I got it up.

This doesn't look right here.

Council meeting will come to order.

We will begin with a pledge of allegiance.

Clerk Beck, could we please get a roll call?

Mayor Tapia Vega.

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Barnes.

Good evening.

Counselor Bullier.

Good evening.

Counselor Friedland.

Good evening.

Counselor Gallegos.

Good evening.

Counselor Gianola.

And Counselor Jensen.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you so much.

Um, we'll begin tonight with a public input.

If you wish to speak tonight, please fill out one of the speaker request forms.

You can find them in the back through that glass door.

And if you're not here, but you would still wish to participate, you can.

That phone number is on our website.

You can call in and we will give you the opportunity to speak.

Um just one thing before we do speak.

Uh you will have five minutes to speak.

Um, you don't have to try to guess how long you're doing.

There's a little clock on the podium right next to you when you're speaking, and it'll it'll count down the time.

Uh and at the five minute mark, I will let you know that your time is up, and that is just in the interest of being fair and respectful of everyone's time.

And with that, we will begin tonight with Susan Curtis.

Hello, I'm Susan Curtis.

I've lived in Lafayette for thirty-one years.

I've lived in Lafayette for 31 years, and a couple of you know me from my time on the library board for nine years.

I love our community, all of it.

My knowledge of the land use code comes from my attendance at the public show and tell at the Starkey building.

I did complete the survey, and I've read in the uh is middle housing really missing in Lafayette by Bonnie Freeman and studied the maps that were provided in her study.

First of all, I would like this the council to know that the survey is biased toward a favored plan by consultants as presented by city planners.

Based on my knowledge and experience and testing protocols, the survey was poorly developed and indicates little to no expertise in survey work, so it is now invalid for city input for city council input.

I urge the council not to interpret the survey results as community input.

My experience in this community is that I walk my errands.

I find Lafayette a very walkable city.

I walk to the post office, the library, the Red Queen, the East Simpson Street Coffee Shop, the Walmart, the Rec Center, Tia Cali, the Cole Creek Trail, stands for auto repair, the golf course, Timbalier, Y, the Y, Janose, my state farm agent, and my tax accountant.

Current Lafayette is already a very walkable city.

I understand the broad brush approach to planning and land use.

However, implementation is at the neighborhood level.

What does a neighborhood need?

For Indian Peaks, where I live, it is street safety, not commercial and retail traffic.

It is better and safer access to all of Lafayette in order to cross 287, 95th Street, Baseline, and South Boulder Road.

We also do not need to fill, we need to fill empty commercial buildings and retail space rather than adding more to stand empty.

We need to utilize the empty commercial lots that we already have.

If you've just walked along baseline as I have done yesterday, there are many lots empty and available for commercial development.

In conclusion, it would be a mistake and costly to retrofit existing neighborhoods to plans and land use, inappropriate and not needed.

Instead, let's focus on the future, safety, business development, water and water treatment.

We need safe connections in this city so that we can enjoy all that the city already offers to us.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we'll hear from Ed Byrne.

Thank you.

I submitted a letter that you should have received yesterday, and I apologize that it wasn't in the packet.

I'm here in following that adage, trust but verify.

Having read the code and the most recent changes to it, it does say that the city's not going to rely as much on PUDs moving forward.

And that's understandable.

PUDs are like calling Symalikra.

They are mini-zoning maps.

You look at all of the issues at a particular site, which usually is pretty large.

And then you hardwire the balance of streets, lots, bulk, density.

Very carefully, trying to preserve the natural resources on that site.

In 1991, the Indian Peaks Puty was conceived to secure a golf course for the city by designed by Hale Erwin.

It's a wonderful course.

Carefully tailored to preserve those characteristics that make the golf course so special.

Blend it at the margins.

But PUDs are a permanent privately enforceable contract between the city and the owners.

In this case, 1,398 of them, each of which, each of whom has a private right of action.

Legacy PUDs are not subject to top-down zoning mandates.

They're fully baked.

Lafayette received a golf course.

The course is walkable, but its existence around which has been woven the residential neighborhoods and the streets is not walkable necessarily.

And that would be I would guess I'd point you to this first exhibit, which shows the way homes were spread around, leaving room for the golf course in the middle.

It's way too small to read.

I apologize for that.

But it's a solid mix of attached and defet, detached residential layouts in various neighborhoods.

And it includes a commercial center, an employment center in the lower left, which commercial has kind of lost its uh off site presence, uh is uh filing number 17 was switched to a diverse, more of a mix uh of uh missing middle housing.

And that's as it should be.

The next exhibit, I'm here to challenge the characterization of Indian Peaks Trail as a collector street.

It is not, it is 28% smaller than a collector's street.

Your collector street standard would have 12 and a half, 12 and a half lane, seven feet on either side for bike, and Indian Peaks is 12 feet, two lanes of 12 feet and two feet of bike path.

Not enough.

Um they substantially downsize the street sections because they wanted to create an interesting driving experience reminiscent of a country lane.

That's not a collector street, and you can't turn it into one after the fact without having to redesign the entire area.

Um, with neighbors spread around the golf course and the downsized street sections and backward facing homes, they don't actually even front onto the collector street, which is one of the things you look for.

They they front onto cul-de-sacks, which are do not have enough room for parking for commercial, and you'd starve the commercial that might try to locate there.

You can't put this genie back in the bottle.

If you tried, there could be a domino effect where more commercial starts popping up, and you're setting neighbor against neighbor in ways that could be harmful.

I would recommend that you change the N2N3 map, which is here to make it clear that Indian Peaks is not a collector street, and that you use Sharpies and highlighters to delineate PUDs that are no longer in play with a different color, so it doesn't get confused by zoning maps that overlay them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Barbara Patton.

Good evening.

Barbara Patton, Indian Peaks Lafayette.

I'm here tonight to speak about the proposed form-based code N2 zone to be used in residential neighborhoods with collector roads, including neighborhoods that have PUDs and HOAs with covenants and restrictions.

There is much inaccuracy, confusion, and lack of clarity in the draft rewrite.

One, for instance, two streets in Indian Peaks, Indian Peaks Trail and Wanaka Lake Trail, were included in the N2 zoning.

N2 zoning adds commercial businesses to corner lots, as well as allowing multifamily housing, both of which are prohibited in our PUD and HOA covenants and restrictions.

In fact, our covenants and restrictions, which run with the land, is a legal term that means forever, forever unless there is a limit stipulated in the covenants, of which there is not in Indian Peaks.

It does require 67% of the 1,398 residents in Indians Peaks to vote to change our covenants and restrictions.

An impossibility based on recent events.

One of the subs, HOA was updating their 30-year-old playground equipment in a park.

This sub has only 200 residents.

It took over two years, many, many meetings, many of which were unbelievably contentious, just to agree on a playground equipment.

Number two, facts matter.

Neither of the two streets in Indian Peaks included in an N2 zoning, Indian Peaks Trail and Wanaka Trail, are collector roads, as erroneously labeled in the draft code and on the maps.

On page 50 of the Indian Peaks official development plan, dated March 1991, it clearly states the community drives within Indian Peaks will serve as low volume, two-lane sub-collector roads with a minimum of right of way of 50 feet, minimum pavement flow line to flow line to flow line of 24 feet with no parking and limited access.

These exact dimensions are the same on Wanaka Lake Trail.

These are both subcollector roads.

They do not meet the guidelines of the draft code.

Number three, facts still matter.

The N2 zone allows commercial businesses on outward facing corner lots on collector roads.

The corner homes along Indian Peaks Trail and Monica Trail, which are subcollector roads, are inward facing on tight cul de sacks, tight cul-de-sacs by design.

So clearly, once again, the corner homes in Indian Peaks did not meet the parameters of the N2 code.

Number four, inconvenient facts still matter.

The Indian Peaks overall development plan clearly states that commercial businesses are not allowed in our residential neighborhoods.

Our attorney Ed Burns cites in his letter multiple places in the ODP where this is spelled out.

Given the facts that I just outlined, it is not understandable how or why the Indian Peaks community and these two roads were included in the N2 zone.

All this information was noble to the staff and consultants.

Five, clarity matters.

There's a lack of clarity in the new zone, and it seems to be hellbent on forcing these changes to the residential neighborhoods that do not meet guidelines.

The N2 zone says it is for new development and redevelopment.

Indian Peaks is neither a new development or in the process of redevelopment.

It is unclear in the new draft what constitutes redevelopment or when the redevelopment timeline begins.

Can the redevelopment begin the day after the new zoning codes are adopted or 20 years from now?

What constitutes redevelopment?

Is this lack of clarity going to falsely lull a homeowner into thinking they can redevelop their home into a coffee shop or a multifamily building, despite both being prohibited in our PUD and HOA covenants and restrictions?

If so, this will put the HOA in an untenable position of hiring lawyers to enforce our PUD and covenants and restrictions while incurring enormous legal fees each time this happens.

There is a lack of legal clarity for where, how, and when N2 zone in neighborhoods with PUD and HOA covenants and restrictions can be implemented.

This one is not ready for prime time.

Number six, you have received pictures of real IP corner houses, and this AI picture, and then they have AI pictures adding businesses to them.

This will destroy the character of Indian Peaks.

The last picture is a corner house on Wanaka Lake Trail, whose driveway, as you can see, is a mere four feet from its neighbors.

And where are the two off-street parking spaces to fit?

Using N2 in Indian Peaks is just wrong and misguided application of this tool.

In summation, giving the overwhelming facts regarding Indian Peaks just outlined, lack of legal ability to implement, lack of clarity on how it would even be implemented.

We ask the council to have the Indian Peaks community removed from N2 zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Karen Norbeck.

Finding funding and including changes in city administrators and top planning staff.

I spent years listening to the community and attending all the CAC meetings, the community outreach meetings, and pouring over documents.

Planning staff moved immediately to begin work on a rewrite of our land use code in 2022.

Community outreach for that comp plan update was head and shoulders better than the outreach that has been conducted for this process, which will have an effect on everyone living in Lafayette, whether they know it or not.

I started raising concerns about that when I spoke to the land use code working group in May of 2025.

I have seen big ongoing missteps with attempts to engage the public.

Email invitations to the first big event, a bingo night in October, said, come look at the new rules.

New rules, there were no new rules then.

You wouldn't know unless you were there, but in September, a nine-minute explainer video for the public was unveiled during a working group meeting that was so bad it was roundly panned and discarded on the spot.

You would have no idea about that if you read the notes of the meeting, which said the project team will discuss updating the video or creating shorter topic based videos.

We've seen one 43-second video since then, but at least our city's name was pronounced correctly in this one.

When the public engagement process related to the three topics that have taken center stage, missing middle housing, neighborhood commercial and building height was first brought forward to the working group as a trial open house meeting.

It did not ask the question, is this something you want?

But was presented as something that was going to happen and which version do you like?

This was particularly troubling regarding allowing building heights above the current 35-foot three-story limit.

The question, do you want to allow taller buildings was not asked.

Instead, the focus on was on where are they okay.

Due to pushback before going to the public, this approach was softened softened.

Because the comp plan update process showed lack of interest from the public for increased height.

It was the term that there would be a community conversation about this topic when the land use code update happened with a focus on affordable housing.

This conversation is mentioned in three places in the comp plan.

I have been city watching since the 1990s, and I've seen little interest in four-story buildings from this community.

So I was interested to see what this conversation would look like.

Well, it was addressed in a poorly written survey that actually talked about the financial feasibility of commercial or hotel development as something the residents should consider in their answers.

However, it still showed that support for four-story buildings was not there.

During the comp plan update, an experienced polling company was hired to write a neutral statistically valid survey.

Our community deserved to be polled in the same way this time.

I don't understand why this was not done.

Speaking of height, take a look at the height in the comp plan for the old town commercial district, which says two stories.

There are issues with following that direction in the new plan.

The new regulations for public road are treasured downtown, include allowing apartment or condo complexes.

I ask you to imagine someone tearing down the iconic Lafayette Flowers building for a condo complex and what that would do to the feel of the street.

Also, as we wait for the pocket park on 701 South Public and the bakery a couple of lots down.

Imagine that entire block all the way down to the Rocky Mountain Legal Building, scraped and replaced with a condo complex.

That was quietly in the works until the community heard about it and spoke up.

That's what gentrification looks like, and something we must work hard to prevent.

We're also seeing regulations that will have an impact on our older neighborhoods, depending on whether you live in an HOA or not.

We faced that when mandatory recycling happened, and HOAs were exempt.

It created divisiveness in the community.

Despite the community's love of open space that runs through the comp plan, the definition in the draft code of natural open space was park-like that is space that is visible and accessible to the public.

That's not open space.

I hope that has been changed.

And as we get close to the end of this process, community outreach is especially important.

But let's not forget we have been without a communications director since last October.

This process has been long, but let's make sure we get this right.

Tonight you have the opportunity to just say yes to the draft plan and send it on its way, or you can ask for changes and also improvements to the public outreach on behalf of the people in this community whom you represent.

Have we done enough?

I look forward to your discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Michael Watson.

Mike Watson, uh 708 South Carol Avenue.

Um I wish I were up here to talk about zoning code, which I realize probably makes me a certifiably insane person.

Um, however, I'm not.

I'm here because words have meaning.

Right.

Like when we say that we're trying to build a sustainable community or resiliency or any of those things.

Like that has an actual definition that we need to follow.

And right now in Colorado, the times are exceptional.

We are in the worst drought year.

On record.

Like since we've been collecting since we've been looking at snowfall, snowpack, everything.

Um this is the worst drought year that we have.

It's worse than 2002, and the amount of people that we have in the city is a lot more than we had in 2002.

It's going to be a bad year.

Um just go back from uh from uh uh visiting family overseas.

Um I can tell you firsthand like this is not just limited to Colorado, this is a global event this year.

Um I think it's Super El Nino is what the papers are calling it.

Um, those of you with more of an environmental science background, you probably know more about that.

Um earlier this year, the UN declared global water bankruptcy.

Um we're living in that.

This is what it looks like.

It's less snowfall, it's the land drying up, and it's going to require some actions of the city, more than just nicely advising everybody to not water their grass yet.

Um, which by the way, I went by um what is it, Cherrywood Park uh last week.

Um you guys had the sprinklers going.

Like full tilt, and you're planting new trees.

And I don't know whether because the the city manager, Katie got got up there the last meeting in April and was advising people to like not run their sprinklers yet and only like like water the trees.

Um but it would be nice if the city followed its own guidance.

Maybe that information didn't get from Katie on down to the rest of the staff.

But but this is something that the city needs to take seriously because if the city isn't taking it seriously, then the residents won't think that they have to take it seriously.

And this is something that we're all gonna have to kind of come together on.

Um we probably have enough water to make it through this year, but what if this drought lasts two years?

What if it's three years?

What if it's 10 years?

Right?

We need to start thinking about that.

We need our best minds on that.

The public voted U7 as the best minds that represent us.

So please kind of take a stand on this.

Like I would strongly urge you, and I sent all of you an email uh yesterday with with a few like motions and definite actions the city could take.

I believe that this warrants an emergency declaration.

I think that you should you should make if you declare this a water emergency this year.

You have the science, you have the like any credible scientist will say that we are living in an emergency this year, especially in Colorado.

Um, and I know that it's not the politically correct or the politically like expedient thing to do because everybody wants to just continue like it's business as usual.

Um, this is not going to be a business as usual year.

Like I don't know if you guys pay attention to the news.

I'm guessing that you do.

This is not business as usual.

This is not what normal looks like in any in any metric, like like bar none, this is a weird year.

And the last thing we need to do is run out of sun run out of water in the middle of summer.

Um, that's not going to make it any better.

Um, so I got this in my mail uh today, uh, the Lafayette Connection.

Um really no mention about the water crisis, and it it is a water crisis.

I mean, does anybody disagree that it's water crisis?

Um growing shade, we're gonna plant a bunch of trees this year.

Does that seem logical to anybody?

Like, please if you plant trees, shrubs, put in new lawn, lawn replacement, that's wonderful on normal years because it helps us save our water.

Um, I would urge you not to do that this year.

Pause all of those programs.

Um, we have representatives from Indian Peaks.

I I I suggested in the um in my email that we switch to like brown golf this year, like minimize the water use on the case.

Mr.

Ross.

Would you please direct counsel?

It's it's my time.

I can speak in whatever direction I want to.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um but uh I mean, is it it's gonna be a weird year.

And then like I I know that that everybody loves their golf, and we all love nice green lawns, but I think this is something that we're all gonna have to come together on and uh like at the very least have a conversation about it.

I think one of the most important things, number one, after declaring an emergency for water use, um, put up a dashboard on the city's website.

You guys have access.

I saw one of the graphs that that Katie sent out to you uh, I think last week or the week before, um, showing kind of the water levels and the the just the drop off that we've had in snowpack levels um over the past I think half a month.

That would be great if the public could see that as well.

Like put up a water dashboard and and send out a statement from the city that just shows that you guys are taking this seriously.

Because by the time it gets to the point where everybody's aware of it, where everybody realizes this is a problem, it's gonna be too late.

Um so please act quickly.

The bar is set incredibly low for politicians this week.

Don't threaten to undermine democracies or destroy civilizations.

Just just you know, like get your job done.

Well, thank you very much.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Up next, we'll hear from Vicky Ewand.

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

I am a member of the land use code working group, and I have some um things that I want to bring up with you about the proposed land use code.

Um the first thing is public engagement and input into this new code.

When the comp plan was being developed, there was a special effort to reach out to communities in Lafayette that don't generally engage in city government stuff.

I remember there was even a special consultant whose entire job was to do this.

We haven't had this with this new land use code public engagement.

There were two meetings for mobile home communities, which is great, but I didn't hear about any other events dedicated specifically to reaching out to our underserved populations.

For the other public engagement events, there were 20 attendees in the small group at discussions, 62 attendees at open houses and events, 62 attendees at pop-ups, 59 people registered at Lafayette Listens.

Even if there's no overlap of people who went to multiple events, that's a total of only about 200 people.

The survey reached about a thousand people, but as I said to you already before, it's not statistically valid.

So as I suspected, the people who took the survey are pretty homogenized.

91% are homeowners, 79% live in single family detached homes.

49% are age 55 or older.

I think unfortunately we have to take these survey results with a big grain of salt because of the skewed demographics.

My second point is the public engagement procedure for developments that will be evaluated under the new form-based code districts.

We were told during the March working group meeting that plans for these districts wouldn't proceed under the sketch plan, preliminary plan, final plan criteria that PUDs use with required neighborhood meetings along the way.

For instance, for the FBC neighborhood districts, which are mainly for land annexed into the city, and so therefore are going to be controversial.

The process would be zoning, followed by a regulating plan, subdivision, and site plan.

Old town mixed use would only have a site plan.

I asked when the neighborhood meetings would be in these new processes, and I was told staff would look into this.

So I'm asking you to make sure this happens and that there are opportunities for the public to give their opinions early in the process and not just at public hearings before planning commission and council when it's often too late.

Plus, when would a developer's plan first go before council for these new form-based districts?

A lot of us worked long and hard to get sketch plans before council, so you could weigh in early in the process, and now I'm worried that will just go by the wayside.

The third thing is tiny homes.

Working group members have been asking since the first meetings three years ago to include tiny homes in the new code, but they're still not mentioned by name in the draft code.

So I asked at the last working group meeting how they would fit into the code.

I was told they would be part of the mobile home district zoning.

But here's what the draft code says.

The manufactured or mobile home community district is intended to preserve the existing stock of manufactured housing in Lafayette and enhance these new neighborhoods to meet the same standards of quality set for all of Lafayette.

And that's pretty much all the draft code says about that.

Where do tiny homes fit into that description?

So could council consider asking that we have co-provisions specifically for tiny homes?

For instance, they could be used in place of ADUs.

They're much cheaper than building an ADU, so that could open up more possibilities for affordable housing.

It would also be nice if we had zoning standards for tiny home communities.

Finally, my final concern is building heights, particularly in the old town mixed-use commercial districts.

The comp plan makes it clear buildings shouldn't be taller than two stories in OT commercial.

And this has been discussed multiple times during working group meetings.

But the draft code proposes building heights up to 35 feet with no story limit.

I asked staff if they could tell us how tall the tallest buildings on public are, the tangerine building and the one on the corner of public and baseline.

I haven't heard back, but our OTGIS specialist Bonnie Freeman measured them using Google Earth and found they were about 30 feet tall.

So why would we go 35 feet in our new code?

And no matter what, I think the code needs to limit them to two stories as the public may play clear in the comp plant.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Jude Sackridge.

Good evening.

My name is Jude Sacre, I live on 213 Acadia in Lafayette.

I've been a resident of Lafayette for a mere 43 years, long before Walmart was here, before Albertsons was here, and there was only Marvin's Market that you better get in there before 6 p.m.

because their white bread was all we had, and the store closed at 6.

So that gives you a little framework for seeing some of the changes in Lafayette.

So as I'm driving here tonight, I opted not to use my e-bike.

But anyhow, I drove here tonight and I'm looking down public road again, trying to look at it with new eyes, and I'm looking at single story, single stories, single story, single story, single story, single story, single story.

Yes, look at these are old buildings.

They're old buildings, and you get to a new building and it's two stories, or maybe to the well, it's not called the Miller's because that was a PC.

So anyway, and then they sneak in a four-story over there.

So then you look at the new buildings, they don't have the character.

It's like the architects really enjoyed Architect 101 with Legos, and then they changed it to brick.

But it still looks like a modified Lego complex.

They don't have the they don't have the coziness.

They'd lack character.

And if you say, okay, let's put in a three-story building, let's put in a four-story building.

So okay, if you pay us a little bit more over here, and we'll shorten up the sidewalk, so or narrow it a little bit so that you can get one and a half people to pass through, and you can move the building a little closer to the street, and you can you and it'll be cozy all right, but it loses the Lafayette flavor.

It looks industrial, like somebody paid their money to get their four-story building in, and the money will show up somewhere else, maybe in open space, maybe in a couple of more trees.

But what I'm here to say is that the code that's being written is insufficient.

It doesn't really address what the feeling of Lafayette is.

Matter of fact, when the new Walmart was built, not the 101 Walmart, this is the 2.0 Walmart on 287.

There wasn't that hill that it stood on.

They brought in tons and tons of dirt and raised that hill up a good 20 or 30 feet.

That used to used to be able to stand where Cabrini Circle is, and it was almost flat.

It had a little slight inroad in uh rise, but you could see the mountains, and it was really beautiful, and they put came or Walmart there and blocked it out.

That's not pretty.

That's Walmart.

You know, and I still harbor you could tell a little bit of anger about that.

But let's make Lafayette where it really shines, where it's really its character is beauty.

What we really stand for, and it's not a four-story building where you can incentivize developers to pay off the development pot so they can buy some more open space, which we I don't mind having more open space, but it will forever impact the beauty of our city.

So I would encourage you not to let in any more four-story buildings and any other four-story hotels, and I know that makes it more productive economically for that, but there are serious trade-offs in the long run.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll hear from Abigail Aguidre Garcia.

Hello, I am Abigail Aguirre Garcia, a junior at Peak2 Peak Charter School and a Lafayette Youth Advisory Board co-chair.

I um want to invite residents of Lafayette to join members of the Lafayette Youth Advisory Board and other local youth for an event where youth voices take center stage.

Teens talk, adults listen, is an opportunity for teens to share their thoughts, experiences, and perspectives on issues that matter to them.

While adults are invited to listen, learn, and ask questions.

Spanish translation and refreshments will be provided.

