guyos?

I have a question about the private drive.

Should it remain a private drive?

I was just curious about enforcement and in the event of an emergency or evacuation, um, how would that work in regards to public safety?

I'll do my best.

Um so the private drive, um, I we would have a public access easement over it.

It's more our I don't know that we analyze it too much in terms of evacuation as public safety.

When we do get a private drive, typically it is narrower than what we get for a public right-away, and then you they when they narrow something, they generally ask for some sort of uh give, and usually it's an attached sidewalk, maybe no tree lawn, and you lose landscaping and stuff like that.

But the um, so we're and then it also makes the utility design uh a little bit trickier because we you know those widths are to accommodate water, uh sewer, and usually storm as well.

So um, but in terms of access, we'd whatever happens here, we'd still need to meet fire access, and uh and that is all kind of still to be determined with the traffic study, and once we know uh that information.

So is that how yes?

A partial answer, I understand.

Can I ask about a follow-up question on that?

Sure thought so.

Help me better understand the difference between the requirements of a private drive versus a public drive.

It's so the private drive is kind of like a and maybe Jeff, if he wants to jump in, he's more than welcome to.

Uh but the private drive is that's that's kind of like a PUD.

It's gonna be some sort of exception to our general standard.

So we don't know what those those dimensions are necessarily yet, or what the amenities on either side of that would be.

Um, there is kind of some you know pros and cons, but generally, like you're insured all of those street amenities that you get with the public right away when you require a public ride away at set widths.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, basically it's agreed upon within the PUD of what the private drive looks like we give that two pre-kind of set requirements of the public drive.

Correct.

That includes things like more space for sidewalks, for bike lanes, for access, for landscaping.

Yep.

But certainly wider, more space for public drive would be assumed in a public.

Thank you.

Counselor Jensen.

So the undeveloped parcel in the or that's not being proposed to be developed in the southwest corner.

They're asking for a variance on that, even though they're not defining what they're developing.

Is that common in planning where you ask for a variance when you don't really even have that plan for anything?

That's a good question.

Um, I don't know that I've seen it before, but this is also like kind of a unique application type to be fair.

Like when I've done something like a sketch plan or a concept plan before, it doesn't necessarily have this level of detail.

And so if this was more of the on the conceptual level, this would be kind of a more of a bubble diagram, and you'd have something that just kind of clarified commercial use.

So it is and it isn't.

It isn't in relation to what we got elsewhere on this application.

It's definitely different and harder to respond to.

So let me just clarify then on this.

So if we eventually approved this, now I know we're not doing that now, but eventually that would just sort of be grandfathered in to whatever we do, and then the developer what what goes I I don't understand this little parcel here and what happens with that.

So and it is a hard one, and that's partly why you know staffs trying to hone the conversation to we think it'd be more appropriate for anything at that scale and intensity to be further east, and then like and then so you agree with that.

That's the direction you should provide.

Uh if you don't think 60 feet is an appropriate height on this property, or you do, you know, comment on that as well.

Um, but that's about it.

I mean, and and again, like that's also why I had that disclaimer that what we get from the applicant at this stage is you know, it's also their responsibility.

So they know they're gonna get less, or they should know they're gonna get less information on this particular part of their request because it has less detail.

Um, but it's up to them to decide whether or not they get enough information tonight to move forward with the costs of the next phase of the development and the next application model requirements.

So it just helped.

I know that it's not really, but uh again, I get that it's vague.

Uh so that's fine.

Um you mentioned in your last slide that there were concerns from planning commission about the green space and the affordability, meaning there's not enough green space and there's not enough affordability, or vice versa, or what exactly?

Planning commission asked for more uh outdoor space for the residential area just in general.

Um, and then they uh or suggested that there should be more provided.

Uh and then they also kind of commented on uh affordability and they pushed on both kind of levers.

They asked for deeper affordability and they asked for more of it.

So um wasn't exactly clear whether or not 12% would be enough if it was across the entire site, but they were just encouraging them to do more in terms of both deeper affordability and providing more of it.

So thank you.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh and thank you, Steven, for the presentation and to Mr.

Crockett for running us through as well.

Um two questions.

One, I think just because I'm dumb on this.

Is the reason the detention pond is located in the northeast just because of the slope of land, or that was a decision we want to put it there versus another location?

I'm gonna let the applicant respond to that.

But um, probably, yeah.

Um and if you have a question for me before I if you want to mine might rabbit hold us.

I'll listen to Edgar first.

No worries.

Um thanks for the question.

So twofold.

Um, some of the preliminary comments that we heard initially from the community was that area um was important to try to maintain as green space.

Um and so that in conjunction with exactly what you're saying that the site naturally slopes that direction, um, lends itself to a that area, but then B, the reason why the public land dedication areas kind of around that um is because we heard feedback that that was an important area to try to maintain as um green space or open space as well.

Cool.

Thank you.

I'll I'll hold my uh response to that to the next section.

Um but my my very question, I think this might be more for you, Steven, is and forgive me, this is my first in-person council meeting, so this may be a little bit clueless.

But I you know, I understand tonight we're looking at the sketch plan.

Yep, just to provide feedback, and that already happened recently with planning commission.

But um, just reading a lot of the written comments and having um gotten a sense from the community from the the robust written feedback we got from Lafayette residents.

I guess there's I have some confusion, and I think there may be some confusion in the city in terms of what our decision tree is.

And so um way back there was a slide showing where we are in the process and and where we could go going forwards.

Yeah, it was way back.

Thank you.

I think this is an important because my understanding is if the IGA expires on or about 2029, um, this parcel, which is currently Boulder Counties, right?

Yeah.

Um this parcel could and likely would be annexed by Erie.

Is that correct?

It is that likely could be annexed by Erie.

So the IGA and Mary Lynn can jump in whenever she wants on this too.

Um, but it it basically held the what west side of 287 for Lafayette for that 10-year period.

And I'll I think Erie was ready to go.

Uh allowed for Erie to develop uh the east side um, you know, and annex that those without the competition.

So there's contiguity.

The way annexations work is you have to have one sixth contiguity.

So there's contiguity for both parcels to be annexed to either jurisdiction.

And that was the settlement agreement to basically allow nine mile to go to Erie, and then Kensington to come into Lafayette.

So and the way that the IGA is written is for it's automatically renew, but it could also not renew.

And there's a clause in there where I think it's 180 days or something like that that either jurisdiction could provide one another in advance of that deadline.

And so it's not a certainty that thank you.

And the reason I'm asking why I think this is important is I'm getting the sense from some folks that there is is a um a misconception that it's either Lafayette could annex and then develop something along the lines of the sketch plan.

Or the land stays as is in perpetuity.

And my understanding based on the players involved is that that is a virtually nil possibility.

Am I off base?

I don't think so.

Okay.

Yeah.

There are areas.

I mean, if we had a broader map and we're talking exclusively about annexations, there are areas within Boulder County that are adjacent to Lafayette that only have adjacency to Lafayette.

And so we would also probably be talking about a different application type in terms of this.

Like people could just come in and push for an annexation, knowing that their development potential is either agricultural or rural residential in the county, or something more in Lafayette, but that's not our circumstance here.

And so that's part of the reason why this is a very layered process.

The applicant wants to know what their entitlement is and what they can actually build out on site.

Um, and they assume presumably know that I mean they do know that the IGA is um is set for a 10-year period and and the the circumstances may change in 2029.

Okay.

So thank you.

I just want to be clear on that.

Thank you.

Any other questions from council?

Counselor Friendland.

Can I ask the uh another IGA question while we're on it?

Um there was mention about the commercial kind of similar anchor tenants being required as um in the IGA.

I think two anchor tenants.

I'm curious.

I don't know what the square footage of commercial space in Erie is.

I'm wondering what that is if anybody knows the anchor tenants specifically at nine mile as compared to the commercial anchor tenants envisioned for this site.

Don't know.

I can find out for you, but I don't have it off the and what's the square footage of the commercial here, 150, right?

It's 160 plus whatever that commercial pad site is in the 160.

Yeah.

Um just a kind of a question and maybe like something that we need to explore of if we develop something, are we within the lines of um not I'll save it for comments, I guess.

But yeah, that was the question, and you can see my line of questioning.

Thank you.

Any other questions from council?

Council Gianola.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I want to ask about the um the parcel to the west.

Um I think uh the applicant showed on one of their slides the current sort of uh the current entitlement uh that I guess as it currently stands.

I understand there's you know some changes, but what is the zoning on that that parcel that's immediately to the west currently?

It's got a mix, so that's what's reflected on that slide there.

There's uh some T1, which is transitional commercial, there's R3, which is a step down from R4, and then there's R2.

So what is T1 transitional?

So it's what is what typically goes in that kind of it's uh kind of more uh local commercial development or retail development.

Okay.

Um what they got entitled to build out there um through their uh so if they would have moved into I think phases two and three, if I'm remembering correctly for silo, um they had uh a restaurant as part of their, but T1 also allows residential, so it had multi-family housing.

I see, and they're what they came through.

You guys some of you remember um for their sketch plan, they're moving away from multi-family housing, um, moving away from probably rezoning T1 to allow for just residential uses.

So it's it, you know, can't get into too much of what that current because we do have another application and for their preliminary plan, but it is moving kind of more away from commercial and to um generally uh a residential development.

And so currently this T1 zoning is what stands today.

Correct.

When this applicant put their application name, yes.

And that but that T1 is both commercial and residential.

Correct.

Okay, yep.

And then that section and add uh in like what their PUD envisioned was apartments and some level of commercial.

Yeah.

So okay.

I also have a question about Aspen Ridge Drive.

In the plan, we have one access point to that road, and we have two access points to Lucerne, one access point to 287, and we hear that there's no access allowed to a Rappahoe.

Just given the proximate proximity to that intersection.

Is there anything preventing the applicant from having more than one access point on Aspen Ridge Drive?

I don't know if Jeff wants to take that or not, but uh I don't I don't know until we go to transportation or a traffic study, but um yeah.

Yeah, I think that that's probably the short answer.

I mean, it's something we could look at.

It as you get closer to Rappahoe, it you start to get in the area of influence of the traffic signal.

So and there's a traffic signal proposed.

There wouldn't, yeah, there would probably be a traffic signal at the intersection of the track.

Okay, yeah, I'm just just trying to understand the breakdown of access here.

So thank you.

Go ahead.

Can I dovetail off of the Aspen Ridge comments?

I had questions there too.

Um who builds Aspen Ridge.

So we have um two different developments in Silo was uh initially trending ahead of uh this application, and they may still be.

Um we have basically it's it's complicated in our public works department does a great job.

Um, but effectively half of it would be built by one developer and half of it would be built by the other, and there'd be an interim condition for two-way traffic to occur in either state.

Um eventually you'd have a bigger right-of-way that allows for turning movements and whatnot.

So but the right-of-ways large enough that just in half of it, you're gonna get two lanes of traffic to allow for access, should one of those two developments and they more than likely won't mine up perfectly um in terms of entitlements and getting built at the same time.

So does that help?

It does help.

I guess I mean the way this is currently sketched out.

Aspen Ridge is fully not on the ex this parcel.

Is that am I reading that right?

There, so the way that if you go back to a different illustration, um the property line likely, I mean Aspen Ridge isn't been dedicated yet.

Right.

Half of it's getting dedicated through this development, and the other half will get dedicated through silos development through the subdivision process.

So we don't have that.

I mean, I don't know that we do or we don't yet, because that's or because the silo, I don't know if Jeff remembers, but we may have half of it through the original silo development, but that's how it gets phased out.

I guess I'll just be really direct to my question.

Uh would there be encroachment on the existing on this as we get to more detail uh based on right now it's not half on the property and it might become so?

I think I understand your question.

They have been given the ultimate width of that uh future design for Aspen Ridge, so they know what to design to.

Um we don't have some details that comment on you know their proposed setbacks yet, because when we look at the setbacks from a planning perspective, it's to that property line.

But if there's also like and one of our impacts is is more associated with what is the distance from the home to the actual drivable like surface if it has a wide you know sidewalk and tree lawn and all that stuff, then the 10 or 15 foot setback that's proposed there might make more sense, but until we know what that ultimate kind of design is, it's harder to comment.

So and the setback on that specific area for all those townhomes is asked to be reduced.

Yes.

Am I understanding that correctly?

That's correct.

Yep.

Um can you do you have that table of from what to what?

Uh it's in the staff memo.

It might be in edver's yeah, that's right there.

Yeah.

So uh that's the C1 COVID.

That's only C1.

Oh, sorry.

Yeah.

So Aspen Ridge, I think it's 10 feet if I'm remembering correctly.

Is that the collector 35 to 10?

Yep, that's the one.

Okay.

Council Genova.

I just had a couple more of the current zoning in Boulder County is agriculture.

That's my understanding.

Yes.

Um, and then just a couple of specific questions about the lot.

What is the width of the lot that's as it stands, or I guess it's being a rough number.

Is it is it's not 500 feet, it's not a thousand feet.

No, it is give me a moment.

Okay.

Okay.

I can pull it up on the uh the annexation uh map as well.

I'm just trying just trying to understand that and and in relationship to block size and these kinds of questions.

Um a couple other questions for the I for you or the applicant, I'm not sure.

Just to answer your question, it's about 1200 feet from basically lot line to lot line.

Okay, from east west.

Yes.

Okay, that's the that's the answer that I was looking for.

