I'm gonna start the meeting and then we really start I cannot hear us right now.

So go ahead and start with this.

That stuff up like if you guys want to see it to stay on the show.

Okay.

I just don't have any price proposed.

Yeah, okay.

Lafayette meeting uh planning commission meeting of April 8th, 2026 is called to order.

My roll call, please.

Yes.

Chair Thomas here, Vice Chair Wilson.

Here, Commissioner Here G here.

Commissioner Lehman here, Commissioner Metler.

Yep.

Commissioner Phillips.

Yep.

Commissioner Watson.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak tonight regarding items that are not scheduled for a public hearing this evening?

If so you can be a little louder for your speaker, please.

Sure.

Strange.

Can you hear me better if I'm really close?

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on an item that is not um on not scheduled for a public hearing this evening?

There's a public public input.

Yes, this is time for public input on items not on the agenda.

Are we on the agenda?

We were advised uh to also provide a public comment.

We understand it will be on the record.

Is that acceptable so that I'm commissioned?

If this is about something that is not on not an item on the agenda, then yes, you can provide.

We were given different advice that it would still be okay to give a public comment without it.

Like everything will be on the public record.

Sure.

No, but I mean not part of the topic, which I think is here.

Is it now would be the time to do that?

Um you just need to state your name and address for the record.

Yeah.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I think I even talked about it.

All right.

Uh perfect.

And yeah, for me.

Was there an echo?

All right.

Uh my name is Megan Rast.

I live at 646 Homestead Street, directly west of the proposed self-storage at 685 Passman Ridge Drive.

My neighbors and I support thoughtful development, and my neighbor neighbor Christy and I will speak in the public hearing uh on all of the specific issues with the project proposal for that official whatever the proper term is record.

Uh where this is the first and only time we understand the planning commission has heard about this project officially.

Um we want to and it missed what we understand is maybe an updated process.

We're going forward, you'll have the opportunity in sketch plan, right?

And kind of here we are straight to the spar.

Um so in this public comment section, I'd like to start by thanking uh what I think will happen.

We understand from March two commissioners recuse themselves for the project's proposed hearing.

Um we anticipate we expect you know the same thing since the topic will be heard today.

We really appreciate that that's fair and ethical.

That means a lot to us as community members.

Um we'd like to take this public comment to just remind the planning commission of two key responsibilities, a little gentle reminder to start us off.

So first in Lafayette, I think we all understand self-storage is not a use by right.

It requires a special use review.

Um, under the city code, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will not create significant adverse impacts.

This project does not meet that standard.

Its large scale and operations will significantly and directly affect nearby homes.

We'll walk through all those specifics in the hearing again of section of the agenda, but we wanted to provide uh gentle reminder in the public comment that the planning commission, if you agree with our statements, that's a clear grounds to deny the special use review of the application.

Second, this proposal is in conflict with the Lafayette's with Lafayette's excuse me, 2021 comprehensive plan, which designates this parcel as adaptable commercial, intended to guide walkable, high-quality, mixed-use districts with activated streets.

It's a vision we share.

You'll hear more about that vision again in our hearing testimony.

Um approval of the special use review is discretionary and subject to compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

So although the staff report includes, we appreciate that they acknowledged the comprehensive plan's designation.

We're a little disappointed that there was no commentary provided on the compatibility with that designation.

So specifically, we would have expected at least some acknowledgement that this proposal could create a decades-long uh non-conforming use when the zoning is updated later.

So we'd like to remind gentle reminder to the planning commission that the application was submitted in 2023 after the comprehensive plan was adopted in December 2021, um start which started that rezoning effort.

Although we understand that the applicant can and did apply on the M1 industrial zoning and are allowed to apply under this zoning, we are here to just kind of question the planning commission allowing such significantly adverse use and approval on the current zoning, so close to the land use code updates.

So we're here to remind as well, that's a gentle reminders uh that the Lafayette Code of Ordinances mandates that the planning commission and city council adhere to the comprehensive plan uh through specific review criteria, especially in the situation we're in today, which is a special use review.

So again, we'll reiterate all those points later in the hearing.

We'll give them some more uh specifics.

Uh but before I return to my seat, we wanted to give a moment for my neighbors uh who took time out of their busy schedules to be here in person.

So I'm going to ask them to stand or raise their hand and be counted so the planning commission, you can see all of their faces today.

Uh we've pooled our time, so two of us, so two of us will uh be speaking on behalf of the opposition to this project.

But I just want to say all of our voices matter and they deserve to be heard.

Uh so dear neighbors, please stand or keep raising your hand to indicate you agree with the following statements.

You oppose this project because the sheer scale, height, size, and imposition of the proposal is incompatible with the existing buildings on Aspen Ridge Drive.

You oppose this project because it will significantly adversely impact residents of Anna's farm.

You oppose this project and support all of the comments from your neighbors.

Megan, that's me, and Christy, uh, who will speak in the hearing section of the agenda.

You oppose the storage project being granted the permissions and exceptions of a special use review.

You oppose the storage project because it conflicts with the 2021 comprehensive plan.

You oppose this project because storage facilities have lower tax revenue, and this proposal will create only about two to three jobs.

You oppose this project because you agree with the work of the land use code working group, and you oppose this project because you share the vision of the comprehensive plan to make this area walkable, street activated, commercial, and beneficial to the neighborhood.

So thank you again, uh the repeating myself, but you'll hear more about uh about this in the hearing section of the agenda, where of course we will be urging you to deny the proposal.

Thank you.

All right, at this time I'd like to take a few minutes.

We received a memo from our um city attorney later in the day today.

I'd like to take um three minutes to is that enough for everyone to review?

Is that enough for time for the commissioners to review?

Um order she said.

Sorry, I can't.

Um, at this point, we're gonna take three minutes for the commissioners to review a memo that we received from our attorney the late this afternoon.

Thank you.

If we could please just have a moment of side of the

Any corrections.

Thank you.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Any um discussion or do can any discussion?

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

We will move on to um agenda item number four.

Um the next item on the agenda is a public hearing for resolution number PC twenty twenty six dash twelve recommending approval with conditions of an application for special use reviews and site plan and architectural review for lot ten block one black diamond subdivision.

Good evening.

My name is sorry, hold on, I'm not quite done.

Um there was don't have quite the the right information.

I just need to read this bit.

The commission will consider the record, which includes planning's uh city planning staff report, presentations by the applicant and the city's planning staff, and any public comment received during the hearing.

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

Okay, yes, sorry.

Um oh, I didn't get that far.

Sorry, there's there's some discrepancies here that I've um it's important that each commission member remain objective and capable of considering information offered into the record.

Does any commissioner member believe that he or she is incapable of evaluating, reviewing, and commenting on the application consistent with due process requirements?

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

As I am the current vice president of the Lafayette Historical Society.

We have Jeff Arthur, the public works director, and Pete Bradshaw, the fire chief, who are available to answer questions.

The order of operations tonight is that we'll have a couple of presentations.

The applicant will present an overview of their project.

Staff will present the analysis of the project against the code criteria.

Following that, there will be public hearing, and then there'll be an opportunity for questions of applicant and staff, then there'll be discussion, and then there will be the motion.

The proposed Loppy itself storage project is proposed for 685 Aspen Ridge Drive.

You can see the color renderings up on the screen.

And the two applications are site plan architectural, also known as a SPAR, and special use review for self-storage and caretaker unit uses.

Zoning is M1, that's an industrial zone.

And the site, the size of the site is 1.6 acres with a proposed size of approximately 90,000 square feet and building height of a little under what's a little under 35 feet.

The two applications, the special use review and the site plan are running concurrent to one another.

And the project has been in process for some time, and it started with neighborhood meetings, and then a formal application was submitted to the city.

It went through staff review and is now here tonight at Planning Commission for a public hearing.

Planning Commission's role is to review and make a recommendation to City Council.

City Council is scheduled to hear this project at April, their April 21st meeting.

Okay, and with that, I will turn it over to the applicant, and I'll be back up for the analysis.

Thank you, Andrea.

Um, and I want to thank um staff's been fantastic working through this project.

So I want to thank the entire planning team.

My name's Alyssa Kneaton.

I am a planner with the land use and real estate firm of Auden Johnson.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant 1784 Holdings LLC.

Sorry, there we go.

Um I'm also joined by the rest of the project team as you can see here, and they are all available for questions that may arise this evening.

Briefly, I want to just introduce the company 1784 Holdings.

It's a nationwide self-storage facility facility developer established in 2013.

Um, they focus on creating really elevated Class A self-storage facilities, as you can see from the images shown here.

Um, Andrea did a good job describing the subject property.

It is located at 685 Aspen Ridge Drive as shown here in uh M1 zone district.

So I won't spend too much time on Claire.

Um, I did want to touch on the property background because it is pertinent here.

Um this property is actually located in a subdivision unknown as Black Diamond Subdivision, which was originally began development in 1982 as an industrial subdivision site.

It largely is built out to this day and was built out by 1999 with industrial and industrial flex buildings in the early 2000s on the land to the west, now known as Anna's Farm, was largely remained as well.

It was farmland still at that time.

Um, as part of planned residential development, a sound wall agreement was required by the city.

Um the sound wall agreement essentially required the residential developer to install a sound wall as well as additional improvements in order to acknowledge the industrial uses that existed to the use of that property and to buffer the uses from one another.

Um the Samwall Agreement also remains in effect and it provides a recorded notice to buyers of existing that of the existing industrial uses, and it also acknowledges the importance of industrial to the city.

This image is showing obviously the the develop the build out of the industrial and then the residential coming in in 2003, 2004.

Um, so they've been coexisting for some time, as you can see.

Um, this image is showing uh building images once again, and you can see the streetscaping along Aspen Ridge Drive.

Notably, in response to public comments received, the building square footage has been reduced by about 26,000 square feet in order to be more compatible with the industrial buildings in the area.

And also, as you'll see, is also compatible with the residential heights to the west.

This is the site plan, obviously, which shows a shared access with Sister Carmen to the south, which will ensure that there's limited traffic impacts from exits and entering onto the site.

You can see on the northeast that will be from a newly expanded sidewalk on Aspen Ridge Drive onto the site.

Required parking for this type of use is minimal, and you can see that's all front loaded along the eastern building elevation facing towards Aspen Ridge Drive.

Significantly, you'll see that on the southern elevation, there's interior loading.

That is where customers would go into remove items or pack up items and leave.

So really mitigates exterior impacts to the community.

There's also, of course, landscaping that's been added throughout the site.

The intention was to preserve the existing tree that's located to the northwest of the property.

A professional art rarist did find that there was decay on that tree and recommended removal.

However, a new tree will be added to replace that.

After hearing the public comments and concerns, the applicant team did decide that a second neighborhood meeting was appropriate in order to take the comments from the first neighborhood meeting and then go back and make adjustments to the plan in order to try to address some of the concerns that were identified.

Went through two review rounds of review with the staff once we did submit the updated site plan.

And now we're here tonight.

And then City Council is scheduled for April 21st.

This I'm not gonna bore you, or sorry, I didn't mean to say that not for you, but go, I'm not gonna read all of these.

Okay, as you're all aware, um, you are and um has been noted when you review a special use application, you are subject to these review criteria.

Um we would contend, and I'm going to explain how the project does comply with these review criteria, and that is also consistent with the staff analysis, which found that the project complies with these criteria as well.

Um the project complies with the code and specifically complies with spatial requirements related to setbacks, building height, landscaping, um, and parking, and in many instances goes above and beyond the requirements.

For instance, um, the rear setback, which would be the setback that um faces Annas Farm to the west, was increased from an original request of 30 feet to 50 feet in order to address public comments.

Um, this also exceeds the minimum that's required for industrial from residential.

In addition, landscape area is also exceeds minimum requirements as well, and building height is um complies with the maximum building height in this zone district.

And the zoning is consistent today as it with how it has been built out.

So there is industrial to the north and south, and to the southeast, we have commercial to the east, and then of course Anna's Farms is located to the west.

Um we would argue that this use is less impactful than other potential uses that could be located in industrial zoning and will provide less traffic and less water impacts and provides a natural transition between what could be higher impact and is higher impact uses to the east from the residential to the west.

Um, this further depicts the distance.

So there's 104 feet distance from the proposed building to the closest residential building in Annus Farms.

I know that there's some conflicting information out there that states 120 feet, but the materials have been updated based on a finding that it is in fact 104 feet distance spread apart from one another.

In addition, the building is compatible with the surrounding character, and the topography of the site actually lends itself to providing the building, it makes it appear more as a two-story building rather than a three-story building, and the height is generally consistent with the residential to the west, as you can see.

Adverse environmental influences are also limited as required by review review criteria three.

The added landscaping, of course, adds additional screening and opportunities for the natural wildlife buffer that occurs there today.

There will be no impacts to surrounding properties, and again, touching on that tree that was recommended to be removed will be replaced.

In response to public comments that have also been removed, been received with concerns related to the junipers and potential fire hazards, those are being removed from the plans and replaced with more recommended fire-wise plant materials recommended by Colorado State University.

Additionally, there will be sustainable measures, including durable materials that will last for some time, minimal traffic and low water usage associated with this type of use.

In addition, fire concerns are minimized due to sprinkling and storage of hazardous materials is not permitted.

This really is a great graphic that depicts the low amount of customer visits to the site and why this is really a great facility for this site.

As you can see, the greatest amount of traffic to the site was about 4.5 vehicle visits, and this is from a similar facility owned by 1784 holdings.

So the largest amount of trips were between 9 a.m.

and 1 p.m.

with very minimal visits at the earlier or later hours.

And then again, lighting is also minimized, and there is no spillage onto adjacent properties, importantly.

This misstates that the downcast lighting is going to be mounted 12 feet or 14 feet.

So lighting will be really extremely minimal, and adverse impacts will be mitigated from that.

Review criteria for is the compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

And as we know, this is located in the adaptable commercial classification.

The project does comply with this classification because it does add more to the pedestrian experience along Aspen Ridge Drive.

As you can see, street scarscaping will be added, and in addition, the sidewalk that exists, which is five feet, will be increased to eight feet.

In addition, minimal parking areas and other design guidance from the adaptive commercial designation will be incorporated into the project as shown here.

Specifically, it provides an amenity that is complementary to residential uses in the community.

It helps to read or to develop an infill development that's otherwise been vacant for a long time, not contributing to tax revenues in the city, and sustainable building practices will be utilized as previously noted.

In addition, the project is located in a developed area adjacent to utilities, and so will not cause any need for extension of utilities.

And also the sustainable building practices again, you see come up, and as I previously noted, tax revenues will be generated from development of this site.

Um that have not obviously occurred since this has been vacant for so long.

And then the final review criteria is that it shall not create significant adverse impacts, and uh we would argue that that is the case.

The case is that it does not create significant adverse impacts.

Apologies for that.

Um, as I previously stated, traffic is minimum minimal and parking is limited, so um the neighborhood will not be impacted by a significant amount of traffic from this project.

The added trees and shrubs will create screening from any traffic on the site from uh the trash, and um, yeah, we'll add to the visual appeal of the site overall.

In addition, noise like dust and glare is minimal minimalized from the interior loading, and also the garage doors that are used for those interior loading are meant to be quiet operation garage doors, which will further limit noise.

Um then the sound wall along the residential to the west also further um mitigates impacts to the area.

In addition, because no new housing except for there will be a caretaker unit added to the northeast of the building, um, which was added as part of public comments in order to further monitor um safety on the site.

So the only housing that's generated from this is that on-site uh manager unit.

So therefore, there's no burdens on existing services, and in addition, there's um a number of safety measures, including 24-7 monitoring, a keypad entry for customers, and then of course that on-site manager is available.

Um fire impacts are mitigated, and um will limit any concerns um related to requiring fire visits because of the sprinkling, and then um it will of course be constructed to fire and building codes.

And then finally, also in response to public comments, the hours of operations were reduced and changed to 6 a.m.

from what was originally proposed to 5 a.m.

But regardless, as shown from that previous graphic, um access during those times is minimal in any event.

So with that, I'm actually going to pass this over to Michelle Bach with 1784, and she's gonna go over more of the building design and site plan and architectural review criteria.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lisa.

Michelle Bach with 1784 holdings from Scottsville, Arizona.

So there is a list of site plan um architectural review criteria, and this the next couple slides.

I'm just gonna briefly go over the design and can go into further detail if there's any other questions.

But these review criteria do go over the appropriate scale of the site, the materials used, um, landscaping, uh, parking, overall traffic.

So you've seen these images in a few other slides, but specifically for the materials that we are proposing.

The first floor is a CMU block, integral color block, and a split face texture to allow for the material to wear longer because it's integral color, that color is baked into it, so any sort of weather damage and on the color is just not right on the surface for any chipping.

Um, using the split face block, it gives it more of an aggregate color to it, so it provides other mixture of uh colors within it to enhance that block.

It does have a striping detail in it, so it's primarily this auburn color with a gray stripe in it.

The um second floor and the third floor do transition to a stucco or eaves finish in a kind of a light gray cream color with a brick veneer band at the floor level.

We have a mixture of vision and spandrel glazing um throughout the facility.

So we do have a couple uh what we call display towers.

They are all facing Aspen Ridge Drive, so away from the adjacent residential, but those are where our vision glass is, um, including on the first floor office rental office area.

Um, within the second and third floor of those towers, we do have some display doors that uh are faux doors.

These people cannot open them and see storage behind them.

Um, it is only a corridor that's accessed by the store manager and our maintenance team to clean it, so no customer access to it and no visible storage use in it.

Then all of the other windows, especially in the elevations that you can see the colored black, those are our spandrel windows.

It is rail glass, it is inset flush to the building wall, but does provide all the same reflectivity material properties that glazing does, with obviously out the visibility into the facilities, so no again traffic or storage, unit visibility, no lighting from the interior of the facility spilling out to adjacent properties.

Then there is some metal panel detailing around our fins.

We call them our fins because they do taper from the top to the bottom with some extra canopy details for shading on the glazing systems at the third floor height.

In addition to the building height, we do have our mechanical units on the roof with our parapet screening all of our mechanical units.

So I'm not sure if you can see it very clearly on side, but there's some dashed lines at the roofline level, and that is indicating approximately where our mechanical unit clusters are on the roof, and then being fully screened by the back road wall.

And then we do have some building architect articulation and roofline changes as well with that.

So as you saw in the site plan, it does step back and forth kind of going around the parking areas.

So again, more of this screening and our our buffer, but in addition, we do have the trash enclosure that is on the south side of the facility that is being buffered within its own trash enclosure screen wall, but as well as a small three-foot retaining wall with additional landscaping behind it as well to help keep that barrier for our trash collection specifically.

Um it is locked at all times and it is only allowed access by our manager.

Our customers are not allowed to use the trash enclosure.

Um violation notices if we do see that.

Um, and then the loading is also located on the south side, and Alyssa Canardi went through that in detail, but all of our loading is housed within our facility.

So we only have seven stalls outside.

One of those is ADA, one of them is for an electric vehicle, one of them is for the managers, and the rest are customer parking.

Um, but we also provide the two interior ones as you can see on this top elevation.

Um, and then for lighting as well, it is actually going to be mounted at 10 feet.

Um, so there's a slight um inconsistency in the plan, so I apologize for that, but that keeps it at a pedestrian level height.

Um, we only have three wall packs on the uh adjacent residential side and minimal around the rest of the building elevations, it's really there for pedestrian security visibility around, and again it is all shielded downwards, so no light fillage beyond the property line and all right.

If there are um we're gonna do analysis, go ahead.

Okay, back for the analysis, and I wanted to start with uh identifying what the city uses when we review a spar and a special use.

And the zoning code is one of them, comprehensive plan is the other.

The comprehensive plan is what really sets the strategic direction for growth and development.

Unlike the zoning code, literal compliance is not required, but it is important to look at the strategic direction and see where we can follow it and meet this the different strategies.

With respect to the zoning code, um, of course, it includes uh such zoning requirements as building height, density, uses, um, parking requirements, and it also includes the criteria for approval, including including the compatibility of the use with this proposed location and adjacent land uses.

Okay, this um the applicant did address this topic.

I'll address it briefly again.

If you take a look at the zoning map, which is at the center of the slide, you can see that the site is within the M1 zoning district, that is the industrial district.

It's been around for a while.

There was still this remaining vacant site here.

And there are a number of different sizes and uses within the zoning district.

Some buildings are somewhat similar in footprint size, some of them are larger or smaller.

And again, the proposed site is three stories, 32 feet in height, and is about approximately just under 90,000 square feet in square footage.

So in terms of the compatibility, we feel that it is compatible within the industrial zoning district.

And then I'd like to turn to the graphic on the right, and this is site plan of the proposed building.

And I highlighted the areas where there will be the most activity within the within the self-storage facility.

And so up on the upper right, that's where the caretakers unit will be located.

Underneath that is the uh is the office, and then going straight south from there is where the parking is located, and then on the south side is where those two garage doors are located.

And then finally in the southwest corner, you see the trash enclosure.

