Council meeting for April twenty first, twenty twenty-six to order, we'll begin with a pledge of allegiance.

Could we please get a roll call clerk back?

Mayor Tapia Vega?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tim Barn.

Councillor Bullier.

Here.

Counselor Friedland.

Here.

Councillor Gallegos.

Good evening.

Counselor Gianola.

Here.

Counselor Jensen.

Mayor we have a plan.

Thank you so much.

And from my understanding, uh, Mayor Pro Tem is a few minutes away.

He'll be a little late, but he will be joining us tonight.

We will begin as with every meeting with uh public input.

Uh before I do, I understand there is a public hearing tonight, and I just want to make it clear and differentiate between the two public input and the public hearing.

Uh, if you want to be on the record for the public hearing, please fill out one of these forms and just check the public hearing box that will happen later on in the meeting.

Uh, for now, unless our city attorney wanted to jump in on that at all.

Just for the public's benefit, if you do want your comments to be considered for the public hearing itself on the special use review, you do need to speak during the public portion public hearing portion at the meeting, not during public input.

While council will listen to everyone's comments during public input.

If you do choose to speak about the public hearing matter, those will not be part of the record and cannot be considered by council this evening.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

If you can't be here in person, you can also call in.

That phone number is on our website.

Um when you do come up, just state your name and address for the record.

And then finally, um, you will have five minutes to speak.

Uh you don't have to guess how long you have left.

There's a little red clock on your left on that podium, and you can just see how much time you have left.

Just out of respect to everyone and making sure that we are respectful with everyone.

I will give everyone exactly five minutes.

That just allows everyone to have the exact same amount of time.

Uh so with that, we will begin.

And tonight we'll begin with Patrick Murphy.

Good evening, counsel.

Sorry to read this, but I don't want to leave anything out.

My name is Patrick Murphy.

I'm 74 years old and a semi-retired botanist, planted ecologist that's done field work for 45 years up and down the Rocky Mountains and to summer in Alaska.

I'm here to try to get a slight modification of the Lafayette Open Space Guidance Procedure regarding weeds.

I currently have four volunteer projects that include weed control.

The Senitas Valley Trail on Boulder Open Space, Deanne Armstrong Pocket Park under Boulder Parks and Recreation, Riverside Cemetery in North Denver, as well as weed control and other vegetation consultation with the Lafayette Thorn Nature Center.

And notice that some of the weeds sourced there was from the adjacent Coal Creek Trail, especially between Public Road and 287.

The primary weeds that I was concerned with were Scotch Thistle and Musk Thistle, which are both tall, thorny biennials.

These weeds can be three to six feet tall or taller when they flower.

Other lesser weeds like Teasel and Knapp Reed were also observed.

I contacted Lafayette Open Space and met with Holly Gordon and got all signed up on February 24th this year.

I then spent some hours for two days using a narrow blade hoe and removed over 800 rosettes of the two biennial weeds on the trail between public road and 287.

Let me explain what a rosette and a biennial weed are.

Biennials commonly germinate one year and only produce a cluster of leaves around a central point called a rosette.

They do not flower that year.

They just store up resources in the following spring, shoot up a stalk, flower, disperse seeds, and die.

I've learned from many years of other volunteer work that if you remove the rosettes about an inch below the surface and just leave the rosette to dry out, the plant will typically stay dead.

The rosettes have no seed and do not regenerate.

That is what has worked well on Boulder Open Space and the Ann Armstrong pocket part.

Now that isn't the end of the story.

If you find these weeds in abundance, it's likely there are still seeds ready to germinate when conditions are right.

So this needs to be repeated, but typically gets results that get better fast.

For example, after weeding 800 rosettes with the hoe, a second round of weeding might find only 80 or less rosettes.

And the process continues like that over the spring months in a few intervals, depending on rainfall.

These biennial weeds typically give up around the middle of June, unless you let them bolt and flower.

However, the process must be repeated the next spring with better results each year.

The reason I'm here is because the removal and bagging of all 800 rosettes from the trail is required by the procedures of Lafayette Open Space, as confirmed by Lexi Sierra Martinez, Open Space Superintendent, and Dennis Warrington, Deputy Director of Parks Open Space.