Perfect.

Um couple of questions just about height here.

Um we didn't talk about like the amenity center.

Is that one-story building, two-story?

Yeah, that that's contemplated as a single story uh building.

Okay, and then the the gray buildings here, garages, those are also one story.

Single story garages, that's correct, yes.

Um thank you.

No more questions right now.

I believe our mayor protein questions.

I do.

Go for it.

I have a few more.

No, go ahead.

Um, I wanted to talk green space if there's other people that want to have green space.

Um I'm curious about the first of all the topography of this of the land.

Um the heights, you know, how does it sort of where's the highest points?

How does that how do how does the topography match with sort of the heights that you've envisioned?

Sure.

So the grading plan that we've provided is again super conceptual at this stage.

And so basically the determining factor is the high point is at the um southwest corner, and it generally has a cross slope down to that detention pond.

So um this being the high point, and then again, kind of those cross, those diagonal grade sections going all the way down across the site to the detention pond.

Thank you.

And in terms of thinking about topography and the way you've laid it out, have you kind of thought about view corridors in the on the site?

I mean, I think if you go out there now, you can see longs, you can see the mountains, right?

Something we talk about in our comp plan.

Is that part of you know the thinking as you've put together the site and the narrative?

So uh a planning commission made a similar comment on view corridors.

Um, and so with this, again, the the sort of I would say the benefit on the northern portion of the site is directly across the street, is that res uh the retail area?

Um so in terms of viewing it from you know residential houses as we get down further to the south uh below the site is when you start getting into the residential uh developments, and so really there's there's not as much effect on the residential areas.

The the highest buildings are more northern where across the street is again that commercial area.

Um, as far as the the main view corridor, it is trying to make that east-west drive as you turn into the site, that view uh to the west.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

And then to green space a little bit.

So I'm curious how you've thought about green space specifically in two in two aspects to serve the folks that the residents.

How have you implemented green space in you know so far conceptually to sort of serve residents and then uh you know, maybe green spaces sort of have some level of connectivity or something around, you know, um green space for non-residents.

Does that make sense?

Sure.

Um, so I might jump between plan sets here.

Um the easiest one to probably articulate it is on the pedestrian circulation plan.

Um so with the green, that those are those extra wide multi-use paths.

And so you can see the one that cuts through both the town home project and the multi-family project, uh, about a fourth of the way up the site.

And so that really is designed as a pedestrian corridor uh across the residential for the folks on the site.

Um, and so all throughout that area, it's it's conceptualized as uh enhanced green space.

So there's an adjacent pocket park uh for the townhomes that are there, um, and then it again runs out to the green space that that was proposed in that northeast corner.

Um then again it's part of that sort of um the exterior perimeter uh is where that the public land dedication was located, but the goal is um to try to add that green space in in and around the residential area, which is why you know on the landscaping plan, you see that we're a little bit short on the commercial areas, and so we wanted to make sure we pushed any available uh square footage of green space in and around those residential areas, so you can see that kind of reflected here, and again, um just kind of conceptual in terms of where the sidewalks are currently located, where that green space is, um, and how that is uh uh laid out currently.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh, I'm curious uh along the comments from our open space group.

Um, you know, I'm curious what you think about their comment of putting a path and green space on pretty busy traffic corridors.

Is that do you think that's a fair comment?

What's it what do you think?

You know, I think when when we discuss it again, the the idea of it was we noted that that that northwest or the northeast corner was an important piece to try to maintain as um uh a green space, and so that was the intention around localizing the public land to that area.

Um, after hearing the Low SAB's recommendation, planning commission obviously will hear your recommendation as well.

But um, we're open-minded to the cash in lieu of uh and that potentially opens up uh some ability to shift some of that green space again more internally as we look at what that that cache in lieu of looks like.

Okay, thank you.

Just a question to follow on Counselor Fridlin related to that, and recognizing we'll give our comments uh in a moment, but for the current kind of green space pathways along Arapaho and 287, um will there be like a fence or something to reduce noise or who collects the trash that blows there from the highway?

I'm just trying to imagine like what that looks like in practice.

Sure.

Um and there is a pretty decent setback between where the Arapaho and 287 would be located and where the actual uh walking path would be.

Um those sort of cut sections come.

Uh there's some contemplated ones in the actual sketch plan, but there's some additional detail that'll come uh later on.

Uh, but those would be um, you know, there's uh a metro district that's contemplated over the site, and so a portion of that would be uh the maintenance require of the common spaces uh adjacent to that.

But uh to answer your question, there would be there would be no wall, uh at least none that's uh conceptualized at this point.

Thanks.

Council Johnson.

So the retention pond right now is kind of a wetland.

Uh it's got cattails in it, and uh it's mushy, it'd be hard to walk on it.

Um matter what you do, is that needed for drainage?

So that there's really not an option there to do anything, you actually have to have that for to keep things from flooding.

So uh there's a little bit of a long history with that area.

Um it was a part of the reservoir as a fore bay to it, um, way back when before some of that development happened on the west hand side.

Um, and so in the process of all of the development, um, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a report um that it is not uh part of the waters of America and not a wetland.

Um and it actually currently the outfall structure uh is plugged, is uh is not operating, so there's no outfall structure that's existing.

Um so as a part of the detention pond, it would be either opening up or reconnecting that to the main drainage system as a part of the development, but that's all uh in conjunction with public works um and ultimately the the utilities uh in that area.

So for the overall project, um it would be become a the detention area, but right now um it is not a wetlands or something that collects water and then dispatches it somewhere else.

Well, and I I wasn't saying an officially you know search wetland, but does it serve a drainage function for the for the property?

Uh with the are you talking about currently or with the intention now?

And as you proceed, are you gonna need that for drainage?

Yes, yes, we will need uh some form of drainage throughout the site, and so that's the intended purpose of what's currently that white area here.

Correct.

And at just north of nine mile, as you cross Arapaho or cross 287 on Arapaho in that section where the apartments are, there's been a lot of flooding.

And I I this is my first time through one of these processes, so I don't know, given that there's flooding very close by, and now we're gonna add more impervious cover to an area.

How do we ensure that there I is there an engineering process and do we work with Erie to make that happen?

Because I don't really maybe I should know this answer, but I don't two full.

So one absolutely is an engineering process.

Um during the next submittal, there'll be a drainage study that's done for the whole site.

So it'll take into account the impervious, the amount of water that's needed to retain what that volume is and how that looks.

Um and then as a referral agency, um, Erie has also commented on the fact that it, you know, it will be connected into a common drainage area, and so that'll need to be coordinated with that outfall structure that currently exists and how that interacts with uh the system that's in place now.

Thank you.

Great.

Any other counsel counselor from I have a couple affordable housing questions, if I may.

Um so what's proposed is 12% of the apartments at 80% AMI, is that right?

That's correct.

And the apartments would um well, first let me let me just ask.

So um why has it not been recommended to include the town homes as part of the 12%?

I know that's one of staff's recommendations, but I'm curious why just the apartments in that calculation.

The the easiest answer is the town homes are for sale product and the the apartments are the for-rent product.

Um and so that that 12% is really focused around the for-rent product uh of the overall units.

Okay.

Are we able to have four-sale product that would be affordable?

I mean, is that part of other projects that you've seen in the area?

I mean, is it technically possible?

Um I suppose a deed restricted for sale product is technically possible.

I think it's it's difficult as you start to work through a for sale product because there's a the transfer of title indeed as it as it moves through.

So that's where the difficulty comes in.

Okay.

Um, and so that's why the focus was really around the four-rent product.

Okay, thank you.

And so the apartments, um, the uh the non- the market rate apartments.

Um I mean, how much imagining how much those might be, what what would the market be for those?

Yeah, that's uh it's a tough question because we wouldn't bit we would basically let the market dictate it once it went for sale, which could be you know three, four years.

Um, and so what the actual market rate would be would be at the time of sale or at the time of rent, what the market would dictate.

And are near like nearby apartments that are maybe similar, like are they at I mean, where do they fit in with AMI?

Do you know?

Are they 100% AMI?

Are they 120% AMI?

Do you know?

As far as market rate rent.

Yeah, market rate rentals offhand.

I don't know the rental rates um okay directly off the top of my head.

Okay, fair enough.

Um yeah, it's everything.

Can I just briefly build on that?

How did y'all decide to have 57%, 34%, 9% with the breakdown for one bed, two bed, three beds?

What do you break that down?

So um a portion of that, obviously, the the asterisk of conceptual, those are kind of the breakdowns that we believe fit within the the unit plan that we have now.

Um, and some of that is in terms of uh what the buildings, the square footage is can hold uh for the size of the units that we would like to offer.

Um, and then some of that is you know what the market dictates in terms of uh is there a need for additional one bedrooms, is there a need for three bedrooms?

Uh what is the market look like for that availability?

Okay, thanks.

Just to piggyback off that too.

Yeah, I noticed there's no one bedroom condos, and that's maybe just a function of the height that's planned for these.

I mean, I I'm just sort of looking at this as an opportunity to bake in some additional, you know, kind of affordability and types of units uh based on just sheer square footage uh of the for sale product.

Sure.

Um and that we didn't contemplate uh, you know, a single uh single bedroom for sale townhome.

Um the limit down was kind of that um two-bedroom, just because typically it serves the purpose in the foresale of you know one bedroom and potentially an office or or a family, whatever it might be for that for sale product, yeah.

Any other questions from council?

Mayor Proton.

Okay, you're gonna go yeah, so I am fortunate enough to have been here for the 2022 uh debut.

So I can see a lot of work has gone into this, so I appreciate it.

Um I can see the changes and the differences.

Uh I do have questions from both staff and the but also the applicants.

So uh I'm gonna start with the from the comp.

Um the just overall we have a framework that is connected community, and from the kind of plan, the comprehensive plan lays the foundation for improving connections between different geographical areas in Lafayette and between different groups and organizations in the community, and then it lays some key um elements like multi-mobility.

Um in the in the process when we were looking at um compliance and alignment with the comprehensive plan, how did that element um connect it?

And I and I saw I I see the connections internally and uh throughout the area.

Uh, can you just tell me how do you how did you conceptualize what that and I'm sure this helped you know staff helped with this, but what what does that mean for this?

Sure.

Um I think the the goal is twofold.

One for the residents on the site to move from the residential area to the retail on the site, and then also to be able to exit and attach to whether it's existing or future trails, uh, and then the same for external community members to be able to use those trails to then come to the retail or the area on the site.

Um and so with it being a little bit of you know potentially the future corner of Lafayette, we're a little bit restricted on you know the two major connection points to the regional trail, um, but then also trying to coordinate it with the adjacent development like silo and making sure that our our transportation goes back and forth.

So providing the bike lane that reattaches to the aspen the potential future Aspen Ridge bike lane, um, and again trying to start that connection point at the corner of Lafayette that then breaks down back into that the bulk of Lafayette as a whole.

Okay.

And I saw the connections to city bike path bike trails are that don't exist yet, but they they will.

Sure, yes, yeah.

Um and the multimodal piece of that, how does how do you how do how are we viewing multimodal aspect of that?

So there's there's some of that that's providing that extra wide path that's for you know the bikes, the walkers, um, that extra large path that's dictated um as that multimodal pathway.

Um and so that's where you know, making sure that those exist throughout the site as that larger pathway, um, which is the the green, um, and then again making sure that there's you know that actual bike lanes um and try to make sure that it's attached to that future BRT station where there's access for somebody using alternative forms of transit to get to the potential BRT station.

And we know that that's a little bit conceptual.

Um, so we've tried to provide access to those potential locations.

Yep.

Uh and I ask this of every everyone who comes before us.

Uh how do you and uh this is just sketch sketch plan, but safety is a big piece of that.

And I I look at this and I see a lot of parking lots and a lot of where places where cars are gonna be moving around and connectivity between a highway and a another very highly well, two highways and a lot of high traffic areas.

Um and I see the word circulation.

So how do we view when we talk about circulation?

Are we looking at uh do we do you consider uh conceptually, like if somebody's any apartments, what their route might be to get to the BRT station?

Is that is that something you go through when you're looking at this?

Yeah, absolutely.

And so that's why some of that those wider multi-use trails really bisect the residential area and then come around so that it's not crossing some of that retail traffic that would be brought in to those retail users.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Um and then the next questions are gonna be for uh C.

Thank you.

When we look at the connectivity piece, and I think uh if I understand correctly, um staff are encouraging pushing out of uh I forgot what the first level is into evolution one.

Oh you're encouraging us to move out of existing to evolution in one we're I mean I got those somewhere, but um uh sorry, you probably want to close your eyes.

Um that was it right there.

Um we're including we're really trying to encourage that either that they advance that or they at least lay the foundation for that to occur, and that's what we don't find is is quite addressed.

And so, like if you look at their site plan, I mean, I think the elements here are one of the main elements is the rights away, right?

And then you get that kind of connectivity.

And if we go back to, I should be mentally like marking down what slides we were on previously.

Um but um like just we could even look at this one, right?

Like their circulation plan generally have has a lot of enhancements around the perimeter of the site and has a few east-west connections, the north-south connections could be more enhanced.

The connection across Lucerne is is to be determined in terms of like how those two developments uh would if you're walking all the way to 287 in order to cross as a crosswalk there, or whether or not there's a mid-block crossing potential.

So those are the kind of comments that we made.