And so these uses are located away from the residential use to reduce the impact, and also the entrance to the site with the red arrow there, is shared with Sister Carmen, which is again away from the residential use to help with the compatibility and that criterion.

In terms of compatibility with a comprehensive plan, the land use designation is adaptable commercial, and the designation is intended to transition auto-oriented areas to walkable areas and integrate various land uses into areas of increased activity and vibrancy.

Self-storage facility doesn't really contribute to vibrancy or but we did find that by building out this site, there are a couple of these requirements or not requirements, but rather objectives in the adaptable commercial site that contribute that contribute to being compatible, and that includes there will be a new eight-foot-wide ADA sidewalk along Aspen Ridge.

There'll be street trees added, and then mentioned before there's the combined entrance with Sister Carmen to the north, and that will reduce the amount of curb cuts on Aspen Ridge as through the through the years coming, uh, it will be better for pedestrians with fewer interruptions within the sidewalk.

And then finally, we do have a higher level of architecture with this that is reminiscent more of a an office building.

The applicant already has showed this graphic up on the on the right, and the depiction of the proposed building and its proximity to the Anna's farm residences, and so it's 104 feet.

That's the revised amount, and it does exceed the requirement by you know, somewhat fairly significantly the rear setback requirement in the M1 zone is 20 feet, and the applicant has provided 50.

And then further there is city property and an outlet on Anna's farm that increased that up to 104 feet.

The building is also set into the grade, the existing grade, and that results in an elevation nine feet lower, and so the perceived view from Anna's farm is a little bit less due to that impact.

And then we get into the potential for adverse environmental impacts, and that's light, glare, and noise, also added traffic.

The use generate generates relatively low traffic volume compared to other industrial and commercial uses in the area.

And the traffic study indicates that there would be you know about 135 daily trips per day.

And the peak hour in the morning would be about eight trips, and then in the afternoon and within a peak hour will be about 14.

In terms of noise, the applicant, I think, addressed this pretty well.

Um the doors to get into the structure where cars would pull in and unload are quiet that reduces noise relative to other industrial loading.

Um the vehicles will be inside, and the lighting will be downcast and full cutoff, and the hours of operation are 6 a.m.

to 10 a.m.

each day, and so does not run all night.

And we understand the lights are turned off at the end of the operating hours.

Just quickly on drainage and utility design.

The drainage will flow downhill, and in this case that will be flowing down to the east, and you can see the um rectangle on the east side of the site, and that would be the drainage pond, and then the water and sewer and other utilities are located in Aspen Drive already, and then the fire access.

You can see the churning radiuses on that left-hand graphic there.

It has been measured to make sure that the fire engines can get in and out of the site according to what the code requires.

And then there's compliance of the application with the municipal code, and staff has gone over all aspects of relevant code for this application, and that includes the list here.

And that of course is utilities, drainage, traffic, building elevation, site details, landscaping, and lighting, among other things.

Staff found that all the criteria for both the spar and the special use have been met and is therefore recommending approval.

There is a resolution in your packet which reflects that.

And that is the end of my presentation.

And now we've gone to questions of applicant and staff.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, so we're gonna have an initial question period from um our commission, and then we will move on to public comment after that, and then after that, there will be additional time for questions from the commission.

Um, do any commissioner commission members have questions for staff or the applicant at this time?

Um I'll go ahead and start.

Um question is for staff.

Um I'm curious.

Anna's farm uh right up against the back of this property line.

Is that an alley or a street that backs up to it, or is it does it back to someone's backyard behind the houses?

There is an alley, and then behind that there is uh a city-owned property and uh part of the ditch that goes through that area is located in there.

Okay.

Can you pull up that section?

Yeah, yeah, it's really small.

We might I think there might have been a larger version of it.

Is that a little bit better?

Yeah, that's a little better.

I think the applicant had a more up-to-date one, so we might have them pull that up when they when they approach.

I'm just curious where that kind of um where that drive area is.

Um, it's not really reflected.

Yeah, maybe the applicants.

And maybe it might be that overall a Google aerial might be the best way to be.

I don't know if there is gonna find another.

That's your up, that's a more up-to-date one.

Yeah, so we do have the drive aisle on that highway drive aisle noted.

Okay, okay.

Um, and I want to clarify we do have a range of where the houses are located and adjacent to the western building facade.

So we are indicating the 104-foot distance.

That is the closest home.

Um, they do get uh further away.

This this home is located on the very north end of our parcel, and as you work your way south of the adjacent homes, they do get further away from our property.

So they range from this 104 to 120.

There is a home that splits kind of our parcel and the adjacent sister Carmen's parcel, and that one is measuring closer to the 120 mark.

But this does, if we're reading from left to right, the northern residential home, and then the drive aisle, there is a very small kind of curb area where the sound wall is located.

And then we run into the 60-foot um canal, and then there's an additional 16-foot general drainage easement, and then our property a couple of feet after that.

From our building to our property line is 50 feet.

So that one will remain.

The one in the northwest corner was deemed by the Arborist review that it is unhealthy and decaying and does need to be removed.

So we will be removing that tree, which is a cottonwood and replacing it with a cottonwood.

And we'll be replacing it with a new cottonwood.

Okay.

And so the larger trees shown in here are Cottonwoods.

We have smaller species of trees sandwiched in between those four new ones.

So in totality, we are planting eight new trees along that western property line.

Plus, we have a small tree line hedge just to the west of our trash enclosure.

So the existing cottonwood that is staying in the south corner, we will have another tree line buffer, you know, to help screen naturally screen our trash enclosure in addition to the enclosure itself.

That is encasing the dumpster.

Okay.

And then the aspen ridge side of our right-of-way landscaping.

What's the building construction type of this building?

Per building code to be non-combustible to be.

Okay.

The interior partitions are made of metal.

Like other metal.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Could you um talk a little bit about the loading process for users and how they will use this garage and what happens if somebody's already in there when they show up?

But how does that typically work in these facilities?

Yeah, absolutely.

So I'll keep this on for a second, then I'm gonna flip to the actual like image that we have of another property.

Um so from the site plan, uh, as Alyssa had mentioned, we are using the shared access drive with Sister Carmen.

That is our main entrance into our property, so you can enter onto the south side.

The office is actually located right here on the corner adjacent to the loading.

Um we always locate our office next to the loading.

There's an interior glass wall between the two, so our manager can have eyes at all time on the loading bay.

Um the bays themselves are set up really kind of functions more like a residential garage than it does like a warehousing garage.

So they are level, they're not um like in at a grade, so they are the same level as our finished floor.

Um they're 14 feet wide by 50 feet deep, so that they can accommodate uh they will accommodate up to the largest moving truck, but not like a semi, and we typically don't get semis at our residential facilities.

Very, very rare.

Um so that length will accommodate the truck moving in as well as somebody pulling a ramp out, and then there's elevators at the head of it.

So it is open, it is a clear space.

There are two Rye Tech doors for the exterior entrance.

They are set on automatic access timers.

So every there's a keypad entry.

So if you are a tenant, you're given a secure four-digit code.

Um, you'll enter your four-digit code and it will open one side.

So say somebody comes and opens the right side.

The next person, it will open the left and it will go back and forth, and only one person could go in at a time.

So if for some reason there's a car that didn't back, they happen to both be occupied.

Then they will wait for the next one or park in one of our.

And so if someone pulls in and then probably backs out or backs in.

I think that's kind of to the experience of the driver.

We've seen it both ways where people will pull in.

They're back in, especially if uh there is somebody who has kind of a medium or smallish truck, sometimes they'll back in so that then they can pull the ramp out, and the elevators are right at the the head of it, so they just unload and go right into the elevators.

Thanks.

I mean, I'm encouraged that you've done a lot of these before because I think you have a good chance at answering these questions in an in a non-hypothetical manner.

So I appreciate that.

Um, one thing that I had a question about from the noise perspective, um, because I think everybody's very focused on the loading and unloading and all that, which is great.

There's not that many people and all of those things.

The mechanical units are visually screened, which is fantastic, but given where you know the height is where they're kind of level with some of these homes and Anna's farm.

I'm wondering what the noise impacts may be from mechanical units given that this is a climate controlled unit.

I assume that they are running pretty continuously.

So I imagine there is going to be a noise impact from those mechanical units that are basically at a level with other people's homes.

I realize there's some distance there, but I'm curious with some of the units that you guys have built.

Have you run into issues with noise from mechanical on top of building?

Um, so we haven't, since the noise really kind of goes directly up versus spreading out so much.

Um, and the parapet wall does actually provide um we use standard five-ton units, which is a regular um residential size unit.

So it is not a large 20-ton um HVAC unit that's on it.

Um, so that also helps reduce.

I mean, it does increase the quantity, but it helps use um manage the sound better.

Um, in addition, even though the facility is labeled as climate control, it is set at a very specific thermostat temperature, so that we don't get that constant, like the units are gonna kick on at random times all day long.

Um, it is sent at ambient temperatures for summer and winter, so that we can kind of maintain um that noise as well.

I mean, it's always it is a comment we consistently get.

Obviously, people um want to make sure the noise is mitigated.

Um when our facilities have been fully built and operational, it's never been a comment that's come back to us if people can concerned about it.

Um we have done noise studies on it in the past, and they've never protruded past our property line.

Um I'm seeing um a screening detail for those for the mechanical units, is that, but then I'm also saying that the parapet appears to be approximately so in what I'm looking at sheet uh for A04.1.

Is that, but then I'm also seeing that the parapet appears to be approximately so in what I'm looking at sheet uh for A04.1.

So I'm curious, is there is it a both and when would that screening be used?

Um on the plans.

I'm looking at the elevations, and I'm seeing rooftop mechanical units that are that appear to be only as tall as the parapet.

Um, but I also see next to that a mechanical screening detail um mounted on the roof.

Yeah, you can see the little boxes up there.

Yeah, so those are our apartment we don't have an official roof plan created yet.

Yeah, so um these are our approximate locations of the units, but this is just really to depict that they will be screened by because also the roof slopes, even though it's deemed a flat roof, there is a slope to it.

Um so the units hang out on kind of like the sloped side, not on the top ridge.

So it also helps.

So they're kind of around the perimeter.

Yeah, yeah.

And we do in when we are adjacent to residential, we do try our absolute hardest to keep them as far as away from the residential side as possible.

So, and even though you can see them, which is kind of the shame of an elevation, but how an elevation works, um, is we the middle elevation here is showing the elevation that's facing the Aspen Ridge Drive, but then obviously we see the western um elevation facing Anna's farm.

It's still gonna show that like that is where those units are located, but on a roof plan, we'd be able to see the distance of um that unit is most likely on the front half, which is what we will focus on achieving, is that the units will stay on the eastern half of the building versus the western half to also create more of a distance between the residential.

So, yeah, I'm just seeing on that sheet um an additional screening detail, and I assume that would be then above yet above the parapet height.

We try not to put screening above it, unless it's like a a stair or a um elevator doghouse that's creeping up over it.

We try to keep even if there is additional screening that we add to the roof, we keep it roughly at that four-foot height, which matches the um unit itself.

Okay.

I have a question for Steph.

Um, did can you give us an indication of how tall Sister Carmen and the other neighbor are those buildings?

So we I mean, I did a kind of a visual analysis.

We don't have these permit records, but there is a GIS layer that suggests building height too.

So building heights in this area, like within the industrial area range from 17 to these suggests all the way up to 29 feet.

Um the building to south of this has a two-story component, we can pull that up.

Um, but most of them are kind of like larger uh one-story uh buildings, but some of them have um loading bays in the front that suggests that you know the the floor height is significant, 16 feet or taller.

Uh, and then residential building heights to the west.

Again, this GIS layer suggests they range from 26 feet to 32 feet.

So um these five criteria that are being used to evaluate this project.

I kind of find it uh a little bit confusing when you say things like adverse environmental influences like we can't argue very much.

Um yeah, to do this, don't I?

So just using this five criteria that you've been using to evaluate this project, as I said, I was just finding slightly confusing.

So number three being the adverse environmental.

You've just told me you're gonna have all these rooftop units up there with a black roof.

That is an environmental issue, especially when you think about sustainability that is part of a comprehensive plan.

So the use itself is actually okay.

Maybe yes, you could consider you know, M1.

Um, but is that the best use of that space given the fact that there's a major kind of like incongruency with the comp plan as far as sustainability and environmental impact?

So I question that you can't obviously when you're gonna have uh a use like the self-storage, it's coming with its own functionality that you can't change.

You have to have that roof, you have to have the units above to you know condition the space underneath it.

But there are other uses as well that could possibly go on that site, even if it's M1, still M1.

So the adaptable, you know, uh the adaptable uses which the site can afford are kind of lost a little bit without questioning like is that the best use of the site?

Um I'm kind of curious about the lighting here.

So you're gonna have this 10-foot piece, um, 10-foot like band with downcast lighting at a certain time at 10 o'clock, all that lighting gets shut off.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Or is it 8 o'clock it gets shut off?

Oh, better.

So um this is our phonometric plan, sure.

Then again, please note the height is wrong on it.

Okay, you said 10.

Yeah, 10.

So there's not a full band.

There's only very specific these light fixtures.

This is a cut sheet.

Sure.

So there are three of them on the west side, three on the south, a couple right by the parking area, and majority of them on the east because that's where our pedestrian sidewalk is, and parking, and it's actually none on the north side.

Um, but it's a single light fixture, and it is mounted.

I I understand that.

I want I want to ask about the time that it switches off.

When does it switch off?

Switches on at dusk and off at dawn.

So the entire property then is in dark at some point.

No, because it's security level lighting.

So we need to make sure that we have a certain level of lighting so that it the perimeter of the facility is lit up.

Okay, so there it's on definitely over the period of a day, regardless of whether it's dawn or dusk, right?

Yeah, start so it turns on at sorry, it turns on at dusk and off at dawn.

Might have said that backward the first time.

Oh, okay.

So at night.

All right.

So it's a lit facility, meaning when you're driving by it at midnight, there's gonna be some perimeter lighting to make sure that people don't see it as a box that's just black, right?

So it's right, okay.

Um about the interior glazing, you've got spandral glass in there.

Is that lit?

I just saw a picture of the last one that the planner put up, which was the green glow.

We see this a lot in um you know, downtown areas where there's a kind of glow from storage facilities off the highway.

Is that going to be the case in this facility?

So in our um display areas, they are lit.

Um, the light is mounted above the window seal, though.

Um, so you can't see the fixture.

It is mounted above on a panel and just shines in.

Um, it is also on a timer sensor, and it can be adjusted, the light levels can be adjusted.

So when you're driving by at midnight, you're gonna see those kind of towers that are lit in a very soft glow in some form, right?

So that's the thing is that you're you're going to ask.

I'm gonna ask this question how is that gonna impact, even though it might be on the east side, that glow is gonna find its way somewhere through the site back into the neighborhood in some way, whether it's onto the east or west or north side.

It's you your facility is lit in some way with those span wheel panels and those towers going to be uh visible most of the time in the evening.

Yes, yep.

Okay, but I I would like to note that is why they're also on the east side of the facilities, so that light is directed as far away from the residential as possible, and they do primarily happen in the pockets of the building.

Okay.

Can you maybe pull up the elevations and point out exactly where these lights would be located above that 10-foot datum?

Maybe I'm missing something.

So these are the lower than what they're showing.

Actually, this is a mountain at 14, so it's the lower.

It's for rough height reference.

Um, the blazing right here is 10 feet.

So they would be at the height of this glazing.

Yeah.

But do you have other lights that are higher up that are within those pockets?

No.

Okay, so it's only coming from inside.

Okay.

Um, and then these three towers, which I think is okay.

Those are lit.

They they're lit from the inside.

That's that interior.

That's the interior light that will show.

Yeah, okay.

And they are these lights are not above the window sale and the solid paint site, so you don't actually see the picture.

And it's just like lightly flows down.

Okay.

And those are also motion sensor, or those ones are from 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Those ones are uh yeah, the the um but are they constantly on during that time?

They're not con they are on constantly between the dusk dawn, but again, they are they do have the ability to adjust the light levels to them that that is something that needs to be considered after a certain period like 10 p.m.

or something that they need to be reduced even more.

Um we are certainly open to that.

Can you tell us why why it's the practice to have them?

Is it a marketing it is?

Um so they're obviously shown as gray doors or blacked outdoors here.

Um so traditionally we will have a major storage read, which would be defined as like CubeSmart or public space or um extra space, or any of those are deemed in the storage facility as REITs.

Um, so they will lease the building, they will manage it.

So we own and operate the facility, we own the land.

Um we are long-time landowners, we're not in the business of flipping the properties.

Um so we're always involved in them.

Um, but we do have an actual storage company who you know has their staff manage it, and then we work alongside them really on almost a daily basis.

We're on the emergency call list, and we walk the properties periodically even after they're open, just to make sure that they're up to our development standards.

Um, and so with that, we typically, whenever that rate is determined, they use those doors as their marketing.

So that's where you'll often see that they would be potentially a green or a red color or dependent on the and that's only the doors in the display window.

And again, those are non-operable doors.

Okay, can I continue?

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um adaptable commercial with the comp plan suggesting walkability, vibrancy, all the things you just talked about, and you've traded in that for an eight-foot sidewalk.

Where's the pedestrian?

First of all, you're creating a block based on the fact that there's a there are two buildings on either side, and now you've got this 35-foot building in front of it.

Whatever kind of penetration or throughfair or any kind of opportunity for local local kind of pedestrianized traffic is missed because now you have to go all the way around because you can't go through that anymore.

Um I don't know if there was an opportunity to do that before.

So this barrier kind of is antithetical to this idea of an adaptable commercial where you want to create fluidity, vibrancy, and walkability, and yet you're putting in a box that's going to bifurcate the site between the residential and potential interesting commercial that is already out there.

There's a little strip mall on the corner of a baseline where people walk to get their pizza and what have you, and now maybe they crossed across that place and across that path and went there, but they can't do that anymore.

So an eight-foot sidewalk doesn't make any difference if you can't get to it.

And why would I want to walk on an eight-foot sidewalk if there's nowhere to go?

There's no value in terms of bringing up storage unit to this community.

If the comp plan is about you know, community local kind of businesses, the things that it's trying to um address as far as neighborhoods are concerned.

So I'm not sure.

Yes, it meets all the ticks all the boxes for the S in the spur.

But does that really add value to that neighborhood and that community, which is trying to become part of the sort of fabric of Lafayette?

It just becomes another, like we've seen a time again, commercial residential, and there's a gulf in between that doesn't kind of have a feeling of like, yeah, I can go there or to the park or whatever it might be.

So I'm asking staff how create you know, this idea of the comp line saying increased walkability areas, you know, fluidity and vibrantcy.

I would say that we're looking at a specific application before us here tonight, and change within a neighborhood comes slowly, parcel by parcel.

And so with this eight-foot sidewalk, eventually we are potentially looking at a proposal proposed zone change along Aspen Ridge Drive.

Zoning will change, and over time it will have increased amount of vibrancy and walkability within that area.

With this use, which is allowed in the current industrial zoning district, we're getting a start with it.

Um you have to be more specific about how that vibrancy is being met, even if it's in a small level through the storage unit.

Well, as I said earlier, the comprehensive plan, not every item on the list needs to definitively be met.

We're looking at overarching um priorities and strategies to get from one style of development, older um generally older um industrial and commercial buildings on either side of the street to eventually something new.

And so while we might not be bringing vibrancy with a self-storage facility, in fact, I think that it is largely very different than that of very quiet use that could be placed here over time.

Um as I said, it it will change, but currently I emphasize that it's an industrial district at this time, and the application is for a spa and a special use, and so that is the criteria that needs to be evaluated.

The comprehensive plan is a roadmap for the future, and we feel that with this application that the neighborhood has taken one small step in that direction.

Do we have other questions for staff of the applicant?

I have a question for the applicant, which is um I you know, I know that this is not required, and I understand that the conditions of the um detention basin may require as such, but just given the fact that literally everything is on fire at the moment, and I don't see that condition changing.

Um I just and you don't even have to answer this, but I just feel like I need to say it out loud.

Uh I wonder if you are open to consideration of a different ground cover than fescue that requires water use and maintenance in a future iteration of this, just given that you know, turf that isn't functional is maybe not the best thing to be putting in looking towards the future where we have less water to expend on things that are not serving uh a great a greater purpose, which again I I realize that none of this is required in all this is very much allowed under everything we have right now, but it just uh I I would be remiss in not saying something given the current conditions in which we find ourselves staring down the barrel.

So that is all again, you don't need to answer, just wanted to say it out loud.

I'm happy to answer it.

So um I do know we did get recent comments obviously about the juniper trees, and so we did make that change ahead of um coming to this commission, so that is officially on our landscape plans.

Um, in addition to that, we did go ahead and have our landscape architect review all of the plants um in our proposal and provide us a suggested list of revisions.

Um so we're reviewing that actively right now, um, but making sure that all of the plants on the uh project are also on the Colorado fire rise firewise um plant list as well.