This event will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, April 8th, from 7 to 8 p.m.

at the Lafayette Public Library.

The Teens Talk Adults Listen event is organized by the Lafayette Youth Advisory Board in partnership with Lafayette Communities That Care with support from the Lafayette Community Services Department.

We look forward to seeing members of our community there.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll hear from Megan Rast.

I'm a visual person, so just in case you are looking.

Yeah, and just before I start, we selected hearing.

Is this the correct section?

So there is no public hearing tonight.

It would be only during public hearing.

Okay, cool.

Um, thank you, Mayor members of council.

My name is Megan Rast.

I'm a resident at 646 Homestead Street in Anna's Farm, the charming neighborhood with colorful prairie detailed houses that has shared courtyards directly west of Aspen Ridge Drive.

I want to begin by acknowledging actually and applauding the land use code working group and city staff for the thoughtful work already completed along Aspen Ridge Drive Corridor, also known as the Black Diamond Corridor.

The decision to rezone the former M1 industrial properties to adaptable commercial or AMX2 is an important and appropriate step forward.

This change reflects what has been true on the ground for years.

This corridor is functioning as a commercial and community serving area, not a light industrial district.

Today it includes a community service center, that's Sister Carmen, a medical, a very small medical office building, a child care center, and an indoor youth sports facility.

Uses that serve Lafayette residents every day and do not align with traditional M1 activities such as manufacturing, warehousing, or storage.

Importantly, this direction is not new.

It's already codified in the city's 2021 comprehensive plan, which envisions this area as part of a broader commercial framework.

This middle map labeled as land use code working group is from their March 25th meeting.

We recognized after printing, by the way, it's already published in the uh 2021 comprehensive plan and approved.

So this rezoning to commercial districts is therefore both a recognition of existing conditions and an implementation of adopted policy.

With that strong foundation in place, my request tonight is more limited and more refined.

I'm asking council to consider designating a small portion of parcels along the corridor, particularly those directly adjacent.

Oh, that's my place.

Yeah, directly adjacent to establish our two family neighborhoods as neighborhood mixed use.

This adjustment would build on the progress already made by introducing a more context set context sensitive transition at the edges of the corridor.

In this edge condition, it calls for a slightly lower intensity, more neighborhood scaled approach, and for one that would allow for housing mixed with and maybe even perhaps above some shops that we could use.

This is consistent with long-standing principles for planning in Lafayette.

The comprehensive plan has emphasized that more intense uses should be located away from and carefully buffered from residential areas.

Across the city, we see successful examples of this pattern.

Examples within Lafayette already demonstrate this approach, so I'm gonna go through a couple for the record.

Across Highway 287, the gateway circle area serves as a transitional zone between the regional business district, which is formerly King Supers, now the Vasa Fitness, and nearby single family residences.

The silos development, which you can actually see at the top, has both R3 multifamily homes and a T1 transitional buffering from the Kohl's and the Walmart.

Even within Anna's Farm, our three multifamily row homes uh are next to the primrose daycare, which is known as B1 community.

So in this case, applying neighborhood mixed use in these limited locations.

You can see in the map to the far right, would better reflect the immediate adjacency to single family neighborhoods.

Second, provide an appropriate scale and mix of uses at the residential edge.

Three, reinforce compatibility while still supporting commercial activity along the corridor.

The remainder of the corridor can and should continue to function under the newly established commercial zoning, consistent with both current uses and the comprehensive plan.

In short, thank you.

The city has already taken the big important step of aligning the zoning with reality and policy by moving away from M1 Industrial.

This request simply fine-tunes that framework to ensure the edges of the corridor transition appropriately to the neighborhoods they border.

It also ensures that if the only parcel actually having an industrial use, which is Kenray in this entire area, uh moves out, that what comes after it would fit with the future in the vision of Lafayette.

Thank you again for your leadership and for the significant progress already made on the corridor.

I appreciate your consideration of this targeted refinement.

Would anyone like to get closer to this?

Did you were you all able to see it?

Am I remaining for you?

Yeah, take the time and take a look at it.

Sure.

So we were talking about Anna's farm, which is this zone right over here.

The silo is above it, and there's a nice upper zone along there.

And we're talking about this corridor, I guess Aspen Ridge.

I also have a pity slip to speak.

Would you let me sit back down?

What was uh what was the name?

Christy Clark.

You're next.

Okay.

Uh I can leave this on my.

I'll hold it for you.

That's a neighborly thing to do.

We're we're in it together.

I wanted to start by saying is Phil in the room.

Um, I saw him go by.

You can hear us at least.

Hey there.

Um I wanted to say thank you so much, Phil, for coming out and walk in the neighborhood with me.

I really appreciate your assistance.

Okay, my name is Christy Clark, and I live in a one-story home at 550 Homestead Street in Anna's Farm, about 50 feet west of the Black Diamond Corridor.

So that's gonna be me right there.

Um I second what my neighbor, Megan Rass has said about the excellent work being achieved by the land use working group and already accomplished by the comprehensive plan in 2021.

I was pleased to hear more details at the working group's last meeting about the characteristics of their proposed adaptable mixed use corridor on Aspen Ridge directly behind my lot.

The comp plan's designation of commercial instead of industrial was a step in the right direction.

But this new focus on walkability, creation of transitions to adjacent developments, and activation on the street to pull businesses up to the sidewalk is um in the right direction and on target with the future of Lafayette and the vision we all share for our funky community.

So, like make I would like to see further refinement for the coding of this particular corridor district to neighborhood mixed use.

It would achieve more compatibility and tradition and transition flow.

As opposed to the successful examples that Megan cited, we do not have duplexes and row homes separating my one-story house from this proposed mixed use corridor.

This means that the height requirements and other restrictions for adapted adaptable mixed use are not an adequate buffer for this portion of Anna's farm and would not create the gentle transition that the city is trying to achieve.

Anna's farm and the neighbors, like one story sister Carmen, require a more gradual transition and step up height restrictions that's possible than with, and that is possible with the neighborhood mixed use designation.

So I'd like for you to imagine for a moment a gate opening up Anna's farm and a little bridge over the High Line canal behind us that would help us cross over to the other side and create a connection between our community and the commercial zone.

Umic space with a sculpture or a park element that would serve Anna's farm, Sister Carmen, and clients from Smoothie King and other small businesses.

Or maybe we could have tables and chairs next to a restaurant or food hall with much needed housing on top.

These all fall under the neighborhood mixed use category.

We would flow through the gate and connect our housing with this commercial corridor and create a much needed third space to blend diverse residents of Lafayette.

That is what I think a neighborhood should look like.

And what I understand is the vision set out by the Comp Plan and the land use working group.

I support thoughtful building in Lafayette, and I think neighborhood mixed use is the best way to put this vision into action.

And I respectfully request please deny any industrial building in this district to give us all time for rezoning and to head in the correct direction for this vision of Lafayette.

Thank you for your consideration and all of the hard work that you're putting into preserving and improving the character of our wonderful community.

Thank you so much.

Is there anything else you'd like to see here?

Did everyone see it?

Everyone you can vision the bridge, over the bridge, the gate.

You know where we're talking about.

Thank you very much.

Up next, we'll hear from Nancy Sellinger.

Do you need our uh illustration?

I didn't, I know you're not.

Oh, I don't know.

Hi, I'm Nancy Sellinger.

I live at 650 Homestead Street in Lafayette, and an absolute supporter of Lafayette, Colorado.

Do love living here.

Um I'm here to speak about the zoning code land use uh changes.

I know from what I understand, these haven't really been updated since the late 1980s.

However, I think that there was some proposals during the pandemic, and now we're kind of at the point where decisions need to be made.

Um there are four things that I found to be the most important height of buildings, density of developments, nature and wildlife regulations, sustainability and affordability.

Um the most important thing for me is that I'm really hoping that we can work together with planners, with city um council members, with developers, with neighborhoods in the best way possible.

Um, the one thing that I am noticing is that through many different project uh proposals which are listed on your website, there's been a tremendous amount of friction.

And what I'd like to do is just take a moment where we can all just think about how can we move forward in the best way possible.

Um, I support what you do.

You are members of our community, and it's so important that you know that we have the best of intentions for our neighborhoods, but at the same time, we're going to be probably, you know, as critical thinking members of the community as possible when it comes to how this impacts our daily lives.

The height of buildings is super important.

I don't think anybody wants a four-story building next to their homes.

Two stories, maybe within reason.

Um, there are opportunities like for Medtronic, where we did see that type of height.

That made sense.

It wasn't right next to homes, for example.

The density of developments, this is a whole nother conversation.

The downtown is extraordinary.

Lafayette's downtown is historic and just really beautiful, and I think we need to support that and make wise decisions as we move forward in how we decide how we build if we build in the downtown area.

The third point, nature and wildlife regulations.

We are a bird city.

Anytime you've been at Wanaka Lake, you you know this.

It is so extraordinary for me every day to hear owls in the in the uh cottonwood trees right outside of my windows.

I see hawks, I see two different types of eagles.

In addition, I'm so fortunate to see just all the people noticing all the time.

They'll say, Oh, did you see the owl?

Oh, yeah, I just did.

And there's new babies.

So I'm thinking about how how old those cottonwoods are, their relationship to the waterways.

We don't have many cottonwoods left, but we do the ones we do, I think we we need to preserve, and that's because we have a relationship to the environment to protect it, as well as the wildlife that lives there.

Sustainability and affordability, this is crucial.

It's so easy to say, oh, it'd be wonderful to come in and develop something, and we'll get this great amount of tax revenue.

The problem is that doesn't always pan out.

We have a downtown right now that we need to support, and we need to make sure that we make the wisest decisions for our community at large, because every time that we sit down with the developer is a great idea.

In the out in actuality, that may not really turn out.

We need to think about what are the tax revenues we're going to be seeing.

Is this sustainable?

What are the risks we are taking by building new projects?

And I know that you guys are being presented with many, many projects at the same time, but it's super important that you're afforded that time making those kinds of decisions.

We're afforded that time as neighbors to make sure we understand what's going to be happening and how we can work together.

Um, the last point I think that is important, I guess, to think about is how can we support you?

When we found out about the rezoning, I attended the open house and I was sadly very disappointed.

The visual boards were confusing.

I didn't really understand what was going on.

I asked lots of questions.

Phil was amazing.

He filled me in on many things, but I do think that I don't know that that presents the best of information.

I know not everybody was able to fill out an online survey, so I'm just wondering how we can make more meetings.

I know that's going to be more work, but how we can do that to make sure that everybody who lives in Lafayette feels that their voice are heard.

I've definitely heard a lot of feedback from neighbors saying I'm not even going to attend the meeting, no one's going to listen.

So I'm hoping to rectify some of that.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from John Williams.

Hi.

Thanks.

I'll keep it brief.

It's the same subject as uh previous folks about uh zoning laws here in Lafayette.

My name's John Williams.

I live also in Anna's Farm at 580 Homestead Street.

And um just want to speak briefly about the strip of land again between our neighborhood and the uh businesses along Aspen Ridge.

So this area is an important part of our neighborhood for all the reasons everybody's already talked about.

It's um includes a walking path along the High Line Lateral Canal.

Uh residents use this every day.

People walk their dogs, kids play, and families spend time there.

It's also a natural buffer between our homes and this commercial area off to the east.

So the trees, uh, the open spaces, the birds are beautiful.

Uh, and the historic Highland Canal is also uh important right there.

It helps maintain a sense of separation and livability from our neighborhood to zone behind it.

So leaving this zoned as commercial and then opening it up for even potentially multi-story development would impact the character of this space.

It would reduce the buffer between residential and commercial uses, and it would affect the quality of life for our nearby residents.

And I respectfully ask that you can consider rezoning Aspen Ridge to neighborhood mixed to use to preserve this balance and protect our neighborhood.

I'm gonna give it a different angle here, and you know, the wildlife is hugely important, but also uh historic resources are important, and the Highland Canal is a historic resource which runs right beside the trail.

And at very least, I feel like we need a professional historian to go out and uh see if this is an eligible resource for the National Register of Historic Places.

So I'll leave you with that, and uh I thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Preston Patton.

Hi, my name is Preston Padden.

I lived at 2389 Indian Peaks Trail, and I just want to speak briefly about the mischaracterization of Indian Peaks Trail and Wanaka Lake Trail as collector roads.

And I do so because it this mischaracterization comes up constantly in our conversations with city staff, and it's not their fault.

None of them were here in 1991 when Indian Peaks was developed.

I don't think anybody on this council was involved in 1991 when Indian Peaks was developed.

But what happened is the city fathers were drooling for a golf course, and the Beaupre family had this big piece of land, and a developer named Tom Hoyt was interested in developing it, and so a three-way deal was made between the Beaupre family, Tom Hoyt, and the city of Lafayette to create the overall development plan, the ODP for Indian Peaks.

And the deal was real simple.

In return for the city giving the developer variances from all kinds of elements of the city code, the Beaupre family would donate the land to the city for the golf course for free.

So that was the deal.

And that's how Indian Peaks Trail and Wanaka Lake Trail came to be sub-collector roads.

They're narrower than the city code requires because that allowed the developer to pack more houses in.

They have tighter curves than the city code allows.

They have shorter sight lines than the city code allows.

And I'll give you two examples of how this comes up.

The first is we have one particularly tight curve near our house where there have been six terrible speeding accidents of cars turning over and rolling over onto the sidewalk.

The last was about a year ago.

A woman was speeding her curves too tight.

You wouldn't allow it under your code, but it was allowed to get a golf course.

And her car rolled over onto the sidewalk and caught on fire.

If there had been a kid on that sidewalk, they would have been dead.

And after that, I met with a member of city staff, a great member of city staff, and I said, could we have some speed bumps here?

Because this is the sixth speeding accident at this tight curve.

And the answer I got was we don't put speed bumps on collector roads.

And I said, it's not a collector road.

It's written in the in the arrangement between the city and the developer that it would be a sub-collector road.

Second example of where it has reared its head is in the uh new zoning plan.

The water bills contained a link to a survey.

I opened the survey, and there, out of all the streets in Lafayette, the survey singled out Indian Peaks Trail and Wanaka Lake Trail.

At one of the outreach meetings, the staff was asked why were these two roads single out of all the roads in Lafayette?

And the answer was, well, they're the roads that everybody knows.

And with respect, I think that's just not true.

I don't know why they were singled out.

But the new zoning code, as you know, calls for uh the opportunity to convert residences into commercial uh businesses on collector roads, and neither of those roads is a collector road.

And so uh I'd be willing to pay to make signs to hang in every city staff office to say Indian Peaks is not a collector road.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

I have no more forms.

Uh is there anyone who did not have the chance to speak that would like to speak?

Ron Spaulding, come on over.

Thank you.

Apologize for being late.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council, Ron Spain 1326, El Radaway, and Lafayette.

Apologize for being late, and I missed a lot of the public comments.

So if I say something somebody said, I apologize for that.

But this will probably be, I want to speak about water, and it's probably the last time I'll speak about water here.

Uh, you know, I've come before you number of times with concerns about uh impacts of the big annexations, major developments here.

I'm not in favor, given extension of Sundar, but that's okay.

It'll pass anyway.

But we all know, and we all read the papers.

We have one of the best, Mr.

Councilman Tim Barnes, who speaks on environment a lot.

And uh, you know, when I'm retired, I have my motorcycle, I drive all around the state.

And like many of you, you look, you see the development area.

Lewisville now is gonna have a new development called Col Creek Village.

I live in Cole Creek Village, right here in Lafayette, and there's a Col Creek Village in Erie.

But that's enough to new one going up.

And uh unrestricted element throughout the whole state.

Dollar lives in down Cherry Creek.

I attended represent her at the meetings down there.

Those who know the Cherry Creek and the development and the shopping center there, there are about 28 major developments going on there.

If you ever drive down here, it's crazy.

Spoke to the uh director of the whole development, asking where are you getting the water from?

Really couldn't answer me, so we go through the city through Denver.

Okay.

We all know the issues.

He's spoken about it here with the reservoir.

You'll be able to build 150 feet more, but you know, it can't fill it yet.

Well, uh reason I'm late is I'm a granddaughter's soccer game at Minor.

They were playing Firestone.

So I'm sitting with a group of people who live in Firestone, and probably many of you know Firestone lost its water supplier several months ago because litigation over 20 years they couldn't get it all figured out.

I'm speaking to this lady, I said, Hey, how are you doing?

I thought she lived in Frederick because they were playing Frederick, but she lived in Cross Town.

She said, I don't know, I'm getting my water and I'm paying my bill, but I don't know what's gonna happen.

So uh, you know, we all know what's going on, and I'm looking in our little microcosm.

My son-in-law and dog and grant and daughter in law invited us to go spring break in Southern California with them.

Free trip, let's go.

Southern California, you all may know nice places, Newport Beach, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach.

I don't live there, but they took me.

Get off the plane, everything's so gorgeous, you know, it's so gorgeous, you know.

We had dinner at one of the friend's house who lives there in Newport Beach, and they're all concerned about what's going on in California in the water.

My buddy in Arizona says, Ron, you're stealing all the water from us.

We haven't got our agreement yet, you know.

So uh I don't know where it's all gonna go, but I'm gonna think for poor little Lafayette.

We have a pretty good water system, we got some storage, and I'm just thinking uh we don't know what's going to happen.

We got the stage one here in all over Erie, Lewisville, Denver, stage one.

Um Mr.

Mike spoke about concerns about that.

Agree 100%.

Uh I think we need to do more for our little city.

I think we'll get through this year, maybe maybe not.

But looking through the future, it's all drying up.

When we flew in during the day from John Wayne Airport to DIA, we're flying, of course.

You know, we're in the the barren eastern part of the state, but flying it, man, whoo.

It's tough.

It's really, really tough.

I'm really concerned, I'm really scared, and uh for everyone, not just me.

And I'm gonna start to think where would I move to in a year or two if it really gets bad?

I'd hate to leave Lafayette and moved out of here to be with everybody.

But I'm really concerned, and uh you all have a lot on your plate, and I know this is a big concern, but we're gonna approve to get the you know, the the process time to send to the state for you know a new water plan and all that, and talked about that.

Where are we all getting where is everybody getting our water?

Where are we getting it?

But for our little Tam, we're doing a good job.

So with that, ladies and Thomas speak to you about where I just had to say it, so I can go on 11.

And I appreciate you listening to me.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh once again, is there anyone who hasn't had the chance to speak who would like to speak?

Not seeing anyone, I'll turn to our city clerk to see if we have any any callers.

No callers.

Okay.

Uh with that, I will close public input.

Thank you all so much.

Uh and we will move on to the consent agenda.

A few items tonight, including item A, March 17, 2026, City Council meeting minutes.

Item B, March 24th, 2026, City Council Workshop Summary.

Item C, second reading for ordinance number seven, series 2026, amending section 115-35, license plates and registration of the court of ordinances to correct an error.

Item D, resolution number 2026-8, approving a grant agreement between the State of Colorado Department for Local Affairs and the City of Lafayette and authorizing acceptance of a grant to update the city's comprehensive plan to include strategic growth and water supply elements required by Senate Bill 24-174.

Item E contract with cutting edge, mowing, trimming, and weed control services.

Item F another contract, independent district engineering services LLC, MS4 program support 2026-2027.

Item G contract uh with RJ N Group Incorporated wastewater collection flow monitoring.

Item H contract uh sub award agreement between the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the City of Lafayette authorizing acceptance of a grant to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and advanced net zero construction and authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement and item I uh change order number four RME uh limited LLC doing business as elite surface infrastructure 2022 citywide street rehabilitation uh for a 2026 renewal.

Are there any items council would like to pull councillor Fredland?

Um nothing to pull, just a question on the mowing contract.

I don't know if now's the right time or after a motion has been seconded.

Which item is this item E.

Yes.

Correct cutting edge.

I'll take uh I'll take a motion and then uh I'll open it up for discussion.

Move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Great.

We have a motion that we have a second, and I understand we have further discussion.

Thank you.

Um just two questions really.

The first one is um around pesticide use.

Um, how is it kind of um laid out in the contract?

Allow do we approve the the compounds that they use?

How do we provide guidance for them?

I'll have our parks open space and golf manager Dennis Warrington answer your questions.

Good evening, counsel.

Um, yes, so there are uh so for the cemetery, and by the way, just seeing the uh public works and um community services parks, like we share that contract, we go in to it together to get a better deal.

Uh even though it's the same company, I believe that the pesticides that they use are gonna be the same relative manner.

But for the cemetery, they use a uh broadleaf compound or a broadleaf application once at the beginning of the year.

Um, and then the other two are a pre-emergent and a non-selective that is used on the medians along baseline west of 287, and um the area right over here is um I can't remember what it's called.

And so you get to see what those compounds are, or they've told you already.

Yes, so they uh they are not like a uh any uh chemical of concern.

Okay, uh all parts and actually all parts, golf and open space.

We have certified applicators through the uh Department of Agriculture, and these contractors are also required to follow all of those same roles and be certified as well to uh for when they use them.

Okay, uh it's typically done very early in the morning and dry, you know, that way they're not gonna be harmful.

It's mostly uh spa treatments that you'll see in the meetings.

Thank you very much.

That's everything, Mr.

Amazing.

Uh any further discussion, Councillor Jensen.

Related to that.

Um my question is about uh the equipment they use and uh whether we have we know I I know lawn equipment can be notoriously heavy emissions, especially if it's not very new.

Um so what can you tell us about?

I personally had an uh a lawn care service that did electric mowers for a while, but they had trouble with them.

And so I know that they're not foolproof, but I wondered uh whether they use any electric equipment or gas or what how does it work?

So all of the uh handheld equipment is going to be electric.

There was a new um state statute passed last year that uh for like five months during the summer.

Anything that was below 10 horse, I believe, uh had to be you couldn't use it or it had to be electric.

Uh all parks and golf have those, and our contractors do too.

In the cemetery, they do use stand-up riding mowers.

I believe those are gas engines.

And do we know how old they are?

I I don't know.

I'm just curious because I understand there's a big difference in the emissions from the older ones to the newer ones.

Just maybe sometime.

I can find out.

Yeah, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Great.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion, Councilor Janola?

Yeah, I just want to talk quickly about um item H, I believe, which is the uh sub-award agreement with Dr.

Cog, and just give a kudo and shout out to uh the planning and sustainability departments uh for their you know adding uh some personnel um to staff, getting you know an award to add personnel to staff to focus on uh building uh energy performance and uh kind of do some doing research into that.

Uh I think that's gonna be a good addition to the staff to uh you know help us with our development and being more sustainable.

Here, here no further discussion, we have a motion, we have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed saying no?

No one opposed that passes unanimously.

We will move on then.

It's a proclamations starting with item J, and for that, I will turn it to Councilor Justin.

I have a proclamation honoring Dolores Huerta, um, who was one of the early founders of United Farm Workers, and many believe the heart and soul of the movement, and so I'm gonna just read it.

Whereas Dolores Clara Huerta was born on April 10th, 1930 in Dawson, New Mexico, was taught by her family the importance of giving back to her community and giving a voice to the voiceless, and is committed to being a tireless advert advocate for working people, and whereas Dolores Huerta found her calling as an organizer while serving in the leadership of the Stockton, California chapter of the community service organization and founded the Agricultural Workers Association, where she set up voter registration drives and pressed local governments for barrio improvements, and whereas Dolores Huerta overcame the many challenges she faced as a woman and remained the most talented negotiator, securing services for farm workers in California in 1963 in the form of aid to families with dependent children and disability insurance and unparalleled feat of the times, and whereas as an activist, educator, and labor leader, Dolores has worked her entire life to improve social and economic conditions for farm workers, is a leader in the fight against discrimination, and is a defender of civil rights, equal rights, and dignity for all.