The connectivity uh design that uh Kington included with their proposal uh shows that they've they started the process, but we're asking for you know more enhancements, and then you know, when you have a BRT station kind of undetermined, but like you want whatever that stop is to be able to connect more directly and not be walking either around the perimeter of the site to get to where they want to go or through a parking lot to get to where they want to go.

So and same for bikes, right?

Like uh so we're looking for those enhancements as uh everywhere.

I just kind of stopped looking for the slide and left it on something else.

So sorry about that.

Uh I can't do two things at once.

And then and I saw on Aspen Ridge bike lane.

Uh then I hear this is potentially for a bus.

And I'm looking at it connecting to Arapahoe.

Yeah, and there's that's a lot to be on that.

Um I I appreciate uh a bike lane.

Um it is would we are we going to encourage that to be um part of the circulation of the whole area, or is that because there's a multi-use path right up right next to that?

There's a bike lane and then some green space, and then and I know these are details that will get worked out, but I'm uh I'm just wondering since C dot's only allowing us one entrance on and off of to the north on and off of Arapaho.

Right.

And so this is fluid to some extent.

And one of the things I probably should have clarified in answering uh Councillor Fredman's question about who's building Aspen Ridge and kind of when, right?

Like it's it is driven by traffic.

So I think the silo development, because of the amount of traffic that they're providing, they're not having to provide, and they can't dedicate the other half of the right-of-way because they don't own it.

So there's a little bit of like moving parts there, but they're also only gonna potentially need less of a right-of-way than we'd ultimately get if both of these uh these developments occur.

Then you get the full you know, set of amenities and a much much bigger right-of-way, but it's also you can only kind of extract what's commensurate to the development that's uh adjacent.

So there's gonna be something we get from silo and something we get from Kenzi Intention annexing development to Lafayette.

And if we thank you, sure.

And if we if for some strange reason we were conceptualizing an underpass under any of these uh major like arteries, is that still for 287 and or Apaho?

That's a C dot.

They have to there's a you want to take it?

So give it to them.

Yeah, so um we're able to get grant funding that's being managed by CDOT to pursue looking at the the BRT super station, including a potential underpass under 287 in the area of Lucerne.

Um that is the most likely location.

Um we're still trying to vigorously encourage C dot to continue on that track and in terms of putting an underpass there, but that's that's it's up to them.

It's certainly that would be their call.

Yeah, that would be the most likely location.

So there it's anticipated to have BRT on both um 287 and on Arapaho, which is Colorado 7, and Colorado 7 and US 287 coincide in this stretch.

So this would be a place to basically the super station is getting both BRT routes overlapping from baseline to Arapahoe.

So that's the kind of the optimal spot in the general area of Lucerne was identified as the most likely place to have that overlap and to have people be able to easily get to from one BRT to the other.

Perfect.

And the I have three questions.

One about noise mitigation, one about green space, and one about air quality.

So I'm struggling with the perimeter around the that surrounds this.

Is that conceptually?

Do we I know we look at light distribution from a development?

How far does it move?

And I know that people in Lucerne have said they can see the lights that come over from that come across 287 right now.

And this is across from a retail development already, but the people to the north and the people living in this development.

So the people to the north are gonna have influence across Arapaho Color 7.

Um someone mentioned a wall.

We already have a wall along 287 for triangle.

Yeah, I don't know what you're talking about.

Um that area right over here.

Do we encourage walls?

Um to mitigate highway news.

I mean, because the I mean it's a lot of traffic, is that not something we need to do?

So when we get into future phases of uh the review, we can we probably will require a noise study.

But it it kind of depends on.

I mean, in this case, I think we're talking about not noise generated from the site, but noise generated like from traffic and um whatnot.

And so there's different construction methods that you can also take, you know, in terms of even triple glazing windows or whatever, which is also a sustainability feature, but um would also have some impact on on noise mitigation, but those are kind of coming, you know, and it and it would be potentially like where we ask for that because of the distance from a right-of-way, and but you'd start with a noise study, kind of get a level of what um the traffic actually generates, and then make a determination as to whether or not those decimal levels have an impact on.

I mean, and it's also indoor outdoor, right?

Generally, I think you're looking at making sure that it's a livable indoor space, but if there's community amenity areas outside, you're also considering that as well.

So in order to make sure that they're usable.

So that makes sense?

Yes.

Okay.

One last question, if I might.

Yeah, of course.

Uh the connectivity concept that we're I see the Afghan apply, you know, trying to make that possible connectivity that corners the it's hard because there's hard, yeah.

It's relatively isolated there.

Um the circulate the idea of circulation and connectivity and all the cars that are in that area.

Uh, is are there are there ways to further address the compliance with being a connected um community or or and what where where would you push?

Um, I mean, so this is the first kind of step we have, or the first application where we're trying to have a even like internal to the site, right?

It's got a mix of uses.

So you're looking at the connectivity within the site and getting people to and from residential and commercial areas, and then you're also looking at it more broadly in terms of like how does this connect with the future silo development, and how does it connect with you know selfishly, we're probably focused on how it connects with uh Lafayette, right?

Like to the south, but then we're also concerned in coordinating with our uh neighboring jurisdictions.

So one of the big things that would happen is Aspen Drive and uh potential intersection there, right?

Which is connection kind of all around.

Um but and we're we're pushing on those things.

I mean, internally, I think the answer is a little different than what we're trying to get in terms of connections to the surrounding area.

Well, the strategy might be different, right?

Like we're really looking internally, probably like it's seems to have vehicular circulation.

Uh we're trying to make sure that it's balanced with pedestrian and bike circulation.

But those, you know, up and down 287, you have uh sidewalk on both sides of the street that's developed within Lafayette, and it does provide you know some distance from the right-of-way and some amount of connectivity, but you still have because it's right off of a highway crossing Lucerne, crossing Arapaho is different than crossing public road, right?

So we just have different different measures, and then because of that, like you're probably not looking at you know, it's only gonna be at lighted intersections that you have crossings in those areas, whereas you know, maybe off Aspen Ridge Drive, there's not gonna be um an intersection, most likely here.

You know, not an intersection, a lighted intersection, I should say.

There'll probably be an intersection.

That's what's proposed as a four-way intersection.

So, you know, that's a little bit easier to get across.

Um, and then there's, you know, depending upon traffic uh estimates and what our traffic engineer, not my area of expertise, kind of uh looks at, you know, maybe there's potential for uh mid-block crossings along Lucerne, but technically, right now, those access points are more than likely driven by uh proximity to uh the commercial uses that are proposed on that side.

So okay.

Thank you so much.

Council Ginella.

I I just have a couple more questions for the applicant.

Uh I I asked earlier about the current zoning and as agricultural, and I just am curious if you've done any research to see has there been any historical use of this land as agriculture?

Not to my knowledge.

Um there was uh uh previous it was used as an oil well site for a while.

That was the the most recent use that we're aware of.

Okay, yeah, and the reason I ask is you know, one of the you know kind of planning pillars of the comp plan is you know focusing on historic and cultural heritage of the city.

And so if there were agriculture use, it might be an interesting uh way to recognize that if you could in the plan some some way.

So I'm just curious if if it's possible for you to do a little more digging and just sort of see what the historical use is there.

Yeah.

Um coming back to the connectivity, um, that uh main east-west multi-use path that's for the um for the residential.

Am I right?

And looking the way this is sort of drawn on the plan, it goes through that amenity center.

Uh it would go on the kind of backside between the the amenity center and the apartment building.

The the kind of details around the amenity center, the back of it are conceptual, so it wouldn't bisect the amenity center, it would be adjacent to it.

Okay, okay.

I was just confused on that.

Um, okay, that's great.

Um I had one more.

Um, the the gateway focal point in the north shore, east corner.

We haven't heard any discussion of that.

I mean, I know on the comp plan there's like a giant star on that section.

Do you have any thoughts or or vision for what you know would be appropriate there?

I mean, it's so it's it's designated at that because ultimately, if this gets annexed into Lafayette, it will be the corner of Lafayette.

Um, and so I think there's some opportunities to enhance that area.

Um, and so we have it noted um as a potential, and then as we continue our discussions from conceptual to detailed, we can you know work out what that looks like, but it is an opportunity uh to acknowledge the comprehensive plan and that being the corner of Lafayette.

Okay, okay, great.

Um, just a couple of kind of technical questions.

All the condos that front Aspen Ridge Drive, there's no car access for those uh off of Aspen Ridge Drive?

Correct.

Okay.

I I I thought that was the case, just wanted to confirm.

Um and then in your in your narrative, um, you do talk about infill on the commercial site.

Do you have any thoughts about where there's room for infill here?

Because I'm I I'm just curious if you have thoughts on that.

Sure.

So it's that's really an ode back to that comprehensive plan and the evolutions of it.

Um, so again, we believe that we have you know very high class retailers that are coming in here for the long-term duration with our our general merchandising anchor and our specialty grocer.

As the comp plan indicates, there's the potential that as the market evolves, as things change in the future, then that infill and redevelopment can happen.

And so, you know, as Steven indicated, trying to set up that system for if the market changes in the future, then the project can be infilled and redeveloped towards that ultimate project of the comprehensive plan.

Okay, thank you.

That's all for me.

Any further questions from council?

Go for it.

Uh, I I have one question for the city attorney, but now I've lost it.

Uh, so I we'll just have to move on.

Okay, seeing no further questions, we will move on to the public testimony portion.

Before I call out the first name, I just I want to I want to be clear about a few things.

Um, first and foremost, if you want to speak, please fill out a speaker request form.

Uh they're in the back, like I said at the beginning.

Uh just hit the check box next to public hearing and give that form over to our city clerk, and you will get your chance to speak.

Um, just um set your name and address before speaking, and then uh you may start.

If you're not present here tonight and you want your voice heard, you can also do that.

We are taking live calls, and that phone number is posted on our website.

So if anyone listening or watching wants to speak, please do so.

And there's just three things I want to address before we get started here.

Uh, first and foremost, please address the city council when you're speaking.

Um you're not here to address us to people behind you, you're here to address the city council on this decision.

We're it's of course it's qualified judicial, and we want to make sure that this proceeding goes as planned, and uh we want to make sure that we're doing things as they should be done.

So please address the city council.

The second part I want to address is you will have five minutes to speak.

Everybody will get the same amount of time.

That doesn't necessarily mean you have to use the entire five minutes, but that's the amount of time you are allotted.

Uh to be respectful, because we have a lot of people who wish to speak tonight.

I think the best way to make the process as fair and as equitable as possible is to give everyone exactly five minutes, and that means we'll be very, very strict with the five-minute limit tonight.

Um, when those five minutes are up, I will let you know.

Please be respectful of this council, and please be respectful of the other speakers and when asked to stop and told that your time is up.

Please stop.

And then finally, we need to maintain decorum and we need to maintain respect.

So I'm gonna kind of uh echo something that I said earlier on.

This is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Uh, we must remain neutral and focused on the record uh reactions of any kind, they tend to disrupt meetings and they could also intimidate speakers.

So there will be no clapping, no cheering, no shouting, no booing.

I understand uh that those who would want to do this do want to do it because they want their voice to be heard.

You will have that opportunity.

Again, everybody gets the same exact five minutes.

Uh so if you want your voice heard, just make sure you fill out a speaker request form, and you will get the same five minutes everybody else does.

Again, that's just for respect of all speakers and of everyone and this proceeding.

So no clapping, no cheering, no shouting, and certainly no booing.

And with that said, I will call the first name.

We will hear first from Tyler Johnson.

And thank you for all of your fortitude.

It's been a long night already.

Hello, my name is Tyler Johnson.

I live at 10473 Arapahoe Road.

Um, I've looked over the illustrative plans for the development going along 287 on Arapahoe Road called the range, and my initial reaction was disappointed in anger.

I have lived on my property for 27 years as a third generation farmer raising cattle, growing barley for cores, and putting hay from our for ourselves and our neighboring farmers.

My grandparents moved here initially to be far enough away from the city and retain the peaceful landscape of the farming community here.

Lately, the new developments of the Coles, 24-hour fitness, low shopping center, residential area behind coals, I mean lows, and that too.

Uh king soupers, Chick-fil-A, and the new plans for more residential has been causing additional problems for the current residents.

We have seen an influx of traffic, increased noise and light pollution, and an increased wildlife taking residents on our properties due to these uh constructions.

Every resident who lives along Rabajo Road can agree that either leaving for work or coming home is now a terrifying experience.

From personal experience, I have sat on the end of my driveway for up to five minutes, waiting for a safe enough break in traffic to merge on the road.

Coming home from a long day of work is just as worse as I'm worried about falling victim to a rear end accident, or being witnessed to drivers coming inches from a head on collision because they are too impatient and cross the double yellow line to pass me.

I'm sure residents who live along Rappaho have similar stories, if not worse.

As a farmer, I need to drive tractors on a Rappahoe Road to reach my neighboring farms.

Driving down the road, I'm always met with aggressive, inconsiderate drivers.

They will risk they will risk colliding with other vehicles in an effort to pass me to save an extra minute on their trip.

This will only grow more problematic if 440 plus rental units, a big box store, and other multiple smaller businesses are built along essentially a one-lane highway.

My family and I would have to be even more cautious of more drivers who frequently forget that other people live along this road.

With all the new construction and influx of people showing up, our noise pollution is starting to become unbearable.

The sounds along 287 and Arapaho Road have become enhanced with further constructions of shoppings, residential centers.