So we are shipping.

Um another question what is the height of the detention pond walls above the adjacent grade?

Not seeing that on any of the plants.

I am actually gonna defer that to our civil engineering.

Yeah, and Jim Broughtovet civil resources and give me five seconds here to pull it up.

I don't remember exactly how tall they are.

It actually is a two-sided wall.

Um meaning it the inside of the pond.

And the walls is a stem.

It sticks up.

It actually varies.

Sure.

And there's a profile on sheet.

And the construction plans.

See as you see it from the from the street.

It will be approximately two and a half feet tall.

And again, it varies.

Okay.

So that detects.

Two and a half to three feet tall.

As you're looking at it from the street.

The inside of the pond is actually deeper.

Sure, of course.

Should um so when I look at the detail, the detention pond section, it's not, is that not really to scale?

It's an exaggerated vertical scale because otherwise you wouldn't be able to read it.

Gotcha.

That's helpful.

Okay, because it looks like it's eight feet tall.

It probably shows better on the construction plan.

I'm not sure which ones you have on there, but then the construction.

So we have the grading plan.

On sheet seven of the construction plans, there's a profile.

Yeah, I don't think we have that.

I'm just because after looking at this, it appears that there's a there's a very tall wall right along the entire front.

It's not that tall.

Okay.

Two and a half to three feet.

Okay.

Can I ask a follow-up question on the um on the marketing uh visibility?

Is it possible do you ever have multiple reads in the same facility?

Like could each tower be a different color door?

No.

Or it would all be the same.

It'd all be the same.

Yeah.

One managing rate for the whole facility.

And other signage or just the code?

Yeah, there will be wall signage.

Um but again, I mean, we only have wall signage that bases public areas because that's again the marketing area, so they will be on the east side of the facility.

On the side of the building, yes.

Or inside on the side of the building.

We have small channel letters that go right over the office.

So that's just mounted on the awning, it just says office.

Um question for staff.

Um just lose it.

I've just lost it.

Um question for uh fire protection, I guess.

Um we have the building construction type.

I'm curious if you could speak to some of the um public's concerns about fire hazard and um building that the type of building and uh yeah, sure.

Good evening.

Uh I got a little cold here, so I'm not quite this raspy normally.

Um, you know, we learned tonight it's a type two construction.

Um we've not seen construction drawings.

Uh we're not quite at that paint that part, so we generally wait uh you know for specific comments when we get construction drawings and we're starting to apply the international fire code.

Um, but I can speak in general terms to this type of building.

Um I do want to try to answer your question.

So a type two construction uh of this size and and flooring, uh, you know, is a fully sprinklered building, has to be fully monitored by a fire alarm system.

Um the type two construction is encouraging, right?

That gives us good uh hardening on the outside um and uh limits flame spread on the inside.

So um I think there's been some concern about fuel loading inside the the storage unit.

Um I I don't I can't speak to to how uh how the owner will manage that.

Uh I do I do applaud them for giving us a you know on-site manager um and paying attention to what comes in the door and what goes out of the door in a fully you know security system where everything is monitored.

So um we don't have a facility like this in our jurisdiction now, so I can't speak to uh our experiences with it.

Um, but it will be subject to uh fire.

We're one of the few city departments that have access after construction.

So we'll be out there every year or every twice a year uh doing fire inspections.

Uh and that does require us to look in some units and do some spot checking.

Uh and then in in addition to that, their fire alarm system, uh sprinkler system, and fire extinguishers have to be you know updated and monitored and we get notification of all that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Can I add that to that?

Sure.

So as indicated, the facility will be fully fire alarmed and fire sprinklered, but um also specifically in our tenant leases.

We do have language in them that requires them to make sure that nothing is blocking fire sprinkler heads within 18 inches of the head.

If that is found in violation, then we have the right to go into the facility into a unit to remove to make sure that that clearance is maintained.

And then there's also language in the lease about hazardous materials being prohibited, um, such as paint and gas storage, things like that.

Could that could be hazardous or combustible?

And if anybody is found in violation, it is an immediate termination of their lease agreement.

Um responsibilities is our on-site managers are required to walk the property inside and out every day multiple times a day, so that we keep eyes on that, and our security cameras.

We strongly believe in no blind corners, and we're very open about it.

The second you walk into our office, there is an entire wall of television screens, and it shows every angle of all of the cameras, so that everyone is very clear that you're on camera no matter where you are.

Um and then in addition to that, too.

We do have the operating hours of uh not having a 24-hour facility, um, and that is indicated interior to the facility that people are notified as it gets closer to 10 p.m.

that the facility is closing.

Um somebody tries to come after 10 p.m.

the doors do not open, their codes um don't work.

So can you talk a little bit about the job description, a little more about the job description of the of the caretaker?

Um so the care caretaker is our main store manager, we'll roughly have anywhere from two to three employees just as shifts change.

Um, and then whoever is actually deemed the main store manager is the uh for the on-site apartment.

So I mean, we do all of our own housekeeping, um keeping the facility clean, maintenance inside and out.

Um we obviously have a landscaping crew that will be on regular rotation, um, trash collection on normal rotation.

Um so really regular managers, which is really kind of set by the the leasing agents, whether that is extra space or whoever is their job description, but typically standard um like eight to six office hours, seven days a week, they're there to do lease agreements, insurance, um, answer customer tenant questions and just make sure that certainly in general is kept up.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I think I have a couple questions maybe for staff.

Okay.

So on part of this conversation around the comp plan a little bit, you know, the high quality districts that integrate various land uses, increase vitality activity and the walkability.

Was there any discussion with the applicant on connecting the trail on the east side of Anna's farm to Diamond Circle across the ditch?

Just kind of connecting the air connectivity there.

Was that ever a discussion for the review process?

I think the answer is no, but it's also very complicated to get something across the ditch.

Totally.

So um yeah, that's the answer.

And let's put it, hasn't he?

Anything else to clarify?

Welcome.

I think for the applicant, I'm I'm wanting to make sure I just concretely understand the difference on the use hours and then the lighting.

I feel like I maybe I'm the only one getting hung up on this.

So the uses, the the public available use is 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

But the lighting, it sounds like is more 24 dusk to dawn as far as like on, and that will kind of adjust with the seasons across the year.

It's not strictly six to ten, but the lighting is dawn to dusk and then on earlier in the summer, on later in the summer, but in the winter it's shorter.

Is that correct?

Yeah, so two different topics.

Yeah.

So we have customer access hours.

Um, I guess I should say tenant access hours because you have to be an actual tenant, at least tenant to be in the facility from that 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

time frame.

Um, and then the office hours are obviously less than that normal kind of business hours for the office.

The lighting is on a separate control system, and we have interior lighting, we have exterior lighting.

The interior lighting is motion censored, um, except for those three display towers.

But those three display towers are only on, you know, when it's dark outside, and there would be a need to have the lights on.

Um, for the exterior lighting, we generally say the dust to dawn because you're absolutely right in the winter season that could be 4 p.m.

versus the summer could be 7 p.m.

that the lights you know switch on um based on that timer.

Okay, and then the security lights, they go to like a dim version in the evening you're saying those those exterior lights at 10 to the yeah, so those exterior lights are the ones those single wall packs um on the outside, and we have no pole lighting, we're it's only this building wall lighting.

Um so those are the ones that are on that dust to dawn.

Um I indicated that other facilities we have um agreed to conditions that after a certain time those lights have dimmed um to approximately the 50 percent uh from like 10 p.m.

to dawn um because that's really the facility closes at 10, so um there's really shouldn't be as much active pedestrian and car traffic after 10 o'clock.

So reducing those lighting levels even more is is something we're open to.

Okay.

And then that helped answer most of them.

I think the last clarifying thing on the lighting for me.

Those three kind of advertising columns, those are kind of 24-7 then same desk to dust.

Those ones also, okay.

Yeah, so those would not be on if you're driving down Diamond Circle at midnight, you wouldn't see the advertising lights in those in on the inside.

Yeah, you were because that falls within dust to dawn.

You would see them.

Okay.

But they do have the availability because they are on a separate control switch from the other interior floors, so they also have the availability if after a certain period of time you would like us to consider reducing them.

We can do that too.

Okay.

Do you anticipate having any kind of security cameras on the exterior of your building?

There is.

There are.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just like the inside is fully um on camera, so is the exterior.

They're on all the corners.

They're roughly mounted at the 12-foot range between the first and second floor.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff or the applicable?

I'll just clarify real quick.

I was looking at an aerial, so 600 feet north of the property, actually, before 600 feet.

The island ditch beers uh to the northeast.

Um the trail that's there connects to an alley and then it connects the harvest way.

So that's your connection east-west existing.

But yeah, giving a couple of north and south.

I was curious if there this could act as a midpoint essentially.

Could you possibly pull up the Google aerial?

I just don't feel like we have.

The trail starts like right here.

Yeah, good context here.

Is there a lot of things?

Could we see it on Google?

Yeah.

Sorry.

So yeah, you're either walking up the harvest or you're walking all the way down the baseline.

Yeah, so it cuts through the show not pay.

Well, I don't even think it ever was because the ditch is there.

Map's duck.

Probably a social trail.

That's not a formal.

But that feels like the perfect that also connects straight into 287.

Can we just keep our discussion until afterwards?

Yeah, that's right.

Oh, cool.

Okay.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Shared entry.

Um I guess this is an additional question for staff.

Right now there's only a stop sign at the end of um at Aspen Ridge and Diamond Circle.

Or no, what is that?

Yeah.

This the street that comes from the east.

I'm drive it every day and I don't remember.

This one's diamond circle.

That's that's okay.

Yeah, so at that intersection.

Okay.

So right now there's just strictly a stop sign.

Um you would just pull straight ahead onto the okay.

And can we zoom out just a little bit to see where that can you speak to where that trail is, where that east-west.

Oh, like what I was just talking about.

Yeah, what you were just doing.

So the trail goes up and connects to this alley, and then that's a social trail really.

That that's the trail within um Annas Farm subdivision.

Okay, it's within okay.

Or it's actually a crusher fine established trail.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, but the highland uh lateral is uh kind of barrier to have to up a bridge to cross the southern part of the subdivision.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think it's actually on the east side of the sound wall.

Sound walls right there.

Storage every day.

Are there any further questions of staff or the applicant?

I don't have any further questions.

Okay, we can always ask more after public comment.

So um thank you.

Okay.

Um hearing no more questions for staff with the applicant, we will move on to public comment.

Um at this time, we will hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the commission about the special use review application for self-storage facility use with a caretaker dwelling unit.

Please fill out a speaker form if you have not already.

I have three, and I understand there's gonna be some pooling um this evening, which is great.

Um, I would also like to um express that for members of the audience.

If you could all um grant me your attention, um, if you could please refrain from reacting or responding to comments made during the public input.

We'd really need to like we'd like to maintain an environment where other feels others feel comfortable speaking, regardless of what views are expressed.

If someone wants to express their support for a comment, they may do so by addressing the commission at the podium.

And with that said, um please come to the podium.

Uh, we'll start with Megan Rast.

Um I understand you're speaking for four folks, so you are pooling your comments for 15 minutes.

And we're pooling.

Yeah, it says 15, right?

I'm hearing impaired.

We're getting some trouble back there.

Okay.

Is there a microphone that the speaker can use?

That microphone right there in the corner of the dais if you'd like to hold that.

I don't know if there's a better place.

If there's a better is it okay to hold?

Okay, that's better.

Okay, perfect.

All right.

Dear planning commissioners, my name is Megan Rast.

I live at 646 Homestead Street, directly west of the proposed self-storage development at 685 Aspen Ridge Drive.

In the city of Lafayette, self-storage is not a use by right.

It requires a special use review, which allows the planning commission discretion and approval.

That requirement exists because self-storage is often incompatible with surrounding areas.

Under section 26-15, the applicant must prove compatibility and demonstrate that the project will not create significant adverse impacts.

This proposal fails that test.

It will create significant adverse impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood and is not compatible with the commercial buildings already on Aspen Ridge Drive, nor the city's long-term vision.

And I just want to remind that you probably have heard my testimony in the land use code working group.

So a lot's been made tonight about the industrial zoning.

There's exactly one parcel that is operating industrial in the current zoning.

We got a daycare, Sister Carmen Community Center.

It is not compatible with the even the commercial buildings, and there is only one industrial on that on that section of Aspen Ridge.

So for this reason alone, the planning commission has clear grounds to deny the application.

This proposal is also fundamentally inconsistent with the Lafayette Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2021.

The site is designated adaptable commercial, not for standalone storage facilities.

And again, this proposal will generate much lower taxes than commercial use, does not add additional housing, has no more than two to three jobs, and has no activation all in the along the street.

So it's actually hard for us to understand what it would help in terms of the comprehensive plan.

This application was submitted two years after the plan was adopted.

Approving it before the upcoming land use code updates would lock in a significant non-conforming use for decades for a building that can never be repurposed given its design.

Lafayette Code per my written comments confirms that the planning commission must assess compatibility with the comprehensive plan for the promotion of safety and achieving coordinated development, which includes a duty to assess when reviewing development applications and a requirement during this this special use review.

This self-storage proposal is at odds again with the comprehensive plan.

Well, the staff report acknowledges the adaptable commercial designation from the comprehensive plan.

We're disappointed that they did not further explore or commentate on the clear and count incompatibility here.

So for these reasons and those I will outline next, the proposal should be denied this evening.

I will focus my testimony on three areas.

One, there's inaccuracies continuing in the plan and staff report.

Two, there's incompatibility.

We'll talk through all of those reasons together.

And three, that we have concerns with the developers' approach and track record.

So first on the inaccuracies in the plan and staff report.

The submitted plan contain significant inaccuracy.

I'm gonna have you hold this up.

Yeah.

Uh contain significant other yeah, yeah.

Distances are materially overstated.

So again, tonight they're saying 104.

That changed in the past approximately 24 hours.

For the past three years, they've said 120 feet.

It is only eight feet from my property line to from my house to my property line, not 19 feet as claimed by the applicant.

The HOA sound wall, which is uh whopping six feet tall, uh is 18 feet, not 25 feet further.

And the distance to the high line lateral on the other side of that fence is overstated by the applicant by nearly 20 feet.

So again, all together, this it's about 84 feet from my home, yet the applicant claims 120 feet of 40 foot discrepancy.

So you can see here, this is my house line is intended to give you a difference between what they were showing.

There's no houses in any of their renderings, right?

Which makes it a lot easier not to understand the impact.

Um I'll also point out they have a fake building going on down here.

That's not Sister Carmen, that's not a building that will exist.

They have trees, right?

So all I did was with a friend of a uh or a health friend who knows how to use some graphic design, take their existing rendering and put it onto an actual photograph.

And I'm gonna talk through why this might not even be an accurate portrayal given how difficult it is to understand the numbers in their plan.

Um so again, these are not minor areas.

This is materially gonna affect what you understand about the scale, proximity, and impact.

Um again, we just regret that the staff report can continue to kind of echo back these numbers from the applicant without any validation.

Certainly they would have had access to the actual information that could have been corrected a long time ago rather than approximately 24 hours ago, and again, only partially corrected.

Uh so again, on the visual height, I really wanna make sure you all understand the applicant is claiming that we will be able to look over the proposed building.

I have a two-story.

On my second floor, I stare directly at Kenray, and it is five feet below in terms of an eye line.

So there's no way that a building that is taller than Kenray is gonna have a visual impact less, especially when it's 50 feet closer to our homes.

Um, so even for this visual, again, the best we could do was take their faulty information and try our best to understand.

But imagine this building actually being taller, because that's what they are saying when they're saying it's 35 feet, even with a little bit of grading, et cetera, right?

Kenray is uh about 10 to 15 feet lower and then 35 feet they're claiming.

All right.

So additionally, my written comments have concerns around the flammable landscaping, including the junipers, unclear sound mitigation.

So thank you for exploring those questions.

Uh we still have concerns.

We're not sure is there a screen, is it recessed?

What's the sound, right?

There's a lot of questions that we remain.

And finally, there's a mischaracter mixed characterization of the cottonwood tree.

They said fruiting bodies.

Um, we had a laugh at arborists come and take a look, who's certified, and that particular species is uh immune to fruiting bodies.

So, you know, we just again are curious about some of the basis for their comments.

Also wanna talk about some inaccuracies around flood risk and drainage concerns.

Um, so we had an observed pattern in the 2013 flood where some of my neighbors who are here tonight had their homes fled.

My mine personally did not, um, but again, we're really concerned about uh how they address the emergency overflow scenarios.

They were recommended by staff to be addressed.

It's unclear exactly what they took in terms of design.

They certainly addressed the rain that would fall on their parcel, but we're talking about something different.

We're talking about emergency overflow in like a hundred-year storm like what we had in 2013.

Um again, there's a lot of back and forth, but the drainage report, uh, I think that person's here today, but it says things like believed and using aerial photographs, we're like asked a lot of questions about whether they actually went on the site and did a field study.

Um again, I've talked about the existing Cottonwood tree, but we had a lot of questions that um at first city staff did not have an answer to around removing that tree and what will what it'll do to the ditch bank in terms of erosion and stability, given how important that is to emergency overflows.

So again, we have a lot of remaining unresolved questions when it comes to flooding.

Um there were comments in that report that they couldn't get information from the city in terms of drainage.

The city confirmed they would absolutely have provided it upon request.

Um, we're not sure about the on-site field studies that were conducted, etc.

And you know, there's a back and forth about the applicant making claims to some of my neighbors that the soil conditions aren't conducive to underground development.

We have basements in all of our homes and the soil per their drainage report indicates that would be possible.

So we're again not totally sure how all their facts are and figures are coming together.

So moving on to my second big area, talking about incompatibility with the comprehensive plan and surrounding area.

Um, again, this is not just the comprehensive plan, but the land use code working group and the existing commercial buildings along Aspen Ridge Drive.

Um, again, we're here to say there's significant adverse impacts.

So that 35 foot heat uh height, excuse me, exceeds nearby structures in combination with the building being significantly closer to homes than comparable buildings.

They're taking every cubic inch of space, just like when we look at something like the circle motel redevelopment.

So the use itself does not align with walkable mixed use development goals as per the comprehensive plan.

And again, the need for a special use review reflects that this use carries unique operational and safety risks.

Yet this application is seeking to go to the max, take every single you know, inch and perhaps maybe and go beyond above and beyond allowances.

So I appreciate the chief fire chief being here tonight.

I do want to express what we understand this would be compliant with international fire code.

I'm gonna walk through some additional concerns with this type of use when it comes to fire concerns.

Self-storage facilities present documented risks of fire.

They have unknown and potentially combustible contents, they have compartmentalized units that make fires harder to detect and suppress, and there's limited interior access for firefighting.

This is all outlined in my written testimony.

There's a very recent report given how new and emerging this issue is from the National Fire Protection Association.

So even with modern codes, you can't reduce or eliminate that risk.

Fires can still produce heavy smoke, rapid spread, structural damage.

And again, it was mentioned a little bit here tonight, but the applicant has a policy.

They've confirmed that policy is a piece of paper, right?

That the people who store in their facilities are on an honor code, not to store things that they are combustible or problematic.

That is certainly not enforceable.

It is not enforced, and that leaves 268 opportunities for someone to make a poor choice that could lead to a fire.

My written testimony has a complete list of recent recent Colorado storage fires, which demonstrate they can happen in multi-story buildings and do.

Some occur in the early morning hours, well, when detection may be delayed, and when we're sleeping in our beds, 84 feet away, and fires can escalate quickly and impact surrounding properties.

Yes.

Sorry.

Sorry, I'm like, oh my goodness, where's my next page?

Oh, here we go.

I turn it around.

All right.

So, in addition to the unenforced policies, we do want to acknowledge there's a report that does unfortunately acknowledge there's unauthorized uh living inside some of these facilities.

That's an ethnographic report from the National Institute of Health, and we remain concerned about that, just given given what we know about about these type of facilities.

So, last but not least, in this section, I have to put on the record that we have already have an oversupply of self-storage here in Lafayette.

So this project is unnecessary from a market perspective.

I'm sure they can make a profit, but we are thinking more about is this the right use for Lafayette?

So when comparing all of Boulder County to the city of Denver, we already have a higher per capita access to self-storage, nearly double per person access in the city of Denver.

Within Boulder County, the city of Boulder has one.

Lewisville has one self-storage facility.

We already have three.

And when you look at Broomfield, which is three times the size of us by area, they have only five.

So this indicates we're already well served for this particular type of use.

Additional supply is disproportionate.

It also may be the reason why there's a special use review for this particular type of use.

So just thanks to this experience, I've read the entire comprehensive plan.

I didn't read in it that we want to be the destination for Boulder County to store their stuff.

Um, but actually, we kind of already are.

So I'd like to acknowledge that that's an adverse impact of this project.

Let's not make the problem worse tonight.

You can deny the special use review of this applicant.

So my third section is commenting on the current the concerns with the developer.

So this developer's conduct has raised a number of concerns for us.