And whereas Dolores Huerta is one of the most influential labor activists of the 20th century, becoming the first Latina inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame in 1993, and being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States in 2016, while also emerging as an inspiration and guiding light to many generations of women as an early trailblazer, a role model, heroine, a skilled organizer, and a tough negotiator.

And whereas we recognize, honor, and celebrate Dolores Huerta as one of America's greatest greatest champions for agricultural labor rights and social justice, an individual whose lifelong commitment to justice for all and the many trails she paid for generations of activists has made us a stronger, more just and a more prosperous county and community.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the city of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby honor the service, accomplishments, and legacy of Dolores Huerta and encourage all residents to create positive impacts in the community to better the lives of others.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second, any further discussion on this proclamation.

I would just say something very briefly, just with tremendous thanks for Councillor Jensen's words, honoring Dolores Huerta.

I would be remiss if I didn't note that less than a month ago, this council uh unanimously passed a resolution honoring uh proclamation for Cesar Chavez, who apparently at the same day that we passed that proclamation, um, some just horrific news broke.

So I just put on sort of the table for our consideration whether that's something we want to explore down the line, uh, rescinding or revisiting simply since that is currently on the record.

Is that something you want uh council to consider for the future?

Is that what I'm hearing?

I'd support that.

Any other members of council?

Uh discussion on this or discussion on the uh I think we should vote on this and then maybe take that separate.

Sure, absolutely.

Uh, any further discussion on the proclamation for us?

Mayor to Proto.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, as uh as the spouse of someone who made it perfectly clear that Dolores Wertha was the big deal.

Uh I'm just going to point out the Medal of Freedom's no joke.

Um what she's committed to the rights of not just uh farm workers, Latinos, but also women, I think I I'm really proud that we are recognizing that.

And in addition to some of the horrific things that came out about uh Cesar Cesar Chavez, um, some of the how should I see sacrifices that Dolores Huerta made are also incredibly noteworthy uh considering the time and the effort and the commitment uh and the impact to you know this is just progress of our civilization.

So I I really appreciate the fact that um we have the opportunity to recognize her commitment, her sacrifice and her contribution.

Uh and uh I just wanted to put that out there that um it's really important to me that we uh personally that we uh recognize Dolores Huerta's contributions.

Any further discussion from any other counselors see no others, I will uh take just a second to speak on this.

I'll actually do two things.

It sounds like the majority of council uh is in agreement, so I'll just turn it to staff just for a future meeting, uh, just at the feasibility of bringing back the other proclamation.

Um, but I will leave that to you all.

Uh we certainly don't want to vote on that or speak to that tonight.

Um, but for this proclamation before us, um, the last time uh we spoke about Dolores Huerta, you and I, because we understand the same thing, which is that the powerhouse was Dolores Huerta.

Uh, there's there's so much history there, and there's so much for me personally, right?

I'm Latino, I'm Chicano, I was I was born in this country to parents who worked in those fields, uh, to parents who who worked in those farms.

So it's just incredibly incredibly important to me that that we're honoring such an incredible fighter, someone who keeps fighting today, one of the bravest people, one of the strongest uh activists that our community has.

So I'm very very honored to pass this proclamation.

And with that, seeing no further discussion, um, we have a motion, we have a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say no.

No one opposed, that passes unanimously.

Moving on to our next proclamation item K, I'm gonna look over to Councillor Gallegos.

So this is a proclamation for National Library Week.

And as the liaison to the library board, I'm very happy to read this one in.

So, whereas public libraries serve as vibrant community hubs, connecting people with knowledge, technology, and other resources while fostering civic engagement, critical thinking, and cultural enrichment.

And whereas libraries provide free and equitable access to books, digital tools, and community programming, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of background have access to resources to learn, connect, and thrive.

And whereas public libraries partner with schools, businesses, and community organizations to maximize resources, increase efficiency, and expend access to essential information services, strengthening the entire community, and whereas libraries empower job seekers, entrepreneurs, and lifelong learners by providing access to resources, training, and opportunities that support career growth and economic success.

And whereas libraries nurture young minds through story time, STEM programs, and literacy initiatives, fostering curiosity and a love of learning that last a lifetime.

And whereas libraries protect the right to read, think and explore without censorship, standing as championships of intellectual freedom and free expression for all people, and whereas dedicated professional librarians and library workers provide welcoming spaces that inspire discovery, collaboration, and creativity for all, and whereas libraries, librarians and library workers across the country are joining together to celebrate National Library Week with the theme, find your joy.

Now therefore the mayor and city council of the city of Lafayette, Colorado.

Do you hereby declare the week of April 19th through 25th 2026 as National Library Week in Lafayette, Colorado?

We encourage all residents to visit our Lafayette Public Library, explore its resources, and celebrate all the ways that the city's library services help our community find joy.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Do we have any further discussion on this proclamation?

Council Gallegos.

So I have always been very impressed with our library.

When I first moved here 11 years ago, I didn't have a lot of money.

And I was always looking for fun things to do with my son, and it was story time.

And that was an incredible experience to have the opportunity to network with other families from the community while he was also receiving the elements of literacy instruction and bubbles.

I love our bubbles.

So you know that shift from libraries are not only a place where you go to get a book, but it's also a part of our community.

And I'm so impressed with Director Heizel and the whole library team here and everything they do each day.

Thank you.

Any other members of council.

Councilor Janello.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I also want to acknowledge our public library.

It's a great place for those of you who don't have library cards.

Encourage everyone to go get their library card.

The library has a lot of good resources.

It's a great place.

I I thank our city, our staff, and our our predecessor councils for uh all their work to get the library into the condition that it is and provide the funding that it's needed to become such a great place.

Correct.

Uh any other counselors?

Mayor Proton.

What's somebody else?

Okay.

Um I guess I'm kind of fired up tonight.

Uh I don't even know where to start.

Our library is one of the one of the parts of our community, I think, that makes this a great city.

Um we heard from a former uh library board member.

I was lucky enough to be the council liaison to our library board, and I thought to myself when I first met them, like, oh, they don't need any help, they're good, they're good, they got this nailed.

Um and I've always uh respected what librarians provide to our community.

Um in times of adversity, I feel that librarians are the substance that will continue to support everyone, and our library is the incarnate of that.

Uh, I I see people who need a place being able to go to the library right through COVID.

Uh somehow Meals on Wheels got food there for people who needed food.

Uh, and the library staff.

I do remember the library board um when we shut all of the facilities down during COVID, the biggest issue the library board was said was like, how do we get this back open?

I know residents that the whole board was like, we know people need us, and how do we get this open?

That was their major concern.

They're like, well, how long is it gonna take?

How do we get open?

What do we have to do?

And Director Heisel was like, just hold on, we'll figure this out and we're gonna get it done.

And they did.

And uh I know there's a huge concern about drought and all of the things that are happening around us.

Uh there's a lot of talk about resilience hubs, even if the library isn't a resilience hub, it's a community resilience hub.

We I keep looking at the uh DC fast charters out there thinking, like, this is awesome.

Uh, we've got so that library provides so much for us, and I I really hope that we are able to expand it because what it offers right now is extraordinary, and what it continues to the potential that it still has uh and the trust that people have in that I've heard from members of our community that one of the places that they trust is our library.

So uh, if you don't know about our library, uh please spend as much time um noticing what happens there and how it contributes to our community because I think it's one of those when we we talk about what makes Lafayette great, our library is one of those pieces, always has from my experience, always has been.

Our library is one of those pieces, always has from my experience, always has been.

I feel like it can well always will.

So I I can't say enough about librarians, libraries, and ours in particular.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Council Jetson.

I just want to say I spent a good portion of my career working as an advocate for people who were survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence.

And when home is not safe, the library is, and you as a child can learn about what appropriate behavior is when you don't know that from home.

And so it's really a public safety issue in many ways for people who are different or experiencing something that is not safe to be able to go to library.

And I I know many people don't think of the library as a safe place, but I also think about librarians throughout the country who have spoken up against censorship and against uh any efforts to limit freedom of speech and writing, and so I I agree with everything that everybody else has said, and I do believe our library is exceptional.

Um I can't tell you how many community meetings I go to there and just how um how important it is as a place where people feel safe and thank you.

Amazing.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Uh not seeing any further discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed saying no?

No one opposed.

That passes unanimously.

Moving on to item L.

I will move over to Council Fridland.

This one's mine, National Volunteer Week, April 19th through the 25th, 2026.

Whereas volunteerism plays a crucial role in addressing the needs of our community and enhances the quality of life for residents while fostering a spirit of collaboration and connection.

And whereas during National Volunteer Week, we honor the individuals and groups who dedicate valuable time to service, strengthening our Lafayette community, and whereas the spirit of volunteerism and demonstrating traits such as kindness, compassion, and commitment, drives volunteers to uplift others, helps address critical needs, and creates lasting positive change.

And whereas the City of Lafayette thrives because of the generous contributions of volunteers of all ages whose efforts support Art Night Out and other community events, our public library and open spaces, as well as those who serve on advisory boards, commissions, and committees, and others who volunteer in community nonprofits, religious organizations, and in our schools whose contributions help protect the environment, teach, help relieve hunger and social isolation, strengthen families, and care for the vulnerable.

Now, therefore, the mayor and this and city council for the city of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare the week of April 19th through the 25th, 2026 as National Volunteer Week in Lafayette, Colorado, and call upon all residents to celebrate and thank the volunteers in our community and to find opportunities to serve and make our community a better place to live.

So moved.

Second.

Great.

We have a motion, we have a second on National Volunteer Week.

Any further discussion from council?

Council Fridlund.

Um yeah, I this one's uh an important one for me.

I'm an Eagle Scout, so volunteering was important to get those credits.

Thank you to everybody who helped me with my project back in the day.

Um I'm also on way too many nonprofit boards, so that's good too.

So no, I find it very fulfilling.

Um, and I couldn't imagine my life without volunteering, so I really do um appreciate having the opportunity to give back to my community and to all the other people in our community who do the same.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Gayers.

And I just wanted to say it makes me so happy to see so many different volunteer opportunities here in the city.

Um, my son last year volunteered through the youth service squad.

My daughter has volunteered the past several years with the library.

She loves the reading buddies program, and it's kind of sad that it's her last year because she's graduating.

But it just makes me so happy to see so many people volunteering in different capacities everywhere.

Councilor Janola.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll just say volunteers rock.

Thank you to all of our volunteers.

Mr.

Folio.

I would just briefly say, having been in Lafayette for about four years now, which is less than a lot of folks in this room.

As a member of the community, you see Art Night Out, you see different uh different things underway in the community and know that volunteers make it up.

But there's one thing about being up on the dice for the past couple months and getting to know all the boards and commissions that our community members participate in.

And we heard from Miss Abigail from from the youth advisory board earlier this evening.

And it's just so striking.

We have a legion of community residents who volunteer their time and energy and recruit others.

And that's just been a truly remarkable and rewarding thing to experience from this side rather than just kind of being out of the community.

So just very great, very grateful for all of them.

Any other counselor?

Mayor Pro Town.

Um I can't not.

So as a Navy veterans, uh I don't know if you know, but Navy actually stands for Never Again Volunteer Yourself.

But I kept doing it because you know public service is always been a big piece of my family.

Uh my father was an Air Force um veteran, uh, his cousin, his cousins, his brothers, his his uh uncles.

We have a long list of uh people who served in the military and nurses and teachers.

Uh and I know they're getting paid, but if you know if you know any nurses, teachers, or military people, uh I'm not sure it's the money that's doing it, they're doing it because of their uh their respect for service.

Uh my mother drove from Colorado Springs to Parachute, Colorado to help children deal with the um drug addiction issues uh that they were experiencing.

And this is long before any new parachute was something that you didn't stuff in a bag.

Uh but it's a place, right in Colorado.

Um I I feel like it's super important to recognize the commitment that volunteers make.

Um that is extraordinary and exceptional.

And uh my hats off to everyone who does volunteer because you know that shows love of uh life and commitment to your community.

So thank you, everyone who does volunteer.

Amazing.

We have a motion, we have a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Anyone opposed saying no?

No one opposed, that passes unanimously.

And our final proclamation of the night, I will turn it over to our mayor pro town.

Here we go again, everybody.

So this is National Poetry Month.

Uh and announcing the 2026, 2028 Lafayette Poet Laureate here in April uh 2026.

Whereas the Academy of American Poets established the month of April as National Poetry Month in 1996, and whereas National Poetry Month seeks to uh highlight the extraordinary legacy and ongoing achievements of American poets, bring poets and poetry to the public in immediate and innovative ways, and make poetry an important part of children's education.

And whereas poetry enhances and enriches the enriches the lives of all Americans and serves as it as an essential part of the arts and the humanities, whereas poetry affects every aspect of American of life in America today, including education, the economy, and community pride and development.

And whereas poetry has produced some of the nation's leading creative artists and inspired other artists in fields such as music, theater, film, dance, and the visual arts.

And whereas recognizing the importance of poetry to Lafayette's cultural landscape, the city of Lafayette designates an honorary poet laureate for a two-year term, who's recommended following a competitive application process by a selection committee with representation from the city's arts and cultural resources department and cultural arts board.

Now, therefore, the mayor and the city council of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare April 26th as National Poetry Month, and urge public officials, educators, librarians, and all the people of Lafayette to observe this month to celebrate the cultural riches of our community, uh, has to offer and to recognize the important role of poetry in creating and sustaining this great nation.

With appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs, so be it.

Second.

Thank you for watching.

Oh, the mayor in the city I forgot some the mayor in the city council further declare that Michelle Baptiste.

Oh my, this is the good stuff.

Um Michelle Baptiste shelby Lafayette's poet poet laureate for a term beginning April 7th, 2026, and ending March 31st, 2028.

So be it.

Um we have a motion.

We have a second.

Uh I'm gonna open it to council for discussion on this one, and I will just say we will have a short presentation after we vote.

Any member of council want to start?

Um I'll jump in real quick um with thank you, Mayor Pro Tem for getting me.

Uh I'm a contagious crier.

Um I've had the privilege for the past few months of working with the the Lafayette Cultural Arts Board uh and and Rachel Hansen, and I've just been so tremendously impressed with with this team of volunteers, coming back to our previous proclamation.

And I've just been so tremendously impressed with this team of volunteers, coming back to our previous proclamation.

I'm so excited for everyone to meet our new poet laureate.

I know there was a tremendous amount of energy and thought and care that went into all the folks who put their that threw their hats in the ring and and into the team that did the interviews.

So I'm just really excited for everyone to get to experience this.

Counselor Johnson.

So I'm a Unitarian Universalist, which means we do a lot of poetry instead of prayer in our worship.

And it means a lot to me, and in my opinion, it's truly a spiritual practice.

And I just want to say thank you to anybody who's involved in it in any way.

And look out world, because Michelle's coming.

Any other members of Council?

Councillor Fridland.

We talked about Z Base Speaks, the power, the impact, the legacy that they've had.

Also the late Andrea Gibson, our color.

I mean, this is an important role.

So just I'm excited.

So welcome.

Can't wait to see what your legacy is gonna be.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Do you want to speak there?

I do, I got it together.

Yeah.

Gonna be choked out there for a second.

So I just want to say that poetry, people ask, like, what do we do in tough times?

Poetry is one of those ways that we can communicate the difficulties around us and make it accessible to everyone.

Uh my so my sister is the interpretive coach for Fairview High School.

Uh, and she won't tell you this, but when we were in high school, we competed in forensics and she did interpretation of poetry, qualified for the national forensics lead tournament in drama, got aced out in the first rounds, and then went into the the consolation event poetry and got sixth in the nation.

Um it's always been part of our lives.

Um of you probably know of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

Um Casey Lyons, who is you know, runs Friends of the Cole Creek.

Uh, was I was going on one of their walks around Wanaka Lake, and he broke into a poem that he had from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow that he had memorized.

And it was it really put Lafayette Wanaka Lake and and you know, our commitment to other uh the others around us in context for me and made a connection with the environment we're in that I never would have realized without him being able to spontaneously bring in that connection to us.

Um I grew up with I know why the cage bird sings.

If you don't know that one, you might check that one out.

Um these are things that I I think in uh when we are down when we're up, when we're challenged, poetry can bring us forward.

And I and I I know everybody at the ACRD at Lafayette Cultural Arts Board are like we hear you, I know.

Yeah, I'm doing it again, and I I think this is what we lean in, lean on right now is the poetry in our community because it's gonna keep us together.

Uh it's gonna get us through hard times.

We we can do this.

It's the one piece that I don't I can't stress enough is we have got to uh lean into the arts.

Uh and poetry is one of those things you can't say no to.

It just happened.

So live with it.

Uh I can't wait for the next round of poetry in Z Base.

Oh my gosh.

Love them to have in Michelle.

So excited you're interested in this.

I love live with it.

I love it.

Uh I'll be really, really short.

Uh, I'm very, very excited about this.

I know what this program entails at the state level, and I love that we have it here at the city.

It's such such an incredible program.

And like you said, we should lean into the arts.

I believe that uh fulfilled.

So I'm very excited, and of course, I'd be remiss not to speak about Z Base Speaks.

Uh Z is a friend, and they've done such an incredible job.

Uh there, but I'm really really excited to see what Michelle has for us going forward.

Um, so we have a motion, we have a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Say no.

No one opposed, that passes unanimously, and I will uh pass it over to Rachel Hansen.

Hi, I have a short, short presentation for you.

Good evening, Mayor and Counselors.

I'm really excited to be here tonight.

As we load.

Great.

I'm excited to be here tonight to celebrate poetry because it's such an important part of arts and culture and our um lovely community.

Lafayette has a poet laureate because it supports several of your strategic outcomes, sense of place, and creating a safe, welcoming, and inclusive community.

We celebrate poetry in April, National Poetry Month, but we also celebrate poetry all year long, and we hope to inspire writers of all ages and have a creative voice that represents Lafayette.

Our poet laureate history is a bit longer than you might know.

In 1947, Allie Flint was recognized as the first poet laureate of Lafayette.

She had a column in the Lafayette paper on a weekly basis, and she served that role from 1947 to 1964 when she passed.

We brought back the Poet Laureate program in 2022 as part of the Lafayette Cultural Arts Board programming, and Z Bay Speaks was selected.

Zee served two consecutive terms.

His most recent term just ended.

The process which was touched on a little bit is that the poet holds a two-year term.

The Lafayette Cultural Arts Board selects the poets through recommendations of a subcommittee, which includes members of their own board and members of the local poet community also.

The subcommittee reviewed four amazing applications, professional poets who live in our community.

And at the March meeting, LCAB appointed Michelle Batiste as the new poet laureate, and tonight we honor her through your proclamation.

So I would like to introduce, um, say a few words to introduce Michelle.

Michelle is the author of four books of poems and an oracle deck, including Waiting for the Wreck to Burn, which won the Louise Bogan Award for Artistic Merit and Excellence, and the Elsewhere Oracle.

Michelle's work has appeared widely, including the American Poetry Review, the American Book Review, The Rumpus, and Women's Studies Quarterly.

Other honors include awards, fellowships, and residences from AWP, the Center for American West, and the Virginia Center for Creative Arts.

She has lived in Lafayette for 13 years and works for the major conservancy, raising money to save the planet.

And now, Michelle Batiste.

Maybe thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council.

It is an honor for me to be Lafayette's poet laureate.

Seabass has left some very big and wonderful shoes to fill.

I am I am honored because and I am joyous because I am able to combine two very big loves of my life in this position.

My love of our city and my love of poetry.

And Councilwoman Jensen, when you made the connection between poetry and prayer, I totally got it.

Because what does prayer do, but try to bring into reality what we need and what we want and what is good for us.

And I feel like poetry does the same thing.

And it is, in addition to being an occasional poem, right?

A poem written for a specific occasion.

It is an acrostic poem, which is the poem written in response to a piece of art.

And so there's a photo on the screen.

And this was taken by Ted Floyd, who is one of the preeminent birders in North America and lives right here in Lafayette.

And I was there the day he took this photo.

I was out walking around Wanaka Lake, and it was beautiful, and it was crowded with people because it was a beautiful day.

And in the middle of the day, out walks this coyote onto the ice.

And everybody just sort of stood there in awe and wonderment.

And I think a state of being that I tried to achieve with poems.

I think the other funny thing is that when Ted shared this photo, he said, check out the green winged teal.

That was it.

I was like, dude, you buried the headline.

And still.

A coyote walks onto the half-frozen waters of Wanaka Lake, and the winter sun, as startled as the people circling the shoreline, pauses its slow creep behind the mountain and stairs.

Its last gasp light, slanted and golden clings to the animal's coat, turning her form to treasure.

Tempting, maybe, to imagine a time when wild things wandered, a landscape not staked or claimed or platted or mined before playground and parking lot, frisbee golf, and the thwok, thwok, thwok of pickleballs.

Just shh the sousera wind drifting across endless plain.

First people's footsteps, breaking tall, brittle brasses, and a coyote walks onto the half-frozen lake.

But the past won't behave, refuses to humor our longing for a landscape that did not exist, and insists that the lake, like history, is man-made.

A spring dammed in 1865 for thirsty farmland and a coyote walks onto the ice.

The lake soon, wider, deeper, the keeper of water needed to steampower a plant, electrifying the night, and again a coyote walks onto the ice, and it's easy to imagine pinpricks of luminescence pushing back the darkness from Longmont to Denver, the strength to sustain candescence moored on the south shore of the lake, our lake.

Its waters half frozen.

Tempting to forget the men who hauled coal from beneath our town to feed the plant, its power, the progress, our radiance we can't deny, and it's beautiful, our history, ugly too.

What we claimed, those we exploited, excluded, the slab piles left behind.

Or are they a monument to what we must remember?

And still, a green winged teal drifts the surface, unaware of danger behind him, not thinking of what comes next.

A sun golden coyote walks onto the half-frozen waters of Wanaka Lake like it belongs there, like it did before, like it will, again, like it will outlast the boat house and pavilions and people circling the shoreline, staring in wonder as the sun slips at last behind the mountain.

The past howls.

The now listens.

The future begins to sing.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And because tonight we passed a proclamation, I think would it be okay if we took a picture with you?

Come on up, and we'll take the picture.

Take this out of the way.

But only because the poem was really good.

Oh, sorry.

That's what I clear.

It's on the left girls on the right.

Thank you.

Thank you for being with us.

Great.

And that concludes our proclamations for the night, and we will move on to presentations.

Starting with item N, a land use code update.

And I will turn it over to a Phil Kleiser.

Process wise, should we told our questions till the end?

Just gonna hang out until you hand it over.

Thank you all.

This is pulling up.

Phil Kleisler with the city's planning and building department.

Thank you very much for your time there, members of council, members of the community.

So we've hired uh Clarin Associates to help us through this process of rewriting our development code and uh today, um, tonight.

Um Elizabeth Garvin with Claring Associates will be having this presentation and answering all the hard questions uh that we get this evening.

Um the uh recommended agenda would include a brief introduction that we'll provide as staff.

Um Elizabeth will then provide council with the overall summary of kind of where we are in the code and what's still left to do, and she'll also go through some um additional materials that was recently related uh released relating to form-based code.

We'll take a pause for questions uh for Elizabeth, uh, and then we'll get into the second part of this presentation, which is community engagement and key issues, uh and wrap up with just a few um uh comments on next steps.