The removal of the trees and build building big concrete structures has made a perfect reflective wall for the sound to amplify and bounce straight back towards me and my neighbors.

I can only imagine how much worse Arab ho will be once there are three to four-story apartments right across the street, reflecting noise of any vehicle straight back to me and my neighbors as well.

With those apart with those apartments, no one can guarantee the residents are not going to blast music, yell, or throw parties.

As if noise wasn't enough.

The lights from these complexes are now in my front door.

I can view the lows, keen supers, and Chick-fil-A logo shining bright all night long with a simple peek out the door.

If the apartments are constructed, we will have a front row seat of a wall of lights right across the street at night.

In addition, they have a front row seat to spy into our yards and homes.

Wildlife wildlife homes have been destroyed with each development nearby, and the local farmers are now unexpectedly rehoming all these animals.

As of late, we have seen increase in rabbits, foxes, coyotes, mice, owls, pigeons, bald eagles, raccoons, garden snakes, bull snakes, prairie dogs, and much more.

Increase of the predatory species poses a massive risk to mine and local farmers' livestock.

Over the past couple years, I've awoken to a killed ram, two goats, two bunnies, a sheep, multiple killed calves, and half a dozen slaughtered chickens.

No one bats an eye at these changes while we have to grow ever more vigilant and cautious to care for our well-being of our livestock.

These issues for me and our local farmers will become more persistent as smaller games, such as rabbits, mice, snakes, etc., will be killed into the construction or move in next to us, thus attracting more predators to our farm.

I know for a fact there are plenty of species seeking what remaining shelter is available with our rapidly expanding town, ripping up all the ground to construct tall concrete concrete structures, best asphalt parking lots, and small sections of monocultured grass will effectively remove what species are left there.

So why should I have to work harder to protect my livestock from predators so 440 plus people can move in next door?

And that's only accounting for the range and not including the residents of silo.

In conclusion, this project neglects the residents of Lafayette who have lived here for almost the majority of their lives.

We are one of the few farming families trying to protect what we have left so we can produce food for the rest of the world.

It seems that we are being squeezed out of existence so more apartments can erupt in the remains of our farms.

Through increased traffic, causing safety risks to the residents who live along the road and the loud sounds and ever brightening lights at causing discomfort for us and our livestock.

It's disappointing to see Lafayette and Boulder County disregard us in the pursuit of profit.

And the Good Hugh House located at Rock Creek Farm, there is a poster on the wall describing Boulder County's goals.

They aim to keep a balance of farms and expansion of residential/slash commercial buildings to make sure Boulder County doesn't transform into another Denver.

Lately I feel like I lately I feel left down, let down and lied to as I watch farmers struggle and close their gates for good to sell their land so it could be torn down and rebuilt as a new shopping center or three to four story apartment complexes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, and I apologize if I don't pronounce this correctly.

Adam Marashki.

Good evening, Council.

My name's Adam, excuse me, I have a cold.

My name's Adam Orashki, and I live at 938 Hard Eye Trail, part of the Silo District, Phase 1.

I'll be a nearby resident of the range development.

My wife and I moved to Colorado so that I could work at a green tech startup in Boulder.

Many of my coworkers live in Lafayette, and that's how I learned about this town.

Before buying our house, we lived in Indian Peaks next to Wanaka Lake, which was significantly more walkable.

And a wonderful had a wonderful park and playground where we love to take our daughter.

I grew up in Shaker Heights, Ohio, uh suburb of Cleveland.

Uh a planned community that was built about a century ago.

It's roughly the same population and similar cost of living compared to Lafayette, except lower home prices and higher taxes.

Shaker was essentially done developing by the time I was born, but I did watch the only major development since then come into being.

The Van Aken district, a mixed commercial residential community that was built on top of the remains of a strip mall.

The concept is a lot like what is proposed in the comp plans final phase.

The best thing about the Van Aken district is that it includes both an indoor market hall with local food stands and standalone shops like local ice cream and boutiques on a walking-only avenue.

Kids can run around freely without their parents worrying about cars hitting them.

I can't think of a space like that in Lafayette, except during the street fairs.

I certainly don't envision that when I look at what's proposed in the Kensington plan with its huge parking lots.

Across 287, folks zip through parking lots of Lowe's and kink supers.

I imagine it would be very similar.

So why am I here?

Um the Kensington proposal for the range is short short-sighted and lacks creativity.

It ignores the surroundings beyond copying boring development that is typical to our current age.

The planned design is far from the result that was built at the Van Aiken's uh district that I mentioned earlier.

It is also a mockery of what Lafayette's comp plan aspires to achieve.

Few meaningful changes have been made to the design since the original proposal.

The commercial area is a clone of everything else around it, with a high rise apartment uh added in.

I recommend that the city council hold off annexing this land until a better plan is developed, one that includes smarter provisions for the hazards of the elements and traffic concerns nearby.

So elements, earth.

I prop uh the proposed development is adjacent to farmland, just mentioned.

Uh the view of the mountains is what brings people to this space.

The current plan for the range privatizes this resource when it should be publicized.

A high-rise building will put more walls for the general population.

Tall buildings will be out of place and ugly and will not contribute to a sense of place on the ground.

Tall buildings are contrary to the name and concept of the range.

Uh, perhaps Kensington referred to the range of parking spaces that they will provide.

The vast majority of the land in this development will be covered by paving and other impermeable surfaces, making the nearby drainage ditch a receptacle for toxic elements and compounds.

Water.

The water pressure in our house is low.

The infrastructure in this area is already stressed.

Kensington sells their plan a sustainable infrastructure when it is anything but that.

High water demands, uh demanding plants are in the design instead of current plants that are watered only by rain, wind.

One thing I wasn't prepared for when I moved into my house is just how much is it wind, how much wind this land gets.

The strong winds put this area at risk for the next element fire.

The greatest threat for natural disaster in this area, uh, whatever is put here, must consider this risk.

The Marshall Fire is, of course, the worst instance of this in recent years, but less than a month ago was another fire off 287.

I asked the Lafayette, hold off in annexing this land and until after C DOT finishes traffic control measures for Arapahoe to alleviate some of the concerns that were just mentioned.

I ask that Arapaho and 287 be better adapted to traffic beyond signal passenger vehicles.

I'm talking about bikes, walking, and public transport.

This area is one of the least bike-friendly pedestrian uh bicycle and pedestrian friendly spots in town.

Have you ever tried to bike down our Arapahoe?

It's it's awful.

I ask for a meaningful open space with unattractive view of the mountains, a park or even privately owned area where kids can run around with their families enjoying outdoor seating, not just an unpaved buffer for the side of the road.

A drainage ditch is not open space.

I ask for no variance on the building height restriction.

I ask for landscaping that is actually sustainable, not high water use plants.

I ask for not another big box store.

Unfortunately, environmental.

We do not need another Walmart.

Thank you.

Up next, Eric Thompson.

Hi.

Oh Eric Thompson at 910 Troy Street.

I actually wanted to mention about the wall on Walmart.

I've been here at my current house for 22 years, I believe, and I've been in Lafayette another few years further than that.

So 25 years.

I always thought the wall was there to kind of block Walmart, so nobody saw it.

Which is like an embarrassment.

So we put the wall there so as you drive by, you really don't know what's there.

So that might be an idea actually is to put another wall, and you won't quite tell, but you can't see that if there's four-story buildings, it's not going to block that.

Um I want to bring up is with the annexation, which I know was mentioned at the uh the city planners or whoever that was the last meeting, and then you also brought that up too.

That if we don't go on with this one, and my understanding is if the annex, like if we decide not to go with King's whatever name, the K people, that they could then pull the annexation request, and then no longer would we be able to annex it as a Lafayette.

And that worries me a lot for the whole thing of Erie taking it over.

Um I'm I just want to put forward, I hope people are thinking about that.

Of is there a way beyond that of okay, if we can say no to this, can we still annex and stop Erie from getting it?

That worries me a lot.

As far as a point on the PUD, I noticed a little thing that said there was like the top two things.

One of them was like criteria standard.

The first one was the city finds the project is unique and or necessary for the economic development of the city.

I would like to say I think it is unique.

If we were in Erie, it wouldn't be at all.

But we are Lafayette, we are not Erie.

So it is unique here, but not in a good way whatsoever.

So I don't think that criterion is good nor met.

I don't think it is an improvement.

And it's I don't think it's gonna be beneficial.

And the other one is is it's the best interest of the city.

I also don't think that.

So I'm gonna bring those two points up.

And it was mentioned about an underpass going under 287.

Well, it's already been mentioned.

We already have flooding happening in the area.

How's that gonna work with an underpass?

From my understanding of how water works, if you have an underpass and flooding, that's where it's gonna be.

So that worries me.

And one that I've just known for I have been a lot of these meetings already, and the traffic study.

I know that is yet to come.

That worries me a lot, though.

And I'm sure we'll learn more as C dot does their thing, but it is, it's horrendous in that area.

That is an beacon hill is where I am at.

So as I come out, Lucerne is usually how I come out to 287.

And then have to get onto Arapahoe to go to Boulder or it's not good.

Don't want to see it worse.

So thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we'll hear from uh, and again, sorry for the pronunciation, Sarah Wolfson.

Hi, Council.

Um, my name is Sarah.

I'm have been a resident here since about 2014.

I'm raising my kids here.

I love it.

You know, I'm very excited about the plans for sustainable growth and I like what's in the comprehensive plan.

But what inspired me to come here tonight was not as a resident, but more as a professional.

Um, I'm a professional designer.

I have a master's degree, I've been practicing for about 15 years.

And today my work consists mostly of managing teams, upskilling designers, and hiring.

Um what prompted me to come was the tension I saw regarding the range and the feedback that council and the planning commission commission had left.

Um so I want to talk a little bit about design process and some of my observations as a professional.

Uh so first I want to celebrate the city staff for their series of recommendations, uh, which I think we can all see has improved the design proposals.

However, as staff has pointed out, we're still not seeing a proposal that aligns well with the comp plan or even with some of the staff's recommendations.

Um, so let me just talk about design generally.

Design is thought of as where you make cheap mistakes.

My specialty is software design, and what cheap means in this scenario is that no one has started to engineer anything.

Engineers are considered expensive, and once you build something, you've invested a lot of time and money into it.

However, with software, if it doesn't work out so well, you just kind of abandon it and it doesn't cause any problems.

It's pretty different when you are building physical things.

And so it's a lot riskier to make mistakes or to make mistakes after the design phase.

Um, and I, as a resident here, I'm a little wary of like what are we going to inherit if we don't make risks in the design phase and then resolve them to a point that we're really happy with them.

Now, the quality of design work is like in any other profession.

It's a bell curve, you know, some people are really exceptional, many are pretty good or all right, and then there's some that, you know, maybe it's not really meant to be their life's work.

Um, to understand a designer or design firm, generally what you do is you look at their portfolio.

All designers are expected to maintain a portfolio, and it's kind of like your greatest hits.

It's how you advertise yourself to the community.

Uh so out of curiosity, I wanted to look at what Kensington has on their website as their greatest hits.

Uh, if we look at what's been completed, things from like, you know, the last five years.

We have Sawmill Station and then Chicago Chicago Metro.

It is a sea of parking spaces with an LA Fitness.

In 2020, they celebrate an Amazon fresh uh big box store in the Chicago metro area, also with a sea of parking.

2020, Lexington Station in the St.

Paul metro area, uh, giant box with a sea of parking.

Uh, and then, you know, the list goes on, they do have something in there that does have some mixed use, but it's really not something that we would build in Lafayette.

So their bread and butter is really boxes with C's of parking.

Now, in development, you can see that they've changed their tune a little bit outside of the Chicago metro area.

They're trying some mixed use.

Uh, there's something also that's mixed use entertainment with a convention center, a hotel, and featuring a 900 car parking garage.

Um, so I will spare us going on about this, but I want to just say that in design, like in any practice, it's a specialty.

Uh, it's like medicine.

If you're getting a knee replaced, you go to the person who has an incredible track record for knee replacement.

You don't just open up a directory and pick a random orthopedist.

So, my opinion as a professional and as a resident is that Kensington has a specialty.

It's just boxes with a sea of parking.

And they dabble in mixed use, but they're really not there yet.

Um just in the essence of time, I'd like to say it is possible to give feedback and make designs better.

But I think it's understandable that everybody has something they're good at, and you can only make things change so much.

And so I ask you to consider that during the iterations that you're going through with the folks applying for the space, and to just have reasonable recommendations.

Uh know what you're gonna get here, and if that's not acceptable to you, make the right choice.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we'll hear from Annie Hoke.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Annie Hooke, and I live at 1453 Timber Trail, which is in the Silo neighborhood.

I want to start by saying that while the narrative for this project sounds appealing, it is not reflected at all in sketch plan that was presented tonight.

This site is a major entry point into Lafayette.

It should communicate who we are as a community.

Instead, what's being proposed looks like a copy and paste version of what exists across the street in Erie.

This proposal does not align with the Lafayette Comprehensive Plan, nor does it reflect the character scale or values of our town.

We are told this is a walkable community centered development.

But when you look at the plan, what you actually see is a sprawl of asphalt parking lots, generic big box stores, fast food restaurants, and massive high-rise multifamily buildings.

There is no central green space, no real community gathering area, no heart.

This so called green space is a detention pond along the highway and a sidewalk next to 287 labeled as public land.

That is not walkability and that is not community centered.