We strongly disagree with the staff report that there has been there has been a lack of meaningful engagement with neighbors, going back to tactics that were used in August 2023.

With their neighborhood meeting, which had a mailed-out notice within about 20, 200 feet of the parcel.

We have not found any neighbors outside of a 200-foot radius that got that notice.

It was a one-time in-person only format in the dead of August travel and back to school.

It made it really hard to access or learn about the project.

Failure to respond to repeated requests is also happening with this applicant, including our ask since 2023 as to why they have a 6 to 7 a.m.

operational hour, which is two hours before anything else opens on Aspen Ridge Drive.

Their answer was only two customers use the facility during that hour, which means that we will have two customers every day from 6 to 7 a.m.

two hours before anything that normally happens.

As recently as last month, the applicant was asked directly by me in person about the flammable junipers.

They denied that it was their responsibility three times.

I know they're here today talking about how they own the landscaping, but when we try to bring these issues forward, they do not give us a good response.

And last, my very kind neighbor who's here tonight appealed to them by simply saying, you know, you don't live here, I won't see you at church, uh, I won't run into you at the grocery store.

Their response was to escalate immediately and say saying that she's attacking their company.

My neighbor was simply stating a fact very gently.

They have a PO box in Arizona, and this is their only project in the entire state of Colorado.

Let me be more direct.

This developer is well known for a pattern of aggressively building very close to residential properties.

Based upon our research using their own website, they have at least 10 projects in development or under construction that are less than 100 feet from residences, where in an extreme case there's one that's 10 feet away, blocking balconies and views from an existing residential.

Finally, the community resistance and controversy is following this developer around.

I specifically need to put on the record what's happening in Bethesda, Maryland, where they are knowingly continue to development on a culturally sensitive African American cemetery that and are in protracted litigation around it.

I was at the city council meeting last month where Lafayette continues to confront and try to own our own racist history and have unmarked graves in the Lafayette Cemetery.

I cannot believe we would approve an out of state developer that is actively and currently harming another community around the same issue that we're striving to overcome.

And approval by the planning commission on this would certainly reduce community trust that Lafayette means what it says when we say we support a diverse and inclusive community in our comprehensive plan.

So to be fair, the applicant's developments in their backyard in Arizona have less egregious proximity and controversy.

It's almost as if they know that they don't want to cause adversity where they may live, work, eat, shop, and play.

So in conclusion, in summary, the application contains significant inaccuracies that undermine proper review.

The proposal is incompatible with the comprehensive plan and surrounding neighborhood.

There are unresolved safety risks, including fire and flooding, specific to this type of use.

Lafayette is already oversupplied with self-storage, and the developer has demonstrated limited responsiveness to community concerns.

Any one of these issues is sufficient ground for denial.

Taken together, they make a clear case.

We respectfully request the planning commission to deny this application based on that failure to meet the special use review compatibility requirements and inconsistency with the Lafayette comprehensive plan and land use code rezoning.

Trust is earned by actions, not statements.

The planning this commission this evening has an opportunity to earn our trust by denying this egregious application.

We thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next person we have is um Christina Clark.

Also speaking for four people, so 15 minutes.

Okay.

So how does this work?

Do we just speak at it?

Um, yeah, I'm not sure which side of the quote.

Could you see me?

Just you just put it on the speak towards it.

Speak towards it.

Okay.

All right.

Spread it right up top of the where we have it, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, my name's Christy Clark, and I live in a one-story single-family home at 550 Homestead Street, directly west of the Diamond Black Diamond Lot at 685 Aspen Ridge.

I second my neighbor, my neighbor Reagan, Megan Rass comments as the closest resident to this lot.

Um, I have some additional comments, and I'll do my best not to repeat Megan, but instead to try to compliment her.

Um, as already stated, the Black Diamond Subdivision is currently zoned as M1 Industrial.

However, the comp plan of 2021 and the land use current recommendations are for adaptable commercial, otherwise known as adaptable mixed use.

So, as Megan stated earlier, a serious concern in this process is the many inaccuracies in the developer's measurements, which have been repeated in the staff report and their recommendation for approval.

According to the developer in the staff report, the proposed setback results in approximately 120 feet to homes, which this evening was changed to 104.

And we kept seeing a visual.

Um, I think it was uh site plan A045, um, that was kind of that you know, horizontal slice of like, here's the storage, and then here's the creek, and here's the retainer wall, and here's a house.

So I'm that house, and I can tell you that as a single story house, it's not at all as big as it looks on that.

And um, my property line is 75 feet.

So I just question like, is this really the appropriate way to be measuring?

Because at 120, like, are they allowed to measure up to my bedroom wall?

Like what happened to my yard in there?

And are they counting my yard as their setback?

And at 120 feet, they are like way past my bedroom into my living room.

So I'm just thinking, like outside of the specifics, like what is the standard for measurement?

Because it seems to be that my property line is meaningful and that that's not shown anywhere on this.

Um also the developer, the staff report and the staff recommendation talks about perceived height, um, and that it's gonna be lower than our homes.

And I know Megan spoke to that a bit.

Um, I find it surprising that outside of this very pixelated one that Megan managed to pull that during this presentation, they didn't show any renderings from our side.

I heard you had a lot of very good questions about the perception and you know, appearance, these are words that keep showing up, but they didn't show any.

So here we are trying to cobble something together, and we're not professionals, and we're doing the best we can.

But I kind of feel like, well, if it is really accurate that, you know, by the way, we're assuming that they're gonna have a you know, a recessed area, they say, Oh, we're gonna recess it and there's a slope, but I don't believe we actually saw any plans that show that there is a recess.

You know, are they digging in like basement style to set this down?

Like, how is this actually being accomplished?

Um and Megan already spoke to the whole if Ken raise 25 and they're 35, how does that work?

And I just wanted to point out that in their literature that's published for you tonight, they say that Sister Carmen is 30 feet high.

Sister Carmen is a one-story building.

I can't possibly imagine that Sister Carmen is 30 feet high if Kenry Kenray is 25.

Like it just it just doesn't work.

None of the numbers are working tonight.

And so if we're gonna be talking about perceived and appearance, um, I think we really need to go back to a scientific system and actually do the measurements and find out what the real numbers are like.

And until that's done, I don't see how you can approve.

Um, also, I saw that in 2023, a senior planner asked them for a graphic from our side to show that it truly will be as if they appear as if they're the same height as the residences, and I don't believe they accomplished that.

I don't believe they actually ever presented that.

So, without, you know, without fulfilling the senior planner's request, I don't know how you can move forward with approval.

Thank you, Megan.

Okay, so SUR, right, requires extra approval, and it's based on compatibility with the character of the surrounding area.

Like Megan, I disagree the staff report that finds the character of this proposal to be compatible with the area.

As Megan was saying, Sister Carmen is a community center and it's one story.

Um, there is like a bilingual daycare right there, my kids' sports gym, my dentist.

You know, these are these are businesses that I frequent on a regular basis.

None of them are industrial.

Yes, there is Ken Ray and its grandfather did, and we do understand that, but I don't think that one business should dictate the entire corridor, this whole black diamond zone.

Um, you know, once again, how are you able to make a decision if it's based on an inaccurate representation?

Um regarding the staff report about the loading doors.

Um, yes, they did say they were changing the mechanics on the loading doors on the south side to try to reduce noise.

Unfortunately, I'm the one on the south side, the west.

So I'm the one who will look out my bedroom window, and if I can see over that wall, if I can see into that building, I'm looking at the loading docks.

And I guess I just ask you when we asked about the frequency, and they said there might be just you know, two customers between 6 a.m.

and 8 a.m.

Um, and you know, up to semis is what we just heard tonight.

I guess I want to know, would it be reasonable to prove an SUR to wake up this entire community only twice every morning at 6 a.m.

with beeping trucks backing up, sounding like alarm clocks?

We talked a lot about noise, but nobody talked about the beeping, whether or not you're in a U-Haul or something bigger, whether or not you're pulling in or backing in, beeping is gonna happen.

So these very expanded hours from 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m., it just seems like it goes beyond the scope of what you're required to do, and that's why an SUR requires a special approval.

Um the developer about sending notices to us.

My understanding is that the requirement is 750 feet.

If I am 75 feet, and this farm is small and we have small houses, wouldn't you think there would be a huge engagement with the community if within 750 feet everybody was notified?

But there wasn't huge engagement in August, very few people were notified, very few people attended.

In August, very few people were notified, very few people attended.

And Megan and I walked the neighborhood speaking to everyone, and there were so many surprised expressions that I wonder does the staff, does the city actually check to see what is their list of addresses, right?

How did they measure this 750 feet?

As we've questioned tonight whether or not any of their measurements are correct.

And how do we know whether or not they actually followed through with the notification?

Because if the neighborhood meeting is essential to this process, if they didn't actually give us an opportunity, how can we check that box and say that it was appropriately accomplished?

And unfortunately, I feel as if the honor system really isn't working here.

So based on this, I respectfully request that you do not approve the SUR.

And about the comp.

Like Megan, I have read through the whole thing recently quite a few times.

And that it's a guide to future development and you know, the description of adaptable commercial in it.

It provides a structure for decisions for the city council, the planning commission, boards, and you know, this whole process.

The suggestion in the comp plan is for residential, office entertainment, something that generates street activation.

There are even further details saying, well, on the ground floor, you could have civic retail service, maybe residential.

On the upper floor, you could have residential, lodging, civic, or office.

Unfortunately, self-storage doesn't accomplish any of these.

There's no street activation, housing for only one caretaker, no third space for the community, and only two to three jobs generated.

Although the staff report praises this proposal for creating a green space and the wide sidewalk, which we discussed earlier tonight, the comp plan calls out for art or a variety of landscape features, seating areas, areas for outdoor dining and activity to create civic spaces to bring activation to the street side.

This self-storage proposal only provides greenery at the street, and there's no reason for anyone to walk to self-storage.

I mean, can you imagine any client walking to check on their storage?

There will be minimum, minimal activity, no vitality.

The proposal is not in the spirit of the comp plan or the land use suggestions, and it doesn't follow the sentiment of the Lafayette residents as seen in the recent survey.

We came to the survey readout and we heard what people wanted, and self-storage is not checking off any of the boxes from those replies.

And as this proposal was submitted in 2023, after the 2021 passage of the comp plan on these grounds, I think it should be rejected.

Furthermore, um let's bring up this other map.

Some of you have seen me before, but I believe the corridor on black diamond subdivision should really be zoned as neighborhood mixed use to create a better buffer between single family housing and commercial, um, as will be seen in the silo neighborhood, where it really looks like it's laid out quite well.

Quoting your materials, neighborhood mixed use denotes smaller commercial spaces that could initially be developed or reimagined as more vibrant neighborhood districts that integrate employment, retail, or housing.

Neighborhood mixed use areas provide for better transitions between primary street corridors and surrounding residential neighborhoods and create neighborhood scale amenities such as parks, green spaces, plazas, or other public spaces.

If this self-storage is built with a building that is not readily adaptable for the future, it would be a missed opportunity to accomplish these wonderful goals.

Lafayette desperately needs a variety of housing in civic spaces, but it does not need any more storage.

The comp plan provides a vision for how future development should proceed in and around Lafayette with a stated goal of promoting new buildings that reflect the unique nature of Lafayette and fit well with the surrounding neighborhoods.

It should improve affordability and availability of housing in the local area while focusing on arts, culture, and the natural environment.

So take a moment to imagine what could go on this parcel instead of self-storage.

And I think that was kind of what you were getting at earlier, Commissioner.

So I was saying to myself, what if there was a gate right in this back wall from Anna's farm and we could cross out to the trail?

I know we heard earlier that maybe a bridge is not possible, but no one's checked yet.

Maybe it is, right?

And if that were true, um, can you imagine a food hall with tables, an outdoor cornhole and a play space, or maybe a restaurant or small business with a civic space, like a sculpture that the kids can climb on.

Either of these could have much needed housing above.

This lot could serve Anna's farm, Sister Carmen, and anyone shopping in this currently commercial area.

This would create true vitality, street activation, and the culture to realize the comp plan.

No one is going to connect, play, or live at a self-storage, hopefully, besides the caretaker.

And why would anyone from Anna's Farm want to go through a gate gate and travel a trail by foot to visit self-storage, right?

If what we're trying to do is break down barriers around neighbors, bring people of diverse backgrounds together, and help us mingle and be a community as one.

This proposal is not going to do that.

Thank you, Megan.

So to approve this industrial self-storage proposal with its SUR would be against the future vision of La Piet and would create a long-term non-conforming use that would be an insult to all of the hard work that you and the land use working group have accomplished so far to preserve the charm and character of our wonderful town.

Reject this proposal for the above-stated reason under the current zoning and give an opportunity for future future, excuse me, future thoughtful development on this lot that is in the spirit of the comp plan and with new zoning as spelled out for the land use recommendations.

Furthermore, I'd just like to say that in addition to the people that you've heard speak tonight and to our neighbors who have come in.

I wanted to add that an additional 15 residents who have listed in my written testimony are on the public record in public input from the canceled March meeting.

Unfortunately, they did not put it in the public hearing testimony.

They put it in the public input.

But I wanted you to know that they all oppose this proposal, and without getting into their testimony, these are people who are in addition to those you've seen tonight and the written responses that you've received today.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

And I think this amount of friction between developers and residents indicates that this isn't the right proposal for Lafayette.

I was thinking I might do a little bit of a callback to earlier about all the neighbors raising their hands.

I know your time is precious.

Your time is your time is about expired.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Um speaker request.

Um, Nancy Sellinger.

And if there's anyone else who would like to speak, um please bring one of these forms up to the clerk.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Nancy Sellinger, and I live at 650 Homestead Street with my husband Alan Salinger, who's also sitting here with us.

We live directly next to Megan, and we are also going to be impacted by this project.

Um I'm a little surprised that we're back here after three years when we already addressed this issue in 2023.

But I've come back because it's just it still feels like maybe it's just not the right fit for us.

Um we will be directly impacted by your final decision to develop the site at 685 Aspen Ridge Drive.

We want to continue to work with you because you're our neighbors.

You know, you live in Lafayette.

So we are really hoping that we can come to a better decision than the one that's being proposed, despite the support so far from the city.

Um, we already have a storage facility diagonal from this site.

It's it's old, but it does work.

Um, the other thing is number two, how can we create balance between our growing city and our stewardship of the land of Lafayette?

How can we build more housing and businesses while protecting and caring for the existing environment?

I do want to bring up the 2021 Marshall Fire, the most destructive fire ever recorded in Colorado history.

We were packed, our adult children were home and we were packed, ready to go, and people were calling us from other parts of Colorado saying, please get your cat and come to our house, leave as soon as possible.

We stayed because we were just we didn't know what to do.

The impact of this storage facility, as Megan and Christie have so carefully researched and explained, is really impactful for many of us in Anna's farm, not just the ones adjacent to this that's on the other side of the lateral high line and this and this privacy wall.

Soil impaction is pretty serious.

Right now we are in a drought situation, but we're going to be moving into an El Niño year in midsummer.

We know what 2013 was like flooding.

Our home did flood, we didn't own it then.

Very, very little flooding, but the point is it did happen.

So there is something to be considered there.

My fourth point is the city of Lafayette is designated as a bird city.

Every single day I get to wake up to migrating birds, hawks, owls, at least two different types of eagles who make their nests in the Plains Cottonwoods, the few that we have remaining in Lafayette, Colorado.

Anyone that's walked Wanaka Lake knows exactly what I'm talking about when everyone's like, look over there, you're missing it.

When the person had said that an arborist, not with the city, but an outside third party arborist checked one of these trees.

That report was never included anywhere.

If we could see that, that would be terrific because we live there and all the trees kind of have that vibe of we're gonna die any minute, but they don't because they bloom out later than all the dopey ones that we plant from the east coast of the Midwest that bloom earlier and usually break when we get those big April snows.

Fingers crossed, right?

Um Leslie, the extreme weather events that we've been having, the winds are so serious.

Your whole house shakes.

It's so disturbing.

When the fire happened, we had over 80 mile an hour winds during the Marshall Fire.

My windscreen broke just from wind in my car driving through that.

Since 2023, there have been several large fires with at least one fatality in a storage facility, both in Denver Metro and Colorado Springs.

In 2025, the largest cache of illegal fentanyl was discovered in Colorado in a storage unit in Denver.

Across the country, there have been several more.

In addition, in late 2025, the man who took his own life in a New Hampshire self-storage facility after shooting 11 people with two fatalities at Brown University.

Unhoused individuals are often finding themselves without stable or safe housing and therefore also staying illegally in storage units.

In addition, I don't know if you know about the Gracie Mansion in New York, the two young teens that decided to throw handmade explosives, I guess you could say, all of their belongs, all of the things that they were using to make them were found in a storage unit.

Since the developers first proposed this storage unit, several factors have changed.

First of all, cost to build.

Have these costs increased due to tariffs or other general construction costs?

Last night I was here on not till 11:30, but I know their members were here.

I'm not going to name names till that late hour.

And I'm probably very tired today.

When this happened last night, one of the last points that were addressed was for another site being developed, also quite old.

It started in 2018.

However, when this happened, they proposed to have another developer come in and buy it.

Unfortunately, that developer is responsible for the worst fire in Denver history in over 30 years that happened in January of 2026.

That's something to really take into consideration.

They were building a site for apartments in Denver, and what ended up happening was somebody was working on the site who was an attendant, quote unquote, but they didn't call 911, a passerby seeing all these flames called.

So there's something to keep in mind.

Lastly, one other thing that I think we need to think about is that in addition to what Megan mentioned, the Bethesda, Maryland event in Palm Springs, the market is oversaturated and they are pushing back there.

However, Palm Springs, they're in contention right now, the community to try to stop it.

In addition, White Oak Real Estate Capital has secured, given a loan of 27.2 million dollars to 1784 holdings to develop more sites.

This was in 2025.

The last point I'd like to bring up is I really think it's important for us to work together as neighbors, as members of the community, not adversaries.

To me, it's most important that we all feel good walking away tonight or any time that we come together and say, hey, how can we do this better?

As planners for our city, you work for us.

We are your residents and we are your neighbors.

And we respect and honor that you work as liaisons between us and developers to make the best decisions for our city as we continue to go.

Please keep this in mind, as unfortunately might be the message sent to residents who have responded with the best of efforts since 2023 to decline this proposal.

We would like to continue to endeavor working with the planning commission to develop this parcel to the best for our needs.

One idea last night, which was really funny that came up is we need more child care.

The last point is how about a great bike shop?

What about a cafe?

What about a small housing?

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

If there's any other member of uh the public wishing to address the commission, seeing none, um, public comment period is now closed.

Um does the applicant wish to respond to public comment, including written public comments that were included in the packet for the hearing record.

Yes.

Okay.

Did you have a problem hearing me earlier?

I just want to make sure it sounds like it might be a problem.

Um okay, so I just wrote down some notes to try to make sure I've covered everything, and we also have um a few other members that will probably get up and also help share.

So I want to talk a little bit about the site distance um exhibit and how that was created, as well as some of the renders and outreach for that.

So for clarity, when we created the site distance, we used our surveys by our land surveyor who went and um surveyed the property, gave us the dimensions of where our easements are, and then coupled with um aerial images and parcel maps for the adjacent um uses.

We were able to kind of push them together.

When we did our survey, we did include portions of the property to the north and south so that we could at least include where their building footprints are.

So when we created our 3D exhibits that show um, you know, generalized buildings because we don't have all the details of how that building looks, but at least where the building sits and the footprint of it is accurate according to our survey.

Um some of the flooding and drainage comments, I think I will leave for uh Jim and other members to talk about the tree, the North Cottonwood tree.

Um, we did submit a tree evaluation report.

We shared um the notes from it from the arborist with the city.

It was submitted with our application, so it is part of the public record of that evaluation of the tree, um, and it being deemed um unhealthy and needing to be removed.

As far as whether we can build a basement in the property or not, uh basements are very, very expensive to design.

So there is a cost implication to it, a financial cost for us to add it, as well as our property sits below from a grading standpoint than the Anna's farm residents do.

Um, it's kind of answering some of the new grade cross-section changes and how the building is set into it.

So the grade works much like a hill, so it's not you know a hard ledge cut into it, but it does grade down from the sound wall slopes down to our buildings.

So we need to.

Um I don't have a country.

Just how I think it's it's illustrative, and then also maybe referencing the um the survey with the topography would be helpful.

Okay, sorry, didn't realize I was at the bottom of it.

Sorry, I'm hitting the arrow faster than it's sliding.

Um I'm gonna use this one just because it has the it's kind of small on there, but trying to find one that has a state plan and the cross section, but maybe we just use this cross section for now.

Sorry.

So this is some of the grade change where you can see, and these points are even though this is a colored graphic, these are um marked at what we have deemed our finished floor elevation um with the grading points that are on our drainage plan.

Um so we do have kind of this three-foot hard cut into it, but then it slopes back up to the top ridge here.