Uh the primary two objectives this evening is to generally just get council up to speed on where we are in the project and what to expect moving forward, and to get your direction on three uh specific policy issues uh relating to uh missing middle housing, uh, neighborhoods serving commercial uh and building height incentives.

The next few slides council has seen uh once before, but we wanted to uh do it as a refresher and for those newer to the project who are here this evening.

Uh this uh project overall is a implementation effort of the Legacy Lafayette Comprehensive Plan.

So that plan uh sets a vision for the community over the next 20 years, uh and it also sets um and influences a lot of different city decisions, such as budgeting, capital improvements, strategic planning, as well as regulations, uh, which is the topic this evening.

Uh the project goals uh include implementing the comprehensive plan, uh making the new ensuring that the new code is user-friendly, we have more predictable uh development outcomes, and uh we right size the development review process.

Uh looking back, we adopted the comprehensive plan back in 2021.

Uh since then, we've adopted several other city plans, including the economic development and housing strategic plan, uh the multimodal transportation plan, as well as the wildlife and climate action plan.

So in addition to implementing the comprehensive plan, we're also looking to implement the goals of those other adopted city plans.

Uh the project formally kicked off in 2022, uh, and we had a pause in the middle uh time time frame of this project timeline, uh, and then we kicked off the project um in earnest in 2024.

Since then, we've had several touch points with council, including a touch point in January along the way as we've developed the code into three into through three different phases.

Uh and so that's just some brief background, and I'm gonna go ahead and uh hand it over to Elizabeth to take it on here.

Okay, good evening, everyone.

It's really hard to come after original poetry.

I'm sorry.

We have lots of words, they just have no uh rhyme rhythm to them.

So we have some reason.

Okay, so the land use code, and as Phil pointed out, um, we caught up in January.

So here we are in early April.

We um have um a full code put together, and we've actually had a full code put together and posted for public review since October.

Um we continue to think about it, to talk about it, to take input, to do work in group meetings, to make sure that we're revising it to the place where it needs to be to implement legacy Lafayette.

Um so at this point in time we have um kind of two content categories that we're still um working to formalize, and that's the um natural resource protections um and finishing up the form-based code edits, and then we are um working through a set of staff and community member comments because that draft has been posted and people have been able to comment on it.

So we have also posted um a proposed conversion map.

Um, and so what what this map is, and it's on the project website, is um it's a before and after map of existing zoning and how that converts into the new zoning.

Um so there are um a few rules um that we follow as we're doing zoning conversion map.

Um and if you know sometime tomorrow you're like, oh, what's a conversion map?

It's actually interactive, it has a little slider on it, so you can go from current to proposed and check little uh properties to figure out where everybody is.

Um we do we do two things.

We look at where there's existing zoning that is on the current map and that is in conformance with comprehensive plan.

And we convert that from existing districts to new districts.

So a lot of the neighborhood districts that's the zoning conversion that you're gonna see.

And then there are a few places where Legacy Lafayette has recommended changes and in terms of zoning and so the the one that pops out most easily here is the is the red and that is conversion to the adaptable commercial and so that's the adaptable commercial mixed use form based district that we'll talk about in a few minutes here.

So some of those updates and we we kind of focused on the um the transition from that what could be M1 manufacturing now that we recommended as adaptable mixed use to in the future over a across Aspen Ridge I believe is the road to the residential so you there are some changes here in compliance with the plan and we're happy to hear the comments coming in from the community sometimes seeing the changes on the map help people understand the application of the code.

So that's one of the reasons we want to get that out so everyone could take a look at it.

So kind of moving into just a refresher on the form-based districts and so there is some difference between a traditional zoning district and a form based district and you know we've been asked why um why do we do the two different kinds in one code um apart from how fun it is but the the form based districts are intended to speak to something the city wants to see which is an intentional mix of elements in future design in future development and in back to the map so you've asked to see you've adopted policy and the city wants to see this intentional mix in those adaptable commercial areas so the brighter and deeper red in old town mixed use kind of shows up in yellow and salmon on this map it's a little light and we'll talk about that a little more in a minute and then in future neighborhoods which are not mapped.

And so in talking about what the plan calls for in terms of integrating the different pieces of development and essentially that's an intentional mix of land uses so could be some retail some employment some residential that's building in community amenities and civic spaces and we'll talk about the difference between civic spaces and open space in in a minute here but it is all together a way for the community to have those vibrant public spaces incorporating making sure that we're getting the elements of the street layout and how does new or redevelopment interface with existing development making sure that we're building in walkability how how do people walk how far do they walk what will they walk to and green connections so walkability is not necessarily pavement and can also be green spaces making sure that we're putting in opportunities for active active public realm um which sounds more jargony when I'm standing here than when I type it on the slide but that's places where we um we can get out and we can you know do something as simple as playing cornhole or do something more you know more intense like we could do a community festival of some sort um and so how do we have that take place within the community and then more specificity about site and structure design in order to place the rules in place to have all of these pieces come together.

So that's big picture and about why we're doing form based and why we're only doing it for parts of the city.

Other parts of the city the the way that development is going there are there are the full pieces of development in different locations that don't all have to come together on a site or in an area and so we'll follow the approach that the community's been using so spend another minute linking us back to the plan to legacy Lafayette if you if you go through the plan and read through to the individual areas that there are call outs in the plan for what the plan is looking for and when I say what the plan is looking for I'm saying what the community is looking for.

This is the you know adopted policy of Lafayette and so in going through that process these were some of the things built into the plan that we are reflecting through the code.

So when new neighborhoods are built in Lafayette they should be walkable and they should have areas where there's a main street and it should be mixed use depending on the size of the neighborhood.

There should also be clear transitions to adjacent development.

So we don't want you know something bigger looming over something smaller.

We want that to transition over space.

The comp plan describes that as creative, diverse, and eclectic.

And we want to make sure that we're looking at importantly redevelopment at the scale that fits old town.

So that's what we're looking for in these regulations.

And then finally, in the adaptable mixed use, this is where we're going to see that redevelopment over time.

We spent some time talking about this in January.

What does it mean if a big box site redevelops into more of a neighborhood development or mixed use development?

So, how are we adding residential purposefully to commercial areas?

Where are we looking at kind of those easy wins?

So, like if we have an area where there's more parking than we need, can we start converting that into something else?

Can that be pad sites?

Can that be residential development?

And then how are we building in the connections that can make this feel more like a neighborhood?

So as we do this work of updating the land use code, we take our cues from the plan, and we wanted to be pretty explicit about how we take cues from the plan.

So we also wanted to touch on the process, which is um is been a discussion.

This is this is kind of a new way to do development in the city.

And so we wanted to make sure that we were coming up with a process that is specific to Lafayette.

There is not actually a this is the right process for form-based codes.

Different communities do it differently.

So one of the first form-based codes that was adopted was the city of Miami.

As you can imagine, they're going to have a way different process than Lafayette does.

We want to scale it and size it properly.

Um, we also wanted to take into consideration feedback that we were getting from working group about who gets to participate in the discussions and when do they get to participate?

And then we needed to take into account um Colorado law around rezoning, and we needed to talk to legal about that.

Um, you know, what takes place when, what needs to be approved by whom, um, and how are we following that path?

So um the way that we have this drafted is that um first the property is rezoned or zoned, just like everybody else regular zoning rezoning.

Um so some of this will be rezoned as part of the land use code update.

So we looked at those on the map a minute ago.

As new development, new neighborhood development comes in.

Since we don't know exactly where that's gonna be or how it will trigger the regulations, that would get rezoned as part of the annexation process.

So that would all be part of okay, you've decided to bring something into the city, what's the zoning going to be?

If it's gonna be primarily neighborhood development, then it's probably gonna be farm-based neighborhood for that.

So that will sit on the code until the time comes to apply it.

It's waiting.

So then we move into a regulating plan.

So this is going to be the new step.

And um, a regulating plan, I hope they're all this pretty when they make it to you, just as colorful as this.

Um and I'm only joking around because I know that sometimes we see black and white plans with a lot of words on them, and I like a little bit of color in my day.

So this is a sample regulating plan.

What uh planning commission will see and what city council will see are um the areas.

Um, so let's say it's a larger development, so you're gonna see the street layout and the streets and sidewalks, basic infrastructure.

You're gonna see um in a form-based neighborhood what kind of houses will go where.

You may remember that we've built in a magic mix to that.

So it won't be, you know, if it's a large development, it won't necessarily be completely homogenous of single family home, single family home, single-family home.

There are some triggers in there for requiring a mix.

So on this one, you can see like um some of the darker purples might be townhomes, some of the lighter purples might be single family.

This is obviously from another community, but it's to give you the idea of what's going on here.

Um, and so you know, we've got um a certain sort of um density and intensity taking place along the major streets, and so you'll get to see that.

Um, then um, I'm trying to think of the list we put together.

So it's the streets, the blocks, the um that types of development, the building type.

Um, so you'll get to see all of that.

And when I say you'll get to see it, it will be on this document, and the document becomes a regulating document.

So it becomes a controlling document for the development.

Um so what we anticipate is a regulating plan for large development will come in probably concurrently with subdivision.

Um so you'll see a full layout and you'll see a regulating plan.

For someone that has a smaller lot that may not be doing subdivision, then you'll just see the regulating plan.

This is what's going to happen.

This is the building.

Here's where the civic spaces are going to go.

So you'll see that.

Some of these developments will also have open space.

So the typical city version of you're going to dedicate some property and we're going to make a park out of it, open space.

We're not going to make a park out of it.

We're going to do some things with it.

It's but it's going to become city property.

Okay.

And we're going to have fun in this space, or birds are going to have fun in this space, depending on what it does.

So some applications might have both open space and civic space, depending on what they're doing.

So that all comes through council, the zoning, the regulating plan, and the subdivision through planning commission through council.

The last piece that's left is site plan.

And the way we have this drafted now is that site plan goes through staff.

It goes through staff because the regulations in the form-based districts are far more specific than the regular districts.

They are you're doing this house, it has this dimension, your lot has this dimension.

Council has signed off on what this is going to be.

And so what we're talking about as we get to site plan is, you know, perhaps do we need to like maybe move around a French type for some reason, or do we need to make sure that what's coming through is completely aligned with the subdivision that was approved.

But you know, at this point in time, an applicant has spent a lot of time and effort moving the project forward.

There's significant investment in those first three pieces that have come through.

And so we think just as a matter of making sure that they have they have complied with the code, sending that through staff is appropriate.

Um, you know, at that point in time.

So that's how it's set up.

So everybody knows this is the um this is the process.

It can shorten up for smaller projects, and there may not be subdivision, the regulating plan might be hey, there's nothing else we can do here, so please bring us in this building that works on South Public.

Um so that's that's kind of the um the drill down into specificity on the process.

So just as a reminder, um, so we have the form-based neighborhood districts, talked about this for a second, and these are going to be really new neighborhoods as the property um comes in to Lafayette.

If it is big enough, it it should have a mixed use center.

So mixed use center for anyone who's um staring at me going what you're talking about, is um can be some commercial, could be retail, could be your pharmacy, your beauty salon, barbershop, doggy daycare, whatever you want there, can also have some residential mixed into it.

There may be some streets that the city decides are a main street, and that might be then residential with that first floor commercial.

Um, so that that would be kind of appropriate there.

So then we've got the old town mixed use districts.

Um, so we we have been working on mapping this, and and this is one place that I um flagged in the slide earlier where we're still making some adjustments.

Um particularly um what we might see changed is those properties south of baseline are definitely um commercial, they're core and yet they're a little different.

The development that we have taking place there in what you might see as development or redevelopment over time.

And so the discussion we're having right now is does the old town mixed corridor district cover that?

Do we need to make some adjustments to it?

And we're doing a little testing with some of the properties, just some sketch testing, like, hey, what could happen here?

And do these regulations work?

Um, similar issue with kind of the um when you get to Emma and go south of Emma, um, looking at those are larger lots, and we may not see the same sort of cohesive development that we see on North and South Public or even on uh East Simpson.

And so we're all we're adjusting based on lot size, based on structures that are there, um trying to figure out um what the best mix is here.

Um, and I think we'll have that done uh probably in the next week or so.

So it would not be, you know, it would not be a rolling up of this, it would be another layer of detail to make sure that we're not boxing out anybody who all of a sudden would you know be called old town mixed core one, and they're like, hey, we just can't do this on this site, that's not reasonable.

And so we're trying to take into account what's on the ground with that.

Um, in the adaptable mixed use, and I'm sorry, that was so excited about this, I jumped to it early.

Um, but on this map, same map, but I put the circles on it.

So, in case you couldn't see the reds earlier, here they are.

Um, same thing here the adaptable mixed use center, adaptable mixed use corridor.

After the really good discussion we had in January, um, we've been refining this, trying to figure out how that redevelopment takes place over time or how new development takes place within these areas.

There is a little bit of property that could get new development on it.

Um, and then taking into account some of the um comments.

We've also been thinking about what is a transition look like some of these properties about residential, um, and so how do we make it um so that as they develop or redevelop over time they're taking into account what the neighbors are up to, um, which also I wanted to point out um just it crossed my mind earlier, and we probably talked about this a long time ago, but the code has transition standards in it, um, not just for form-based, but also for when you have um commercial or some commercial going on next to residential, um, because that they're not well, they can live together nicely, they're not always great neighbors just from a design perspective.

So there is a section in the code that says, okay, if you're commercial next to residential, we might push you back a little bit.

We might bring that side of the building down a little bit, so it doesn't feel um like the commercial is overshadowing, overshadowing, overshadowing what's going on with the residential.

So I wanted to point that out.

If you get a time in your review, you can find that in there, or staff can help you take a look at that.

That is something the code takes into account.

That's it.

Kind of um kind of a refresher and an update.

Um, you know, want to let you know that we are kind of deeply into making um staff's um changes that they've requested.

We have staff changes, we have some changes from conveyo from our public facing version of the document.

Um we've gotten some more comments from our working group members, which is great.

Um I think that's the entirety of it.

But um, we're looking you know for more if you guys have um genius ideas that you want to throw in, or even mediocre ideas that you want to throw in.

We'll take that.

Um, just want to make sure that that it is a document that reflects the plan and reflects the best way to move forward for Lafayette.

Thank you so much.

So we're gonna move into the community engagement summary and then ultimately to make the decisions on the three things that are outlined for us.

But right now, uh just opening it up for council.

Do we have any questions?

Councillor Chadello?

Councilor Jetson.

You raised your hand.

At the very beginning, you should you showed the map that you said you could use it to compare what's been proposed to what used to be.

We didn't have that in our packet before this meeting, so we didn't have the that that map at that point.

So would you tell me how that works?

Like if I if I see that map and I want to pick a spot and figure out what used to be there, how do I do that?

So and I didn't post it, and I'm asking Phil if he has anything he wants to offer to this conversation because I am older than mapping technology.

However, um, so it should have um a s a slider on it, which should have like a little circle in the middle and then lines, and you should be able to pull that across the map and the colors will change, showing you before and after.

Can you I'm older than you, so I don't know.

You and I maybe need to get a beer and sit down with the website and see if we can figure it out.

We can we can share that with council following this meeting.

I think it came after the package.

And it could be that it's just an iPad thing too, and I need a real computer to do it.

Okay, I just wanted to be able to do that.

Um next question.

Yeah.

Did you deal with property that is not currently in the city of Lafayette, but is in our urban growth boundary at all?

No, we can't zone um things that are not within city boundaries.

Well, I know you can't, but did you talk about it at all, or is it was it just off the table completely?

Well, so the biggest discussion about that would definitely be the form-based neighborhoods, what happens when property is brought into the city.

Um, but across all of the zoning districts, the the goal is to create um districts that are vibrant enough to account for the future in Lafayette.

So as we would read the plan, we I mean, we certainly didn't skip looking at that part.

Um, so um a modern district list should get you what you want, um, what you want, what the community wants as those properties are brought into the city.

Okay, one more question.

In that this uh form-based code review slide with one through four.

Yeah, could you show me where council action fits in to all of that?

And you may have said it, but it's not on the slides.

One, two, and three.

So at one in the zoning, the plan and the subdivision, and right now we have the sketch plan process.

What happens to that?

I don't think we have sketch plan going on in here because you're gonna get to see regulating plan.

So it's that kind of it's a little less conceptual than sketch, um, but it it brings you in kind of at a higher level discussion about this is how the development's gonna take place on this property.

Okay.

Can we turn around for a second?

I get that right.

Thank you.

Um sorry, I wasn't trying to be smart, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't making that one up as I went.

So regulating plan is your substitution for sketch plan.

So one of the things I think the community liked, and I think we're getting used to is the sort of early phase discussions with the developer that happened as a part of the sketch plan.

Yeah.

So it doesn't get set in stone before we have a chance to discuss with them, and the planning commission has a chance to discuss with them.

How do you see that or is it gone?

We agree.

That is that is from everybody's perspective the best place to have the conversations about what's happening here.

So we we think, and after the meeting, I've got a call with um Phil and Steven tomorrow morning.

Um, you know, we'll make sure that we're not missing any aspects of the what triggers conversations in sketch.

I'm I I think, and I'm sorry I didn't put the checklist here, but I think regulating plan um will give the community enough information to have a good discussion about the project and to understand what's coming in with the project.

But in our conversations with the developer, what uh when we are saying, you know, you missed it, uh you know, and we need more sidewalks or whatever.

Yep.

Um where would that fit in in this process?

Oh, I think you said answer.

Um, so if we want a sketch plan or a concept plan, um, we're not intending to kind of take that out necessarily, and um we're still kind of getting our arms what's gonna be the regulating plan, which as Elizabeth has said, is gonna be more higher level than what we're getting through a PUD.

Um, but I understand what you guys are saying.

So we'll probably either keep a sketch plan or transition to what's called a concept plan and still allow for that kind of early touch point with planning commission and city council.

Right now, that is kind of triggered by the scale of the development, and we're changing those scales slightly.

So right now, regulating plan is probably gonna start at a project that has uh I think five to ten acres, which is gonna be smaller.

So we may just want to reset where we actually or have it be optional, which is also probably a good thing, like for anything smaller if the applicant wants to come forward before they get too far down the road, they can voluntarily do a what is this called a concept plan?

But the one thing I do want to kind of clarify is that the sketch plan right now is not uh viewed as very favorable on the applic applicant because it's a detailed, so you get into like a you know 15-page document where they're starting to talk about landscaping and uh certain details that are not normal for like a concept or a sketch plan.

So I want to be transparent about like it'll probably be a pivot.

And so, like we're gonna get to a higher level review with that, and we may change the nomenclature because that's also triggering right now in uh lap yet uh to just be a concept plan, but it'll be something similar, and and there's no intention for staff to kind of take that out.

I think when the question came up the last meeting, we just haven't dialed in exactly uh what that trigger is.

It'll probably be different because right now it's I think it's like 20 units or more or uh more than five acres or something like that.

And right now we're looking at um it being a little bit more um uh we're just kind of changing our uh requirements in terms of when like a form-based neighborhood.

So one of those slides kind of clarified that you know what we're getting is different housing types, so um, we're gonna have more structure in our code that says that if you're you know five to ten acres, we're expecting two different housing types, and if you're 10 to 20, we're expecting three.

And if you're over 20, we're expecting some level of commercial as well as the three different types of housing, so that um that expectation is just it's not what's coming to you at a concept plan phase either.

So that may also, like just that structure that we're building into the code may lessen the need for those kind of concept sketch plan conversations, hopefully.

That's the goal.

That's very helpful.

Hopefully that helps.

I have one last question.

Do you think this new process lengthens our approval for new developments or shouldn't it should shorten it?

So that's the and that's part of like when you have that structure in terms of like getting zoning, getting the regulating plan, which is akin to like a PUD application, but it's going to tell you how they're compliant with whatever size of development they're coming in at, whether or not that's the five to ten acres, 10, 10 to 20 or 20 or above, it's gonna tell you like here's here's what we're expecting.

We're gonna do out of the 400 units, we're gonna do you know, X amount of townhomes, X amount of multi-family, X amount of single family or duplexes, and that's the housing diversity that the comp plan's pushing us towards.

Um, and then at that size, you know, like how it's actually laid out, where any kind of commercial neighborhood serving commercial components and stuff like that are going.

And you know, when you look back at our our overall uh like our uh comprehensive plan, it does bring into those areas that you mentioned that like so future app uh annexations, they're gonna end up being they're gonna pick a form-based neighborhood, or if it's actually zone commercial, it'll be uh um what is the AMX, yeah.

That's uh commercial adaptable mixed use, thank you.

Uh so and and that's just kind of gonna give them the structure as to like that is a primarily commercial area or primarily uh residential, but there's gonna be more use integration kind of regardless, they'll be residential allowed in commercial, and there'll be commercial that's allowed in uh residential at a certain scale that help.

But then once they get so to finish answering your question, once they get to that regulating plan and they have that entitlement, you're you're gonna have like a plan that says these housing types are going here, this commercial is going here, and uh the idea is that the residential development will all be administrative reviews through site plan, and that commercial development at a certain scale will come to uh planning commission and city council.

So right now that number is 10,000 square feet or above, comes through a hearing.

Anything under that would actually still be uh administrative review, and that's where you get that time review savings.

So if that's still the desired outcome.

Thank you.

And I'm gonna stop.

I have one more question, but I'm gonna stop for now and let somebody else talk.

Thanks.

Okay, Council General.

I I want to piggyback on that.

I have a couple of questions.

One is you know, where does the public meeting fit into this?

You know, we heard some public comments that kind of asked that, and I asked the same question.

I don't see where the public meeting part of it, the public you know, engagement that's not at a public hearing, not at a city council meeting, not at a planning commission meeting.

It's the we're thinking about developing this site, we're having a neighborhood meeting.

Where does that fit into this?

So a neighborhood meeting is still gonna be required uh through the process or anything that is going to planning commission and city council, so that is items one through three there.

Okay, and then a site plan if it's over 10,000 square feet for commercial would also require a neighborhood meeting.

Okay, um, and then my second question that's I I guess I'll just clarify that's not significantly different than what we're doing.

That's great.

I I think that needs to be made clear because in the code currently it's not exactly clear for these form-based codes.

There's a lot in that code, yeah.

I understand.

Yeah, but um, and then my second question is form-based codes.

You know, we we had the map and we saw where the form-based districts are, and that would be if those some of those properties were rezoned and they meet the required area and they have all this.

But I understand that these form-based districts also will apply to new annexed land.

And so, how does this map onto the current process?

Because in our current process, zoning and annexation are the very last step, and here you have it as the very first step.

So, annexation and zoning are technically the first step too.

They just don't like and right now.

I think it's kind of getting like you could do an annexation and zoning and zone it to developing resource and then be done, and then move on to what's currently a PUD process or what will be a regulating plan process, and then your subdivision.

Right now, I think everyone's most familiar with the Kensington S application, which is all at once.

And so it started with annexation zoning, and now it has the sketch PUD, preliminary PUD, and then it'll have final PUD.

Um, and at the end, you don't you don't have to annex it or zone it or bring it into the city unless you know that like you have agreed upon outcome as to what that development's gonna be.

So this is the most normal process, but like some of those applications get combined run concurrently, so it's like we don't have every permutation of how the process could run, but it kind of gets muddled when they do get run concurrently, and that is still an option for an applicant, and it's you know, it kind of cuts both ways, but at the end of the day, council knows exactly what is getting brought into the city, what the development is, rather than like, yes, we'd like to have this piece of land, and yes, the comp plan says that's housing or that's commercial, and at some future date we'll analyze what this proposed zoning and development is for that property because DR is really just kind of a holding pattern.