Density is one of my biggest concerns.

This development proposes over 400 residential units and combined with more than 200 units in the nearby silo project.

Traffic in this area is already a problem.

Left hand turns from Lucerne onto 287 can already take multiple light cycles even today.

Yet traffic studies are not accounting for the cumulative density of this entire area, let alone the reality of just the range development.

This is a serious oversight.

Increased congestion here also raises real fire and evacuation safety concerns, which should not be taken lightly.

The height and massing of these buildings is also completely inappropriate.

This is one of the highest points in Lafayette, and the proposed buildings will block mountain views that are a defining feature of our community.

We are being asked to approve significant height variances that appear driven by developer profit, not public benefit, while simultaneously reducing the city's opportunity for commercial tax revenue by prioritizing residential density.

Housing diversity and affordability are also not being meaningfully addressed.

Affordable housing should not automatically mean large, high density apartment buildings.

Lafayette needs a mix, single family homes, town homes, and smaller scale multifamily.

If apartment buildings are included, they should be limited in height and incorporate ground floor commercial or community uses.

As proposed, this project lacks true housing diversity and does not deliver genuinely affordable options.

In addition, because of the housing density that is proposed, they are showing multiple parking garages, some of the ugliest building structures.

And if they simply reduce the density in this area, these structures would not be needed.

I also want to call out a particularly concerning issue.

The corner parcel included in this proposal with an unknown future use that is already requesting a 60-foot height variance, approving something of this scale without knowing what is going there or how it will relate to the rest of the development is irresponsible.

The city and the public deserve transparency and a cohesive vision, not open-ended approvals that could make an already problematic project worse.

Lafayette does not need more generic big box stores or fast food restaurants at this gateway.

We should be aiming for something thoughtful, local, and intentional, not suburban sprawl.

And while we continue to push development outward, there are still empty lots and underutilized buildings near downtown Lafayette.

We should be focusing on revitalizing our town center, supporting small businesses, and completing the fabric of our community before expanding further out.

If this land is going to be developed, then let's develop it responsibly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we'll hear from Marshall Hoke.

Hello, Council.

My name is Marshall Hoke.

I live at 1453 Timber Trail with Annie.

Hard to follow that, but I'll do my best.

So I just wanted to share some perspective mostly.

I've submitted comments on this proposal through the website.

And so mostly instead of reiterating those for the sake of time, I just wanted to again share some perspective about my experience throughout this process.

I've attended a couple sketch plan meetings.

Heard Edgar talk about this a number of times.

I certainly don't envy his job here.

And one of the things that I think has been most remarkable to me is a lot of the same criticisms and comments have been raised at the two sketch planning meetings that I've attended so far.

Also reiterated in a lot of the public comments that have been made here tonight and at the planning committee or planning commission meeting.

And I just think there's a consistency here in terms of the kind of public opposition to this and the character of those comments.

And unfortunately, uh the plan has not changed substantially at all, as far as I can tell.

A couple things I wanted to mention in particular.

Some of the adjectives that I heard to describe it are an insult and afterthought.

And you know, I think those are fair characterizations of a small narrow walking path that's along one of the busiest roads in our in our entire city.

And also allocating most of the green space to a retention pond.

I think you know that's been commented a lot.

So one of the other things that I wanted to draw attention to is the requests for height variations.

I think the way that that's been characterized by the developers intentionally misleading.

They've put forth this idea that the height variations are required in order for them to achieve their goals.

I think that is just inaccurate, and I think it's it's pretty obvious to anyone who thinks critically about this that they can simply change their plans and not request or need height variances.

Um the only goal that that runs contrary to is their uh goal for maximizing profit on this this particular parcel.

Um so with that I will see the rest of my time for the rest of the folks who want to make comments.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we will hear from Melanie Sloan.

Hello, council.

Uh my name is Melanie Sloan.

I am a resident of Lafayette, living at 2006 South Fourth Drive within the Indian Peaks Master HOA.

I also want to disclose that I work as a transportation planner in the city of Boulder.

Tonight I'm sharing my comments as a resident of the city of Lafayette.

I want to be clear about that.

First, I want to thank city staff for a detailed memo for the range sketch plan.

It's clear staff have applied due diligence and technical expertise to the plan review.

The memo and staff comments reflect a commitment to advancing the city's vision and responsiveness to community concerns.

And I want to thank the planning board and this council for being careful in your review of this proposal.

As others have said, annexing into the city comes with great potential if done well.

And to that end, I have the following to say.

The city is planned for its future and is reckoned with the needs of all ages and income levels, the types of housing available today, and the transportation options serving the community and envisioned a future that is creative, eclectic, inclusive, and diverse, that celebrates our shared heritage.

City staff in this council then made plans to make that future a reality.

The comprehensive plan, the multimodal transportation plan, and the economic development and housing strategic plan are three examples of that work.

The range sketch plan speaks to those to some extent, but staff's comments would ensure the sketch plant fully reflects the city's vision and plans.

I specifically agree with staff's comments to break up the large street blocks in the sketch plan to integrate commercial uses into the building forms, to ask the plan to include large commercial in the adaptable commercial ultimate project form, to incorporate shared parking to reduce the amount of that asphalt in the needed space, and to build a connected grid to support more walking, biking, and community connections, and to make streets and paths comfortable and human scale with amenities like trees and seating.

I disagree with staff on some comments though.

I believe internal streets can have narrower vehicle lanes, for example, than proposed at 11 feet, and the space gained can be repurposed to greater separation between on-street bike lanes and attached sidewalks and the adjacent vehicle and parking lanes.

This will ensure the neighborhood is truly comfortable and encourage low stress connections for people walking and biking.

I disagree with staff and the Open Space Advisory Board recommendation to accept cash and loo for public land dedication.

My neighborhood's small pocket park is invaluable for the connections to my neighbors it provides.

I can't imagine not having it.

And don't think these residents should be denied that same.

Which means I don't support the proposed retention pond and buffer strips along the busy street as a public dedication.

Rather, I ask for a park to be integrated into the development.

I agree with staffs questioning the need for taller buildings to provide the 12% affordable housing.

No direct link between these is provided and should be.

And I support staff's recommendation that the 12% affordable be a percentage of all housing types in the development and not just multifamily housing units.

But I want to be clear, and I might be the only one in this room.

I support taller buildings in the city and especially at this location, adjacent to the intersection of two busy arterial streets, 287 and Arapaho Avenue.

And I want these taller buildings because both of these roads are multimodal corridors.

They're envisioned to be with frequent bus service, as we've heard.

And in fact, Boulder County will begin bus rapid transit service on Arapaho Avenue within the next year with buses running every 30 minutes, Monday through Friday.

That is the completion, that is a work towards these multimodal corridors.

High density housing and commercial have always been along transportation corridors throughout time and place.

And I believe it belongs in this transit area today.

Because providing homes near frequent transit provides access to opportunities, whether it's jobs, schools, or health care, all of which Arapaho Avenue connects to.

We know from the comprehensive plan that around 90% of people live in Lafayette, they commute out of the city for work.

And about 88% of people that work within the city commute in.

Higher density housing on a transit corridor provides people safe, reliable transportation choices that can connect people to their daily needs, including people who commute in and out of Lafayette today.

Knowing that the average resident of Lafayette spends 13,500 per year on transportation, according to the comprehensive plan, I encourage council and staff to recognize the affordability benefits this end of development can provide beyond the deed restricted affordable units themselves.

We know we need a diversity of housing types.

We know we want an inclusive city where people of all ages and incomes can call home.

And as Councilmember Billow noted in his question, the IJ will expire, and we may lose our opportunity to shape this.

And so I encourage you to advance the range sketch plan with staff's comments and my suggested changes for taller buildings, adaptable commercial and the ultimate project form, incorporate public land as a park and streets designed for people that will live there.

And if I have time, I would just ask offer up a question because I've heard it mentioned.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we'll hear from Richard Binzel.

You can tell I'm related to Bo Nick's.

Sorry about Richard Bidzel at Stonehenge neighborhood.

Council, no, this is not the best we can do.

We really need new ideas, new suitors for this parcel.

The sketch plan, as you've heard from so many of your constituents, is an insult to the character of Lafayette, and we should just say no.

Now, I know you're not doing any vote at this time, but you are making comments.

This is a quasi-judicial hearing.

So it's really important that your comments and your voice and your questions show that you've heard your constituents, the people who elected you.

There has been withering criticism at community meetings about this project for about one or two years.

And I want to give credit to Edgar Crockett, who's withered that with grace and fortitude.

He's been great.

But despite all that community input, there's really been no change from 600 units to 400 units.

Over development is overdevelopment.

Urban blight is urban blight.

So they say they've heard us and they've made changes, but no.

So the Kensington plan is out of scope and out of scale for Lafayette.

This is, as you've heard, this is just more of the same.

Big box, tall buildings, concrete, concrete concrete, car concrete parking lot.

And the contrast, the Kensington narrative that talks about bucolic integrated community space and green space.

The Kensington plan is the emperor's clothes.

It's a naked plan to stack as much density with as much profit on that parcel as they possibly can, with no consideration to the character of Lafayette.

You've heard what they do.

They build big block, big block boxes and lots of concrete.

That's what they do.

So really it's something I'll say that's new, and I'm happy to offer this to the council.

It's the mountains.

It's the iconic view that we have here in Lafayette.

And if you'd like, I can offer this as part of the public record is a photograph looking across the parcel.

And as you look across the parcel at the back range and the peaks, they exactly mimic the icon of Lafayette.

And if we annex this parcel, it becomes the Northeast Gateway to Lafayette.

Don't we want people coming into Lafayette to see the iconic Lafayette?

Now, they've had the audacity to come and say we want 60-foot buildings.

Well, 60-foot buildings will destroy, desecrate the icon of Lafayette.

And their excuse is, well, we need it for affordable housing.

So what that means to the people in those affordable houses is yes, you can live in Ice in Lafayette, but we're going to deny you the very essence of Lafayette by blocking the iconic views that this site has.

So I guess what I can do is really get to the bottom line again.

This is not the best we can do.

And just suggest that the kindest and most direct response that you can make is before this developer invests any more money.

Ask this developer to totally revamp this plan.

And put on notice this developer and any developer that wants to come.

That we really want to do something new, something unique, something special with this space that is the very icon of Lafayette itself.

So with that, I'll stop.

And if you would like this, I will hand it to the clerk or 1820 comments.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Up next we'll hear from Karen Norbach.

Karen Norbach, 800 East Genesee.

Good evening again.

Um, another trip down memory lane.

When I moved here in the 1980s, 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, facilitated a new store closer to 287, creating the Wanna Marketplace, a new shopping center.

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

Then Albertsons left the entire state, leaving behind 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 Alberts Plaza continued to sit deserted.

Finally, in a controversial move in 2010, Gary brokered another deal, this time for the 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 hours fitness, just a stone's throw from Walmart, leaving an empty coals in Lewisville.

Why am I telling you all this?

Because that same year the city set out to update our comprehensive plan, and all this was very much in the forefront of our residence negative memories.

I served on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the 2003 Comp Plan update and also on the re for the recent update completed in 2021.

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 evolved into other land uses over time.

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

I've also 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 that 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 graphics so we aren't left with the same situation our residents remember from the past.

Check out page 154 in the comp plan.

It shows the layout of a typical comp 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 tried this and was turned down and discovered that this code language was written before we had the Bob Berger Rec Center, when 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's no vision here, nothing unique or creative, just overwhelming height density, and that strange unknown in the southwest corner.

This is an unacceptable plan.

I used to say we have something special here, not slot let's not mess it up.

So often to previous councils that Mayor Lynch began saying it.

However, she substituted the word mess with a more colorful F word.

Please keep that in mind tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Preston Patton.

Hi, my name is Preston Patton.

I live at 2389 Indian Peaks Trail.

My wife and I are refugees from the Sovereign Republic of Boulder.

And we moved here because of the open space in Lafayette.

And I want to congratulate the council for over the years preserving the character of this community.

As we drove here, we were coming down Emma Street, and I thought this is Lafayette, spread out housing, community gardens.

That's the Lafayette we moved here for.

Rather than the range, perhaps it should be called You'll Never See the Range.

And what's the petition?

The principal reason that we're opposed to this has to do with traffic.

Now, twice a month I come out of my community and turn east on Arapaho Road, right near 95th, and I go up past 287, so I get a perfect view of the westbound lane of Arapahoe Road in the morning.

And I can tell you it is a parking lot.

It is bumper to bumper, and most of the time the cars are not moving.

It is absolutely a parking lot.

And the developer says they're going to do a traffic study.

That is a complete joke.

I had many times I had to hire either an economist or an engineer to write a study that would support the position I was advocating.

And in 20 years of doing that, I never ran into a professional who would not write a report that supported the outcome that I wanted.

So this council should not rely on any traffic study produced by Kensington.

And the city should pay its own money to a professional outside traffic consultant to do a study.

And I'm sure they will tell you the poor people who would live in this community will never even have a chance to get out on town Arapaho, even if there's a light at uh Aspen Ridge, because there'll be no place to put their car because it's bumper to bumper.

And in the evening, it's the same the other way.

Water is another big issue.

You've seen in the news from the New York Times to the Wall Street or to uh the uh Daily Camera.

Uh massive concern about water shortage in the West.

The developer will tell you they're gonna bring their own water, but let me tell you what they're not gonna bring.