Um, and then this is the uh drain of the canal basement and it's low part, and then it slopes back up to this south wall.

So I'm not entirely sure if we ever indicated that the homes could see over the building or that our building was lower than this.

It was more of an indication that from the residential homes, they would be looking at our facility as it was more of a came from this earlier.

Um that's the microphone.

Um that the homes would be more at a two-story equal level of our building because where the grade changes is it's cutting into a majority of our first floor being at a grade level change.

Um, so then back to the basement again, because of this grade level change, it does make putting a basement in um susceptible to the basement flooding or potential leaks, um, you know, maintaining the waterproofing measures to that as well as the cost measures of it.

So it's just not been a constructability viable option for us.

Um I believe we've already talked a lot about the fire concerns in our previous presentation and fire mitigation that we have, how our building is designed, um, how there's extra measures in our tenant lease agreements, um, and um from an oversupply of storage, we do uh market analysis before we ever enter into a potential project just to make sure that the supply and the demand is there to support our facility.

We never want to build a facility that obviously we cannot rent out.

Um we also work on a model that is you know, storage follows residential.

Um, we provide residential sized self-storage, so um the more residential that comes in, therefore it's a direct correlation to needing more storage.

It's kind of how the mark analysis works in a general um range of anywhere from three to five miles depending on um the analysis and the density of the community.

In addition, we never want to oversupply the community, so we try to make sure that when we go into facilities, there is still enough demand for at least one or two other facilities to enter the market.

Uh as far as living and tenants, um, I understand the concern.

There's lots of past history that that shows other facilities and uh that being a concern, but again, you know, we have the security measures in place to mitigate that.

Um I would like to say that specifically for 724.

We have no track record of anyone living in our facilities.

We'd like to keep it that way.

Um then for uh development concerns.

Um you know, we've we have made all of our contact information available, made personally, my colleagues personally.

Um I think through staff um communication, we've had our neighborhood meetings.

Um we did personally, anybody who wrote in public testimony that we received ahead of time from last month, we did write them all individually, giving them a heads up about the continuance of the hearing offering to meet with any of them one-on-one out of that list.

Only three responded to us, which we did have follow-up one-on-one meetings with.

Um so that is that issue.

Oh, I also wanted to clarify for its noise.

Um rental, we have talks to all truck rental companies.

Um, Pensies, they do not have backup papers on they don't have backup beepers.

Um storage, moving vehicle or moving vehicle companies like Penskey, you haul, um major brands of uh rental truck companies, they do not have backup beepers on their cars.

Um then I think there was a general comment made about construction costs and increasing um obviously that ebbs and flows every year with the economy.

Sometimes we may have a concrete increase or still increase, sometimes they may go down.

That really just depends, and we re-evaluate that every year.

Um was kind of all the main points that I'm gonna address.

Yeah, okay.

Any other um any other questions for staff?

Oh, do you have more comments?

Is it okay?

Yeah, absolutely.

I just um wanted to touch on a few other items very quickly.

Um staff did receive confirmation that notice of the neighborhood meetings was sent for both neighborhood meetings, and again, just to reiterate, um, there is one required, and the applicant did hold two in order to address comments received at that first one.

So sign-in sheets as well as the notice, uh, the proof of mailing was provided and just staff as part of the application materials and in compliance with the code.

Um, following the neighborhood meetings, um, an outcome of that was working closely with Sister Carmen to address specific site concerns that they had.

And so um, in your packet materials, notably there is a letter of support for the project due to that work that the applicants did make with Sister Carmen.

Um again, I guess just touch on the height is consistent with the zoning, and um any use could be the height of 35 feet.

So um just wanted to touch on that point, and then quickly on adaptive commercial.

I think that's a unique designation.

It's meant for larger format commercial to transition into these more walkable spaces.

This is in a development that's you know, it's a single site within a platted subdivision at this point, so that kind of makes it unique within that designation, but regardless, a number of the urban design guidelines from the um adaptable commercial uh designation have been incorporated, including transparency, streetscaping, sidewalks, building frontage, um, and it's integrated into the existing street network, all things that are in included within that designation.

So the applicant did integrate those, um, despite the fact that this is unique in the adaptable commercial designation.

I'll be brief.

Uh there's a couple of comments about drainage and just um which way is the drainage plan?

Um more.

So all of the developed area of the site drains to the east.

Uh and most of it goes into the detention pond, and the design complies with all of the Lafayette standards and the uh mile high flood district standards.

There's there were some neighbor comments about um have we evaluated overflow of the ditch, and we did look at that.

So the ditch that is west of Sister Carmen is approximately two feet deep.

The ditch on this site is approximately four feet deep.

If the ditch overflows from too much rain, it's gonna overflow downstream of this site onto Sister Carmen and other properties.

The ditch on this property would have enough capacity to take whatever flows into it from Sister Carmen or anywhere south of your during a flood event.

The other scenario in which the ditch could overflow is if it was blocked by debris somewhere downstream.

Um if that did happen, it would overflow to the east, it would not go into Anna into the residential because the east bank of the ditch is approximately two feet lower than the west bank of the ditch.

So the the overflow would happen on the east side.

It would be very, very shallow because the ditch is very, very flat.

The there is capacity and the dry aisle to the south of the building to accommodate quite a bit of flow.

So we are not concerned about our site being flooded out in that scenario.

One other thing to point out is if it is turns out that that tree really does need to come out, that's probably one of the bigger sources of risk of the ditch being clogged.

Is if the tree falls down and clogs the ditch while it's running.

So whether or not that tree comes out, that's kind of where we are.

Yes, I have been to the site.

I live in Boulder County.

I've been to the site probably 10 times during the design of this.

So just wanted to put that out there.

Thank you.

All right.

Does the commission have any further questions of staff or the applicant after public comment?

Perhaps for staff.

Could you speak to how you validate the information that's provided by an applicant in terms of measurements, public comment, and uh this cottonwood tree question?

It can you just speak to how you become confident that what they've submitted is accurate and what you saw here.

Just to clarify, are you asking both about the neighbor notice?

Things that I heard were neighbor notice, cottonwood tree, whether it really needs to come out, and then the measurement discrepancies.

I'm curious about how you validated the information provided by the applicant.

Yeah, so the um the neighborhood notice they are required to send in their mailing labels and a map for which they um base the mailing labels on, and I did just check it from 2023 in August.

It was um 200 and some notices on their list.

I was at the neighborhood meeting, it was a virtual meeting, as I recall, and I don't require off the top of my head, but it was um there were a lot of people that attended that meeting online.

I would say upwards of 40, and that's not typical for what we typically see at a neighborhood meeting for a project of this size.

And so um we do have that information.

Happy to share it if anyone needs to who would like to see it.

Um with respect to the cross section, I did check that myself, and um uh what I looked at was the plat map for Black Diamond.

I look at the plat map for the rock before the picture 50 anniversary.

The plat map for plat map for black um black diamond, the plat map for um Anna's farm and also the county map, and actually at the time that I reviewed it, I also came up with 120 feet, and so with the connection between what they proposed at 120 and uh what um I came up with was 120, and so I you know not sure what to say beyond that, but mistakes happen sometimes, and we did get it out prior to the public hearing, and um staff was able to update our uh presentation with that um new map that was just brought out today.

And then what was the third thing?

The cottonwood.

The cottonwood, yes.

So we did have um we had someone from the city go out uh from parks department, and we also had the third party, and um, you know, we we generally accept third party um, you know, um analysis, you know, when it's from an arborist, and we're happy to share that.

Well clarifying just a couple of things.

So um to begin, like the setback requirements for this are measured as you guys know from property lines, not from uh adjacent development.

So um the requirement for M1 zoning is zero for a rear setback.

Um there is a residential kind of use setback that is also reflected on their plans, and that's 20 feet uh distance from the property line to their uh building foundation is over 50.

So um, and then there was some concern or questions about this being closer than other development.

Um when you go to an area, you can't find a property line as easy, but you can measure to the uh fence, which is on uh it's even further out, probably 20 additional feet um west of the uh property line here, and there's measurements in in Google Earth that suggest the there's uh development two lots north.

That's about 56 feet, and then uh the property to the south is in the 50 and pull back up, but it's uh around 50 feet as well from to that um uh fence.

So it's they're closer to 30 foot setbacks from the property line in terms of consistency and setbacks.

But again, we're measuring and validating relative to property lines, not to development off site.

So um there was one other oh um yeah, and and then I guess in terms of that um the location of that tree, it's not on their property, it's within city property.

So uh the city owns the the track of land immediately west of here.

Uh it is owned and uh maintained by our open space department, and that's who we uh had validate the um third-party report in terms of the shooting bodies.

So um, and it's right next to a trail, so it's in like from a safety standpoint.

Once uh trees start dying and limbs start falling, it's safer to take it out.

So as a part of this review and as a part of their development, we asked them to do that work on the city's behalf.

So thank you.

Any other questions?

Go ahead.

Um, I wanted to just make sure I'm understanding this how it's this uh building is being dug into the grade.

I know you talked about it a little bit.

I was trying to look at the topographic lines we have in one of the maps that we have provided, and it it I just it looks like at the edge of the building, the topo is at like five, three, three, seven, and the finished floor is at five three three two.

Could you just walk us through that?

I mean, it seems like it would be actually dug in a little bit, and I'm just would love to I think the section was a little off and looked like you were creating a bathtub against the wall.

Do I run it through while I pull up my construction plan that you don't have?

Okay.

If we don't have those, well, you may have you may not have the city has them, I think.

The city has, yeah, I was guessing if we don't have them, do we need them entered or anything, or if they're already submitted to the city, they're fully in the record.

Um I don't believe the planning commission needs them.

Um I I think you know, it what you're supposed to be considering tonight needs to be relevant to your special use review criteria, so it's still okay to ask the question, but it may not be relevant to your view tonight from just the site the grading plan.

I think if you could talk us through the grading plan, the so I'm looking at the northwest corner of the building.

It's kind of hard to see the topography here.

And the grade, the grade outside the building there is elevation 38.5.

The grade, the floor elevation is elevation 32.6.

So it's almost six feet of buried at this corner of the building.

It's fairly consistent along the west edge, and it tapers down here where there's a door where it's actually um it matches the floor elevation here pretty closely within a foot.

So it's it's almost a six-foot stem wall here on the building.

So from a drainage perspective, there's a swale behind the building.

Correct.

Just okay.

But then you're swaling there's there is a swale away from the building.

Yes, it did see this arrow here.

Okay, there we go.

It goes away from the building.

Yeah, this is a swale that has a drain in it.

Okay, just some of those topo lines on our grading plan are like a little hard to hard to read, hard to read.

So there's the property here that connects the collects the water and it will take it around the north side of the building into the detention pond.

Okay, that I caught okay.

So that nine foot difference that was mentioned is from the finished floor level of the new building to the grade across the ditch.

There was a there was a comment made that this is gonna look like a two-step.

So the the elevation of the trail on the on the west side of the ditch is approximately an elevation 40.

So elevation 40 down to elevation 32.6 is not nine feet, seven and a half feet.

I don't know, I don't know what the elevation of the houses are across the street.

We didn't survey on the west side of the fence.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant or staff?

Yeah, um sure you're close to the mic.

So um is a comment made about perspective drawings from the west side towards the building.

Is that something that you had received, or did the applicant provide a new um rendering to help understand the entire context in which this building sits um as I recall you know, I don't recall how I've phrased my request for that rendering.

Have to look that up.

But I do recall that when I saw the uh cross section plus the other renderings, I felt that it was sufficient.

It is not a requirement to submit color windings from each each angle, and at that time I thought it was sufficient.

Any other questions for applicant or staff?

Okay.

Seeing that there are no further questions for staff or the applicant, um, I will now close the public hearing and we'll move on to commission discussion.

The item for discussion is resolution number PC 2026 12 recommending approval with conditions of an application for special use reviews and site plan and architectural review for lot 10 block one black diamond subdivision.

Um would anyone like to lead off the discussion?

Just as a reminder, um commission should focus our discussion on the evidence presented in record during tonight's public hearing and applicable review criteria for both um applications.

Special use review for self-storage facility with caretaker dwelling per review criteria in section 26-15-4A and site plan architectural review per review criteria in section 26-16-7.1.

May I ask the question of our attorney?

Sure.

But do you mind just saying so that everybody can hear what we are allowed to consider as part of a special use hearing and as part of a spar.

Absolutely.

And in fact, just in case I prepared a verbal advisement to help you at the beginning of your discussion.

So I will read that, and I think it'll definitely benefit the commission and hopefully help the public understand what your role is.

So thank you for asking.

Okay, so in this matter, the planning commission is acting in your quasi-judicial role.

That means your task is not to make new policy, new law, or decide how the property should be regulated in the future.

Your task is to consider only the applications before you, the evidence and testimony presented in tonight's hearing to the extent it is relevant and competent, and the applicable code criteria.

You must decide these applications under the law that is in effect today.

I want to acknowledge we do have a new land use code that is in the process of being written.

Hopefully it will be in effect in the coming months, but that does not change the fact that you and your quasi-judicial role are obligated legally and ethically to apply the law that is it that is in effect today, just as the planning commission has been doing since 2021 with our new comprehensive plan, and before that.

So the to the extent the law has changed, you follow it and you you follow the code the law as it is in effect today.

Um regarding the special use review application that's before you, your responsibility is to evaluate it under the criteria, as our chair said in code section 26-15-4.

Those criteria include several separate considerations, including compliance with our municipal code, compatibility with the surrounding area, environmental impacts, compatibility of the proposed use and site plan with the comprehensive plan, and whether the use avoids significant adverse impacts.

So, with respect to that comprehensive plan criterion, Colorado law distinguishes between a comprehensive plan and binding land use regulations.

Lafayette does refer to the comprehensive plan in a lot of its um land use regulations.

You all uh you all deal with it all the time, you see it all the time, and you have to apply that all the time.

Um, you know, it's it's throughout our regulations.

However, what the courts uh look for is um or what the courts expect the planning commission to do is to uh I guess in this case have a holistic view to our comprehensive plan.

Is it generally compatible?

Is it generally furthering those are the um terms that our code uses?

And so you can consider it in that context, um, but there is not a when the courts say it needs to be made binding in a legally sufficient way, that means it needs to be specific to the extent that an applicant knows what they're to comply with, and that you know what you're to apply when you're considering the comprehensive plan.

So all of the things you've discussed tonight are part of the comprehensive plan, um, but they are not in and of themselves uh in isolation uh a basis to deny or or approve an application, but you should be considering it again, and you and you have and you should.

Um so I hope that makes sense.

We we don't we haven't taken specific goals or um provisions in the comprehensive plan and uh specifically adopted them with respect to special use review, if that makes sense.

So the specifics you've talked about relevant again when you think of them holistically, but um it's not that an application has to uh increase vibrancy or um walkability in and of itself, right?

We don't those are going to be covered in the site planning criteria too.

So you'll have an opportunity to consider those.

Um so Colorado courts also recognize in the special use review context that even where a code requires consistency with an applicable comprehensive plan, that doesn't mean every plan statement operates as an absolute rule or that any perceived inconsistency requires denial, unless those comprehensive plan provisions have been adopted as an absolute rule, which many have in our current code and will be in our new code.

Um so as the decision maker, you need to apply the governing code in effect today and base your decision on competent evidence in the record, and I will have a couple of um comments about that in a moment.

Um see, I don't want to be repetitive, so I might skip some of this.

Okay, so uh finally, in your comp in your quasi-judicial role this evening, you are responsible for weighing the evidence presented tonight.

That means considering not just the amount of public comment or um uh you know, just how many people might have shown up.

We have a lot of people who have been interested in this.

You have I do want the planning commission to recognize, and we should probably have the chair note for the record when I am done speaking, that you have accepted all of the written public comment into the record tonight.

That is relevant, that is part of your record.

So it's not just the people who took the time to be here tonight, which we very much appreciate, but you do have I wasn't even able to count them.

There are dozens of uh written comments in your um packet tonight that are part of your record, and you should consider and when you're considering those uh public comments as well as what you've heard from the applicant and the professional review by staff, um, you do need to uh consider whether it is relevant and relevance goes to whether it is relevant to the specific criteria you are considering.

We did, you know, for example, we we um heard some comments about a totally different application that council considered last night.

Those comments aren't relevant tonight.

So you have to consider everything you've heard and weigh whether it is relevant to what's before you.

Um and you also need to consider whether it's competent.

Uh, for example, on fire issues, you heard from our fire chief.

The fire chief is a uh fire code professional who works in that realm every day.

And so um the fire chief's testimony should carry uh more weight with you when you're considering issues about fire.

Um we do have staff present to answer questions about drainage.

You've heard from uh the applicants team on that as well.

And so where an issue requires specialized education or expertise, um, that does mean that you need to give that more weight.

Uh the courts would expect you to do that, and um when it's on an issue where uh special expertise is required.

Let me see if I have anything else.

So relevance and competence is important when you're considering all the testimony that you did here tonight, and that you have in your packet again, which um the planning commission should acknowledge is in the record.

So I think that's it for my comments.

I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about your responsibilities and um duties tonight.

Uh otherwise, this is up to you.

You all are here to do what you've been appointed to do, and you're you have the um evidence, you have the criteria in front of you, and I know that staff and I are here to assist you with that as needed, but um, and I can continue to answer questions if you have any throughout your discussion, if it would be helpful.

Um that chair, if it's okay.

Oh, just one more.

Um I believe that we are hearing two different things today, the special use and the spar.

You are and we're only accepting public comment in relation to the special use consideration, like comments that maybe are more relevant to the SPAR are not to be yes.

Let me provide some clarity on that.

So procedurally, the special use review is the application tonight that uh requires a public hearing and that you are to take um public testimony and consider public testimony for uh regarding our spar applications, it is considered in connection with the special use because without the special use, the spar wouldn't be needed.

Um but the spar itself under our code does not require a public hearing, and so it's not that you can't consider what they what the public or well what the public has spoken to tonight, but there is no public hearing requirement.

Um you should focus your review for the SPAR on the SPAR review criteria in the code and what you've heard from staff in the applicant this evening.

Um if you have questions for staff or the applicant, which I would say you are still entitled to ask if you need questions answered during your deliberation, um, and they are they arise out of something heard from public testimony, that is fine, but you should uh ask the applicant or staff um any questions you might have about the spar criteria that might have been raised by what you heard from public testimony.

Um so thank you for asking for that clarification.

Um chair, if you don't mind, I'm sorry to bring this up now.

It would be good if you could uh ask the commission whether there's any objection to um confirming that the entire written public comment in the packet is included in the record tonight.

Um does anyone on the commission have any objection to including all of the comments in the um that were received in the public record?

So those should those are those will all be included in the public record.

Um and now we can move ahead with discussion.

Um can we have the language for motions and I just want to or maybe even better um if we could discuss the special use review first?

Because since the spa is dependent on the special use, and I we did combine those in a single res um resolution for you.

I have allergies tonight too.

So um, but we did combine those in a single resolution, but it would make the most sense for your deliberation to at least start with the special use review and then move on to the site plan, though you can discuss can we just see those um the special use review um criteria?

I don't know if you have a slide that has all of those on it.

Umrea trying out it in my you do okay.

Yeah, you would anyone like to kick off the conversation.

I can't okay.

I you know I was going to ask the same question, so thank you to our city attorney for doing a very good job of explaining.

I think what is a very difficult role.

And I want to say thank you to everybody who came and to commented, and I realize I say this every time, I think, but I I know it's very difficult to come speak in front of people and to give up your Wednesday night and to you know come to all of these meetings and come to council meetings and to make all this public comment.

It is important, and we understand that it's very important to your community and to everybody in the city.

But I think you know, as as the city attorney mentioned, we are somewhat limited in what we can do as this body, which I think is important, and it's you know, you said a lot of things that are really great, and like maybe child care center would be something that would be interesting to see there, but that is not something that we can keep our here keep our discussion yes.

That's not just to the commission.

Yes, so I just wanted to make that very clear.

It's not that we're not listening, we totally are in hearing everything you say, but we are very limited in what we can discuss, which is the application that's in front of us.

Yes.

So um, just from a less portal standpoint.

So just because these these are our criteria, um compliance with the application of the application with the code.

Um, it does, as for the staff report, it does comply with the existing land use code that we have in place.

Um we have all expressed, and I do my frustration with the delay of of implementing the land use code um because of extenuating circumstances, but that's where we are.

Hopefully, we will not be here much longer.

Um compatibility of the proposal with the character of the surrounding area, and that is specific to the use, not to the this architectural site plan.

Can I ask you a question?

I would it's another attorney question.

Sorry, Journey.

Um so I we're supposed to consider the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding uses.

And the the note was made that though this is an industrial zone, many of the current uses are not industrial.

Are we to manage are we to try to uh assess the compatibil compatibility with the existing uses or with what's allowed in the existing zone?

With with the existing uses.

So you're looking at how the self-storage, the proposed self-storage use in the caretakers dwelling unit, um how that use is compatible with the uses on the surrounding properties that are there today.