Okay, so you don't have a single family house on that property, but that's it.

Right.

And I guess I was confused because I've seen that kind of flow chart that you know shows annexation and zoning like at the very last step.

It's the last, I mean, it's the last step in that process because that specific process because everything's gonna catch back up to it, and the applicant for that one does not want to annex unless they know what their entitlement is.

Okay, great.

So this is really we're thinking of this as the general process of if if someone came to us and said, Hey, I have this piece of land, it's currently zoned as X, and I'm maybe asking for rezoning, or right now we're doing this rezoning as part of the land use code adoption.

So we're kind of doing a little bit of step one here before we're seeing nope, we don't have any you know redevelopment plans in front of us because that's not what we're doing.

We're doing land use, we're doing this zoning right now.

Yep.

Um across 10.

Jump on top of that.

Yeah, please.

One of the things that I'm a little bit confused, and then I I'm hearing some confusion from the community flows from the fact that if you have a one, two, three, four process, that's that's a roadmap, right?

It's a it's an order for us to follow.

But I'm hearing now that it's rather customizable or it really depends on the kind of parcel that we're looking at in an individualized circumstances.

So then if it's kind of a choose your own adventure menu, then I'm and I'm not saying that disparagingly, but if it's if that's just kind of like, well, the the property owner could take it this way, or if the city judged it best to go that way, then I'm I'm thinking I think there's some rationale for the confusion, because then you're not actually describing a process, right?

And so then I think it's hard for it's hard for me to wrap my arms around what is the process, what are the hoops to jump through, and then I have some empathy for a property owner who wants to develop and engage in commerce, and then I have some empathy for community members who are like, hey, WTF is the process here.

I'm just trying to understand that.

So I understand that you don't want to straight jacket us as a city, but is there a way that this can be maybe a bit more clearly illustrated as to when it is actually one, two, three, four for real, and when it's hey, here's a general course of action, but we have flexibility to to explore different options.

Is that question clear or comment?

I think it's clear.

Um it's complicated in terms of like trying to clarify how all of those different application types and and it isn't uh it's I mean, we could be more regulatory.

I assume I'm not worked in a jurisdiction that requires you to go A, B, you know, and and not like combine application types, and so that myriad of of possibilities, I think is hard to illustrate, but we could take a stab at trying to kind of clarify what the process is now or a potential process, or if you like the most complicated process, and then and then kind of marry that with what it would be.

And the I mean I don't know that it's gonna be like significantly different.

The main change is once you put the structure into the code in terms of what our expectations are for development and like that mix of like housing types, um, then we have less.

I mean, we're taking a lot of the guesswork out of it.

Um, and then once you we've also we've done a lot with this code, like in IA or we're trying to, right?

Like we have B zoning in Old Town, we have B zoning in Indian Peaks and other like hard corners, right?

And old town, everybody knows is unique.

So we have a whole new zoning code that addresses old town differently because it is not the same as something on South Boulder Road or somewhere else in uh Lafayette.

So we're making those inroads, but once you provide that structure, that's what gets you to the point where you get these, you know, you get form-based code that tells you what they're gonna build, allows you to have like the the walkability where we want walkability, and you know, we're walking walkability kind of everywhere.

Um, but uh like um so but it is different.

The scalable town's different than the scale of a commercial corner like Arapahoe and uh 95th, right?

Like just different.

So um we're we're getting to that.

But um, I think just to your point, like I we can take a stab at trying to outline what the process is, and I totally understand this is trying to make it more uh accessible, not trying to make it more complicated, but it is it's not quite this easy, or this uh you know, straightforward either.

So thank you.

I do want to I I heard something else in your question.

Um so um early on in the process and in the zoning code and land use code, um there is a table that links um zoning districts to the future land use map in the plan.

So you may know this, but for the room, it's not a free-for-all.

Like you can't just say I'm you know plopping this in the middle of these other things.

It it does tie back to the plan.

Um I I think one thing that'll be different that you all will experience that's different in the community will experience is different, is that there's a possibility that someone will ask for a rezoning and you won't know what's going to take place on the property.

There's like could be a pause before they get to the regulating plan.

If they're rezoning to the form-based districts, though, their world of possibilities is pretty boxed in.

So it is, you know, it you may not know for a while, um, and someone may start a project and then want to change regulating plans later.

Um, but that the point is to move the certainty into the code and not do the certainty in the PUD.

Um, and so that's a change that might take a minute.

And so one of the things that we that Clarion recommends um at when you're putting a new code in place is give it some time to run.

So almost like you can debug it, and so you may decide, like back to Anna and Marie's question, you know, okay, we're comfortable with regulating plan, we don't need concept plan, or we want regulating plan expanded a little bit, and then it'll cover the things we want.

So we do we do recommend we'll give you our best, but you're going to need to do a little personalizing once it gets to you, and you know, maybe sit with it for six months and then run around of amendments to it and say, okay, here's how we know this works best for this city.

Um, and so you you can take that time and kind of weigh out the different pieces of it.

Thank you.

Council Fridland.

Um, I have a follow-up question on what you just said, um, and then also more maybe more of a philosophical question to ask you.

Oh, good.

Um so is that what you just described of the zoning as part of annexation before we see a regulating plan.

Yeah.

Is that typical?

Yeah, is the majority that the majority of jurisdictions across the country, to my experience, rezone without a plan.

Um, because um because of the um when you link it like that, um, it is it is harder to undo over time.

Um and so and they all struggle with the exact same question you're struggling with.

How do I know we're gonna see what we want to see?

Right.

Um, but that's what site plan process does, that's what good zoning regulations do.

That's part of the reason to rewrite the whole code to put the standards that you want to see in there, and then um and the upside is change over time.

So if that particular applicant's project doesn't go, the next person doesn't have to rezone, they just need to come in with a regulating plan.

Um, so that you know, the the cost, the expense, and the um potential contentious nature of rezoning is moved into let's really focus on what could potentially take place on the site, and then when we make the regulations more detailed and specific, which I think is gonna be a change for Lafayette, it's been you know um pretty negotiated, and so this is this is a change from that.

Um when more of the detail is in the code, it limits um the possibilities of what people can bring into what the community has said is acceptable and adopted in the regulations.

So I'm glad you kind of started to go there because that was basically my philosophical question was and I think you already answered it, but what are the pitfalls of a form based code in your experience?

The pitfalls of form-based code.

Um I think that it can be its own freezer system, like a PUD is, and that um you would want to look at it periodically and make sure you have the building types that you want to see in the city is it's fairly prescribed.

Um, so you know, every five or ten years, do a round table with your development community, ask if they're being too locked in, um, and don't be afraid to make changes um to reflect what you know what development is taking place at that point in time.

Well, you kind of answered my second question is how do we deal with that?

And I think you just answered that.

So thank you.

But are is there any other thoughts of like what do we do as we go down this path to try to avoid some of those issues?

So some of it you're gonna hear um because you know, applicants will come in and they'll say, I get what you're doing, um, but I I need a variance.

I mean, so we see variances as code band-aids, right?

The minute you start getting enough variances piling up, that means something's not working.

Um, and so you know, staff can keep an eye on that, that you can ask for you know a report every two years.

Are we getting what we intend to see?

Is there you know something fabulous going on in Longmont that we want to be able to do here?

What's what's in the region?

Um, it's you know, it's that sort of keeping it up to date thing.

Um, but I you know, I've seen communities that do that um regularly that have form-based codes that have been around for 20 years that are still working and they're seeing um the redevelopment or development that they want to see.

So it's not unlike regular zoning.

If you you know, if you let that sit too long, it it also limits the development that you're gonna see.

That's part of the reason we think we don't see um missing metal housing anymore because so many zoning codes started saying you can have single family and you can have multifamily, and we forgot to say well, you can have a fourplex or townhomes or something along those lines.

So keeping it up to date um, you know, on a more or less regular basis, you know, not treating it like a religious document.

You you can get in there and change it, it's okay.

So this is my last question on this line.

Um so given you know, I think the positives from it, the benefits that we get from a form-based code, and also given that there are some challenges that we need to be aware of as we go.

Yeah, why do you feel like form-based code is right for Lafayette?

Do you feel like form-based code?

Obviously, you do, right?

Yeah, why?

So I think that some of what we heard as we um jumped into the project was um that the community was frustrated with some of the open-ended nature of development that was taking place, and that um staff had to really weigh a lot of trade-offs.

Um I'm gonna keep looking at you, but I feel really bad.

I've got my shoulder to you guys.

I'm sorry.

Um, and so the third piece of that is um the thing that traditional zoning or conventional zoning doesn't always give you is that that mix on the site of all the elements you want to see.

So if we go back to this slide, legacy Lafayette is very specific about the design and the mix that the community wants to see.

Um, and sometimes when we do traditional zoning, we we our starting place for discussion is what the applicant brings in.

Um, and so we're negotiating the civic spaces on the property, we're negotiating the please don't make it all roads, no sidewalks, or you know, people will die on that bike path if you put it in the middle of the road right there.

Um, and so this isn't telling architects how to design, um, it isn't telling um you know property owners that they can only do this one thing, but it is saying we want to see all of these things, and here are the basic parameters of how that needs to take place.

So I think it solves um some of the kind of negotiated open-ended issues that the community felt like was stalling development or resulting in development outcomes that really didn't feel like Lafayette.

Um, but you know, note also that it's pretty targeted.

Um so you know, there are form-based codes that go in and like do every single neighborhood, and there was no discussion about that being beneficial to Lafayette.

So the the way neighborhoods um have developed over time is fine.

Um, so it's you know, it's that looking forward piece.

So I I think you've got to blend, you've got a hybrid code, um, and that the form is targeted in the places where form is gonna work for you, and the rest of it goes a little more specifically, um, but down the traditional path.

Thank you.

This is uh slightly different question.

So and we've already talked about it a little bit.

Um considering there are quite a few jurisdictions who have used this, right?

Yeah, over a long time, you said 20 years or more, some communities.

Yeah, maybe more.

Farm-based code started in the late 90s somewhere.

Yeah, so surely we have at this point enough data to say this is going to make the process longer or shorter.

I know there's a lot of variables, so I recognize that there's limitations.

But form-based code was developed as a response to processes being too long.

That was the basic genesis of it.

The idea is if we draft the regulations to the point where we're telling you more or less the building envelope, more or less the building type, we've all agreed to it when the code gets adopted.

So that first round of agreement is adoption.

Um, and so now we know what we're gonna get.

The second round of agreement is regulating plan, and then it should go from there.

That's that's exactly why form-based code was put together.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions from counsel before we move on?

I have some, but please go.

Oh no, you um thank you so much.

I know that a lot of work has gone into this.

Um, and I I know it's getting late, so I don't want to derails too much.

Um Mr.

Patton generously shared uh some images uh with AI of um what a coffee shop on the corner would look like.

And um so I live in one of the neighborhoods that would be affected by potential excuse.

And I gotta tell you I couldn't be more excited for this to come to my neighborhood, but I recognize that that's not how everyone in the community feels.

And so this brings me to um maybe some disappointment with how the survey was structured, because I think is over-indexed on a particular cohort or particular cohorts of our city whose views very much matter and are important, but the underrepresentation of young people of renters of our large Latino population to me makes it difficult to make decisions uh and recommendations based on that survey.

I know it would have been expensive and would have would have um taken a bit more time, but I I guess something I'm grappling with is how do you take in the community feedback when we know that we're having a rather specific slice of the community provide a lot of very robust, thoughtful feedback, but we're not hearing from a lot of other folks in the community.

So, for example, we heard um I think Miss Sellinger.

Yes, I loved your comment about um this this issue raises a lot of friction.

And I think you're spot on, and I think that really comes from like this is contestation over like who we are and who we become, right?

There's the Lafayette of folks who've been here for 40 years, and there's the Lafayette of folks who've just arrived and want to be here for 40 years, and there's some tension there.

So I have a lot of empathy for that.

But I'm I'm not necessarily seeing in here kind of the Lafayette specific element, and to build a little bit on Councillor Fridland's like I think this is fantastic.

I think this is very data-driven and very thoughtful, and if adopted would improve our community.

But what I would like to see is a bit more Lafayette specificity.

Yeah, and so you've heard this evening a number of comments, for example, Lafayette Florist and what happens with that property, right?

A historic property that folks have a lot of uh of affinity for.

And then you've heard a lot of hostility to um, you know, a pop-down four-story building next to someone's house.

But I yeah, I've read these documents, I don't see that that would be possible.

So I guess I would love to see a little bit more Lafayette specificity and then a little bit more clarity on what the new code would not do.

So, hey, if you live in this specific kind of HOA, this would not affect you.

So we can kind of like clarify with the community and address their concerns while also leaning into I think a lot of data-driven uh science that you've put forward.

Yeah, yeah, no, agree, agree with all that.

So, in the second part of this presentation, Phil is gonna come do a slice and dice on some of the um information that we received.

I I do want to ground everybody in the the idea of that the neighborhood commercial comes directly out of the plan, um, which calls for more small neighborhood commercial opportunities.

And so that was a piece of the project um conversation um that we picked up at the very beginning.

Um, and this is an approach um being kind of piloted by communities.

I live in an older part of Denver, so I've got commercial, I have a fly shop, Caty Corner across the street from me, which is fabulous, but people park in front of my house, um, which isn't always fabulous.

Um, and so um this the some of the things that we're gonna talk about um in going through the responses to the questionnaire, um, are the flash points.

And so um I I think this is like a kind of a two-step.

We we need to hear a little bit from you guys um about um, I'm sorry, y'all.

I am a Midwesterner and it was still the you guys, and I will outgrow that at some point in my life.

Um, we need to hear from the council some guidance about where we want to go, particularly with the height issue, with the neighborhood commercial issue, um, and with the um opportunities for um the higher density housing in some locations.

Um, so to just to walk through a little bit of how we try to right size that that's how we get to the conversation about are you on a collector street or not?

Um, because we're trying to think about okay, what's the potential impact in terms of cars and people?

Um, and that's how we talk about in the regulations.

Um, can you in a neighborhood scrape a house off and put new commercial on, and through conversations with working group, we came back to no, not really, and we want that to be something in the house as the house exists, and we want to limit the square footage of what kind of commercial could be there.

So it turns more into a flower shop on the corner or a coffee shop on the corner, um, and then less of uh, hey, you know, someone is putting in um a new you know, 7-Eleven or something like that.

So um, in the process of refining that, we we are still looking for whether or not there is a magic answer, um, and not even a magic answer, a realistic answer.

Um, you know, some in some places the reality of the property values keeps this from being feasible.

Um, in some neighborhoods, um, the reality of existing um covenants on the property keeps this from um being possible.

The distinction between covenants on the property, I'm looking at Mary Lynn right now, and um the zoning, they're different.

Um, and so it's not the city's job to enforce the covenants, but it's certainly something the um neighbors could take up and the HOA could take up.

Um so it could be that we're drafting a zoning district for the entirety of Lafayette.

Some of this development can't take place in some places because of private agreements, doesn't stop the city from doing the city's zoning code, but it may impact what could take place in those neighborhoods.

Agree?

Marilyn?

Am I good to uh get us out on a uh plank there?

I'm sorry, on the that the HOAs with covenants in place can continue on.

The city can change the zoning code to be the city's zoning code, but that does not mean if it's allowed in the zoning code, it's allowed under the covenants.

That's correct, right?

So the zoning code won't affect the covenants in place in any way.

So that's a piece of it also, it's always tetris with development, right?

So um, but we we definitely are you know we understand that there are still a really a few hot button conversations, and probably are at this point in the code, and it's kind of um good to see the community coalesce around the things that they're concerned about, and so we can make sure that we get to a right answer on that.

I had one more question, but I can wait until I'm just kind of so what I'm going to say.

I don't remember your name myself.

Elizabeth, Elizabeth.

Um for the rest of my council friend uh counselor colleagues, and this is gonna sound bizarre, but everything that Elizabeth has just said is a result of a lot of the conversations that we had on council moving forward in chunks.

Um and this being one of the last pieces to update in Lafayette.

Uh I knew this day was coming where when it actually came forward.

Uh I didn't think I'd be the one, but there's only one of us left remembered how this started out.

And there uh I remember when the director, the planning building director at the time brought this up, and I about lost my mind.

I'm like, really?

There's a different way.

So the form-based code was a blessing in that there weren't as many unknowns moving forward.

And as Elizabeth was saying, we take the uncertainty and we put it into the code, but not in a restrictive enough way that people can't bring forward ideas.

Um, and the respecting covenants that are already in place was a piece of this.

So it has finally come to fruition.

I'm not sure how many years it's been in this process, but I really appreciate the way you've described why this is what we are moving toward.

Yeah, and it is something that council asked for with all of these specifics in it along the way.

And it's it's stunning to me that we were able to make all this happen.

Uh so I do appreciate it, and um, it it's this is not new for just effort.

Uh I just wanted to share my call because we did talk about it.

I'm glad that we've landed on the project history here.

Yeah, it does it is it it is weird how it comes together uh at some point in time.

Um, and but you know, obviously it has taken a city to get us here.

So and I will say that it it's it's taken long enough that there are a little bit of some things that I'm glad my colleagues are bringing up to discuss like how do we deal with those fitness because we didn't get a chance to talk to it, talk about it until now.

So thank you for being open to that.

Yeah, thank you.

The input that's all.

Councilor Chestlin, I believe you had a question.

Thank you.

In what you've just presented, I didn't see the word ADU anywhere.

Where does that fit?

There are generally applicable ADU regulations that I had a slide and we cleaned it up.

Um so all of the the uses and the use specific standards and the accessory uses that are general to the code apply in the form-based code.

Um so if you can do an ADU in the general code in the regular residential district, so um the single family residential, um, you can do an ADU in the form-based also.

That doesn't change across the different district types, stays the same.

Okay, and the and the requirements of that particular kind of zoning would also apply to the ADU setbacks or whatever it might be, um that kind of thing.

Yeah, so the the form base will still have setbacks like we're used to, um, and the ADU will need to be if it's detached inside the setbacks.

So all of that um general ADU standards will work the same way.

Right, and one more question.

So we heard several people tonight talk about Indian Peaks Trail and Wanica Trail, and they believe it should not be defined as a collector, and the collector definition and whether or not it applies creates differential zoning depending on if your street is a collector.

So if we have people in the community with disagreement about that, what's the objective answer to when a street is a collector and when it isn't?

And I heard Mr.

Byrne have a specific answer to that, but he didn't work for us.

So I I'm you know, I no offense against him.

By the way, he his son and my son went to school together, I've known him for years.

So I I'm not dissing on him in any way uh by saying that, but I need a definitive answer from the city as to how we would define collector so the community knows whether they're on a collector street or not.

Yeah, pardon me, I'm gonna turn my back because public works.

Yeah, we do have our public works director.

Uh but generally speaking, the city wouldn't need to designate that supply.

Um I think it's gonna be an iterate process.

So we need to figure out the land because the transportation land use have to intersect and work in concert.

So we have current standards, we have a lot of streets across the city or that are built as to various standards.

So in one sense, I would say arguably something that collects traffic from adjacent streets and conveys it to arterial streets and handles certain volumes by one definition is a collector, but we also have specs that say that a collector at this period of time is a certain width and serves a certain function.

So as we evolve this, we're gonna need to update our standards to make sure that going forward when we build a new street, this serves a collector purpose that it has the cross section and the width and the characteristics that serve that.

But we're also then gonna have to figure out if we're looking at modifying areas where the streets already exist.

Is that particular street section suitable for proposed changes in use?

And that might mean in some cases we need to do a traffic study or we need to do an analysis specific to that location.

Um the other thing, just to make it even more fun and interesting, is um we actually have a lot of problems with our collector streets because they were designed in a period where the desire was to focus on cars, so they tend to be on the wide side, they tend to anticipate a lot of on-street parking, and that's actually where we have most of our speed complaints and concerns is because the street is built for people to go fast and get out of the neighborhood, and that's not a great experience for the people that live adjacent to it or that walk or ride the bike.

So it's quite possible as we update that standard that it's it's gonna get narrower, it's gonna have different characteristics because right now we're actually in the process of going back and retrofitting a lot of those white streets.

So would that be?

So I know I didn't answer your question in any sense.

Would that definition of streets get firmed up as a part of this land use code process or after, or how how what's the timing of so we I again I think it's iterative, we've been waiting to have some clarity on where things were going with land use, and then we're gonna go back and turn the crack again on our public works specs, and that will help guide us going forward.

But I tend to think on a lot of these where it's where it's retrofitting an existing neighborhood, we're gonna really have to, there's gonna have to be some case-by-case analysis.

Yep, and we can work with Claring ensure that it's if we decide if council chooses to move forward with that policy option that it's clear in the code what's a collector street, and we also have um you know a policy document of the multimodal multimodal transportation plan that outlines a lot of that too.

That we've done a lot of our staff has done a lot of research in terms of mapping out our street system.

So to go back to the people who came up with this concern tonight, that also is a covenant control community already.

So as I see it, we what we can do the land use code for that area, but unless what is it, 68% or 67% of the neighbors vote to change their covenants?

This would not apply to them anyway.

Is that correct?

Um yes and no.

Um, and we you can this might be a good transition.

We could go to that area of the presentation too.

But um the two topics um that I think you're referring to, uh, one being the neighborhood commercial, that would not apply because most, if not all covenants that we've looked at in these areas um prohibit non-residential uses.

Uh, and um with the missing middle housing, uh, the answer is most likely because the state passed a law in 2024 that said any new covenants that were passed um after July 1, 2024, where in a city that allows this missing middle type of housing, so up to four units in a building, um, those covenants could no longer, those new uh or amended covenants could not um explicitly prohibit that from happening.

And so um existing neighborhoods, um uh yes, um could regulate that through their covenants, but once those covenants are amended, the state law would trigger that that requirement.

So any amendment to a covenant of a HOA triggers this they're new, then they no longer can apply in in those circumstances.

I don't I I'm uh I don't play an attorney on TV often, and but I so I'd say it's probably private matter.

But HOAs would need to consult with their own legal counsel about their obligations under those new laws.

Um but I think uh uh long-range planning manager Kleisler's point is also that uh the zoning, the new code we're adopting and the um new zoning would not implement those changes.

Um but it would be a state law issue that HOAs need to consult with their own legal counsel on.

Yep.

Thank you very much, and thank you for all the hard work you put in with the working group, both of you and to all the people speaking of volunteers who volunteered on the working group for what two and a half years, three years?

13 meetings thank you to everybody, counselor Janella.

Yeah, I just have a couple more questions.

Um looking through the code and thinking about some of the issues we've been talking tonight.

Um, PUDs is a I don't want to say it's a big deal, but we got a lot of them, and there are aspects of the code that don't really address underlying PUDs.

So in the Indian Peaks example, there are it was a PUD, and there's underlying agreements between the city and the property, the property owners, what applies in that uh for that land that as I understand it, does it uh supersede what is in the zoning?

So we Mary uh city attorney and I have been having and with the team have been having conversations, but um, so yes, we are a patchwork of PUDs throughout the city.

Um, not a lot of folks know just across the street at the tech center, there's a PUD that allows 55-foot height limits, right?

So taking that as an example, the new code will come in and it'll have uh you know, let's just say a 35-foot height limit, but in that area that's been had an approved PUD, those allowances still will um remain.