They're not gonna bring their own storage for that water, they're not gonna bring their own transport for that water, and they're not gonna bring their own treatment for that water.

And my friend Jeff Farthro will tell you those infrastructure needs are the costs that are driving him crazy at the moment and driving up our water rates.

So if you approve this project, what you're gonna do for me is make Arapaho even more impassable and drive up uh my water rates.

Now, I'm not alone in my concerns about this.

When the project first began, my wife and I started a petition on change.org.

And I've given each of you a little packet, and on the top is the cover page from that change.org petition that shows an unbelievable 2,491 people have signed this petition begging you to just turn down this project.

And I can tell you that another, since this was uh printed, another 140 Lafayette residents have signed on to that petition.

And you don't need to take my word for the fact that all those people have signed.

Thank you so much for each of you.

Five minutes are up.

I've given each of you a list of all the people who signed.

And I thank you very much.

And don't be uh persuaded by the bugaboo that the uh government agreements gonna expire in 29.

It can be extended, and I think that should be uh the focus in the city's attention.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And again, uh we want to be respectful.

There are still more speakers, so at the five minute mark, please uh just be respectful of everyone after you.

Next, we'll hear from Linda Starkey.

Okay, next we'll hear from Betsy Ellis.

No, Betsy Ellis.

Okay.

Vicky Ulent.

Hi, I'm Vicky Ealin, 303 West Simpson Street.

On page 155 of the comprehensive plan, and in your agenda packet in tonight's staff presentation, there are three drawings of an adaptable commercial evolution project.

These drawings are labeled Evolution One Project, Evolution Two Project, and Ultimate Project.

During one of the neighborhood meetings for this development, Edgar Crockett put up a slide of the three drawings and said that Kensington's development plans for this project are meant to fit in between drawing one and two.

This flabbergasted me for a couple reasons.

First of all, there's a reason the comp plan refers to the first two drawings as evolution one and two projects.

The goal advanced during the comp plan discussions was that all new adaptable commercial conform to the phase three ultimate project drawing.

Nowhere in the comp plan does it say an applicant gets to, in essence, choose their own adventure, as Kensington is doing by saying their plan fits in between evolution one and two.

Nor does it support the staff recommendation that the applicant, quote, strive for a site plan closer to adaptable commercial evolution two.

The other thing that flabbergasted me is that Kensington would actually admit to designing a project that fell between drawings one and two.

I imagine looking at these drawings as letter grades, where project one would be a C, Project Two would be a B, and the ultimate project, drawing three, would be an A.

Kensington is basically saying their plan is a C plus.

Staff is saying the plan should be a B.

What I don't understand is why don't we deserve an A-level project for this site?

It's one of the last few remaining large sites in the Lafayette Growth Boundary without an approved development plan, and it's at a location that can be seen as a gateway to the city.

It's a prime piece of real estate in a prime city in a prime state.

So why does Kensington think we're only worth a C plus level plan, especially when they're asking for major concessions from the city in terms of our land use code?

Kensington is asking for variances that allow up to 40% more building height in order to build affordable housing and provide amenities.

But their proposed public land dedication consists of a trail next to highways where cars are zooming by at 55 miles per hour, along with a park at a major highway intersection that is mostly a detention pond.

Kensington is also only providing a total of 9% affordable housing out of the 448 units at plans, which is substantially less than the city and county's goal of 12%.

And that rental housing would be offered at 80% AMI, which according to analysis, an analysis I did that's in your agenda packet, means that this so-called affordable housing would actually rent for hundreds of dollars more per month than the nine-mile market rate apartments just across the street.

I attended the planning commission meeting where Kensington presented the C plus plan.

I've watched a lot of PC meetings over the years, and it's been a long time since I've seen every member of the commission speak against a developer's plan.

I heard words like insulting used to describe the plan.

One commissioner pointed out that she had actually seen plans that look like the drawing three A-level project in the comp plan.

So it's definitely attainable.

Commissioners cited the Kensington plan's lack of neighborhood feel and connectivity.

They made suggestions like moving the green spaces to the center of the development and clustering the housing around it.

They discussed ways to preserve view corridors.

They encouraged more diversity of housing, like cottage courts.

They talked about ways to reduce parking lots, including elevating the commercial buildings so there could be parking beneath them.

And they expressed concern about wildfire fire evacuation routes.

None of these ideas have been incorporated into the plan you see tonight.

It also ignores feedback from the public at neighborhood meetings for a more imaginative plan that takes into account key factors like traffic and wildlife preservation.

I don't know why Kensington thinks Lafayette would want a C plus plan for this property, especially when our comp plan illustrates what we do want.

Tonight you have an opportunity to tell them we are an A-level city and we deserve an A-level plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Ron Spalding.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Again, Ron Sporting 1326, El Radaway, Lafayette, Colorado.

The Kansas Indian Development.

I agree 100% with staff's excellent comments on the development.

Also agree with 99.9% of the public's comments expressed tonight on development.

This annexation will set a precedent on what the city desires to be the future of Lafayette's character.

With that said, I wish to speak to an overarching, overriding issue that impacts any proposed annexations and developments, not just in Lafayette, but in the entire state.

Our electrical and water infrastructure.

Does the city include our electrical provider XL and our water provider Northern Water on the export?

Excuse me.

On the external agencies for view and comment on annexation and development proposals.

Lafayette has a 2016 energy action plan with Excel.

Has it been updated?

The population and residential commercial premises in that 2016 plan rise of 2014.

Okay, we're talking housing, commercial developments.

It is now 2026, 12 years of substantial growth, which needs to be accounted for.

I think it's reasonable.

Boulder Creek neighborhoods, we don't know yet, but down there by 95th Street may have 186 units coming up.

Excuse me, in the future.

We're talking a total of 1,590 potential units and 213 acres in use that'll be coming up before Planning Commission is cancel soon.

We also have a new building code adopted in 2023, which says new residential commercial is to be fully electric, no gas, no redundancy.

These units have to be solar ready, EV ready, and fire suppression systems which use water.

And in there, maybe some TAPs won't do it.

You heard somebody speak in Shiloh, they got low water pressure currently.

People are buying more EVs.

So what am I saying?

There's more demand, more demand for elective power and water.

The water situation alluded to earlier by Mr.

Preston.

The state of Colorado is in the worst draught we have ever experienced.

We are the worst snow pack on record.

The Colorado River Water Compact has expired in 2025.

Seven states are impacted.

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

40 million people are affected.

The federal government, Bureau of Reclamation, may have to step in to decide what actions will be mandated in the Colorado River Water Compact if they can't reach agreement.

Governor Pullis and the other state governors just met in DC a couple days ago, January 30th and 31st to try and reach an agreement before the February 14, 2026 federal deadline.

He said it was productive.

What is productive mean?

The answer is simple.

We have too much growth.

But no one has the fortitude to limit growth except Lafayette when we used to be able to, until the legislator enacted unwise housing policies which produce more growth.

I have a proposal.

Pass a one-year moratorium on all new annexations and development proposals until the Colorado River Water Compact Agreement is resolved.

So we're never going to have order.

Number, that's number one.

Number two, until we update our 2016 energy action plan to see if we're going to be able to have electrical power.

Number three, until we complete and submit as required by state legislation are strategic growth and water elements, which I alluded to at public input, and what your lawsuit is for, and which the poor people here in the city are trying to meet, which is due to the end of this year.

And fourth, which I alluded to earlier, until the lawsuit against the state regarding a home rule authority is resolved.

I want you to note we have passed moratoriums in the past.

I'll name a few.

In 2013, we had a residential building permit cap.

In 2017, 2018, we had an oil and gas exploration ban.

And in 2025, alluded to earlier, we had a moratorium and coffin burials.

So man, we are in trouble.

All that I ask is maybe could we ask our city attorney?

Thank you, Ms.

Balling, unfortunately, that's your favorite.

If it's feasible, thank you very much.

Up next, we'll hear from Lily Gear.

Okay.

Michael Watson.

Hello, Mike Watson, uh, 708 South Carol Avenue.

Um, every time the the Edgar gets into the um his his plan presentation, and we get to the planning frameworks, I get excited because there's a lot of really cool words on that page.

Words like connected community, strong economy, diversity of housing, uh community character, arts and culture, neighborhood design, environmental stewardship, and I'm like, yes, finally, they're gonna present us a plan that is awesome, that actually lives up to what Lafayette ought to be.

And then he proceeds to disappoint me every time, which is not his fault.

He is not responsible for for manufacturing the plan.

He's delivering and he delivers it exceptionally well.

However, um, I'm up here because words have meaning.

Like when you say environmental stewardship, there is an actual definition of that of that phrase.

Um, and it's not putting a bunch of concrete boxes next to other concrete boxes with concrete like parking lots in between.

That's not what invited like paving over a large area of wetlands.

Now, I think somebody alluded earlier to like the idea of building up.

I'm actually also in support of the idea of building up, as long as we can protect some green space around the very large upward buildings.

Um we need to allow, we need to allow our human population to grow, but we also need to allow our wildlife population to continue to exist.

Otherwise, we're gonna live in just a concrete desert.

And I don't want to do that.

I think the most people in Lafayette um uh actually appreciate kind of the balance between the natural habitat and the and human habitation that we have here.

Um I also wanted to comment on the little buzzword about strong economy.

Um I am no expert on the the pay scale of big box retail stores.

However, I am I am very skeptical that any of those stores, any of those retail outlets that would be going there, that would go in there would pay enough for any of the workers to be able to actually live or reside in the the apartments or condos that are being proposed.

Um so the 12% affordable housing, which is Vicky pointed out is not even remotely affordable housing by anybody's rational definition.

Um that's that's not good enough.

I mean, if you're gonna bring us more workers, if you're gonna say that this is for a strong economy of developing Lafayette, allow those people who are building our strong economy to actually live in our city.

That's what it means when you when you say something like community culture and building up and like housing diversity.

It's not just people who are wealthy enough, it's not just making Lafayette a very pleasant island for for like high paying for people with high-paying jobs to reside in.

It's allowing the people who actually work in Lafayette to live in Lafayette.

And if you do that, surprise, surprise, you also solve a lot of our traffic issues as well.

Ummunity culture, um, big box stores next to big box doors.

Um, I heard several of the counselors ask something along the lines of why did you choose X when we're when talking to Edgar?

Um, I can tell you the very easy answer.

It's one word, it's profit.

Um, they're not in here that Kings and Ton properties is not coming into Lafayette in order to make our town a better place.

They don't care, they don't live here.

They're here to make our town as much profit for their masters as they possibly can.

Um, however, we expect this from a corporate entity like King's Inten.

We don't expect that from our city staff and our city council.

These words that Edgar referred to for the as a planning frameworks, these are actual values that the citizens of Lafayette have taken time out of their day to communicate to the staff to the staff and the and the uh the counselors up here today.

Um they did like it was a very long meeting.

It took a very like you had a bunch of people who wanted to speak who had to leave because they had other obligations.

Um, so final um I apologize.

Like Mr.

Mayor, I don't think that that if you speaking to the people who came here um the way you have today is appropriate.

I apologize for for saying that.

But these people sat here and listened to an incredibly boring lecture for three hours.

Well, they had to take out child care and they had to take out whatever whatever requirement they had to do.

Please be respectful of that.

We don't need a lecture on the rules before we all speak.

We're here to communicate our idea to you.

And last time I checked, the citizens were in charge of democracy.

Um the woman who you cut off.

Um, her question, the question that she wanted to ask was if the IGA um can be amended or renegotiated, um, or for that matter, extended.

Um, I think that's a simple question.

I think that's worthy of inclusion into the record.

Um please just be respectful for for the people who who come up here and take time out of their day.

I personally don't mind waiting a few minutes to allow to allow somebody else to finish their thought.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next, we will hear from uh Cassara Andrew.

Hello, Mayor, City Council members, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Dr.

Cassara Andre.

Um, and I have two mostly questions, thought questions that I want to bring forward, and they are around environmental stewardship and public health.

I'm a practicing veterinarian here in Lafayette, and I'm also a resident in the Stonehenge community.

I have heard from the public comment some questions and concerns about wildlife, and I echo those.

But I didn't really hear anything in the planning, things for wildlife corridors, underpasses, overpasses.

How is Colorado residents do we respect our wildlife neighbors?

So that's big for me as a veterinarian, but veterans are also responsible for public health.

And if we take land away from where wildlife already exists, they don't just disappear, they end up somewhere else.

And increasing wildlife conflicts is harmful to the animals, but also really potentially harmful to our human residents as well.

Public health is a big issue of concern, whether that be um well like wildlife conflicts from roadside injuries to public health from raccoons, rats, things that just come into places that we are.

I also want to uh make a comment on evacuation planning.

As a veterinarian, I serve on our state's animal disaster response team.

And as someone also already mentioned, Marshall Fire is big in our memory.

A thousand animals died in the span of three hours because there wasn't access to get them out.

And even though I don't know a lot about public planning, when I hear the thought of all these houses, hopefully with animals, companions to their humans, that makes me concerned for how those humans, but also animals can be evacuated.

Can they either get out?

Can someone get in?

How does public transportation handle an evacuation scenario?

That area is very fire prone, as we've already seen.

And it's gonna be a hot year, it's already a dry year.

So that just stands big in my mind as concern.

And then lastly, light pollution and light trespass.

As a resident in the Stonehenge community, that's a big concern of mine personally, but also as a veterinarian, darkness is a habitat.