Um I don't believe are there any other what would be relevant is are there undeveloped properties?

Um you could potentially consider other uses that would be allowed there.

Um, but even that would be limited.

So you really are looking at existing uses.

Are there any undeveloped properties immediately adjacent to this one?

I I don't think so.

So I don't think that's relevant.

I think that's a different zoning.

Yeah.

Is that united?

So there's nothing to be incompatible with there.

Um looking at whether this particular proposed use would have some kind of adverse impact on a surrounding property.

Yeah, the use itself.

So the number two specifically says compatibility of the proposal with the character of the surrounding use.

So you really are asking us character means very different from use.

So that language has got to be really clarified.

What is the zoning of the the lot across the street adjacent to the Walmart thing?

It's M1 is a lot of things.

It's it's in the commercial.

So it's C one Street.

So it's commercial.

But Caddy corners industrial.

Um potential for adverse environmental influences that might result from the proposed use.

Um are we gonna discuss?

No, let's discuss, sorry, let's stay on two.

Okay.

So if the character slash use, we've just noted that there's a daycare, there's a dentist, there's other services that are provided in this area.

Um those are services that are active.

We have a front door where people walk in within a certain time frame.

Um whatever it might be how how are we going to evaluate a standalone truck driving into a storage facility as a use that is like the uses that are surrounding it.

I don't I don't see that compatibility, so I'm I'm struggling here for some clarification from anybody who wants to attack it.

There is the existing, as the applicant mentioned, there is the existing um self-storage that is down the street and categorized too.

Um I don't know if that staff did not point that out.

We can would you like to see that where that is on the map?

I'd like to see that.

And I think that's also where I mean caddy corner from that is where Walmart's shipping uh shipping and receiving is as well.

So there is existing shipping traffic in that overall area.

Maybe not exactly immediately.

We might need to go to again back to Google Maps to see Google Maps, yeah.

And you can see the um the other self-storage.

It's the it's the variety that you access from outside, you know, on the angle.

Well, it's it's kind of hidden by that M1 industrial zoning district.

It's right there.

It's underneath underneath underneath that label partially.

Would you also like to see the Google?

Yeah, I think that might be helpful.

That's this that thing right there.

So access all the past people bridge.

So the there's a large empty lot directly to the east that is in the C1 zone district.

So that's commercial.

That corner up there in Walmart where all the shipping and receiving is.

Okay.

I believe.

The other self-storage looks like it's in the industrial it is in the M1, it's in the same zone district, the same current zone district.

Yeah.

I mean, Dead devil's advocating this.

I think that there is a buffer of a low use industrial.

I mean, it sounded industrial.

So there could be a more intense industrial use here and a low intensity industrial use with relatively little truck traffic.

Does sort of provide a buffer from some of this other more intense industrial, like there is no way on earth that there's only two trucks a day coming into Walmart, I would think.

I mean, I don't live there, so I couldn't speak to it personally, but it seems unlikely.

Look at the the scale of the existing storage.

It's one story.

Oh, for sure, that's a very small storage.

Access from the exterior.

Yeah.

And it's surrounded, not its adjacencies are other M1, you know, uses or whatever's in the in that zone, right?

This particular adjacency is challenged from the fact that it's actually against residential neighborhood.

So I know that we may not necessarily count arms with that, you know, we're challenged with that, but that's the thing is that if it was like a one-story thing, and you know, you could access it from a door or something like that, then it's compatible with the rest of the kind of character and use to a certain extent.

But this is actually a three-story building.

And it it's it's um it it's use maybe just because there's one other on the other side of Caddy Corner saying that yeah, you can allow it because it's there's one already there.

Well, there's already one there.

So I'm not sure.

I mean, I I I'm struggling to kind of understand this, you know, this the number two, the compatibility of the proposal of the character of the surrounding area.

I'm not I don't I don't necessarily agree that that character, even though the use is right, the character is not quite there because everything else is very low.

It's like one to two stories maximum.

Yeah, and it's the the use here is driving the height of the building because in order for them to make their proof work, they were going to need three stories rather than two.

So that's that's why, just in case you were wanting to stop us, that's why the height is relevant to the use.

So but it is zone for 35 feet.

Regardless of that is allowable in the zone district.

And that's sort of where I'm landing of if we're looking at something that is zoned industrial today.

It's zoned industrial, it is zoned for 35 feet, which are things that we cannot today change.

That this is a use that is not dissimilar from neighboring uses that might buffer some of these neighboring uses that are more intensive of the same type potentially.

Because we can't change the by neighboring uses, you're saying the things that are on the other side of diamond, which is yes, I am.

That's what I'm saying.

It's the buffer from the residential into the commercial.

Right.

And so but sectionally, that buffer is like way down here.

That that other use is down here.

For sure.

It's not up here, and there's already a buffer.

There's already um, there's already the other buildings that are on this sort of strip that create that buffer.

So and those buildings are not at the three-story height, even though they could be, right?

So just to just so like, yeah, okay.

Um the Walmart and all the coals and that whole big development.

Yes, that's it's a function of whatever it was at the time that it was done.

However, it's really far down, and your impact is just mitigated by the fact that the grade just works for you based on the fact that it's so far down.

Um I think this one does not have that same advantage.

I think I think given the the elevation of the finished floor, though it does, it is mitigated somewhat.

It's not 35 feet at the same floor height as the just yeah, but think about it.

Seven feet is not that much.

No, no.

It's like if you're standing there prospectively, you would hardly notice it.

If it was 20 feet or 15 or even halfway 10, 12, you'd get a little bit of a dip on the top edge, but you're not gonna get that.

And plus it's going from north to south as far as the corner being high and then the south being low.

So you're you're still not quite meeting that grade.

You know, using it as buffers the way you want it to be.

So I would I'm struggling with the number two.

Um, there was there were lots of public comment.

Um, I do want to bring attention to the comment from Sister Carmen.

Um, I don't know if everyone found that, given that that is their next door neighbor, and they're also a um here's where I think they're a competent witness.

Um they are supporting this application.

Um they're talking about how this is a they approve of this use because of the um the low traffic and uh the improvements that they'll have in their on their lot and on their the shared park access that they'll have.

Um so I think it's interesting that that very important institution is supporting this.

Um yeah, so I just wanted to make sure that everybody saw that in terms of the in terms of the compatibility with the character of the surrounding area.

Yes.

Well, and I think ultimately the height is within reason for what's allowed, and I think we get hung up sometimes on the compatibility in relation to is it a use that we're excited about or not?

Because if this were something that was from the public perspective, a more desirable use, having more of that use in that third story would be potentially great.

And I think if we're if we're also looking at the slow incremental redevelopment of this corridor, you know, it's now a three-story shell that in a future time could have a new use in it, and there is now that building there that then if somebody wants to redevelop one of the other existing properties, now there's another three-story building there.

So there's options for it, just it there's it influences that incremental development that the comp plan refers to, and you know, the comp plan and the land use code update will eventually work towards, but but this is the code now.

So I think it is very interesting.

The um historic maps that were shown of the this these buildings predate Manus Farm.

And um there was a lot of decisions made by planning folks in the city in the 90s um that have implications that we're dealing with now, and this is one of them.

So the connectivity at the adjacent property 40 north, that's uh two to Indian Peaks.

So what we have is on paper on our laws, we we have this this zoning and this meets yeah.

And I think part of this compatibility is in some ways the argument that this is a quote unquote inefficient use of the land.

Like the fact that there are lower impacts through this use can speak to the compatibility also of this isn't the most extreme use in M1, but there would be a lot more impacts that we would have to be really getting into versus height and lighting and perceived safety concerns.

So and this is sort of what I meant about, you know, it's zoned M1, it's 35 feet.

You could have an industrial thing there that meets all of the code requirements.

And might be used by right.

That might be used by right.

Yeah, yeah, which is something we can't stand on the way of because I think it would have been interesting for staff to show that um use table for um to just so we can see all of the and and neighbors can begin to think about what to to the point of Sister Carmen Commissioner.

Um, what could it what could be there that is actually much worse?

Um yeah, and I don't mean to say it can always be worse, it just is uh, you know, it's industrial.

They they have they have rights, it's industrial, it's 35 feet, like those are facts that we have to work within.

There are other, you know, within the the things that we have to work with in there are other things that might be wow.

I mean, there's like three things on here that immediately jumped out on me that I could see being much more problematic and close adjacency to a residential area with kids and all of those things.

Um I agree from a compatibility standpoint, also this use in particular is not a destination, but through some of the site improvements, this helps fill in the gaps of connectivity.

Like you might not be walking or biking to this building, but you might be walking or biking to the baseball batting cages down the street or to Walmart along this road.

There's also and this adding the like improving this dilapidated sidewalk here is a is a minor improvement occurring with this development, and it's helping with the connectivity.

And I mean, I think there's something to be said too for in this sort of gradual redevelopment.

We're hoping to see in this corridor having a new building that is frankly proposed to be in better maintenance for than some of what is existing there in the industrial use could help elevate that corridor into what I think the whole community's hoping to see across the corner.

I kind of like I'm I'm mystified by this because every storage facility that exists within an urban or suburban context around it for some reason.

I mean, I pass we pass by these things all the time, don't we?

I mean, going from I25 and you take the Santa Fe number six accent, it's right there, right?

And it's location has to do with the fact that it's visible.

You have to be able to see it and say, yes, I need to go there because I need to do something there, right?

Those locations are really purposeful insofar as the uh the sometimes they're a little bit adjacent to neighborhoods, but technically they're like their own little asilo, they're little islands sometimes.

So I'm I'm mystified as how the there's a conversation we're having about the fact that these improvements are going to create more connectivity.

Yeah, okay.

We've got a we've got a new sidewalk.

Great.

Yeah.

I don't really think it's gonna add it.

It's not going to be connectivity.

Yeah, but I also don't know that that's what we're considering here.

Um and that's so I think if we can keep on those those criteria.

I'm gonna keep keep cracking up whip.

Um lack of a better, but yeah, I think I totally understand what you're saying.

I think that the idea that this is adding to the connectivity, I agree.

I don't see that it's doing that.

But I think if we can we add any more, do we have any more discussion on that compatibility piece, compatibility of the proposal with the character of the surrounding areas?

I mean, I'm gonna again devil's advocate this, and most if this is a residentially oriented storage unit, and most people who are using this are residential users putting it in an area that is adjacent to a lot of our residential neighborhoods cuts down on trips and travel and things to go to areas outside of town in order to visit your um busy your storage unit.

I realize this is not like a huge sort of greenhouse gas savings thing, but at least it's putting the destination close to the users potentially.

I mean, that's the one thing that I could see that this is like not a compatible use, but it's you know, it's this is not like an industrial storage yard.

This is a climate controlled storage facility.

Like your users are going to be residential primarily, I would guess, and putting it in an area that's very adjacent to residential kind of makes sense.

Yeah, but that that's hard to kind of predict.

You you can't do that.

You can say, okay, just because it's near a residential area doesn't mean that residents are going to use it.

It just means that it's a convenience for whoever is close by.

It might be other people.

And we by and large, the land the land use around that is primarily residential.

So I I I get how you would consider your devil's agreement conversation, right?

So I'm just gonna I'm just putting it back.

Let's not we cannot make conversations about things that about uses and who uses things.

We just have to understand its relationship to its adjacencies right now.

Well, which is that's what I'm just saying, it's kind of is has a relationship to its adjacency, being that it is serving a residential use next to a residential area.

That's my only point connection I was trying to make as it pertains to this specific criteria.

If it's okay to jump, I know I'm jumping, but I think it's still sort of relevant actually to I think there's an element of five and two that are similar to each other, but if five, sorry, um we're supposed to take into consideration any pro any impacts, adverse impacts um that could happen, including on any anticipated future development.

Yeah, which feels future.

That feels a little that's that's a lot to hang ahead on.

That that feels a little frustrating, maybe with some of the other guidance.

So because like right now, anticipated future development permitted by this chapter.

Okay, we've got C1 zoning right across the street.

Um what might go there.

Anticipated future future would be our would be our future land.

Future land use code.

Yeah, that's right.

No, because permitted by this chapter.

So this chapter that could happen within the current anticipated future development permitted by this chapter.

I would interpret that as this looking at criteria five as this chapter, this land use code as currently written.

Um what feature could take place under the current code.

Yeah, rather than future land use codes.

Yeah.

Yeah, so we can't we can't make a decision based on something that hasn't yet happened.

Yeah, yeah.

So it's more at what is what could be future development permitted by this chapter that um this this project would not create significant adverse impacts upon.

Um I think because we have a land use code drafted, um, you could consider the anticipated future zoning for the surrounding properties, but it still you still apply the code in effect tonight.

So if I think it is fair to look at the vacant properties and and consider um whether the proposed use would have a s adverse impact on what could potentially be there in the future, knowing that we're this close to adopting a new code.

Um but again it's it's what are the impacts of the use is there, noise, um odor set you know, this it's those kinds of things, it's not just the existence of it unless you can identify an adverse impact that would be adverse impacts of this use in this place.

Um, you know, per your comment, we have uh Walmart delivery area right there.

If they come right in there, it's right across the street.

Um however, that is down the hill and does not have as much impact on the neighbors on the residential neighbors.

Um but that one lot, what is the what is the future zoning of that?

What is now C one?

Um what is the proposed zoning of that lot?

I guess is adverse impacts of especially defined sort of thing.

They're giving you examples in the code.

So the code it's it's including but not limited to, but it's does we include a list like that, we're asking you to consider impacts, those and ones like those.

Burden zoning.

I don't want to get too philosophical under there.

But if we're already there.

If we if we have a vision that a future use will be walkable and vibrant, and could it be an adverse impact of this use that it is not that it is not what?

It is not vibrant and walkable and could that be an adverse adverse use for this future.

Does this use generate unacceptable traffic or parking issues, lack of screening, noise, light, dust.

I mean, those are the kinds of things that five would see is not a so five is a separate thing from this particular list of things.

So we can address that, what you were just mentioning on number five.

But the impact for number three is very clear.

They have like a list of things that does it do this.

Oh, yeah, no, I'm talking about number five.

Oh, are talking about number five.

But in relation to the future goal of what this corridor would look like.

But I feel like that was the nature of some of the public comments.

And I don't know.

I had I had assumed from our guidance previously that we actually couldn't consider that.

But I wonder if this is only because of the the fact that we're that close.

I mean, I uh I don't know if staff, I mean we have C one in place across the street now.

I don't know if staff can give it any um information on what the expected zoning is to be, but um again, you need to be thinking about actual impacts on let's just say generally commercial and industrial uses that could be developed there.

It's not yeah um, you know, is it like the lack of vibrancy would not be the type of adverse impacts that are okay contemplated by this list.

This application as an example that's three the very specific criteria here are lighting, exterior lighting placements, um keep noise levels away from a lower from residential properties to the rear um trash areas and so forth.

I I I did appreciate the um oh go ahead.

Finish.

I well I was gonna go to the you go first.

Okay, well, I was just gonna kind of clarify that you know uh this regulation or this criteria adverse impacts are generally intense intensity, right?

So we're we're talking about something that is not intense enough.

It's the opposite of what this is uh trying to get to in terms of traffic congestion parking and lack of screening.

So and and the other thing I'd clarify too is that if you identify something like noise or light or I don't think we're mentioned dust, but like there are mitigating conditions that you could uh attach to this if you feel that there's a lighting impact or a noise impact or any of those things, and there's also still uh, you know, like right now we have uh elevation that clarifies where RTU units are gonna go and that they're gonna have a uh screening, but we'll have a building application that gives us greater detail and we still have the same criteria to apply, and we still have the ability to like you know, ask for about noise and make sure that those units are sized as they suggested as as a residential, you know, with similar noise impacts, not you know, anything greater.

So, but if if there's criteria that you're seeing light noise, whatever that relate to that, we can certainly come up with additional conditions.

Um I think the the light is one of the biggest things I'm worried about.

So these these lights that are basically signage, basically a big lantern to dim them after working hours or or to have them maybe not off, but no more than 10 foot candles at X surface or something.

Um because that's how you that's the only way that that could be controlled.

It has to be really specific.

Um yeah, I I I appreciated that the offer to talk to us about reducing brightness on both of those.

And to me, the the billboard is a little more concerning than the than the side lights, um, and and maybe less critical for safety.

Uh so it would be I think we should talk about that.

Yeah, the condition.

I agree.

Agreed.

Okay.

Um I also appreciated the comment that the um that the units, the can air conditioning units would be placed on the east side of the building.

So it would be good to confirm that in the building plan phase.

Well, can you do that?

Can you just put all the RTUs on one side?

Because you have to service the building on this dimension, and you know, if you do it that way, your your runs are gonna be weird.

And yeah, so it's not possible necessarily to do that.

I mean, it yeah, it would be nice to have a roof plan with a building that is this close to the full height that's allowed.

Yeah, of having a roof plan would be pretty easy to develop, but um, I think we can condition that so that the impacts can be lessened.

Um that's one of those things we'll just have to lean on staff.

So number three, environmental influences.

I mean, environmental means a whole canopy of things can fall underneath it, right?

It could be anything from wildlife to flora to fauna to you know, noise to dust to so I mean these general kind of holistic kind of statements.

You get hung up on some of this language to sort of say, well, gee, there's a whole prairie dog field right there.

That's an environmental impact right there.

So I mean, I don't know how to Sister Carmen is is excited that the that the um prairie dogs will be going away.

So you know, yeah, exactly.

Um and they're protected species.

So how are we actually getting around that?

Are we getting around that?

So I we have to take that aside.

So uh the property owners' rights, I hate to say um supersede the prairie dogs' rights to be there.

They are technically trespassing, I guess you could say.

Um so yeah, I don't know.

Environmental influences again generally goes to things that would be that that this use would create in the immediate environment.

So noise, light, dust, okay.

Um those types of impacts.

Could we?

Um it was good to know that most of these uh moving vehicles don't have beepers, but would it I think we've talked about noise, excuse me.

Oh, we've we're doing our discussion right now.

I'm sorry, we have to limit, we have to limit we we have to limit public comment.

I'm sorry, I think totally understanding Google whether Panc trucks have backup beepers.

Thank you.

Thank you, man.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um, I think it's gonna have to be judgment on that.

So but could we um we've talked before about like noise threshold after certain hours or something, and that might help and that goes to the hours of operation for example on the fifth criterion too.

You can absolutely um what's considered those matters and condition it appropriately.

Yeah, well, you know, any any kind of vehicle at a certain size has to have uh safety beeper to even mind does the in like an electric vehicle, right?

So I I just like I I had to kind of like also I mean that was when that statement was made.

The trash trucks in the neighborhood that are picking up trash are gonna have papers.

Um I just want I just wonder if if the real issue is that there were early hours that were brought up, and maybe there's a way to create some standards around sound during earlier hours.

I think I mean I think they have adjusted for that by putting that, you know, they pulled it way off, they've got a 50-foot setback where they don't need one of the 20 feet, and then put it on that southwest or southeast side of the building.

Um and the fact that they have loading that is within the building.

Um, and maybe that's that I know that people will be backing into it, probably.

We're backing out of it.

We go back up one way or the other.

Yes, sure.

Someway we've got a back.

Well, and part of the conversation too with the HVAC on top, like they're gonna have to meet the noise ordinances of the city.

So if it comes to a point where there's a realization that it is egregious, that'll get addressed through code enforcement, I'd assume.

So I would just always love to get out in front of that instead of.

Oh, I know, yeah, I agree.

And it was a um so I think it's a question of making sure there's pads uh appropriate, um appropriate sound dampening on the building.

Um it's tricky, pushing them to the east side should help.

I agree.

But I I mean I do recognize that not having the windows face the residential side, having very limited lighting at the residential side, you know, down lights, all of those things are moves and design choices that were made to limit some of the adverse environmental impacts on residential areas.

So in this there is I mean, much there's not nothing, but I think there's a much more limited uh adverse impact than there could otherwise be.

I mean, there's definitely been uh I think a series of design steps and choices made to limit those adverse, those specific adverse environmental impacts on the site.

Yeah, there's one thing to draw a tree.

It's nothing to actually see it grow to the size that it's gonna show right.

I was gonna ask the question, what would caliber tree?

What kind of tree can see if it was specified?

I'm sure you may not be to that point, but I'm curious what caliber of trees do you typically plant right away?

Two inch?

Two inch, two inches, two inch.

Okay, well, not typically, I don't know.

I don't know what they would be thinking, but I'd like I'll love a two inch personally.

I love six inch, but they don't transplant very well, yes.

Two inches is the space.

Faster, better mature.

Yeah, so it's part of our impacts with noise and light, and some of this if we when we get to the condition part of conversation around potentially shrinking the beginning and end of operations, if that's within our appropriate scope to recommend.

And maybe adding more trees.

Yeah.

Adding more trees that help with light and all of that.

Because I I see there absolutely being value for this being open before quote unquote traditional office hours and afterwards, because I mean it's like a bank, it's impossible to go there.

So it's it's nice for there to be those hours before and after, but six days a little early.