Um, and so if they came through and had um a setback modification, a height modification or a new list of uses, those would still control that property through the PUD.

Um, but what we've tried to do is that we went through all 250 some odd PUDs through this process, and we tried to understand like where who was asking for what and trying to fix it with a new code.

So with a lot of setback modifications, let's just like fix that so we don't have to deal with that anymore.

Yeah, things like that.

So we're hoping that there's fewer conflicts with the new code than there are right now.

Yeah, and I mean, as we get into the building height discussion, I want to revisit this so maybe I'll hold this comment um for that discussion because I do have some thoughts about you know what what might be appropriate or what the community wants to see there.

So I'll revisit that switch gears and talk about tiny homes and ask where do tiny homes.

I it's been asked by the working group, it's been asked by me specifically when I was part of the working group.

I'm still confused.

Where do tiny homes fit in this code?

So we haven't no, we we are talking through that um based on the last meeting of the working group last month.

Right now, it's lumped into the definition of a single family or a single unit detached home.

So it in that definition, it talks about this could also be a tiny home.

Okay, so that's where we talked about at the working group.

Um you could also do that with a unique tiny home kind of configuration.

That's where the conversation came up.

Um I think what we've been talking about a little bit is um uh that whether or not that needs its own called out as its own specific use or not, just for clarity.

It's built in because it's just a tinier version, it's still covered by building code.

And there's a question, I think maybe this is what maybe do we like we the code allows tiny homes.

Like I could buy a lot and build a really small home on it.

There's nothing that stops that from happening.

Um it actually, I went back and checked it is it is in the definition of dwelling single unit detached, and there's also tiny home, I believe, in there.

And I say I believe because the state can made it really confusing because they have a definition of tiny house and tiny house.

Um so it's allowed, but it's not highlighted.

Um I think it's like do you want us to elevate that to make it more clear that yep, you can do it.

Yeah, and I think the thing that's also confusing is uh minimum lot size, because the minimum lot size for a tiny home is gonna be different than a minimum lot size for a single family home.

So on the single family home, you have one tiny home on this huge lot, yeah, and I'm thinking of a small lot with a small tiny small home on it, and next to it is another one and another one.

So I think the cottage court example that's what you both do is closer.

So yeah, I think that's that's the right direction, but I just want to make sure it's not forgotten about, it's been asked, it's been asked, it's been asked.

We can like draw a circle around it and say tiny homes go here and like highlighted in the future.

Yeah, and and just to to make clear, yeah.

Um, and then one last question for me before we move on to the next section.

Um, I'm still confused about annexation.

I I am struggling to understand the the annexation and zoning of a parcel before we know what's gonna go there.

Can you just talk a little bit more about that?

Yeah, I think in the past I might let Elizabeth talk about the new code, but I think in the past we've preferred that applications don't lead with an annexation application, but with as director Williams is talking about the actual development plan, so that council knew what they were getting.

But I don't know if you have any comments about the new code that you'd want to highlight.

Yeah, and I think the one thing that's confusing is that developing resource as a zone is being eliminated, as I understand that that new parcels will not be allowed to be assigned developing resource.

So let's say a new new parcel is being annexed, they can say, I want this to be annexed under what would be the previous commercial and is now uh AMX one.

And we don't, I guess we might know because that case is form-based, yeah.

So we kind of know what's being there, yeah.

But in the case um of a new annexation coming in and being neighborhood two, let's say, we have no idea what the density or kind of things that are being envisioned.

I think most of our uh undeveloped property is designated as housing, so it would come into that form-based neighborhood designation.

I would clarify that like council does not have to rezone, does not have to annex a property.

So, like as much as we're trying to get structure in this code so that you have that predictability, if it's uncertain and you don't, if you don't, you know, like you can kind of force them to come through with a full regulating plan at the same time so that you have that certainty.

So and I think that you know, like right now, we probably don't have that certainty because you haven't seen it, but like five years from now, hopefully you have some regulating plans, you know, that yeah, you know, have worked for you and you have more comfort level.

Um, but if you don't, you don't have to do it, like there's no obligation to annex or rezone, like the city does has the right to turn that away.

Yeah, and I think the thing that's helpful in this discussion to me now is understanding that new annexations that are coming gonna come in are I think it based on the land use topology and the uh comprehensive plan will come in as a form-based district where we know what we're gonna get basically, and that's much manage much more certainly than you do right now.

Yes, no, okay.

This is really helpful.

Thanks.

And the only other kind of seven back to one of your former questions.

I just want to clarify that like the PUD like process, like in and like I don't know.

Um we have PUDs because we require them right now.

So, like, and we have uh a huge myriad of like scales.

Yeah, PUDs for like public road because somebody wanted to come in and change the zoning.

So, like, and they that the those zoning changers are typically like we didn't want to have a 35-foot setback from baseline, or we didn't want to have a 25-foot setback from public road, and we wouldn't have got walkability if we required it.

So we have that level of scale, like site-specific PUDs, but for any residential development, and I don't know how long this has been in place, but like requires a PUD.

So regardless of and a PUD is different in Lafayette than it is in certain areas because most of our PUDs are just adoptions of the underlying zone district.

It's just the required step.

So you have an overarching umbrella, but like what Phil's talking about is in those instances like Lafayette Tech Center as the example he used where there was an exception given that said this PUD has a certain height limit, or this PUD has a certain setback there.

We're not taking that away.

We're rezoning everything.

So if it was C1, it's like an uh uh adaptable commercial zone.

If it was a residential area, now it'll have certain residential zone allowances, but they're they're not um we're not changing like anything that was given through the PUD.

We're not taking things away.

So and most of that goes back to an underlying zone district.

So hopefully that's a lot of this is all really helpful.

Hopefully, we're clear.

So I think we're ready to move on to the next section.

Thank you all.

Phil's gonna take over for the second part of the presentation.

I appreciate you keeping me on my toes tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the second parts relating to uh community engagement.

Um we've hosted the project team has hosted or attended uh a number of meetings throughout the project life.

Uh we've tried to summarize what we've heard through those meetings in the attached uh public engagement report.

Um, through that, um, at the time of the report at least, uh, we received we recorded um a little over 2700 comments.

Uh we've hosted uh 38 public meetings and got about 1,000 uh over a thousand survey responses and uh one second.

So in looking at the um input sources uh that we'll be talking about this evening, uh there's really two input sources.

The first would be the actual comments, uh the actual raw comments and staff's notes uh relating during the meetings and events.

Uh those would be the themes we've tried to uh uh categorize them around theme and tone, so whether or not uh the the comment was supportive, was a question, uh, or had or expressed concern, and so we would compare that to the um data that we've received from the community survey.

These are the key topics that we'll be talking about this evening.

Uh, these are the specific uh options that we'll be detailing for council.

We'll be breaking out each of these so that there'll be time for council discussion uh and uh uh and direction ideally to staff.

Uh so we don't need to spend a whole lot of time on this slide, but wanted to just kind of show you the roadmap for this particular part of the discussion.

Uh so we've engaged the community on a number of topics.

Um, one of those has been missing middle housing.

So generally, missing middle housing has been considered the housing types between a single unit detached home and an apartment complex, so things like a duplex, triplex, and so on.

Um, and the comprehensive plan includes a policy specifically suggesting that the city consider allowing what it considers uh soft density in field development of attached residential types, uh duplexes, uh town homes along collector streets and uh corner locations within existing neighborhoods.

We did ask through the community survey whether or not respondents uh support that particular proposal and we received 48% um uh yes uh to that proposal.

Um and outside of the um community survey, uh we tried to look at the comments uh relating to missing middle housing, and we saw that about uh oftentimes about um three quarters of the comments that received at events, conversations, and so forth express some degree of support with about 22% expressing um firm opposition.

Uh we also uh asked around the dimensional design standards for those homes.

So if you put a missing middle housing type in an existing neighborhood, should it have uh height, setback restrictions and so forth that are more or less restrictive than the single unit detached homes surrounding it.

Uh and so what we saw there was that the number one response was um those um requirements should be the same as a single unit detached house housing regulation, um, or it should be more restrictive.

And so in that case, actually a little bit smaller than the surrounding homes.

Um, and um, this was also a theme that we saw outside of the survey as well, um, specifically around keeping a similar scale and height, so really thinking through neighborhood compatibility, we think was the one of the primary um um things that we heard through that topic.

Um and looking at the options, uh staff has been discussing three um general options.

That's the current comprehensive plan guidance that we have to that we that really started this conversation.

It does focus change on in places that may be able to better accommodate it.

But there are potential trade-offs, such as potential increases in parking and perceived changes to neighborhood character.

But that would be scale down to 35% for those larger properties.

Though when we started to model it, when you get to those larger sites, it does start to limit the ability to do some of those larger missing middle housing types.

So if it was like a three or four unit building, it would may not be feasible in something like that.

But it does get to that underlying community concern.

The third option is to take no action.

So that would be to table the project, consider this, let the code be in place for six months to a year, and come back to council with a potential scope of work should you want to move forward with this to have a separate you know design process, citywide engagement process around this particular item.

So we'll go ahead and pause here for any questions, council discussion on the on the topic.

Thank you.

Great.

I'm gonna open it up to questions in council discussion.

Uh before I do though, I I want to say two things, just because we're gonna have three decisions in front of us.

We're gonna ideally give direction on all three.

Uh the first one is that that third option does exist.

So we can absolutely take no action tonight.

If that's that's how council feels um for a myriad of reasons, whatever reason you you wish, uh, if no action is the direction we give, that's fine.

However, what I what I do want to say is um I don't remember who in the presentation said it, but none of these are sentenced stones.

So we go with option one.

Um we could look at this in a year and just see what it did.

And in fact, what I what I would recommend is that as council we give direction that we look at what it did over a year.

So we if we implement anything and it passes, we we kind of get a report back within a year and see what do you see, what did you not see, what are the drawbacks, what what what did it help?

So uh I just want to make it clear that if we decide to give direction on any of these, uh they're not permanent.

We're we can we can come back and change them, and then option three always exists.

So with that being said, uh is there any members that we're gonna do?

Sure.

I don't understand option two.

I don't get what it's doing and how it helps anything.

And I I'm I know you said some words, but I it didn't end right.

So could you explain what what that does?

How is that helpful?

I'm I don't get it.

Um so think about Anna's farm.

There's some corner duplexes that you don't really recognize because they're very similar in size to the homes in the mid-block area.

So they're roughly the same size as their neighbor.

When the large when the property gets a little bit larger, um, some of those missing middle housing types, since it has more than one unit, it might start to become larger than the surrounding homes around it.

Especially different, especially since they were built as a single unit detached home, right?

And but when it gets to a certain level, we picked 8,000 feet because that's a pretty large estate, but we still have those in Lafayette.

Um when you get beyond that, you start to get to a very, very large um bulk, bulky building.

Okay with a lot of now.

Thank you.

Sorry, I was not before.

Any member of council want to begin?

Councilor Fredland.

Jumped you both this is a beard.

Um I'm coming back to Councillor Jensen's question about collector streets, and that I think it's a really important definition that I think we have slightly identified, but then it sounds like we we don't have a definition for collector street either.

And so it makes it really hard, I think, to make a decision, a determination on we allow this on corner lots and collector streets, and we don't actually know what collector streets are.

Um so do you have thoughts on that?

We do have a map that we could we could show council, but um yeah, it's something that we can work to ensure there's clarity if if if there were questions about that.

Yeah, and I think I've seen the map.

Um but I guess to me it seems like okay, here's the definition.

All of these fall under the definition, seems like a thing that we should know.

I just I just want to jump in and clarify something.

Um I'm hearing you say taking option one is difficult because we don't have a strict definition of what collector streets is at the moment.

I would say and I don't mean to be uh flippant about it, but I didn't hear any definition of collector streets.

And so maybe there is one, but certainly not a strict one.

Um and so that's all I'm asking for.

It's I think to vet that option, I need to know what you know.

I need to envision where it's gonna be and see who's gonna be impacted, right?

To think it through.

Yeah.

Councilor Genola.

I mean, piggybacking on that.

You know, we heard that there are many HOA neighborhoods that have restrictive covenants that will prevent this from occurring, and on that same note, then I want to know where are those neighborhoods.

I've seen a community generated map, and I think it's probably valid, and I think it's probably something we could rely on, but I haven't heard it from you, Phil.

Yep.

And so I want to understand where does this apply across.

I I can't, I'm having a hard time with with one because I don't know where it applies.

Where are the commun the residents gonna potentially be impacted so that we could make an evaluation in six months and see if it's working?

If it's in a tiny you know component of Lafayette, is it for for me?

Is it really valuable?

Like I I mean, we're we've spent all this time, and it's gonna be like basically one block where this applies.

I'm making that up.

I have no idea where it actually applies.

Well, if we're spending all this time for one block, I'm struggling to know why we're spending all this time on it and think our time could be better spent, maybe on the height discussion.

I don't know.

Yep, we can certainly, yeah, we've we've pulled every covenant that we could find online, and so we have a list of where we believe uh the language would prohibit it.

And again, that's uh an attorney situation for the HOAs, but we could certainly prepare a map showing the results of that analysis from our interpretation of those covenants.

And I understand that we can do this zoning regardless of what those covenants say.

Those covenants are still in place, they're still valid.

State law exception applying if they amend their covenants, which to me makes it say that there will be a strong portion of that community who will say we can never amend our covenants because all of a sudden we're getting something that we didn't want, despite the fact that we now want to amend the covenants to just simply say you can keep your trash can in the front yard because everybody has trash cans, and I don't know why we fight so hard to keep trash cans out of sight, and that we just want to be rational and have a you know something that we can deal with.

But we can't do that because we're if we amend our covenants, we're now getting something that we didn't really bargain for.

So I think it's gonna prevent potentially covenants from being you know modernized.

Let's just call it modernized.

Um and knowing where those are, I think is helpful.

Knowing that one block that it that I'm making up that it's gonna apply to is helpful.

So I I just I'm I'm I'm struggling to be able to make a decision here because I don't have enough information.

Council Collier.

Um I'm gonna build on this.

What so the community generated map that Councillor Gianola referenced, um, I found really useful, and I compared and contrasted it with some of the maps that uh we've generated elsewhere through this process.

And I I do wish there was a bit more readability in some of those maps.

So that's that's point one.

Point two is I live in one of those um blocks that would be affected um by the missing middle housing on corn lots.

I I'm comfortable making decision on this one.

I'm a huge proponent of allowing missing middle housing on corner lots and along collector streets, and a little bit agnostic in terms of the specificity um of definition of collector streets because I think missing middle housing would be such a a value add for for the community.

I'm empathetic to that.

Let's just take the HOA thing off the table because we've already beat that to death.

I think you're exactly right, and that's we'll have clarity on that.

But I think the permutations of what constitutes a collector street aside, I think it's really exciting to allow greater missing middle housing.

I would foot stomp counselor Jensen's comment on option two.

I I read the words, but I still don't exactly know what that means, but I'm just so firmly in favor uh of number one based on what I've seen here, based on what I've done the research.

I think it would be really exciting for our community.

And I wanted to say I agree with what council person pulled year.

That's enough.

Said uh I I think it's really different when we're talking about the uh neighborhood serving commercial, which is a major change for a neighborhood.

But on the missing middle housing, I don't see it as hugely significant uh in that same way as bringing commercial in, and we need it.

Um so I'm of the same point of view that I do also agree with Councillor Giannola that we need a concrete definition, and we need the public to know what that definition is.

Um but I'm I'd be willing to support this tonight with you guys coming back to us with a concrete definition, and then we can argue with it if we don't like it, you know, at that point.

But I but I feel very comfortable going with option one at this point.

Counselor, do you have any thoughts on this?

Um I'm torn between one and three, and the reason why I'm thinking three is because we heard a lot of public comment tonight, referring to the data sample size, and a thousand or to two thousand people, that's not a lot compared to our population, and I'm wondering if there's anything else we could have done to expand our reach to have data from people who didn't have the chance to participate.

Could I respond to that?

Because I also heard people say there was a good public engagement process for the comprehensive plan, and this comes directly out of the comp plan.

This was not so I mean that the implementing it and putting it in the document is part of the land use code, but the need for missing middle can't came through loud and clear in the comp plan process itself.

So I just wanted to remind you of that.

That it that the community whether or not you think the community engagement for the land use code was good, it is an outgrowth of the comp plan, and it's actualizing the comp plan.

So in my mind, the values were already decided in the comp plan, and this was a process of taking those values and making them real specific to neighborhoods and land and and roads, and uh so it the values part had already been given to us, you know, and and the comp plan process, which was very extensive and lengthy, gave us this value of missing middle.

Council Frieland.

And I don't want to jump in front of Mayor Pro Temic if you have something before because I've already said well, I was just going to add that the I when I was on the senior older adult, older adult I know, right?

Older adults advisory board from the whole book.

Uh there was a concern about the um these corner lots, and it came from Bob Bang Bob Mangan.

Um, and he was concerned that this would be problematic if there were greater numbers of cars in the area and parking became a problem.

And the multimodal transportation plan and the visa app weren't out at that point.

So that had to be taken into consideration.

So I guess where I'm going is that we have to see this in I'm I think option one we should go with it uh for this for right now, keeping in mind that we should keep our eye on is this a problem with extra cars on the street.

And we are working in conjunction with our traffic engineer to look at alternatives.

Uh so it might not be uh as big an issue as it does seem um it could potentially be.

And I I think along the way we will figure out how these how these parts lay over each other, and I know the collector definition I hear with uh director.

Oh my gosh, Arthur Arthur, yeah, just made up uh director Arthur was saying is that I I look at the streets and the sidewalks here, and I kind of wonder what were they thinking.

Um it's challenging.

Like Indian Peaks Trail.

I'm like, uh what size is the street supposed to be in the turns that are super sharp?

So I I know it's frustrating to not have a strict definition, but it it's we're still we're still figuring that out, and I don't know how strict that definition is going to be, and I'm it's irritating uh that the streets, it's not perfectly clear uh how to move forward on these bits and pieces, and I think in the iterative process we'll get there.

Uh but I I would go with option one.

Council Friend.

My only comment, I I think it sounds like generally council is supportive of option one.

Uh I I I believe I am too.

Um I will say though that when I drive around some areas, especially in Denver, I've noticed it where they've allowed duplexes, triplexes, quads.

I don't think they're building attainable housing when they're doing that.

And so I guess I'm struggling a little bit to say, like, and it comes back to one of my questions before like how is this unique to Lafayette?

Where we have it would be really disappointing if in our older communities or older neighborhoods, um, you know, built in the 70s and 80s, um, folks were tearing down affordable and attainable housing to build a duplex or a triplex that is then not none of those things.

Um, and I guess I'm just I'm like kind of wondering have we fully thought this out of like what are we trying to achieve?

And does this help us in our goal?

Any housing supply is helpful, right?

We're at such a deficit that any is helpful and we just need to keep going in some ways, but I guess I'm like, I don't know.

I I'm not so sure that it's actually gonna help us, and it's gonna cause the friction points uh in communities in neighborhoods for what gain.

Um so I am supportive of one, but I I'm kind of feeling uneasy about it because of that reason.

Just in the interest of time, because I know we have two more two more to go.

Council Ginova.

I just have one more, you know.

I'm not aligned.

I'm I'm a three at this point.

I think we can get the code in place and tackle this later.

This is my personal opinion.

Um, I think to your point about you know, can you remove existing housing and replace it with duplex?

I mean, existing housing is affordable housing.

New housing is not affordable housing generally across the board.

If you're replacing a small unit, uh it costs more to build a new building than it does to have an old building in place.

So older housing, existing housing tends to be more affordable than brand new housing.

So, in the case of tearing down a building to replace it with a duplex, it's almost certainly that that duplex is going to be a higher property value than the building that it replaced.

So I struggle to see where this solves any affordability uh issue.

I could be wrong.

I am open to you know, data and information that shows me that that's not the case, but this is my my gut feeling is existing housing is more affordable housing.

Um for you know, infill of an ADU is different than replacing something with a duplex for me.

So I think we can get the land use code in place, and we can struggle it.

We can we can tackle this discussion.

I struggle with the um the survey, which was not statistical.

When I read the slide that says, do you want missing middle housing?

And it's not a majority.

I I don't see that the survey, even as flawed as it is, I don't see that it supports allowing middle missing housing on corner properties in busier collector streets.

So if I I think if we want to do this, we do it right.

We do a statistical study, we really get the community's input and we answer that question, and that takes more time.

I don't think we need to slow down the land use code process because I think there's a ton of great stuff in there.

I don't want to let perfect be the enemy of the good.

Counselor Johnson.

I don't think you're correct about new versus old, because some of it depends on the financing, and we have tools like proposition 123, like if we had an inclusionary housing ordinance where we had money where we can buy down some of the costs of new units so that they are not being sold at just purely market rate.

So it really depends, you know.

I I can see your logic, but it depends on a lot of things.

We also have developers who specialize in affordability who can get, for example, li tech credits that they sell and takes a big portion of their costs away.

So again, it depends.

And so we can offer these, I think if we had a robust affordable housing program and maybe an affordable housing staff person or or you know, that we so I'd like to put a pin in your point, David, which is just developing missing middle, that is per square foot the same cost as everything else we're doing, in my mind doesn't get us where we need to be.

And so if we could, after the land use code is done, come back to the sort of supporting policies we would need to ensure that as we do this, we do it in the way that we want to achieve the goals that we want to achieve.

And I think we can do that.

We can set up some policies, we can set up some funding.

You know, I think we can make this work to make it actually be more than just expensive duplexes.

And so I I don't I'm still on number one, but I I don't know if that's persuaded you at all, Adam.

But I think um it can be done.

I understand and I appreciate it.

Um question for staff are one and two exclusive?

They could go together.

They could go together.

Okay.

I'm still a three, but I just wanted to make that quick.

I mean these are just options we've been kind of brainstorming, and so it's you know, there are other ideas out there.

Absolutely.

It sounds like the majority of councils on board with option one.

Um just a few things there.

Uh just I want to make sure that we we you hit the things that uh came up.

Collector street definition is something that I think most of us are hoping to get.

Uh covering up protected neighborhoods.

So, where does this apply to Council General's point?

I think it's great.

I think extra cars are problem.

I mean, just looking at the future, just kind of what does it look like when we actually develop this, and then what does this do for our housing goals?

But overall, uh option one.

Okay.

This is helpful just to know whether or not we take it out of the code.

You'll still have the decision meeting to actually make the decision, and we'll have this additional information for you that time.

Maybe um, Mr.

Mayor, in the future when we revisit this, we could see option two, maybe articulate it a little more clearly.

So I think I'd be happy to support that if I knew what it was saying.

Yeah.

I think that would be less wonky, but you got it.

Square, it's all square.

Um the the next topic, neighborhood serving commercial.

Uh, just real briefly.

Um, the draft code right now um we'll show you the comprehensive plan policy, but it allows uh two new uses within existing neighborhoods.

That those uses are neighborhood retail uh and neighborhood cafes.

These would only be on corner properties in those uh existing residential neighborhoods with operational limitations, such as a size limit of 2,000 square feet, hours of operation, limits on outdoor seating, so forth.

Um, this is one of the ones where we did um see pretty much across the board with these HOA covenants that they typically have a provision that says residential use only.

So it's you know, our interpretation that would likely prohibit something like this.

Um the comprehensive plan includes a complete neighborhoods policy that talks about this uh in the context of also live work units, uh, expanded home occupations, and also the neighborhood serving commercial uses while maintaining neighborhood character and includes um this use as a desired use in our urban design guidance in the comp.