It's important for all the creatures around us to be able to enjoy natural night.

And actually, it's really unusual for humans to be able to enjoy a natural night, but it's also part of our health needs.

And so, as we think about development, can we also incorporate things like light pollution restrictions, concern about light trespass, and make sure that, well, in Lafayette, I can still see the stars, and that's something that brings me joy every night.

And I think that's something we should think about closely.

So I'm happy to give back the rest of my time to somebody else.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll hear from Rob Glenn.

Good evening.

Um Rob Glenn, 401 West Gannon Street, Lafayette, Colorado.

Um, I've had the opportunity to well, as a resident, this is my first time getting to see a large development go through this process.

And I can say in a unique way, I've enjoyed this process and getting to hear all the feedback from planning commission and then now look forward to hearing y'all's comments tonight.

Your questions already kind of lead to where your thoughts are at and look forward to hearing that directed in that feedback.

Overall, the majority of what the public is bringing to light and appreciate the time they've put in, both planning commission and tonight.

Really agree with the majority of what their thoughts.

Easily you can look at the developments around it and say, why would we not similarly do that?

Uh when you have nine mile across the way from that.

But you do have an opportunity to do something new and different, and this is a place for that mixed use development that can look right.

I know it doesn't incorporate the big spot big box aspect, and a lot of that deals with funding and et cetera.

Uh, but just going north on 287, you got Prospect Park uh in Longmont, which is a development that has incorporated and doesn't just look like this big old commercial and residential, and it's a fun neighborhood.

It's got great coffee shops and accessibility, it's got green space, etc.

Um, so just throwing that out there.

Um being somebody who's originally from New Orleans where evacuations and hurricanes were a major part of my every year life and even running businesses in Louisiana where we're constantly preparing in fear of that.

Uh there was just recently the fire down by uh Dylan and 287 and that community.

Uh there was a lot of backflow.

And I can trust you in this.

I mean, I literally move here, and I hope there's no bad juju that came from that, but more fire happens literally the year I move here.

Amongst that in New Orleans is the worst hurricane since Katrina had hit that same year.

Uh, and I can remember sitting in four hours of traffic just to get to a safe space.

So I do not envy that traffic study and what it will look like to achieve that, but so many access points and thoughts need to be put into how it'll be safe.

The big piece of why I wanted to come up tonight too was to talk about the affordable housing piece.

Um, as you've already heard, 80% AMI.

Well, as most of y'all already know, I'm a residential realtor, so it's kind of a passion of mine.

I do property management, have some knowledge in this area.

80% AMI is not going to lead to an affordable situation.

12% with more like a 56% AMI can be much more reasonable.

I also heard for the first time tonight, uh, for anybody that doesn't know, but in Colorado, California also does it, there's what's called here in Colorado metro districts.

Uh developers do have a choice and whether they make it a metro district or not.

Uh metro districts then put to the end consumer in a tax format a higher one percent increase.

So if something like that were town homes put in and there's a metro district example, you see on our other end on the east side where it says Parkdale 400,000 homes.

That 400,000 home looks affordable until they get that in two years after the development is there, and they're taxed on not just the land but the actual development, they get a five-six thousand dollar annual tax bill.

Uh, example, I'm dealing with a house right now where I'm just trying to help this lady cover a cost because she can't sell it in Erie.

And for a $600,000 home, she has a $7,500 annual tax bill.

So think about that and affordability in metro districts as it goes forward.

Uh, and then also when you get into town homes, you're looking into shared insurances.

Something I've brought up before uh when I got the interview for the appointment position, but the insurance piece uh after the Marshall Fire, just example I I was able to look into somebody's HOA, and it went from 2021 at 140 a month to now 520 a month.

Majority is that with insurance.

So, what townhomes used to potentially be affordable in the past aren't what they used to be.

So, all that I hope gets taken in consideration in the affordable housing and how that spreads out and looks.

Thank you all.

Thank you so much.

That was the last speaker request form I had.

Is there anyone else in the room who would like to speak who was not yet had the chance?

I don't see anyone.

I'll turn to our city clerk to see if we have any calls.

No calls.

Okay.

Uh with that, we will close public testimony and give our applicant the chance to respond.

Thanks.

I'll keep it uh brief.

I wanted to say a thank you to the community members for coming out and providing feedback and input.

That's the benefit of this process is to be able to hear, you know, MOSAB's comments, public input, staff's comments, and then your comments as well.

So ultimately, we look forward to hearing your comments at the end of the night, and then compiling all the comments in addition to what we heard tonight with some of the public comments and analyzing that and what steps we can take moving forward.

So you you all have great residents, you know, as some of them mentioned, we we spend a lot of time together at neighborhood meetings.

So you should be happy uh with the residents and the and the turnout that they provide, just like they showed out tonight.

So props to them and thank you for their comments, and we look forward to your comments as well.

Thank you so much.

Uh we'll move on to council discussion and then council comments.

I think the best way to structure this and to just kind of make sure we hit everyone because if you want to go forward and we will just go piece by piece here.

Um so really the first one is this does the city council agree with staff's feedback or have any additional comments on the proposed C1 and R4 zoning.

The reason I want to do piece by piece is just to make sure we get feedback on every single point, and then I think if we just throw to everything, it might get a little unorganized.

So let's put some structure behind this.

So just on this first one.

Mayor, can I I just ask a question?

What is the difference for us in terms of council discussion versus council questions?

Or feedback comments?

Yeah.

So I think ultimately we would want to reach some sort of consensus on council as to what we're giving in terms of feedback.

Um, I'm looking at my city attorney as to what the actual difference is, but I'm assuming that's what it is there, uh, trying to understand council and trying to get on the same page or as much as we can, and then further comments.

Okay, um the same page?

Yeah, council if it uh mayor, I think it might be helpful.

Um, council can still have some more discussion before you launch into to what feedback you're going to provide.

So that's that's the difference is you do have an opportunity now to have some discussion.

Um you can still ask some questions if you need to as you um as you go into your discussion, and then I would recommend following discussion starting to uh to work through the questions that staff has put up for you if if that's how you want to do it.

But but you definitely have an opportunity now to start just with the general discussion and then go towards the questions.

Perfect.

Let's do that then after uh public testimony and after applicant's response.

Is there any further discussion that our council wants to have at the moment?

Councilor Gene Ova?

Yeah, I I had a question that I forgot for the city attorney, and I wanted to just raise that, you know, and it sort of actually relates to this first question.

Um, you know, we've got a C1R4 zoning before us.

And is there an opportunity for a different type of zoning?

I mean, I guess I understand because we're under the PUD, we could kind of do anything because that's the sort of the effect of the PUD is we can do it make changes to the underlying zoning.

And I guess you know, given that this is you know, in the comprehensive plan set up as a uh adaptable commercial, you know.

I I look at that as more of a mixed use where you know, could we overlay the C1 and R4 together?

Um, and it's sort of this you know uniform zoning across the the property as opposed to this, you know, really split personality.

Um yes, so counselor Gino, that is possible through the PUD framework that we have in our code right now.

Uh you uh it could be uh like an overlapping overlapping underlying zone districts with the PUD overlay to allow that.

So that is possible.

It could also be the way that the applicant has currently proposed it, which has the division between the two.

So both both are possible under a POD.

And of course, this is all at sort of what the applicant is is proposing, is sort of what we're facing, and we don't have control over that, but just wanted to make it clear that that's a that is a possibility.

Should that you know in the future, there could be a change that could reflect that.

Yes, and and if you wanted to tonight, you could provide feedback to that if you have as well.

And I guess my my other kind of related question just comes to the uh, you know, we're on in the process of rewriting our land use code, and I I don't quite understand where this fits into the current land use code, the future land use code, and feedback we might give with respect to that.

So um I'm happy to help explain that.

Um so currently we're we're still under our current land use code, and this application has been submitted under the current land use code.

Um, with respect to sketch plans, the feedback you give tonight is not a final decision, and there's nothing binding going forward on council or on the applicant in terms of the feedback that you give tonight, they're not bound to the sketch plan.

Um, and neither are you necessarily uh and there's also no entitlements given.

There's no right to develop after tonight as well.

So that does mean that with the sketch plan, there is still some opportunity uh depending on when the application or when the applicant moves forward to preliminary plan, which would be the next step in the PUD process under our current code, um, or whether they resubmit a sketch plan, there's there's still um basically right now, I can't say for sure uh because it depends on the applicant's timing, which land use code will apply as they move forward to the next step, and that could depend on the feedback they receive tonight.

It's it's really up to the applicant in terms of when they move forward in the PUD process.

Um, there would be a point uh uh after which they file an application that they um could remain under the current code, and so and there's also the opportunity for the applicant to voluntarily uh move forward under the new code, depending on when that's adopted.

So I hate to give a typical lawyer it depends answer, um, but right now uh they're under the current code, and which code applies is going to depend on when and how they move forward to the next step.

Sure, and I I appreciate that.

And the the comment of they could voluntarily and even under the current code, they could adapt because it's PUD, they could adapt to what is you know currently draft of the future code, should they choose.

Yeah, that's certainly uh publicly available, and and I believe they're aware of the new code.

Um, but again, that's up to the to the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Councilor Johnson.

So related to this what are we calling it?

Future commercial pad site, the whatever zoning we designate for this site, it would be governed by what we end up uh calling that zoning for that location, right?

So we do have a little bit of authority in that, you know.

I'm very uncomfortable, Bono, approving something that's so unknown, but essentially we are defining it a little bit by creating zoning for that section, and then it would have to meet the zoning requirements in the future for whatever designation we make it.

So um, and our planning director might want to tag team with me on this one.

Um, but right now this is a concept level plan.

So this is a higher level plan where they're seeking sketch plan gives council and the planning commission a week or two ago an opportunity to provide feedback on the concept.

Um again, nothing is locked in after tonight.

They've submitted a proposal.

Got it.

Yes, but eventually, if we approve some sort of zoning, they are bound by it for that commercial property.

Yes, and again, we we might have more clarity on what the actual zoning districts would be as we see when they um submit their applications, and then just one last um point of information for council in terms of when zoning is set.

Since you've asked a couple questions about that, uh, that would not be set until the the land is actually annexed.

So we cannot under state law zone the land until annexation, but at the same time, this applicant has um which is very common, has uh decided to pursue the development piece to put the development proposals in front of you concurrent with our annexation process.

But um, the actual zoning would be done at the time of annexation.

Now that said, depending on when they move forward to the next step in the process prior to annexation, that could affect which code that will affect which code applies.

Um those are things we can continue to talk about council, and I can provide advice on.

But for tonight, um it really is uh council's opportunities to look at this concept and give feedback based on the um evaluation criteria in our code and our comprehensive.

And right now we're not doing that, right?

We're just trying to gather all the information so we can give feedback at this very second.

Um one of the witnesses who spoke talked about the inefficient planting and the bad use of water, and I didn't see a planting plan.

And I wondered what he was talking about.

Did I miss something or um at this stage?

We are not determining what plants are going in the ground where, right?

Uh yeah, I think uh I think you're referring to a landscape plan, right?

Um, I I don't know, Stephen, is there a I don't think this plan is that level of detail yet?

It has uh a landscape plan general and it has water usage and water like high, medium, and low, and that's what's referenced in there.

So the analysis kind of takes it as an aggregate and sees whether or not it's meeting it, but that does have some higher uh water use plan projected, but we don't have that level of detail as to what those plants are and what we switch out or anything like that.

And and based on the INX project that we just approved an expansion for we know that we can do commercial with much less water intensive plants.

So can that be a negotiation point with us uh between us and the developer as we go forward?

Yeah, and one of the things I want to make sure everyone's clear on is we're not approving anything.

So we're just giving feedback.

So to the point of like if if you have an opinion on how that southwest corner develops, and you think it should be residential.

We're not setting zoning, but you can definitely say that you feel like it should be residential or you're fine with it being commercial, however, whatever your opinion.

Well, I I have an earful when we get to the things that I I'm feeling about the plan, but right now I'm just trying to clarify what's going on.

Okay.

I I just have one more question uh before you go.

I I'm not sure who this question is for.

Can you help me understand what does cash and loo for public land dedication mean?

And how does that change what the applicant can do in the future?

You want to take a stand at that, or you want me to?

Uh it's it's calculated, like uh, so instead of them providing so right now they're they've calculated what their PLD would be based off of that 50% reduction, and it's roughly three and a half acres.

So instead of giving us that three and a half acres, and that's also kind of confusing, right?

Like there's landscape kind of amenity requirements and um impervious or previous surface requirements that have to be done that are apart from a uh PLD.

PLD means that they're actually dedicating that land to the city, and it's the city's like to maintain and and it's usable like public open space um or green space um versus like just what they're providing privately on the site and whether or not they're providing landscaping on the site because there's so they're they they have to that's separate.

They need to provide a certain amount of landscaping for both commercial and residential development, and that varies.

The PLD is this is what they're giving to the city as some sort of amenity.

Um if that helps like it it does help.

Um, and and I guess it changes.

Does it I mean it I the other change with the go ahead, sorry?

The other part was how does it change what they can do with the plan?

Sort of that if if they're doing the cash and loo, they now can use that land for whatever their own purposes are to an extent, right?

Like um, we're gonna probably get uh improved rights away along Arapahoe and 287 to some degree anyway.