Yeah.

I don't know.

For those of us who work in construction, it's not really an early, that's not early.

Yeah, unfortunately.

Um but I do think that those potential for adding screening across the whole sort of sideline of the building would, you know, when trees mature, the sort of height differential, you're gonna look at the side of the building and not see the building, you're gonna see trees, which is nice, which is the ideal circumstance.

So maybe adding the entire row of screening along the length of the building that faces the residential side would help mitigate some of that very abrupt transition between what is now open space, what again is the tall building.

Or undeveloped land, yes, open space.

How long does it take to for a tree to get to 35 feet?

It depends on the species.

Okay.

So a while, let's put it that way, right?

Oh, 35 feet for sure.

But you know, if you're thinking about the angle of inclination and how big are you planting it at and all of the things, it's not immediate, but yes.

You also have the issue of light canopy and that okay, it's very technical, not in not really important right here.

I'm just looking back at that site section.

At the front, it's at nine at the back, it's at four.

Did you see that side section?

The one that's sort of like, and that's the that's the issue is that it's not down enough to really make a significant impact for whatever's on the west side.

See that right there.

It's like that's a door height is seven, maybe, or maybe eight.

That's four.

Right.

Yeah.

So at the if you look at the or this is the front, this is the west south side, but on the west side, it's lower.

If you look at the grading plan, it's um it's that 53 30, 39, yeah, 38.

Um so six to seven feet above the floor line.

On the west side.

On the west side.

Yeah, okay.

So that's very small, and it's it's it's more on the east side because you're pulling it down because of the way the grade works in the sidewalk, you have to be able to kind of get there, right?

But that height is not enough to kind of like and then where is that height measured from?

Is it measured from the average, or is it measured just from the back?

Well, we have to look at finished floor.

Yeah.

So is this elevation?

Height that they've called out is from finished floor.

From finished floor, right?

Not adjacent grade.

Yeah.

So that again, that trail across the ditch is is higher still.

Yeah, we're the elevation.

It's hard to see.

Crush refine trail, six foot fence, and then an alley.

Yeah.

And then there's houses.

So it's also like what what is to your point about the the lighting and the shade, what what is it casting down on it's predominantly right-away and ditch.

So I'm not and I don't I don't think that this is gonna shade the neighborhood.

I don't think that's just the as of is not going to do that, the angle of the sun.

No, but this cross section, um, the proportion of the trees is very not right.

I mean, the sound the six foot sound wall and the trees are about six and a half feet, and I mean maybe six feet.

So I think like this is part of where the cognitive dissonance is happening here is like it makes everything else look gigantic because these trees are shown as the same height as a six-foot sound.

I mean, they might be at seven feet, but it just isn't like I realize you don't want to show a mature tree growth and throw off everybody's expectation of what this looks like upon installation.

So totally get that.

I I know why this choice was made, but I think it is important to note that like this is not misleading, but just doesn't, I think, reflect uh a built-out condition with showing sort of mature trees at this like tiny tiny little light.

I think it you know, it's gonna look different than it is shown on this if you don't show both, you're excluding one.

Yeah, I know that's right.

This is this is a seven-foot tree as shown in this drawing.

We really understand these graphics.

Yes, that's why I wanted to say it out loud.

What this is that we understand them, and yet I'm still looking for that perspective from that uh alleyway or the sound wall and seeing where what actually I'm looking at because I don't I'm not eight feet.

I'm five feet one.

Yeah, yeah.

You're looking for the fence.

I'm looking from the fence and I'm looking out, and what am I seeing?

I'm seeing something.

So I want to know what it is.

I mean, right now you're seeing me standing in front of this building in heels, basically.

Like it's not this is not terribly illustrative of what the trees are gonna be doing from a visual standpoint.

I mean, right now we're just processing the sound wall as we're standing over there.

Um okay, so back to our our key our points here.

Yes.

We've talked a lot about one, two, and three, we've talked a little bit about five.

We haven't talked about four yet.

Um okay.

Um I think partially that's where my sidewalk is.

This one's hard.

So you're arguing this this does have some uh compatibility with comprehensive plan because it adds a sidewalk.

I I think it does a lot, and it does not a lot.

Like it that's the hard thing with when it says with the comprehensive plan, that is a several hundred page document.

And to the attorney's point.

And it doesn't have to meet all of the things.

Exactly.

That's the thing is it's and to the points made prior.

This isn't saying it has to meet specific policies or goals within the complan.

So that's when it's our judgment on, you know, if we feel like it's meeting four or the five, and this one's tricky, and of this one it's meeting a part of it that's relevant.

I I don't have strong comment one way or the other on this one.

I'm I'm more here to listen on what the rest of you at this time think.

Yeah, and also being aware that we're at 9 30 right now.

So um well, I I think that you know, if we're gonna use the comprehensive plan as a guide as a holistic kind of document that has a very clear uh well, it has a clear kind of mission and value statement in it where you know looking for uh looking for a sort of diversity, and as much as we know that that's a really big umbrella around which everything can fall.

You're looking for walkability, that's really kind of measurable to a certain extent, how how far things can be.

You're looking for connectivity.

Those things are not served with this use.

No, so I would I would say that okay, maybe it does do one, two, three partially, but it just fails on four.

So I I couldn't I couldn't find a way to kind of integrate that idea back in the back.

And there's no there's no like if it does not check all of these boxes, we cannot, you know, approve it.

It is um all or nothing.

And it doesn't need to be all or nothing.

I don't, I just it doesn't need to be, yeah.

I just think um there is no like how many boxes do you have to check.

It's just you have we are charged with coming up with very specific language of why we are um not going to not appear.

So we'll we'll have to find you know, we just need to have that language really clear if someone wants to make that motion.

I mean, could the the fact that this is a proposed infill feels consistent.

How is it an infill in some plane site?

How is it an infill?

There's nothing there.

Well, it's not an infill would mean that there is something there that you're slotting something into.

Well, there's things on either side, and there's nothing.

It's just one lot.

It's a lot, it's an empty lot.

Oh no, I might I see it as infrastructure because it is industrial, and then you have an empty lot in between two industrial buildings.

There's like what two other empty lots in this zone district.

Um, so I think maybe that's an element that is advancing a cop lane.

And then I also think I mean I don't know exactly how to incorporate this thought, but this point that in industrial zoning, what else could it be that would be less less consistent with the complaint?

Well, you can I know that's like very hypothetical, so maybe that's not a good mental exercise.

Um but those are things that come to mind for me number four.

I mean, I'd love that list back up of all of the facto uses of the approved of the um use by right versus special use.

Because I agree that the infill, like we've got a lot of sort of broken up development that is kind of just like it's missing teeth in areas that are already developed and filling that in.

What were those shade images?

Were those some sun diagram images in the slides a couple slides after?

Yeah, are you holding out on it?

Is that something that was not relevant?

Or it was like a back office slide if it would be a little bit of a in terms of shading, in terms of sun shading.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Should we stick with a permitties?

I just after, yeah.

Yeah.

Which is you know, we we do have a lot of sort of disjointed development for filling in these empty holes in our existing fabric of like things that are areas that are developed, I think is good.

You know, if you if you for people who live there, I don't have to tell you this, but if you ever drive along there, there's a lot of foot traffic in that area now to have accessibility.

I mean, Sister Carmen's sidewalk situation is a nightmare, especially given that like how much traffic's moving in and out of there, how many sort of like alternate I don't know.

You know, there's a lot of people with sort of different abilities trying to move in and out of Sister Carmen.

It's a total nightmare sort of situation, I think, from uh from an accessibility standpoint in front of there.

So anything that's giving more accessibility, creating like a standard for sidewalks and all of that kind of stuff is a win, in my opinion.

Okay, so you would rather have I'm gonna just say here, you'd rather have a dead dead type of um use, which is what it is, it's dead.

It's like nothing happens in there except somebody stores something in there and goes to pick it up versus a use that might be more like you know, active in terms of like daytime use, just for a sidewalk.

I don't think it's that I would rather that's not really what the point really is.

I would rather it is I mean, we've we had other um applications before us in this area that we have that we've not um and we went through the same process.

There was a um automotive paint and body shop that came south of this, um, and that was in I think that was in C1.

I mean we could do that.

And we could have now we found a way to deny that um very carefully, however, like that's a permitted use.

So all the things on that left side that we could have that that these neighbors could have in like a lumber plumbing or building supplies, storage yard enclosed and it's not I think there's multiple words, not an idea of we don't think that there could have been a different use here that's more desirable.

It's just this is the use proposed.

This is the zoning.

I it's looking at it within the scope of what is being applied for today, not what hypothetically could be.

Yeah, but this is this is the theme of the application in front of the point of all of this is it all of these things are allowed, and it isn't a matter of our preference, it's a matter of it's this or a feed mill or a I mean not or, but these are all things that are permitted use, and it isn't our opinion.

I'm gonna interrupt for just a second.

I'd like to make sure that um Fire Chief Bradshaw and Director Arthur, if you would like, I know you're sick, so if you would like to be excused, I don't see any other additional comments for you both.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um my apologies to thank you for being here tonight, both of you.

Appreciate it.

Feel better.

Yeah, feel better.

Um so uh my apologies.

I I didn't not mean it to be like a uh sort of like I understand the the context, and I understand that we have to make a decision based on what we have in front of us.

So what we have in front of us is a use, but we're we're having a discussion about its relationship to the comp plan.

And I have already stated that you know the comp plan as a holistic document talks about things like diversity, connectivity, walkability, and all the things that create like um local businesses and neighborhoods, yeah.

Um which are at this point, this particular use does not if it even if it does provide, let's say the improvements like the sidewalk, um does not promote that holistic document in the same way as maybe another use might, but that's not part that we're looking at this use, and it's not really jiving with that holistic list.

So I think again, if we are if someone is thinking about doing uh making a motion to deny, we just need to make sure that we have the language ready to um to amend to the the verbal verbiage that's been given to us by staff, which is to approve.

Um and we need to speak to those things, those criteria.

Um other discussions about compatibility of the proposed use and site plan with the comp plan.

Um I guess how is the rest of the commission feeling about having a discussion of there being the inclusion of some sort of a sidewalker trail connecting the Annas Farm Trail to Diamond Circle?

Because I get that that's a big ask, and I think that's I don't think that the ditch company would that would be the breaking oh yeah, you've got a ditch company to deal with, yeah.

I mean, which is a nightmare.

Or just an excessive crossing feedback.

I'm happy to say them.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think um I love it.

I think that would be wonderful.

We we can't get pedestrian access over roads where people are injured all the time.

So I also don't want us to do a condition that's impossible to meet.

Yeah, I don't think that that um sadly.

Cool.

Just wanted to entertain it.

Love a social.

So um do you want me to I was wondering if our city attorney would help craft perhaps an alternate version of which includes which sort of is not meeting, like says that that number by number four it doesn't meet the compliance holistic um criteria that is part of the discussion right here.

If to put that as a finding in your resolution, no, it's uh or if we're sorry, I can hardly hear you.

If we were if if I was to propose a denial, just speak into the mic.

Sorry, if I was to propose a denial of the um of the motion if you were to propose a motion that was to deny to deny, we would just need those reasons articulated, right?

And it may be that there's enough folks that are in agreement or other folks want to come up with some of that language, um or may not.

Um we just have to be really specific with what that might look like.

Um do we want to do any further discussion of these criteria?

Um we've talked a little bit about five.

Um we could also approach this as we could discuss conditions to the to the motion as it currently stands, so why don't we do that?

Um if we were to approve, and then um might give some time for if if someone would like to craft some denial language that can do that.

Um so conditions that I was thinking about was screening of the um the RTUs and making sure that those are held below.

I think it needs to be held below the pair of height because there are some things in the code that uh allow for appurtenances that allow for additional things above that 35 foot height.

And I think if we can just say no, that absolutely cannot.

The screening, the RTUs, none of these items can end up above that 35 foot height.

Um wholeheartedly agreed.

Okay.

Um I'm looking at the site plan as as it currently is, and it looks like the the grade is at um not much lower than finished floor, um, the adjacent grade at the entry, which it shouldn't be.

Um so that's kind of where they're basing their grade is right kind of at the entry.

That's kind of where they're basing their height.

Um so I don't think there's gonna be any um they're not it doesn't look like they're trying to do anything sneaky here with like pushing the building.

Yeah, um what that's one condition.

Interior lighting dimming those those kind of lanterns, making sure that those are dimmed.

What what sounds reasonable for like those interior advertising the interior, 10 p.m.?

I think during the non-business hours during non-business hours because then there can be a separate condition that we talk about adjusting the business hours and then it's a good thing.

Yeah, if that's so that way it's contingent on whatever that ends up.

And it's at business hours is until 10.

Right now it's six to ten is what they're proposing for this use.

Um is it reduced or is it that they're off I think it's I think it's reduced because they're not it's not facing the residences.

Um could it could it be reduced with a contingency that if it's found to be disruptive to the adjacent residential that it could be considered for a further reduction?

Are we talking about the interior lighting?

We're talking about the interior lighting, but the one that's gonna shine stays on windows dusk till dawn.

I don't see how those end up towards the residence.

Yeah, I don't think there's any of that facing the residential glows.

Yeah, like I think emanated from windows things.

I think reasonable a reasonable condition would be to dim them after business hours.

Okay.

Um was there a certain I'm sorry by 50 percent, by you know, um I don't know what specifics on the light because what's the did you have like a specific number of foot candles or something you were thinking of?

I may look at the photometric plan.

And and chair, that could also be something you could ask the applicant about.

Um if the lighting does stay the same the whole time it's on.

I don't think I would like to know if it's possible for you.

Well, it's possible.

She says it's okay.

It is possible.

Yeah, okay.

Um so you could add that as a condition.

I think it's I think if we just we just want to have a condition to dim the dim those interior lights that that do bleed to the outside to 50% or something like that.

Do you think we need to articulate?

Maybe just work with staff on that one.

Do we think we need to articulate that it's lighting related to advertising or visual communication?

So it's different than just like the hallway lighting on the inside because it's not actually hallway, it's it is basically a sign.

Yeah, um, yeah.

Just so it's clear for future reference.

Dim.

Yeah, so we're not necessarily talking about the safety lighting that is on the perimeter of the building.

Yeah, because that is shielded, and that is um I s I assume that's what's showing up in this higher numbers in the lighting plan from those windows.

Yeah.

And they're the top-down lights.

Yeah, I mean the exterior.

Oh, yeah, you're right.

Yeah, they're gonna be high up.

It's gonna be that glow that's coming off.

So it's not it's not shown in this.

Yeah, it won't the the foot candles from that or the the lighting from that won't won't really read at ground level, so be kind of hard to measure.

I think it's just I think it's just dim them to um dim them to 50% of their capacity or or less.

I don't know how to measure that.

And maybe staff has a way of of doing that.

This is why I was thinking some kind of caveat because if it's capacities, yeah, like if it's 50% of its total aluminum capacity.

That would be still very bright.

That might still be very bright.

Yeah, yes.

Um I'm not sure how to, I'm not sure how to quantify that.

Oh, they're standard.

Yeah, I don't know.

Can we leave it as can we have the language be to a dimmed to a level that staff determines is appropriate or adequate?

Do we have that kind of can we can we ask the applicant?

You said that in in previous applications you've agreed to dimming after certain hours, these lights.

What how did they regulate the thresholds?

What did what did the regulations the condition is usually written as after um 10 p.m.

The lights are dimmed to 50% power.

Well um love to see it.

So December um four o'clock, you're gonna see bright lights, and then at 10 o'clock, they'll get dimmed.

Yeah.

Um that seems yeah.

Um appropriate.

Do we think the same is true for the safety lighting?

I think it could go to 50%.

I don't I don't know because I don't that's a safety um issue for the ownership we could the property, and I don't want to would you tell me if I'm incorrect that you said that in other circumstances you've also maybe dimmed the exterior safety lights to 50% in certain circumstances after business hours as well without it adversely impacting the safety of the building.

Yes, or the same condition we have applied to both interior and exterior um as a general comment.

There are other jurisdictions we have worked in that have night sky ordinance policies.

So we have I mean they're full cutoff, but someone think about that or migratory.

But I also think it's other models that's yeah, we're dark sky aware.

Okay, is that our what we're I think I think it's a fair way of calling it?

Yeah, I mean Tucson.

That's not a technical term, and I'll think it's like a dark sky ordinance.

It is a full folder.

Yeah, we're not quite there, but yeah.

Okay.

We're aware.

So 50% exterior lighting after business hours.

Um as a condition.

But or the advertising lights, yes, that's the other side, though.

Okay, so these are okay, these are both, yeah.

Including to include the advertising lights, uh, to to include the um any lights visible from the exterior.

That might be the the best way to phrase it.

Umage you mentioned the signage, the the I I was confused on that.

I didn't I didn't catch that.

They had a large banner or something.

It sounds like it would be signage on the side of the building for this storage.

I think that's what the the like advertising was in the windows, is the lighting is for those.

I well I think our signage code will I think our signage code will probably cover it.

So I don't think we need additional conditions.

Um we want to we talked about trees.

Yes.

Yes.

I think uh yeah, I mean, I think a review of the landscaping that was already mentioned in terms of compliance with our new firewise guidelines is obviously underway, but I think should be can conditional for sure, just to make sure we're not um creating a uh a situation for for neighboring properties.

So that would be the condition is must comply with practice firewise best practice.

There's new publications that have just been coming out from the state uh from CSU extension and everything.

But they're they're out, so we could reference them.

Yes, I'll have to figure out exactly what that is.

Is that the wild wildfire urban interface report that was released?

It's more than just ruining.

There's something that just came out that's happening right now.

Okay.

Um our fire chief contacted me about that today, and we're already looking at uh amendments to the code in short order.

So I would imagine within the next month or two it will we'll have incorporated those.

Okay.

Um I think that's an easy one because that benefits everybody.

So that should be um I would just because you've got this up on your screen, but I I I would I guess that one's remaining, so we really can't put much of another one's being removed.

Yeah, we really can't add much more in the tree screening if you look at sort of what that visual looks like from the from the east side.

That's pretty well screened, I think.

Okay.

Um okay.

Any other conditions that we may need to discuss.

Um could we have the motion language pulled up on the screen?

Is there it was there uh an interest in requesting operating hours through seven?

Seven to nine.

That's I think that's that's hard.

I think they already moved it from five, I think.

I think um there's a lot of for people who work uh yeah, who start early.

Yeah, or work late.

That's seven to nine is pretty that's that's really difficult to do.

I think yeah, like that hampers business.

I think it's not a bar, it's yeah, unfortunately.

It's when you need to move after after work or at a random time.

Yeah, not to say that there's no impact, but just that I don't I don't think it's I guess if it's only one or two vehicles and it's a low impact what you're doing.

Yes, I'm not I mean I understand there is an impact.

Gotcha.

I I respect that there is an impact, but I think that it is not so significant in impact.

And we're gonna depriving them of a substantial ability to conduct their business is potentially problematic.

Yeah, personally.

Yeah, if there's not support for it, then that's fine with that.

I'm just yeah.

Um we have reviewed our our um special use review um substantially.

Um we're right now we have a single motion.

We can split this out and make a make a motion for the special use review initially and then make a separate motion for site plan architectural review, which would give us a chance to look a little more at some of these architectural things, um, but specific to the set the special use review.

Um I feel like we should make a single motion there, and maybe I'm just throwing back to um how I how I was learned to do this for the last 10 years.

Um to you know, put the one that is that is driving the the spar, it seems like that needs to come first.

Yes, I I'm just thinking procedurally here because we do have one resolution.

Um I see.

I think I'm not sure why it was done that way, I guess.

Yeah, but nor because without the one yeah, you wouldn't have the other, whether that's the best way to do it.

I okay can't think about that.

So maybe it's maybe in the mood point.

Maybe it's a moot point, and we just um well maybe poll the commission and and what we see um where you all are at on the special use review.

Yeah, I'm curious where everyone is at on the special use review.

Um in terms of you know, based on all these criteria that we've discussed.

Um does anyone feel strongly that they might put forth a denial or um and I my understanding is bad if you do decide to to um vote against it your reasons have to be expressed as well.

But I could yeah, okay, that is bad.

So um are you taking a poll or what?

I'm taking a poll.

Okay.

Um yeah, I'm going to deny this um based on um the criteria stated in the comp plan for um adaptable commercial, which states that there needs to be um say that here.

And I don't know if you need to I don't know if you need to give the language now, just if you know kind of doing a straw poll.

Yeah, but it would be helpful to tumble for you.

Yeah, it's better to state those reasons before any decisions are made for sure.

Okay, yeah, yeah, which states that you know the the project or whatever use needed to have um walkability uh insured connectivity between in the context, create vibrancy and um you know allow for local businesses to uh conduct our you know to have like um a relationship to the existing context.

Um and for that reason I I can't I I would deny this um proposal.

So okay, it doesn't fit the comp plans mission what's your I I don't feel comfortable denying based on that standard, so okay.