Um the survey we asked um whether or not which which approach would you prefer in allowing these types of businesses in residential areas.

I'll read the top one in case it's hard, but um the top vote getter here was allow them only in limited locations, like near major streets or neighborhood entry points.

Uh, and then the second one was allow them on corner properties in all uh residential neighborhoods.

Uh, I think outside of the survey, um opinions really varied by meeting.

So some meetings um had less than 50% of the participants at an event were in favor of allowing these, um, and others were slightly more up towards of close to 70%, for example.

Uh, we then asked um uh if they could um talk through or kind of rate um the proposed regulations for these potential businesses.

This is sorted by the agreed column, uh the uh uh orange.

Uh and so stricter lighting and outdoor seating areas being allowed for the top boat getters there, uh, and then as well as um uh hours of operation um and outdoor seating um as well.

And so this was pretty consistent with the conditional support that we saw outside of the survey as well.

So things like uh location impacts, um limiting different types of uses within the retail establishment uh and having a neighborhood notice, and we also heard from some HOA uh board members as well that um opposition to um this concept as well.

Um given what we've heard.

We've um came up with we've been talking about a few different ideas that we highlighted in the memo.

One would be a lot to allow these neighborhood serving commercial uses on corner lots with the operational limitations.

This is going back to that comprehensive plan policy.

Um, it may improve some of the neighborhood convenience and local support local businesses.

However, there are concerns um from um HO homeowners associations as well as the limitations um in the existing covenants.

Um the second is to require a good neighborhood agreement.

So this would be a formal framework that would mitigate specific site impacts like no noise or deliveries, and that's also could be coupled one and two together.

Um number three would be to restrict the businesses to major streets or um entryway points.

This directly addresses that survey question of wanting them kind of pushed out of the neighborhood, but on the edges of a neighborhood.

This does reduce potential impacts to those interior parts of the neighborhood.

It would lead to longer walks to the folks that are deep in the neighborhood.

And does limit the number of viable sites substantially.

Just a clarifying question.

This does not include collector streets, right?

On any of your options.

It's just okay.

And I neglected to do this in the first option, but the working group also talked about this.

Some of their interest and conversation was around the good neighbor agreement and wanting to show there was strong communication between the applicant and the neighbors, but that the good neighbor agreement wouldn't necessarily like veto a project from occurring.

So that's some of the comments we got from the working group last month.

Council Janella.

So this is different than the last discussion, but I'll you know preface by asking where did this idea come from?

No, that's a really good question.

Um it came from the comprehensive plan prior to my arrival.

Um and so I've looked back through the notes, and I think it was um potentially a staff initiated item at that time.

Um, but there's not clear notes in our records that would um indicate it, and counselor Barnes may have some membership.

It it did, and I wish I could remember exactly it did come up, and this was one of those questions about how could we possibly improve upon the well, small businesses provide access to them and for communities that um say someone wanted to have a small business out of their home, how do we provide for that?

And I I it's interesting that I look at South Point, that neighborhood, and I wonder how much could possibly uh be done there to continue to build neighborhood connectivity.

And I look at the heart centers, like we had a really great conversation of a place that I've always thought of the heart center in the uh mixed the AM, the new code adaptive use that one.

Um and South Poison have always wondered like how do we provide for that?

Uh I don't know if it's we did we need a bike shop.

I'm just saying, like legit like uh yes, thank you, Jacks, but come on.

So um if someone's gonna put a bike shop in their you know in their grubs somewhere.

Uh but it it was it wasn't, I don't know if it was a strict plan, but I know it did come up in conversation, and it's it's interesting too.

This one specifically came up.

Like, how do we how do we work for small businesses?

Because that's that's one of the primary objectives is how do we support small businesses?

Council Collier?

Um, couple thoughts.

So, one, uh I I'm very excited about this and potential possibilities.

I guess I see some tension here between our housing goals and the creativity here.

Um, and so particularly the point of like maybe an owner occupied also has a business that could really unlock things.

I also know that one element this may unlock is formalizing a lot of informal small businesses that are already run out of the home, um, but bringing them into the light and then regulating taxing, etc.

But then allowing them to kind of thrive in the open.

We know there's a lot of these small businesses informally presently.

Um then I guess maybe the third thing that I'm wondering is a comment and a question.

I was struck by the support in this survey for this one, considering how, and no disrespect, uh completely disproportionate the survey responses were for 91% homeowners, right?

Which is not what our community looks like.

Um I was struck by even though you had such a vast supermajority of homeowners responding to the survey, there was still willingness to explore this.

And I'm wondering why you think that is I think that's a pretty good that's a very good question.

And I think we've seen outside of the survey, um, you know, it's it's it's some meetings there was a lot of enthusiasm, um, and sometimes it was a demographic that was, you know, that we were talking to.

Um and sometimes it might just be geography about where you live where if you have to drive to everything, you might be more enthusiastic for not doing having to do that all the time versus somebody who's maybe a little closer and can bike into old town or something like that.

Okay, thank you.

I think that's spot on, and a lot of it was uh uh people who don't have access to what their neighbors producing, and maybe they do, you know, if we could bring the businesses into the light and they could survive in that location.

Because I do remember this being a question of like in the maybe even in the with the comprehensive plan, like how do we support uh continued growth of businesses in the area without have everything having to be an old town?

Um so that's one of the ways to move it out of that limited area, counselor Justin.

Uh this might be a staff question, um city manager question.

So if somebody proposes a business on one of these corner lots, and the the community doesn't like the kind of business it is or whatever, thinks it's gonna be noisy, um, doesn't like the clientele.

I I'm having a hard time because I'm seeing coffee shop, you know, and and so but but let's just say for whatever reason the community really hates uh a proposed development.

As I understand with our training on the Sursa training we had last week, what authority would the council have if we're talking about a neighborhood restaurant or retail or coffee shop or whatever, and the neighborhood it's trying to serve just hated it.

Would the council have authority to say no under those circumstances?

I mean, it would seem dumb for somebody to try to put something that the neighborhood would hate, but um they might.

And and I'm just and maybe that's just their loss, you know.

They're not I don't know, but what is our authority under those circumstances?

I too also like to place any attorney, but I am not going to.

She happened to step out.

So if you can put a hold on that for one minute um while she took care of that, I think that um high level basically we're putting a lot of regulations around noise limits, um time of day, those types of things as well.

But as far as denial, I would need her to give you legal advice.

Okay.

I I think that we could still discuss some of this because it's relevant.

I mean, what we're doing in this re land use process is we are entitling certain land, certain pieces of land to have certain rights, and based on whether you don't like something, this came up during our our training.

If you don't like a particular type of business that is not what you're supposed to do in the are you allowed to do this or not, it's really in the zoning process.

Are you are you going to entitle certain properties with certain rights?

And their right is to have a whatever we put in the code, it's really what we put in the code.

If the code says they can have a cafe, they could have a bike shop, they can have you know this limited set of things that we put in the code, then they're entitled to have those things and do it at their at their space.

And we can have limits on, you know, how many do we allow within a certain I don't know, distance of one another.

So we don't get like six bike shops all on one block, right?

Why not?

I think maybe we should have six bike shops on one block.

It would be a lot better than zero in town or one.

But I think to your point, it it's a good question to make sure that we understand what we're doing in rezoning certain parcels with certain rights.

Is that our intention?

I am.

I I desperately needed a break.

If you understand, but um, yeah, was there a question?

It sounds like I unfortunately left it a bad time, but I am here in hope for answering.

Do you want to retrannit?

Um, Katie, or do you want me to?

You go ahead.

Okay.

Um so if we approve this neighborhood serving commercial, given that the definition is neighborhood serving, and it's meant to be something that's an amenity to a neighborhood.

Um, maybe it's a chattel care center, and we find that's all old people who live there who don't have you know children and don't want it, um, or a cafe that has a bad reputation or something that the neighborhood you know comes out against with that neighborhood serving commercial.

If the neighborhood doesn't like it, if we if we create this kind of zoning, are we bound to accept it?

As we were talking about in our SURSA training, if it fits in our zoning and uh do we just have to accept it?

Yes, so if if this zoning would allow a business, a certain type of business, certain size, um, with the regulations that have been proposed uh in that district, and someone purchases a property and would like to open a business that that meets the regulations, it would be allowed.

So it couldn't be just like with any um any development or any property owners' desired use of their property.

If if the use complies with our zoning regulations, they do have a right to exercise that use.

Again, it has to comply with our code, it has to meet our regulations.

Um you can't uh decide property rights once zoning is in place and regulations are being met based on public opinion, for example.

Um, you know, it needs to be uh in accordance with the zoning code.

So it would be allowed now, of course, businesses have to make decisions about where to locate as well.

So you know, there's going to be property owners and developers making decisions on where to locate based on the location and the zoning and the surrounding uses and properties.

That helps.

So I know there is quite a bit of opposition to this, but I personally love the idea.

I'm thinking of the small business owner who's just starting out and maybe can't afford traditional commercial retail.

If they want to convert their home to have a business, I am on board.

Thank you, Chairman.

Counselor Boy.

Um, I'm really with Councillor Gaygos on that.

I think, particularly since we're not talking about removing homes from the housing supply, which I would be opposed to because we have a problem there.

But we're talking about augmenting, you know, something that we've talked a lot about in the past few weeks, particularly coming out of our our council retreat in February, was how to encourage economic vitality and activity and harvest more sales tax, uh, particularly in a different difficult economic time.

And so I see this potentially unlocking a lot of commerce uh and really helping to your point a lot of small business owners just just kind of engage and I mean it just pulled up on the on the web, the Cannon Street ceramics.

I don't know if folks have been there, but it's like the little kiln ceramic shop on Canon Street, just a few blocks that way.

And like I imagine like they must be the most fun neighbors to have, right?

They're just making pottery, they're they're they're having a great time.

I think if what was on the table was bringing a Rayback collective into the middle of a quiet neighborhood, I think then I would understand folks being like, wait a minute, that doesn't it doesn't feel fair, but you know, a coffee shop, a bike shop, I think we could calibrate the rules so that they're rather tight and then allow folks to kind of be creative within that.

And then if we need to open up the aperture down the line, we could explore that.

But right now, I'm I'm just really excited by what this might offer our community.

And I love number two require a good neighbor agreement.

I think if our city attorney was happy with that, that could be really interesting.

Can I push back and say this will take housing out of the supply?

Because what we're saying is you're converting a house to a business, you're converting a home to an East Simpson coffee shop.

It doesn't have bedrooms, it it really is this is now a business.

What I've I hear that, but what I'm also hearing is that it would be someone who owns the home and runs a business out of their home.

Are we saying it's we exclusive?

We could probably not depending on council's interest, we could just we could structure it to be like a live work arrangement, which is in the use in our existing code.

We would just want to ensure that it's um, and again, I'm gonna be grateful to Mr.

Padfist.

And this, I think someone lives at this house and runs a bike shop.

If this is explicitly a commercial place, then I would be a garage.

That's two, but like if we're talking about removing houses from the supply in order to kind of have commercial throughout neighborhoods, that I think is a different conversation than how this has been pitched.

Well, yeah, and what I'm hearing is that um you want the opportunity for someone to live in the yes in the home while also doing that, which is more of like a live work situation, which is something that we could uh the code could be tailored to do if council wanted to move in that direction.

Isn't it an issue that's quite a bit?

I would I would ask the audience not to not to interrupt uh.

The maximum size here would be limited to 2,000 square feet, and so that would partition off, you know uh a lot of some of some in some cases of a bit of the house.

So um we would expect these to be pretty small scale, um, if they were to ever happen, um, given the local covenants.

Counselor Jensen.

I think um counselor has raised a good point, which this if we are doing cafes, they're probably not gonna live there.

You know, there it's probably gonna be a restaurant.

It could, but we have sort of conflicting things in our plan that when we came up with that our retreat, which is support for small business, and we also have support for housing.

If it's a 2,000 square foot thing, it's probably not low-income housing, you know, it's probably not the housing that we're struggling to provide in our community.

So, for from my point of view, if we want to support small business, I think this has the potential for creating some options for small business that are not currently there.

I think the good neighbor agreement is a good idea, and I think we also need to write some pretty restrictive things about lighting, parking, noise, and and maybe we need some sort of ombuds for community and folks to you know say this isn't working in our neighborhood because of whatever traffic, you know, but some process for complaints if this is not working in the first year as we're trying this out.

I also don't think a lot of businesses are gonna put themselves in a place in a neighborhood without talking to the community.

If they are trying to be a neighborhood serving commercial entity, they're not gonna do it if the neighborhood says I would never go there, you know.

Um I'm not a vegan or whatever, you know, they're saying that they want to put in that corner.

They would be doing their own market research about whether or not this is needed in that area, or or they they just it just doesn't make sense.

But I I see that the feedback from the community is um 72%.

Excuse me, that's not the right one.

Um the one that said um this one here, uh Commissioner on Council.

Uh the one about limiting it to I think there was a lot of support for that uh proposal to limit it to uh major entrances major streets or neighborhood entries.

Um I can't yeah, uh where did that go?

Um allow them only in limited locations like major streets or corner properties.

So I I don't I'd be inclined to want to start small with this and see if it's successful and not expand it and have it limited to the um major streets or neighborhood entry points at first.

If we find that it's a successful model, then you know we can go further.

But um again, I don't think any business is gonna do this if the neighborhood doesn't want them.

I just why would you do that?

You know, I don't know if it's a clarifying question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so how does this and this is coming out of uh looking at the what the DDA is also working to support small businesses in that we have potential, a lot of potential around food trucks.

Uh but the jump from food truck to brick and mortar is a big one, and we're you know, we're struggling with that.

I guess the city is in the DDA.

Um, and there are food trucks parked in at people's homes.

So does what how does that work if someone's got a food truck in there?

Would they be able to use it at their house?

Yeah, we'd have to look at the regulations and see.

Um, right now it's typically I believe like a temporary use situation.

We also added a food truck court, so a private property owner could create and go through a development review process to create a sanctioned place where there's lots of food trucks, but that's outside probably outside of this.

Um we can take a look at the right draft regulations and have that information ready um for council.

Could be great.

Let's go here.

Council President.

Um, so I I'm in agreement with Councilor Jensen that I think we should um look to major streets or neighborhood entry points.

I was gonna ask the question of do you mean number one?

Is that every corner lot that's currently drafted?

Currently as currently drafted.

So I don't know, there's a lot of corner lots.

Um, and to me it feels like an incremental step to say entry points, major streets.

I mean, if you zoom out on a neighborhood, right?

Like we already have some neighborhood serving commercial, it's just not as close because it's not like on the corner of this of the residential street, but it's you know, you can walk to you know, uh East of Coffee or something like that, right?

So um, I would be supportive of number three, I think, um, to take an incremental step.

Counselor Giannola.

I will push back and ask what is a major street.

We asked what's a collector street.

I don't know what major street we would have to map it.

Yeah, we would we would have to map it.

This was uh um an idea put out there at a community meeting, so we put it in the survey.

Um but I think it was as you're entering in a subdivision, um, it would be more along those that area or within a distance of that area.

Yeah, I think we need definition around it.

Uh for me, I'm again I'm a four here.

I think we can table this and get the land use code in place and tackle this later.

I do support live work.

And I don't know if this is really live work, but it sounds like we've been talking about live work.

Like, do I want to run a bakery from my home and have people come and buy my baked goods from the garage?

I mean, I know that there are businesses that exist like this already in Lafayette.

Used to live around the corner from someone who put out a glass case in front of their house and they would wheel it out every day, and it was filled with bread, and it was very convenient to walk and get a lump of bread.

Wow.

You know, live work is something that I don't see on this list.

Would you mind going back three slides?

One more slide.

Yeah, so I'm sorry, this is where my confusion comes from because this quotes the comp plan, and similar to Councillor Giono's point, sort of leads with incorporating opportunities for live work.

I I just would like a little more clarity.

Are we talking about converting a sizable number of homes into businesses?

Um, which is in my view a very different question than are we going to open the aperture for a lot of homeowners to run a small business out of their home?

Which I'm like, absolutely, let's do that.

But I would be opposed to anything other than corner lots on a to be determined major street.

Yeah, um, because we we have a housing crisis already, and so I'm wary for what that might unlock.

Yeah, and if I can continue, you know, I I think corner lots is a lot.

If it's if it's corner lots on big major road, I still don't know what that means.

Neighborhood entry point, maybe I feel a little bit better about knowing what that means.

But again, I think having the map and really understanding are we talking about 90% of Lafayette?

Are we talking about one percent of the area of Lafayette?

Six houses.

Yeah, is it six houses?

Is it basically every third house on the corner lot, right?

That we're saying could become a business.

I I just again, I don't want perfect to become the enemy of the good.

I for me I say we can have this down the road and get the rest of the great stuff in the land use code in place and tackle this in the future.

I will say, though, live work for me, I think fits into the current uh definition in uh neighborhood residential, whatever it is, and love to see that come to come to light.

Can I get your thoughts on this?

Um I would like to with all the restrictions that people have mentioned, like on the corner, uh neighborhood agreement, umits.

I'd like to get it started.

So I'm I'm one, two, one, two, and three, not four.

Um, but with the restrictions that people have mentioned, I'd like to see how that works.

Okay.

So just to recap, sounds like the majority of council are on board with maybe starting slow and just kind of one and three conflict with each other.

So I think what just uh just to confirm, let me say what I and if I'm right, I'm right.

If I'm wrong, you can all call it uh so we're gonna kind of step into three, but there's a few things that we want to understand, which is what is a major street going back to definitions.

We want to really get a good understanding of what a good neighbor agreement actually means and what that looks like uh in code, and then we want this to really implement the live work because we want to make that clear.

Does that sound like what came from council?

Okay, perfect.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um the very last one, I just have a couple of slides on this one.

Um we did ask um through this process whether or not um taller buildings, specifically four-story buildings, should be allowed in specific areas of Lafayette, as shown here on this map in exchange for enhanced community benefit.

And so in those cases, incentive programs like this would allow some sort of additional development rights in exchange for um uh what we call community benefits, affordable housing, things like that, greater than what the code would otherwise require.

Uh, we've historically have done this uh on a case-by-case basis through PUDs.

Um, and so we've done that through uh projects like Medtronic, um, the hospital and uh and others.

Uh the comprehensive plan uh um does include language around exploring this.

We won't dive into all of this, but it kind of says what I just did.

Um we did ask the survey question about this.

Um it started with the map as context, and then do you support allowing taller buildings four stories in exchange for additional community benefits?

Uh 54% of those respondents um uh voted or or um indicated no.

We did have an engagement map on the city's engagement page, and we had some potential support if council was looking at an area potentially between South Boulder Road and public road along on South Polar Road between 287 and public road, horizon avenue, so like stem siders area in the hospital metatronic area seemed to be some places that got some votes.

Which of the following incentives would you support?

The survey uh respondents indicated none as the top um uh choice, followed by taller buildings and reduced uh parking spaces.

Uh and uh would you support those incentives if they were offered in exchange for any of these community benefits?

The top the the most um the highest uh accounted for one at 47% would be outdoor public spaces, which is typical in these types of programs.

Um none, and then pretty similar between affordable housing and develop and uh sustainable development practices.

Um overall, we've seen some similar kind of resistance in our meetings, some openness to some of the larger areas if the council would want to pursue something like this areas like 287.

Um, but overall, there's also a lack of trust where if we had a uh incentive program, there's um some trust issues with those incentives actually being delivered to the community and impacts around view, corridors, uh traffic, uh, and and overall character.

Um so with those things in mind, we've um talked a little bit as staff about some options.

One would be to allow uh force up to four stories um on major corridors in exchange for community benefits like affordable housing.

Um, this um focuses intensity along those higher higher um capacity roadways and supports transit-oriented development, um, but there is community skepticism around receiving tangible good enough community benefits for that trade-off.

Um, second would be to just focus really laser focus on affordable housing.

Um, this directly addresses a high community need, um, though some residents may do that trade-off is insufficient, um, and it could discourage uses that other city would otherwise want to encourage.

And then lastly, uh no change rely on the plan united development process for height requests.

So the new code has a much more narrowly focused plan unit development process, um, and so it's not going to be everything that comes through the door.

So that would still give council the case by case discretion uh to approve that.

Um, obviously that adds a little bit more complexity to the application process, but it puts the decision in council's hands.

Those are three of the options we're considered we've talked about.

Right.

Last one for this.

Uh who wants to jump in with us.

I think some clarification.

So given that we're trying to in this land use code get away from PUDs as the way we develop projects, and we're creating these sort of framework for development for everything else.

If we left this height piece to a PUD, how does that complicate the planning operation?

If we're still having to do, I don't really know the significance of having a separate PUD just for height requests.

Um, and how would that work?

Could you sort of describe that before we get into answering these questions?

Yeah, and we could see how it would work if it's a form-based code versus the conventional district, but it would be a very similar process to what you're used to, where it would go go to council and it would be a site plan that would be called a PUD.

The whole thing, not just the height piece.

Yeah, and it would I would assume so, but I Elizabeth can kind of keep me honest.

Um similar to what we do now, you can ask for modifications.

So there's a note on there that says here's the new height.

So you couldn't just PUD the height.

Technically, you probably could PUD the height.

Okay, so you would have to PUD the whole thing if somebody has a height uh extension request.

Yeah, so um kind of depends.

Depends on the application type that's coming in.

If we're already doing a regulating plan, we could address a height change through that regulating plan.

But if it's an individual lot that comes in and they want to build 50 feet, then uh it's otherwise a by-right development that we could do administratively, we can't do a height adjustment administratively.

So that would add another layer where we would be taking something that we under the code could be doing uh by right and without a process to require a process.

So it does, it's just kind of dependent upon the scale of the project.

Okay, and our current height limit is 35, is that correct?

In most some districts, but it ranges from I think 27 feet, 24 feet to 35 feet.

And that is how many stories generally?

Generally 35 feet.

Um, you're gonna get two stories.

Um, it's gonna be hard to get three stories, but you can kind of get depending upon how you do your architecture, like the pitch roof could allow for a third story at that height.

But um it's you're gonna have very small kind of like there's a requirement for floor plate, so floor ceiling that you have to have for it to be livable.

And so really that last story is going to be probably confined to the center part of the building in order to meet our height requirement.

And could it be possible that we could do up to three stories as part of this code rather than some height?

That's kind of the we do it by uh feet now, and when we like that's part of the discussion that not the working group when we talked about a two-story allowance in the comp plan.

We don't want two regulations controlling the same thing, or at least I don't from uh the other side of the table, the regulatory side of the table, because you could technically have a three-story building that is 35 feet, and if it says two stories is the requirement, but it's 35 feet, you got two different regulations that are one's being met and the other one's not.

So we'd rather just have one, but um so I'd rather it be one or the other, and I think it's a little bit more.

I think it'd be difficult to just write it regulate by stories, so uh feet's a little bit cleaner.

And that's much more specific because you could have somebody come in and say, Well, it's a four-story building, and that's 50 feet tall, and you know, a four-story building could otherwise be 42 feet tall.

So it's a significant difference.

That was those are just questions, but I do have one thing to say.

You know, we have talked a lot about the need to concentrate development and transit corridors, and to do density because it's more efficient.

Um, it also reduces the need for VMT expands all kinds of possibilities.

Uh it's a smaller footprint on the earth.

I mean, there are all kinds of reasons why going up high benefits us, but I also get that view corridor issues are real, and um trying I'm trying to figure out how to balance these, you know, in our community when we know that good planning is density saves our open space, you know.