The detention pond is uh a detention pond and require some level of drainage um that we will get through a study.

So um part of that is like does the city take on these things, or is it privately owned and maintained?

And then we could still to make it even more fun, uh, we could still be requesting like public access easements through certain areas.

So, like the connectivity that's kind of shown here, once we get into the level of a subdivision, you know, staff's probably gonna be asking for that actually to be a public access easement so that it's not just for the users here and that it actually serves uh and connects communities um you know to the west and whatnot.

But the I think getting back because I know I didn't answer the whole FM thing, we'll we would be doing uh uh an analysis of uh whatever that acreage total is, and then there'd be a cost relative to the land value that they provide um in cash relative to or in in lieu of or in place of actually providing the land.

Understood.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Might have three quick ones.

Um in regarding to the question that was on the slide a moment ago.

So point one, um, strongly supportive of moving the unknown 60-foot pad to the east.

Um I appreciate the community's uh concern over such a large unknown quite across the street from single family homes.

So that makes sense.

I think Council Gilinol, if I'm picking up on what you're putting down in terms of the if you will black and white of R for C1, I I am curious whether we could have maybe a bit more flexibility, particularly where where they connect, because 10 years from now, who knows what things look like, and I wouldn't want to straight jacket it in kind of like where the R4C1 corner is uh in the east of the property.

And I wouldn't want to straight jacket it in kind of like where the R4C1 corner is uh in the east of the property.

Um, and then thing two, uh thing three in terms of the zoning.

Uh I'll I'll save those for later questions.

Yeah, just those two.

Anything else from council?

I appreciate the feedback that staff's feedback in general.

It's just very helpful.

Well, I think I haven't answered your zoning maybe as directly as I could either, because we're gonna have a certain zoning designation as a part of this application.

And I think what you guys are maybe getting at is like not restraining this.

Like if we were to zone this R4, the the goal for the code update is to apply adaptable commercial here and then rezone certain areas.

So even the property to the south isn't gonna stick with the C1 zoning, it'll have an adaptable mixed use commercial.

So we're kind of getting we'll get to that eventually, kind of, and I don't want I mean the other answer to your question is we can kind of get to whatever mix of uses you're kind of looking to have out here under our current code through like a dual zone designation, or if it ends up coming under our new code through a uniform designation.

So hopefully that it's important to understand when it's maybe a level of complexity that um you know it's I think it's gonna get addressed one way or the other as we evolve through the various things that we're working through right now.

So I just have a clarification question regarding public right of way dedication.

Would that be every street in the entire development or just certain streets or those that uh lead to highways?

Or maybe I am completely misinterpreting public of way.

So what's we're what's proposed right now is this is the only thing that kind of looks and feels like a road and it's proposed as a private drive.

Okay, so staff's asking for this to be uh publicly dedicated right away, and then for um at least them to contemplate whether or not they could accommodate other rights of way north south through the southern portion of the section or southern portion of this development, or at minimum like concentrate all the infrastructure in those areas and provide the widths so that they could be provided in the future.

So that's kind of what we're getting at with that comment.

Thank you.

Anything else from council?

Maybe Bertha?

Thank you.

Just a point of clarification with that private drive.

Should the commercial migrate be more towards the eastern side of the property, would that private drive persist?

Is that kind of what you're expecting?

Is that it would still stay there, even though the residential would be uh to the west.

Yes, I think this private, well, not this private drive.

You're talking about this one, the east-west one.

The east one, yeah.

We assume that this is pretty solid.

So if this moves, you know, if it moved up into this corner, maybe you know, this building becomes more a larger uh uh multi-unit building.

Um, and then residential shifts down, but like the alignment of this right-away is in order to align with what's planned for silo to the west, so I don't know that that shifts much.

Sorry, thank you.

True.

All right.

I think that's all from council.

Any other questions?

Any other words, clarification for council?

Okay.

Um yeah, going back to now comments and trying to really structure our feedback.

I certainly don't want to go through everything again because our staff has done an incredible job of cutting uh walking us through what their feedback is and what they're requesting.

Uh so I'm just an open-ended question.

We're gonna start, of course, with the first one.

Um, is there any additional comments?

Is there an agreement with staff from council?

Hearing a yes.

Any counselors, yeah, counselor Friday.

So you know, since we're at sketch band plays phase, I'm just gonna try to give you some you know, high-level right.

I think we've heard more blending of residential types, more blending of residential and commercial, which is why we're talking about C1 and C4 together.

I'm totally in support of that.

Think of it as we're trying to build something that is uh adding tremendous value and is being you know uh ambitious in what we can blend together.

Um and so I think around the zoning, um, to me that's that's an important part of just thinking through not just blend of commercial and residential, but blend of the townhomes and the apartments if we can.

Um similar feedback that we've given to other applicants uh, you know, to the West in the past, right?

And so, like I think it it's consistent feedback and it it is uh meeting some of the intentions that we have in the comp plan.

Um absolutely so yeah.

Support of one piggybacking on that.

You know, before we did our comp plan, we had the old style planning in Lafayette, like many communities did where we had residential here and commercial here and industrial here, and we didn't we weren't well connected, and we realized how much that was contributing to everybody having to drive.

This plan in general feels like that on a much smaller scale.

There's lots of parking in between things.

It doesn't have a walkable flow at all.

Um I think somebody mentioned um I think uh uh main street feel doesn't have a main street feel at all.

It feels like car centric development.

And then I saw that it also includes you know, three drive-through restaurants again, car-centric development.

So to the extent we are trying to create mixed use or uh whatever we calling it, adaptable commercial, it needs a lot of work to get to that kind of flow that I think we're all thinking about.

Mayor Fruitson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm just gonna piggyback on that.

I those comments that have come from both uh councilor Friedman and Counselor Jensen.

I I would I would concur that we don't we haven't hit the flow.

And I I won't name them, but there are communities around us and within Lafayette that have a compartmentalized cellular wall around them that makes it very difficult to provide easy access from one neighborhood, one community to the other.

And this looks too much like um a cookie cutter example of some of the other communities here where there's not easy connectedness.

And as Counselor Jensen said, look, this these are these are this is part of the problem is that there needs to be a more walkable, bikeable, movable plan that is not a single.

I hate to use siloed because it's not silos, but it is there's too much of a barrier around it.

And where it is, I understand why there is a barrier around it with what it's bordered by uh very high traffic areas.

So I don't know what the answer is, but I I we're not I don't feel like we're there yet.

Uh something that's more um similar to as planning commission uh commission mentioned.

Uh maybe housing clustered around in a green space, walkable, a main street area, something that is a little less broken into segments with a better flow.

And I I want people to know where they're have an understanding of how you would naturally move through this space right now.

It feels very compartmentalized, and if you don't make the right left turn, the correct left turn.

Uh you could end up in the wrong part of the development.

I I feel like this is a perfect segue, Mare Proton to question two.

Yes.

Um, and I I always want to uh follow the rules, but I guess um can we not jump to question two?

I want to make sure we get the feedback to question one and then jump to question two if that's okay.

Uh I I'm hearing a few things, uh, but I just want to make sure that I love the feedback and I love the additional comments.

Uh the proposed zoning and of course the staff um staff feedback.

How does council feel about this?

Um, can I just I'm sorry to interrupt go ahead.

I'll just add to that I I don't necessarily want to get a specific of take this commercial pad, put it here.

You can figure out how to do that, you know, within your own project.

Um, but I do think that I hear counselor Jensen's concern, I think in the question prior before about feels really weird to not have any idea what that little box is uh and zone it, you know, with variances.

And so I think certainly I'm sure you'll get more detail as you go, if possible, or if there's within the PUD, how we zone that can be left for future once we actually have that conversation about um that actual area too.

So that's just the one thing allowed around zoning.

And I I would tend to agree.

Um, but I wanna I want to see where other counselors sit on this.

I could you say more about that, council free line.

I'm not the the gray box, the black, whatever it is, the unknown area.

I I'm not comfortable with allowing it to move out of sketch uh with so many unknowns.

I feel our residents have need some better idea of what that unknown entity is and shifting it over.

I don't know, are we pushing it to the commercial side or is it something else that should be there?

So I'm I think my feedback would be we need more clarification on this unknown entity.

I don't I don't I don't I'm not comfortable not mentioning that in the sketch.

Um I think that needs to be included, like it's gotta be more than that.

And just to put a fine point on it, Mayor Pro Tem, I believe Mr.

Crockett noted that that was the highest point in the parcel, which also has been requested up to 60 foot.

So not only is it the highest, then it would be by far the highest.

So I think we really would need clarity on that.

I I think I'm in agreement that I would just say it in a little bit different way.

If it is going to be zoned, commercial or C C1R4, more detail is required.

Yes.

Alternatively, if you don't want it to be zoned for now, I don't know if that's possible.

I'm looking at the city attorney.

Um if you if you can't provide us that level of detail, then we can't commit to a zoning classification for it because we don't know what it is.

So I think I'm in agreement that yes, if it's gonna be a part of sketch, we need more detail.

If if we're asking for it to be annexed and zoned, right, we need more detail on what it it might be, you know, what are we talking about here?

Why are we asking for that level?

Um, or yeah, I don't know if that makes sense.

I mean, we if I could jump in, you know, we we do have a zoning that is appropriate for this, and it's called developing resource under the current zoning code where it's to be determined in the future.

Um, and I I'm not I'm not saying that it needs to go there, but there's a where where there's like no specific determination, if we don't know what it is, it's just sort of held in place um until that happens, and then the zoning happens in the future.

But without knowing detail, I agree.

I'm not comfortable with getting this zone until we have some details.

So mayor, if I may, um just to clarify for council, so the applicant has proposed zoning for that site.

And planning director Williams, correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding is the zoning they proposed also applies to that uh my directions, right?

Is the southwestern corner of the site.

Uh so there is a proposed zoning, and and there is enough for you to review and provide feedback on that tonight.

So they have proposed um R4, or I'm sorry, C one in that area with the PUD overlay.

And the PUD overlay does give uh council and the applicant the ability to vary the zoning regulations within that PUD as well.

So I would respectfully uh submit to council that you do have enough information to provide feedback on their proposed zoning because they have proposed zoning with certain variations, which is something you can do in a PUD.

Um then also clarify you're not bound to anything, right?

Like all we're all you're doing is providing comment.

And so really, like if the applicant doesn't feel like they have enough direction or like they're uncertain about that, they can restart the sketch plan process and not advance on to the preliminary plan.

But the way that the um sketch plan update is is what was recently approved, is structured as just for like review and comment at this stage.

So we're not really holding up their application for anything in particular.

We're just giving them comment, and then it's at their discretion to either feel comfortable proceeding on to the preliminary plan or to but I think what I'm hearing is like you guys are not gonna re-zone this commercial, and we're not gonna get an application that ever comes to you again.

Like this is something that came in at a very like, you know, and and and the history that I guess we haven't talked about tonight is you know, four or five months ago, this was listed as a uh water tank uh water storage facility, and they pivoted, and so they haven't moved that portion of the parcel that far along in the design, it is at a different stage.

So that's kind of where this is it feels weird, and it is less information, but um there's also a reason for it.

So sure, and I guess my feedback on that point is I think we've maybe heard this from others is we just need more information.

We're just we're just dying to have more information here to to know is the variance that's being asked for appropriate.

Just it's hard to feel comfortable with that.

Yeah.

So and really like that's where I mean our our reaction with staff is that probably better to transition this area and maybe better for it to be a residential designation than a commercial designation in order to align with those objectives.

And if but I mean it's also like we're reacting to that in a what in that way, partly because they're asking for something that's 60 feet.

If it was a single story more neighborhood serving commercial use, then it might work there, right?

It's just doesn't feel like that at 60 feet.

So that's why we get in the direction we gave.

So I think where we're going though is the recommendation is to blend the zoning C1, R4, and then give recommendation on height within that whole area and not specific areas.

C one having one high variance, R4 having others.

So in that way, we we might be kind of giving guidance or you know saying this seems you know like something that makes more sense when we don't have any detail on what that is, too.

So like I don't know how we can have both of those things where we don't have the detail on a segment of the land, but we're gonna zone the whole thing in a blended feel, mixed use with that intention.

So I don't know.

It feels it feels like confusing guidance for the applicant because I don't think we really know what we're being asked to comment on.

So I think the point is to you back to your point, Mayor Pro Tem.

We need more detail in that space.

City attorney, did you want to jump in?

I was just gonna say that that you can provide feedback to that effect.

Um and I just wanted as I was listening to you uh work through that.

I um the reason I wanted to speak up was just to just to um you know, since it is a quasi-judicial proceeding, you do still have to comment on the applicant in front of you.

But I I think the way that you summarize that there at the end, that's that's appropriate feedback to give back to give to the applicant that you um you know, whatever your comments are on the proposed zoning that you still need more information regarding that part of the site.

Um, and then just one more comment for council's information.

Um at this level, again, being a concept uh plan.

Um you're not seeing a fully detailed plan yet.

Uh the a PUD would allow there to be uh different regulations for that part of the site versus the rest of it, even under that same PUD C1 zoning district, if that's what it ends up being.

Um so just know that you're not locking in one height for that whole area.

There's the opportunity through the PUD as it uh as we get more detail and it's refined in the next stages of the process to spell out the regulations um for different parts of the site as well.

So I didn't want you to think that you're stuck with one set of regulations for the whole site.

There is a flexibility to tailor it throughout the site.