Okay, yeah, I would like to approve with the conditions you discussed.

Okay.

Um I am firmly on the fence, which is really frustrating.

Um but I'm I'm leaning towards approval because um I don't think that we have our land use code fails us over and over and over again, and um it's so frustrating.

So I'm gonna say based on what we have today, the code we have today, everything that we have today.

It is not a perfect thing, it does not perfectly align with the comprehensive plan and all of that, but I do not see a reason to deny this application based on that, and I'm inclined to approve with the conditions with the conditions.

Okay, so given that um does someone want to make a motion?

Um based on what's on the screen, or do we want to should we move into some architectural site plan review discussion?

I would recommend you move into site plan architecture review discussion.

Um I mean at least there's not a clear majority in favor of recommending denial.

There's definitely I I think you'll come back to it, but I would recommend going and talk about the spar.

Okay.

And then come back to a final decision.

Okay.

If we have the um the criteria for the spark, thank you.

Okay.

Oh there's just a lot.

There is a lot.

Yeah, you're right.

We don't we don't, yeah, there's there's too many to put on one.

So this is the this is the applicants.

Um I think I should probably reference the packet rather than maybe the applicants.

But do we have to do that?

You want to go up the engine.

Yeah, that'd be good to pull up the agenda.

Um that way we can see all of it.

We're um actually layer scale.

Um so scale is appropriate.

Um, this does meet the requirements of the M1 zoning district standards.

Um the architecture promotes a harmonious transition.

Can we not make sure to not have the word harmonious in the new light scope?

Just cover that up.

Um I mean, just imagine CMU at the bottom there.

And ethos on the top.

Yeah.

What was that?

EFIS, the the external insulated fiber stucco, something like that.

Um I mean yeah.

I think that the overall the design of the building is again, it's it's not as bad as it could be.

It's it's it's a decently designed storage facility building.

Um there's it's not winning any awards.

Um it's a building, it's a building.

It's a building.

I mean, it's it's really quite, you know, um, it's sad that we don't really have any criteria that really does speak about architecture in the way maybe necessarily we really understand architecture.

This is really just a building.

Yeah, and we should just be clear about that and say it's a building, it use it is functional.

I mean, actually, it would be more honest if there was nothing on it except the fact that it's storage.

Well, I I appreciate that it's not just the box.

Oh, I totally think it is actually a much more attractive building than it could be.

Yeah, I mean it's the building components.

Yeah, the nearby current buildings are not the most harmonious.

But they're they're pre-date.

They predate any kind of like you know, this is better than any of the other is better designed better than the Walmart for that matter.

I mean, oh definitely, you know, so um like it has um there are articulates building articulation, roof lines are varied relatively there's like um some surface variation building materials are suitable to the type of building and design for which they are to be used.

Um materials selected are of a durable quality and offer protection from rotter perosion.

I mean, the the bottom story of the building being slip face is is accomplishing that.

I love an integrated color personally and a product.

Oh yes.

It wears well, it's nice.

Yeah, it's I yeah, I think we can all agree that it is a building.

I think yeah, if we go um okay.

I guess I on the on this harmonious transition in scale.

In some ways, it feels like it it is a transition.

It's you know, it's certainly it feels like a transition from Walmart.

And they have sided it down into the ground.

They have, you know, they um they have the height is still lower than the I guess that's right.

That yes, yes, true.

And it does that's where I'm like, ah we sort of win on one side and like is on another side.

Because it can be 35 feet, and it can be right up to the 20 feet to within 20 feet of the property line, and there is no way to harmoniously transition that um because that's a subjective measurement.

And so we are again space.

Um three different stucco treatments, two colors of CMU, um architectural metal accents.

Um yes, they have done what they can with with what would otherwise just be a box.

I mean the colors are there's a there's a theme.

There's a that's there's a bag.

I like a bag.

I don't think we have to take a look at it.

I think I I am frustrated that we don't have a we're discussing.

I'm frustrated that we don't have a roof plan um for spar, that seems because a lot of the issues here are driven from the height.

So I think again, conditioning that that um none of these RTUs or screening or parapets go over that 35 feet.

I think that's important.

Um so I think that will help with the spar here.

Um I mean if you if you needed to throw any more materials on it, you you could.

I don't think we should do that.

I think we should more articulation.

I think it is articulating.

Um what about site plan?

Circulation um landscape design.

Um we have our condition that did we did we add a condition regarding the um fire safety landscaping.

We've got that one.

Yep.

Um there's more landscaping than was absolutely necessary.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, there's some thought for the pedestrian experience on the sidewalk.

There's some shade.

Yeah, you can you can experience the uh lighting on the towers as you go walk by, right?

Um I want to make sure that the um I guess this is a question for the applicant.

Um mentioned that the di the um detention pond has a two to three foot wall.

Is there an additional um railing on top of that wall?

I was gonna ask.

Is there additional an additional 42-inch guard?

Depending on the depth of the my kid's gonna want to jump into that.

I don't know if anybody else is getting some portions of it.

We'll have a wall, we'll have a rail, but some some parts of the wall are less than three, less than 20 or 20, 30 inches tall, and decoded on need a rail.

Okay, so if it's 30 inch drop down to the base of the detention pond, you won't you won't have a railing, but there will be a portion of that, so you could potentially have um 42 plus three feet.

You could potentially have a six and a half foot along that pedestrian okay correct.

Um so they've got they've got that entire front of the of the property except for the drive lane as a detention pond.

Yeah, and it's got the wall that will you know vary a little bit in height from north to south, but the detention pond bottom itself is is gonna be lower than the grade at the that the pedestrians are walking at.

Yeah.

So you'll have that, and in some clay in some cases you'll need a guard because it's that's a safety risk.

So if it's more than 30 inches to the bottom of that detention pond, they'll have to put a guard up.

So just thinking about the way that's going to so it will it will feel like a pretty tall wall alongside.

Yeah, it will feel like a wall and then a tall car.

Yeah, yeah.

But that's necessary for safety.

That's necessary for safety.

So I don't know that it's just something for us to be aware of.

Um the water consumption is for landscaping is way less than what would be allowed, so I don't think there's any reason to condition the landscaping.

Um screening, we've talked about that.

We've conditioned that on the roof.

Um there's screening of the of the drive areas where headlights would would pull in and um screening of the trash cans.

Screening of the trash cans.

Also nice.

Um, here's yeah.

I feel like we really covered the lighting.

We've covered the lighting issue, we've added criteria there.

I mean, I just like on the circulation thing, I just really want to touch on the parking.

There's seven parking spots.

Like this is a nice, like this is we're not it's like not a parking lot here.

No, you mean that's like actually kind of a nice intensive use.

It is a very large building.

It's that is the that is the impact.

The impact of this is a large building.

Of this use is a large building.

Um but minimal parking, which I feel like shows the relationship between what it's primary, yeah.

Yeah.

Of course not.

Yeah, I mean it shows not that much traffic.

Are there any bike racks proposed to be installed on this property as part of the parking plan?

That's a good question.

I don't believe so.

It's not a requirement for our code.

Is it because of how small the anticipated traffic flow is or because of this use?

Or because of our what's not yet to do.

I'm just I'm curious on what what yeah.

Yeah, our code, um, you know, it'll be in the new code.

I guess it's like this bike in their self-specific.

I think that we can um it's always possible.

An employee um I think we should add um bike parking.

Um I'm sure there will be a place inside for a bike, but I'd want to make it explicit.

So I think that's another condition.

Yeah, one to add bike parking.

Yeah.

Yes, one rack, one metal one, I think one loop.

I think a couple um okay.

Any other comments?

Um, would anyone like to make a motion?

You're at 10 10.

Can we go through the condition language as we're proposing it?

Do we have condition language?

I tried.

Which was the bike parking, right?

Yes.

I might have missed one or two on the spar, not sure if you all were actually adding conditions there.

At the bike one.

Um, so for uh to address items you found relevant to the special use review criteria.

Um what I heard was uh three additional conditions to um I think that are geared towards mitigating the potential external impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding properties.

So the first one, and help me if I did not I I think I got it, but help me if I need to correct anything here.

Um the first one was that after business hours, indoor advertising lights visible from the exterior should be dimmed to 50 percent I think we want to say any lighting of visible any lighting any indoor lighting any indoor or outdoor lighting visible from the exterior.

Okay, any light all right had a separate one for out visible.

So it's any indoor or exterior lighting visible from the exterior.

Yeah, okay.

Is it better to say outside of working hours versus after uh outside of this hours?

Yes, thank you.

So it's gonna be a team after um 10 15 at night.

Thank you all.

Okay, so any in um indoor or outdoor, or I could say exterior or interior, but let's just go with indoor or outdoor lighting.

I think that's visible.

I should probably be typing, I'm faster with that than writing.

Um from the exterior, uh to 50% power, 50% power dimmed to 50% exact.

How did you say it of maximum lumen levels?

Actually, would be wait 50% of maximum lumen levels.

Okay, yeah.

Levels do we want that to exclude the security lighting?

No, we talked about that they've done that in other places.

They've so they were comfortable with that.

And then request from the applicant.

Sure.

Um to use 10 p.m.

as the cutoff, and then to ensure that we don't uh include the uh manager's um office as a mining restriction either.

Okay, good point.

So excluding the office area.

We won't make him shut a screen so he doesn't really want to hurry.

That's a good that's a good point.

Very good point.

Okay.

After 10 p.m.

and before.

This condition's gonna have four commas in it.

Exterior of the building must be dimmed to 50% of maximum lumens, should we say so after 10 p.m.

Oh you're saying outside of working or outside of yes, but it I think your specific request to make it.

Yeah, they're willing to make it.

Okay.

Are you all okay with that?

Okay, so then we'll say between 10 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

for now we can come back to it.

Okay.

Um between 10 and 10.

Is that is that is um I'm not sure if this is what you're saying, but is that clear enough?

Like, do we need to say they need to be dimmed at 10?

Um may not be we could do and it may not be we could say 10 to dawn or something like that because I that's not as much of an issue once the sun starts coming up, but um, we'd say after 10 p.m.

Well, I just mean after 10 p.m.

could be 11 or it could be 12, yeah.

Yeah, I would say at 10 p.m.

at 10 p.m.

Yeah.

Somebody's tossing at 10 p.m.

I'm gonna leave until blink.

Um there was something else you all said excluding excluding the lighting related.

Excluding the uh office the caretakers unit got it, excluding the okay, let me read this back to you just a moment.

I that's exactly what I was thinking 1995.

Okay, so this first one would be any indoor or outdoor lighting visible from the exterior of the building must be dimmed to 50% of maximum lumens at 10 p.m.

until blank, excluding the caretaker dwelling unit, excluding yeah, supply the lighting in there, but the caretaker dwelling unit.

Okay.

Okay, so that was the first condition.

Um I guess that means I just have one more.

Well, the the other one I got was the um wildlife urban interface requirements, a compliance with fire code updates, something along those lines.

Yeah, I think that the landscape plan is reviewed in light of see if in light of best practice best practice or sorry wildfire best practices at time of landscape installation, because that might change between now and two years from now.

Because everything's changing right now.

Yeah, um, everybody's banning things and changing.

Yeah, but how is that in who enforces how building building um I'm a little concerned about venting best practices as opposed to um adopted regulations of some sort of look at what there was something CSU extensions did something?

Maybe that's but if there's but if there's an anticipation that the city is adopting certain things, yeah, it could just say it needs to be their their current adopted regulations adopted regulations uh in effect or you know, adopted regulations in effect at the time of landscape.

At time of building permit, right?

Because that's yeah, um staff could you're gonna do that.

If the applicant has anything to say, could you weigh in on that?

I know that we have a building code update coming this year that might include fire code updates.

I also know we do have a more immediate fire code update to um address these changes in the law that will be coming in the next couple months.

Like four county's doing something.

Building permit versus it's hard to have the applicant amend a landscape plan right before they put in landscape.

So if there's if there's something they're already doing the junior replacement, and I know you guys mentioned the turf.

So if there's something specific in the landscape plan that you want us to change, it's easier to do that target a future regulation because the landscape plan is getting approved as part of the spar application.

So if there's something specific, I mean they're already doing certain things, and I don't know if Andrea has anything to kind of clarify in terms of what those changes are for the junipers are coming out.

What else is happening?

Well, we don't yeah, so we the last so obviously we made the decision about the juniper trees a couple weeks ago on time that we were able to update the plan and get it submitted um ahead of this hearing.

Um the rest of the plant list we were just workshopping yesterday, and so making sure that they're all our part of the uh firewise plan.

So we are willing to do that.

Um the only uh question I have, I guess, request is that the wording is changed to plan approval versus plan installation.

That's fair.

Because otherwise building that building permit plan approval me.

That's totally fair.

Yeah, definitely.

Yeah, okay.

I think it's gonna be fire-wise.

Yeah, if you can't standards, I'm working on those or not staking forever.

Uh I think firewise standards.

That's there's a let us say copyrighted.

Okay.

So I think what we could do to make that a state forest service firewise.

Okay, let me see.

Actually, let me add that to make this a uh legally sufficient um condition that they could actually comply with, which say Colorado State Forest service with through CSU has the Firewise program.

State Forest Service.

Yeah.

But if we haven't adopted that and if we're not forced to enforce that, is that a relevant body of code?

If they're willing to comply with the plan is currently published, I'm I don't have any reason to believe right now that the fire chief will propose um lesser standards.

Okay, so um the applicant is willing to agree to a condition that the landscape plan would be modified to comply with Colorado State Forest Service firewise standards, yeah.

Um as a condition of final spar approval.

Can we just use firewise?

I guess so.

I have yeah, this is not something I've had a chance to review yet.

So fire just firewise standard.

Yeah, we're already working in that direction.

Yeah, that's right.

My understanding is gonna update these um great and when it's already agreed to that change.

So we'd have that change made as a condition of the final approval, so that it's all wrapped up with the other conditions.

Okay, so landscape plan to be modified to comply with firewise standards.

Um there we go.

That's all we need to say since it's condition.

Okay, uh other than the bike rack standard, those are the only two I have.

Did I miss any on the special use review?

Yeah on the roof.

The height, making sure that the RTUs and no that nothing on the roof is above that 35 foot.

There's no additional screening that everything of the RTUs are held below that 35.

No appurtenances, no nothing is above that.

Nothing does not mean okay.

So no no screening, no rooftop screening or RTUs may exceed 35 feet.

Would that be accurate?

Okay.

Or appurtenances.

Okay, that no roof.

It's a defined that doesn't regulate like a cell placement on top, right?

Because that's a separate state code, or is that I think it would, I think it would regulate that, but I don't they're not asking for that here.

No, I know.

I just think I think it I think that you stand for by the way.

Rooftop unit it's a general term.

Okay, cool.

Okay, okay.

So no, um, I might revise this slightly, but I will do the substance the same.

But the condition is that no rooftop screening appurtenances are to use may exceed 35 feet in height.

Okay, okay.

Interesting as we measure it above grade, that's all defined in the code.

And lastly, uh let's see modify spar to include a bike park bike parking, right?

Is that correct?

I think I'm trying to think if there's like a technical.

What I heard was sufficient for employee bike parking.

Yeah, sufficient for employee bike parking.

That yeah, okay.

Yeah, who determines if that's sufficient?

The staff or the applicant?

Staff that's to work with staff.

Okay, yeah, okay, yeah, yeah.

Um determined by staff.

How about that?

Yeah, well, anything will be sufficient beyond zero.

So it'd be just one is fine.

Yeah, there's two or three employees at any given time.

Is that all?

I think that was like four.

Okay, okay.

Um would anyone like to make a motion?

Or it's in the packet if you have that.

Could we get like one readout of what the conditions being added are just so we can hear like kind of what that list is?

The like this list that we've just created.

What would you like?

You'd like it.

Can you just read one?

Oh, I can, yes.

Yeah, just so we can figure out the link in the first one.

I'm trying to figure out, sorry, I'm trying to figure out how to word 10 p.m.

until maybe just um overnight at starting at 10 p.m.

or something like that.

Can we say sorry for the first one?

All right.

So the um sorry, let me make one quick change and then I can read these.

I think we're so close.

We're so close.

We are so close.

I can I'm letting you know that doing this on the fly is unusual, but it's also efficient for this.

So okay, all right.

Um planning commission, here are the conditions that I have drafted for you.

Uh number one, these are additional conditions to the ones that are already in the resolution.

Um is any indoor or outdoor lighting visible from the exterior of the building must be dimmed to 50% of maximum lumens overnight starting at 10 p.m., including lighting in the care, or I'm sorry, excluding lighting in the caretaker dwelling unit.

Number two, the land landscape plan in the spar must be modified to comply with firewise standards.

Number three, no rooftop screening.

Appurtenances or RTUs may exceed 35 feet in height as measured per code.

Um and lastly, number four, the bar must be modified to include bike parking for employee use as determined by planning staff.

Seeing nods, okay.

All right.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

Hold it.

I move to approve resolution number PC 2026 12.

Approving with conditions.

As amended.

As amended.

Yeah.

So how do we put this?

Uh a site plan and architectural review and special use review for lot 10 block one black diamond subdivision first filing for Lafayette self-storage.

We have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Oh my motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Uh Planning Commission.

I'm sorry, I just realized the motion on the screen.

Oh no.

Should say make sure we drafted it correctly.

Okay, the motion in the pack or the resolution of the packet is correct, and I'm sorry, I didn't catch that earlier.

Um, I just noticed it doesn't say a recommending approval.

So you are a recommending body on both of these applications.

I don't think you need to um change anything except if the movement could propose uh that or just clarify that this is a motion to recommend approval right with everything else you said.

Yes, I am that I am motioning to recommend approval to city council for the application for the special use review and site plan.

Yes, sorry, and I want to also add approving the resolution, but it the resolution is a recommended approval.

Yes, thank you.

I'm sorry.

No, that's important.

I also want to add there are four um conditions that staff had proposed.

I just want to make sure that those that everyone has is has those on the radar.

Um internal lighting shall include motion sensors to ensure that lights are off when the self-storage portion of the building is unoccupied.

Include a note on the spar plan stating that the caretakers unit shall only be inhabited by an employee of the self-storage facility and their immediate family prior to submitting a building permit, applicant shall make minor technical corrections identified by staff and the required easements for drainage and emergency access shall be approved by city council before a building permit can be issued.

Um so that's eight total conditions.

That's correct.

All right, I have a motion and a second as amended.

Okay.

Um any other discussion other than what I just discussed.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

All right, thank you.

Um motion carries.

Motion passes.

Thank you all.

Thank you all to the public.

Um could you speak to the next point in the process for this?

What the what the next options are if anyone wants to?

Yes, Chair Thomas, I'd be happy to do that.

Um, for the public, there is a uh because the planning commission is the recommending body, their recommendation in the resolution that was just passed as amended tonight will be forwarded to the um city council.

The city council does have final decision making authority on both of these applications, and they will um also be holding public hearings on uh a public hearing, excuse me, on the special use review that is currently scheduled for Tuesday, April 21st at 5 30 p.m.

Um so if you would like to be heard uh regarding this regarding special use review by the council, uh you should be sure to attend that meeting um or you may submit written comment if you're not able to attend.

Um so that's two weeks from now.

Thank you all again for your diligence and um we appreciate all of the input on the gym.

Okay.

Um because in the interest of time, I know everybody probably wants to break, but maybe we can uh is there any com are there any commission comments?

Oh no?

For something different?

Um yeah, just for anything.

Shall we take shall we take a couple?

Oh my gosh.

I guess you're still here.

We tried.

Can I get more dinner?

I hope you were like had some beer or something.

All right, we'll take a couple minute recess here just to reset collect ourselves.

All right.

Let's go ahead and and reconvene so we can get any commission comments.

Uh sorry.

So here for a few hours actually called preservation board meeting.

Uh they're they're doing what they do, they're privacy and their presentation for open space.

And we got some uh they're looking for guidance from the Secretary of the Interior for I guess is how we classify buildings as uh historically significant.

50 years 50 years and lots of other little things.

Well, I think I think it was moving they they talked about that because Darcy and I, our houses are almost 15 50 years old.

I don't think I don't think I'm gonna get a platform my house.

Yeah, it is technically historic.

It is wait, my build my house was built when I was born and 050 reasonable.

I'm not the same.

We're getting close.

It hasn't been significantly modified.

That's out of order.

No, that's only the exterior that counts for significant modifications for historic preservation purposes.

Um thank you.

Um any other commissioner comment?

Um I will since the lateness of the hour, I will just there's nothing urgent on the package it in at our next meeting.

We did have an open space meeting, but there's nothing dire.

Okay, thank you.

Any other commissioner comment?

No.

Right.

Um Department Comments.

We get to have two meetings in a week and two weeks as well.

Uh just to see where the calendar falls.

So council has a meeting, as Marilyn mentioned on the 21st, and we'll consider um tonight's agenda item.

And then you guys we just noticed the meeting.

Another special use site plan review.

Um to come back.

Um, and this is for property alpha 287 um in the solo development.