It it does a lot of good things for us.

Um I I think there's got to be some balance in here.

I don't know what that is, and I'm hoping one of you has a good idea.

Um I'll challenge the survey results again.

You know, we've got this very selective.

You're asking the homeowners what they think of height, and they hate it, right?

They hate it, do not make a high building, but that's homeowners only who aren't thinking about affordable housing necessarily.

Um valuable this survey results are to our discussion.

Um but if we are going straight by the survey, I'm going to number four, which is do not allow heights higher than 35 feet, which is not on your list.

But I uh I this is a a tougher question, I think, for us.

We've struggled with affordable housing.

There's a lot of you know sustainability benefits that can come through more dense housing, is more efficient.

Um where you put it, I think is the wrinkle, right?

People don't want to live next to a live next to a three-story building, let alone a four-story building.

Um, and so I what's the definition of major corridor?

Again, another definition.

I think with this one we know better.

You've got an example 287 Arapahoe Road.

I don't know if that includes South Boulder Road, but the map was really helpful of where this could be.

I think the comp plan is very clear that 35 feet is the limit.

It comes through loud and clear in the comp plan.

35 feet is the limit, and we're gonna give an incentive for certain community benefits.

So I appreciate this is what the focus is.

Um in the code, there are some 55 foot height limits, and I want to have those stricken out with the understanding that the PUD governs, and I think where those 55 feet are is because the PUD is kind of this is the only place where MX1.

I think it is the it was once a collectiflex, maybe for the Lafayette Tech Center, which they've got some weird PUD that says they can have 55 feet, but I was confused because I thought there was another little blue parcel on the map near Willoughby Corner, and I don't know why that would get 55 feet.

But I was confused because I thought there was another little blue parcel on the map near Willoughby Corner, and I don't know why that would get 55 feet.

So I think the community says we want 35 feet, and that should be the goal, even in these places where they're allowed to have more.

The community says, well, you can have that, but we really want you to have 35 feet.

You're entitled to it, but this is what our code says you should have, even if you get that.

So I'll stop talking and say with the final word.

It's hard question.

Before we jump, uh just in the interest of time, we're because we have a lot still on our agenda.

Which one do you fall under, Councilor Gianello?

I am a one and two together.

It's gotta be in the right place with uh the benefit that I see right now is affordable housing.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Ferland.

I think this um really highlights to me um the issue that we discussed about form-based code that we like have to figure out exactly not exactly.

We have to figure out what it could look like in this certain um you know designation to try to make things simpler to try to ease the process, right?

Like this is exactly um the challenge with this path.

Um when before we could just rely on PEDs.

Um and so I don't know.

I'm struggling at this hour, to be honest with you, to think about this hard question.

And I think with limited um community feedback on this question, in a question that is in conflict with the comp plan.

I don't know.

I I I would want us to make sure we're doing our due diligence to hear the community think through the implications of making changes like this.

Um I also would want us to think a little more about major corridors.

I'm sure it's been thought out, but when you put down a rapahoe road, I like yeah I'm like where you're on a Rappaho Road, would we be okay with four stories?

Just in the pictures.

Um so you know, so I I think and I know you've got it in the maps already, right?

So I'm it's more of like what you what we put on the slide than what you've been thinking about.

I know that.

So I think more clarity around that is valuable, and I would probably at this point if you're asking me the same question here, um, I would probably say three, because I think we need to keep working on it.

However, I recognize that three kind of like goes against what we're trying to accomplish here with form-based code.

So maybe it's actually four that we need to have a conversation about this, and we need to get more data, and we need to think a little more about where would these things be, exactly what that would look like.

Make sure we're restricting it in a way that's appropriate, given also the the good points that Councillor Jensen said of yes, we do have we have transit in our community.

How do we develop a little higher on transit?

We have opportunities for affordability if we develop a little higher, right?

We have major corridors that are gonna continue to develop in the next 50 years.

How do we set ourselves up for success in that way?

So there's just a lot here.

I don't, you know, so I think we need I think we need to have a whole process that talks about this.

Take you to a four.

Council Fullier.

Um quick things.

One, I think going forward, I would love to see aligned with Director Williams' comments, like let's pick feet rather than stories.

Let's let's just do that.

That way we can have some something I think that we can hang our hat on, because in my mind, 35 feet that can be four stories.

I don't maybe I'd have a short roof.

No, maybe three.

All right, all right.

Close enough.

Um, but I would love to just see feet, that'd be easier to process.

Um I was driving on 287 earlier today and passed by um 287 and diamond, which is where uh the Starbucks and Verizon are, and if you look that direction, you cannot see the mountains.

And I don't know what's ballpark that's 25 feet tall.

Um I struggle to understand the opposition to adding another story onto that building.

You are losing a few inches of sky.

It blocks no one because that's a heavily commercial area.

So I respect the the disagreement on kind of writ large, no height in town.

But I on 287, we have Walmart, it's like an eight-lane highway across.

I feel like that is the place to allow 40 feet, 55 feet.

Um, maybe not 20 stories, but we need a really good hotel in Lafayette because when people visit Lafayette, they stay elsewhere and give our neighbors the lodging tax.

They don't give it here.

And those people pay their sales tax dollars in our neighboring towns.

If you're a hotel, you want to come here, but we say actually 25 feet, 35 feet.

Are you gonna get the return on investment?

So I'm thinking about that as well.

I agree with the point on Arapaho Road.

I would not bucket that with 287.

So I think maybe clarifying 287s, in my view, that was that would be where we would have the highest height.

And then I'd be open to flexibility on the Rappahoe and baseline and South Public, but but not super high.

And I think we need to just continually hammer home.

No one is talking about 40 feet buildings in old town.

It's not on the table.

And I keep hearing it percolating in the community, and I want to squash that misinformation.

No one is talking about that.

It's not on the table.

And so I I think if we were to say nothing will happen in old town that's higher than tangerine, uh, that would check a box.

I think there's a sustainability piece too that I would add on as a ritification and drought and climate change continues to happen, it's only going to be hotter and hotter.

And it's nice to have more shade on public road.

For those of us who go the Art Night Island festivals in the summer, you bake on public road, right?

We bake, but if you had a little bit more shade, a little bit taller, that would keep the asphalt and the concrete a little bit cooler during the day.

Um so yeah, so 287, absolutely Arapaho.

Let's come back to that, and let's just continue to clarify.

No one's talking about raising the height limit substantially in old town that's off the table.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, Counselor, that seemed like a one and two similar to Counselor Gianola.

Yes.

Yeah.

Counselor Jensen, I believe you had a thought, but also I just want to hear where you are on this issue.

I didn't, I was just pointing out that on the RAPO, there was just a picture of what they were talking about about a rat power.

So it's not all of a rent pot, it's where there's already businesses.

So that's just that's all.

Um but still it's it's quieter.

I I think we need a definition of the major corridors for this.

Um, because everybody sort of freaked out when they saw a rabbit hole road down here.

So uh a clarity about what our major corridors and I guess as an affordable housing advocate, um I I love the idea of incentivizing affordable housing through extra height.

I I do have to say there are other things in our community we need besides affordable housing.

We need child care, you know.

We we I'm I'm reluctant to limit, even though I am a big supporter of affordable housing.

If somebody came up with something creative and interesting that our community was dying for I wouldn't hate to be limited, I think affordable housing is probably the number one thing that we know about right now that would be worth incentivizing, but in the future there might be other things.

Um and I you know, let's just say we had a tornado and somebody rebuilds something because you know we we had a disaster of some kind, and they they're willing to do that as part of their incentive.

I I'd hate to be limited by this.

So based on that, if council move forward with this, um we would probably want at least some kind of quantified community benefits.

So if you were allowed a height exemption, that area would have a higher amount of affordable housing, for example.

There are communities that do a community benefits agreement to do kind of what you described.

Um those get a little bit challenging because you have to quantify, make sure it's not you're not giving away the the farm in that case and making sure the benefit is commensurate to what you're giving in the incentive.

Well, and I don't know if you can quantify the affordable housing benefit to be equal to something, you know, equal to however many one-fourth of the total units or whatever, you know, you come up with some metric, and if you do that in a metric, then you could also compare other things to that in a metric, you know.

So let's say a child care center was worth this much, you know, and you can compare that to affordable housing, I'm guessing, but I don't really know.

So anyway, I would be inclined to be supportive at this point uh of going forward, but want the addition the clarification on what are the major corridors and a little more specificity on the incentives.

Counselor's mayor pro tem any final thoughts on this.

Sure, I am a three right now.

I'm struggling with number one, specifically four stories.

I don't really want to go above four stories if I don't know what that community benefit is.

And with affordable housing, I would want clarification for truly affordable housing because eighty percent AMI is not affordable.

There are some market rate units that are below that and are not considered affordable.

So I do think we need a clearer definition.

And I just don't know that there's a connection between height building height and the affordable affordability.

And I also don't want to see 20% AMI, a bunch of people in the who are 20% AMI in a in a 40-foot building.

I think was spot on when they said, Well, we want affordable housing or trying uh transient uh transportation.

But I that's not even in here.

So I'm I'm a three.

Um I will come in and say I I agree with the other counselors that are kind of stuck between that one and two option.

Um you you've heard a lot of the definitions that we want and just I think the other piece that I'd really like is just uh make it clear what a community benefit is.

I think that's missing for for a lot of folks like just from like the feedback, it seems like that just needs to be defined a little clearer.

Um we should pull out of this from the code and based on, you know, uh moving ahead at a following adoption, we would bring an incentive package to you.

So you I you can also have this conversation during the adoption hearing.

Um but it would be a specific amount of that community benefit, like a specific amount of affordable housing.

And so what I'm hearing is definitely more information, um more maps and um we can go back with the input we've gotten this evening and provide some information, but um that could perhaps be provided as part of the adoption hearing or or or separately.

Perfect.

And I think you only have next steps left to go.

Yeah.

And that's really quick.

Um, so we are the consultants uh have a few thousand comments that they're going through from staff and the community members.

Um we'll be deleasing an adoption draft um of the code um in the near future.

We're gonna host an uh community briefing to tell community members about where we kind of landed with all these key options and let them know about next steps.

Uh and then we'll be hope scheduling the adoption hearings uh for the next uh next couple few months.

Um you'll be hearing more from us, and we really appreciate the time and attention um through this uh fairly long agenda items that very very much appreciate it.

Great.

Thank you so much.

And because I've been asked, uh, I'm gonna go ahead and give us a five minute break.

So we'll be back at nine fifty-five.

Thank you, Mayor.

Turn it over for TDA.

Are you under the first time?

Yes, you're on her TAS.

I need different hats.

Thank you, Council, for having me this evening.

I'm gonna be giving a brief presentation.

I'm here today as the DA executive director.

Tonight I'm just gonna be introducing our 2026 budget amendment and carry forward for the Lafayette DA.

You're also gonna be considering other budget amendments and carry forward tonight or being introduced to them, and so we follow the same city process for the Lafayette DA budget.

Um so I'll be giving an overview of our budget process, the carry forward and budget amendment that I'm introducing, and then next steps.

So I I want to recognize that um this is probably one of the first times with some of the new counselors that I'm coming as the Lafayette DDA executive director.

So a brief slide that um we were established in the election in 2024.

We're the lead public entity to enhance old town as a vibrant and welcoming downtown for small businesses and community connections.

Um we're governed by seven member authority, which is appointed by council.

Uh, Mayor Partem Tim Barnes sits on that.

Um, and we are funded through tax increment financing, which reinvests a portion of property tax and sales tax generated within district in the district boundary, so it's not a new tax.

Um there's there's probably a bunch of questions you may have about how it's been going, and I'm excited that I'm gonna be coming to you all on May 5th for a general economic development update.

So if you do have some questions, drop those down and we can kind of dig into just how things are going at that future update.

But tonight I'm giving just a brief uh introduction to our budget amendment.

So for the um process, um, as you know, as city council, you will adopt a budget for the following year.

Um, and within that the that year that you adopt that the that budget, things pop up, and you have to do a budget amendment for unforeseen circumstances, and these budget amendments allow you to um continue business and be within your spending authority.

Um, since you all are the governing body for the DDA, you actually approve any budget that we have, but also any budget amendments, which is why I'm here tonight.

So we brought forward a budget amendment to our DDA in March, which they approved, and so tonight I'm introducing that amendment to you all.

Um it's really short, so it should be quick.

And then um at your April 21st meeting, you'll be considering uh approval of that budget amendment through a resolution.

So what you're um what our budget amendment is related towards is for our downtown improvement grant, and it's a budget carry forward for unspent funds.

And so in November 2025, we launched one of our first um grant programs for the DDA called DIG, the downtown improvement grant.

And this is a matching grant initiative, up to 25,000 for interior and exterior capital improvements.

If you looked in the packet for our um budget table, it's reflected in that downtown development line item.

In 2025, we approved $50,000 for the DIG program, and in 2026, we have allocated 150,000.

So both of those are allocations.

I'm pleased to share that we've gotten a lot of really great applications and interest in this program in such a short amount of time and six, seven months.

So in 2025, we awarded 41,000 in DIG awards.

You can see that in the purple.

And in 2026, we have awarded over 100,000, and that's reflected in the brown orange.

And these range from HVAC replacements to patio enclosures to murals, and so it's been really great to just see a lot of people aware of this program and tapping into it in such a short amount of time.

Um so our budget carry forward is related to unspent funds from 2025 carried into the 2026 budget.

Um, so we allocated $50,000 for the DIG program last year, and we awarded 41,000 across three projects, but only 7,000 were um completed and reimbursed, went through that process.

So we have awarded three um two other projects that still need to go through that reimbursement process.

So this budget carry forward carries that um those funds that have not been reimbursed into 2026.

It also carries forward um unallocated funds that weren't awarded.

So in simplest terms, our budget was 50,000.

We reimburse 7,000 in actual.

We're gonna be carrying forward those uh awarded but unreimburst that have not been reimbursed or unallocated, um, which is around 42,000.

So our 2026 line item for downtown development was 150, and now we're bumping that up to 192,000.

So short and sweet.

Um, but as the governing body, we need to introduce these budget amendments to you all for you to approve.

And so tonight I'm introducing it to you.

Um, and then you'll be considering approval of a resolution at your next meeting, and it will be on the consent agenda.

So I'm happy to turn it over to um Mayor and answer any questions.

Yeah, so just a reminder we're not voting tonight.

That'll come back to us uh later date, but any questions for our executive director or DDA.

No questions.

Great, thank you for having me.

Uh speaking of budget carry forwards, we will move on to the other.

This was just gonna be just a better one.

The other budget.

So yep, this is our uh 2026 budgetary forward and some supplemental, so similar to what um the DDA uh process was as well, with ordinance number nine, series 2026 first reading.

Um so I'm gonna talk to you about budget amendment overview, notable requests, and answer any questions you might have.

And then we have motion language as well.

Uh budget amendments, so types of budget amendments.

We have the budget carry forward.

This is done early in the fiscal year expenditures.

Uh so those are unused one-time budget for projects and initiatives in progress at 2025 year end.

They can't be used uh for unused base or ongoing budget.

Um they were all previously approved by city council during the 2025 budget process.

So again, those are the carry forwards, and then budget supplemental.

Um, these can come forward throughout the fiscal year.

We typically have another supplemental closer to the end of the year.

Um, so this is our first for 2026.

Um that can include revenues, new revenue sources often associated with an expenditure, such as a grant um expenditures, new or reallocated an expenditure.

You can have one time, non-recurring or ongoing recurring.

Um, and these are identified after the passage of the 2026 budget last year.

So again, things that are um that weren't anticipated initially.

Um this is kind of just a summary budget amendments 30.3 million total.

Um, most of that's in carry forward, um, 84%, 16% supplemental, and then a breakdown by fund.

You know, most of this is coming from water, water, rec, and capital projects fund, so large largely infrastructure projects.

Uh and then here's uh a summary by fund of the totals um between the 2025 carry forwards and the 2026 supplemental.

So you have a total total of 25 million in carry forward, five million in supplemental, and then you have a little over um 500,000 in revenue for a total of about 30.3 million in total net impact.

And then some notable requests just to highlight.

Uh so we have some these again, these are carry forwards, so we're bringing these forward from 2025.

They weren't completed.

Uh water bill assistance program for a little over 17,000 grant fund, we have ARPA funding, installation of fiber optic backbone that we're continuing to complete.

Uh parks and open space trails fund, 701 South Public Road Pocket Park for a little over 900,000.

The South Boulder revitalization program for 750, uh 700-800 public road streetscape improvement project for a million dollars, and the aerial fire apparatus for a little over 2 million.

Um so those are again our carry forwards uh from 2025, and then notable supplementals.

We have the design for the capital bond program for the rec and the service center.

Uh so that's about four million, and then and all of those funds will be ultimately reimbursable through bond proceeds, and then Arapahoe Theater Design, which this was funding that was previously um restricted, and so we're making that available based on um the use of those funds.

Um so that was dedicated funding through a prior development agreement for 400,000.

Um and I'm available to ask any questions.

Um exhibit our attachment B goes into a lot more detail around all of the requests, um, but happy to answer any questions that you may have.

And as well, I have Morgan um and Lori here from finance who are help helped me do most of this work.

So thank you to our financing.

Any questions from council?

Councilor Furland.

Um, yeah, I've got a just uh really two.

Um the first one is is there any uh risk to the RPA timeline of it moving into 2026?

Like will they take the money back or something?

No, they need to be complete by the end of 2026, and we'll make sure we utilize those funds by the end of the year.

Thank you.

Um the other one I had, I guess, is like it feels like a a lot of carry forward early in the year.

Uh and I guess I'm just sort of my like spidey sense is tingling.

We're like, what why is that?

We had projects we wanted to get done, they didn't get done last year, so we're carrying them forward, but why didn't they get done last year?

Does that question make sense?

Yeah.

Like, is there a systemic issue that we're seeing in the numbers, or or are we just cleaning things up?

It's all good.

No, I I mean I would say just by looking at the um projects, a lot of them again are infrastructure off the capital, and so again it's timeline, it's you know, projects take a while to get going, get moving.

And we did have we do have conversations when we go through each of these supplement uh excuse me, um, carry forwards about are you really gonna get it done this year?

Right.

Um, and so you know, those that are there, we we do do intend to get them done in 26.

That is the goal.

Yeah, I mean it's hard to spend the money sometimes.

I get it, right?

Um why why is it a carry forward and not just a budget, a budgeted item for 2026.

If we were, you know, halfway through last year or even farther, and we knew look, the timeline's slipping.

Let's be sure to budget it for 2026.

That way we don't have to do a carry forward.

Why isn't that the process?

Well, I mean, I guess I would just say because it there they're started in that year, and so we want to continue that, and that funding's been allocated, so we just continue it forward to the next year versus rebudgeting.

Got it.

I would also add Colorado Law requires you to budget the full amount of the contract.

You can't just say even though I know this will take two years, and I know that I'll only spell spend 50,000.

You can't just budget that if that's for those as well.

That makes sense.

Yeah, we do have to allocate all the funds when you initially sign the contract.

Wow.

Councilor Reginola.

Can you talk a little bit about uh the new items in the table?

Like why why do we suddenly have 469,000 dollars of additional revenue in the general fund?

So a number of them are grant related.

So um, you know, there's the supplemental, and then the so we're we're getting additional grants that we, you know, so most of them are all um are all related to grant funding.

So the um initial one in the general fund through the arts, um, and then SIPA uh as well, and then um we've got the miscellaneous grant revenue.

So again, the the largest one there is related to it's mostly related to grant funding.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Any other questions from council?

Mayor Protect.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Is uh did we pay anything on the aerial fire apparatus, the truck yet?

Or I don't believe I don't believe so.

I know it's it's it takes a long time takes a long lead time for those.

So I think it was originally in the budget in 2023.

Is that right?

And um, so but they are looking at specs this year, and the goal is to buy the truck this year.

So is this the first time we've put we're putting everything on this is the total amount, right?

We're yeah, yeah.

We're we're hoping so we're gonna get a truck this year.

We're trying.

If you approve this up and out, is anyway.

Thank you.

Yep.

Any other questions?

Council?

If not, do you mind going one slide forward just so we have the motion like this?

And there's your motion.

I move to approve on first reading ordinance number nine series 2026, providing for additional appropriations during fiscal year 2026 for unanticipated 2026 revenues and expenditures required of the City of Lafayette, Colorado specifically carry forwards of 2025 expenditures, appropriation of certain 2025 capital project items, and modification of current 2026 budget line items.

Second motion we have a second.

Uh any further discussion on this matter.

Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed, saying no.

No one opposed that passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to our final item for regular business tonight, the sixth amendment to sundar subdivision filing number one.

For this, I'll turn it over to our city attorney, Marilyn McSalkman.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Mary Lynn Maxalka, the city attorney, and I will be introducing this item for you this evening.

This item is the uh it's a presentation on the sixth amendment to Sundar subdivision filing number one, development agreement, and a resolution that is related to this item.

But we're going to cover a few things tonight.

I will provide a background regarding the Sundar Apartments project as well as some information regarding the development agreement, which is what the Sixth Amendment request relates to.

I'll then provide you an overview of the uh sixth amendment requests we've received from the developer, as well as an overview of the resolution that staff has prepared for you this evening.

You will then have an opportunity to hear from Milestone and Embry, which is the current developer and uh potential purchaser of the first phase of the project.

Then you'll have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and of uh milestone in Embry.

And then lastly, you'll lastly you'll have time for uh discussion and to make your decision.

So, first some background regarding this project.

So the Sundar Apartments project for the public's information is located generally west of Medtronic, and it's in the northwest corner of Dillon Road and Highway 287 at the south end of Lafayette.

Um the it is uh intended to be a two-phase project, and the entire project right now is owned by the current developer, which is milestone Sundar GP.

You'll hear me refer to them again as milestone this evening.

It is a multifamily residential project, so it will be a number of apartment buildings as well as a clubhouse, mail kiosk, and garages in each phase.

Importantly, this this project was originally approved in at the very end of 2018.

So a few years ago at this point, it was approved by council.

There was a final plan and PUD, a subdivision and site plan and architectural review.

This project is located on approximately 36 acres.

It contemplates a total of 684 apartment units.

Those will consist of studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms.

Phase one is intended to have 324 of those units among nine apartment buildings with 29 garages.

That is the area that you see on the east side of the project that's uh that is outlined in red.

Uh phase two is also included in the final plan in PUD, and that will have 360 units among 10 apartment buildings and 23 garage buildings.

The phase one building permits, so the building permits for that area outlined in red were issued in 2020, several years ago, and at the time those units or those building permits were issued to preserve a dwelling unit allocation for the project under the city's growth management charter amendment.

That was still in enforcement at the time due to changes in state law a couple of years ago.

Um the city is no longer enforcing that growth management amendment or those uh growth management allocations.

Uh but that is the reason that those permits were issued early on in the project.

Those building permits, as you know, it's been six years since 2020, those have been extended seven times now, and I'll provide a little more information about that.

So when a development like this comes in to the city and requires extension of public improvements, utilities, roads, things like that, we do enter into a development agreement with the owner and developer, and that was the case back in 2018 for this project for phase one.

A development agreement sets out the developer's obligations to provide and construct public improvements to serve the subdivision and to serve the development, and that those must be requires that those improvements must be constructed to the city's standards and specifications.

Development agreements also address other matters like dedications of public land, the amount of water right dedications, payment of fees, and other requirements that need to be met for the project to proceed.

This particular development agreement for phase one has been amended five times previously over the last few years.