The removal of these rosettes, as opposed to weeds that have flowers and seeds, is ecologically unnecessary effort since they have neither seeds nor propagation potential.

And there is really no aesthetic value to removing them since they dry up and look like the other dry vegetation along the trail.

Besides, they're spiny when green and stick right through most gloves.

Besides, I let open space know as kindly as I could about the ecological and aesthetic inappropriate need to remove them.

And with my old back, I'd rather spend time killing more weeds than needlessly picking up and bagging the rosettes.

I know they have to follow procedures, regardless of the logic.

So perhaps a single line of change in the procedure could say that vegetative rosettes with no flowering stocks can be cut about one inch below the surface and left to dry up.

I'd be happy to continue weeding on the Coal Creek Trail.

Otherwise, no.

And I also be happy to meet with anyone and demonstrate this.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Megan Rast.

Mayor and City Councils, my name is Megan Rast.

I live at 646 Homestead Street.

I wanted to speak in the opening public input to lay out some of the logistics, foundation, and expectations council can have for what is coming during the hearing from community members here this evening to oppose the storage project.

Your time is valuable.

So the Annus Farm neighbors have structured our comments as a block.

You're going to receive them numbered, and I know you don't have to, but it would make things easier if you did go in the order we recommend.

This ensures our commentary is not repetitive.

Each of us is taking different concepts and issues with the proposed project, discussing the basis for denying them within the five special use review criteria.

You are obligated to weigh this evening per staff in the applicant.

What this means is that in this one respect, perhaps the only time this evening, uh, we are aligned with the applicant and staff.

You should weigh this project against the five special use review criteria.

We're going to walk you through why, under each of the five criteria, you have a strong reason to deny this project.

We'll give you a menu of options, you know, a choose your own adventure of saying no, if you will.

Uh does the community have an extreme dislike for this project?

Absolutely.

My neighbors and I have done hundreds of door knocks and in-person discussions, and we have not found a single person in Lafayette who thinks this is a good idea.

There are hundreds we spoke with representing thousands of your constituents who asked why, with comments like, why can't we do developments that make sense that I'll just leave the city council to contemplate?

Um, but we're not asking you to say no because we hate it.

We are giving you many reasons you can and must say no using the same special review use criteria required for your decision.

We are also asking you to use your common sense.

You know, I listened to the quasi-judicial workshop and did not hear our city attorney say to check your logic at the door.

We rely on your critical thinking and questions, especially tonight.

You've seen in written comments and will hear tonight situations where the applicant is obfuscating facts and misrepresenting.

We understand the profit motive.

What has surprised us is their willingness to mislead.

So we're unsure why as well, but city staff kind of carry some of those inaccuracies on behalf of the applicant.

In some cases, discussion at the planning commission was based on inaccurate info from staff, not just the applicant.

So we ask you to think critically tonight.

You're the only ones who can ask direct questions.

And if responses are problematic, you know, such as quote, that doesn't matter, when it directly relates to a special use review criteria.

We ask you to please push back if it doesn't make sense to you.

The applicant is incentivized to minimize adverse impacts and obscure them.

And it sometimes doesn't appear that staff independently checked or validated the applicant.

So please don't let that happen tonight.

You're not alone, you have an entire community here hoping you'll deny this project.

You're also not alone, as planning commissioner Fatima Herji said no, for reasons we've provided in written comment and soon in the hearing verbal testimony.

We're organized, we're ready to walk you through the basis for your denial.

What we ask is that you take time to hear from each of us.

We regret how much better this could have been if we had reviewed this at the sketch plan level, not just here at the special use review and SPAR.

Um, but here we are.

It's going to be a stacked discussion because it's our one opportunity.

Many neighbors are here tonight to show opposition.

While all of us speakers will stay for the duration, however long it takes to for us to have input in the testimony.

I wanted to acknowledge everyone who's present here tonight.

So, dear neighbors, please stand if you oppose this project.

And please wave your hands so city council can see you as I say the following.

You oppose this project because it's incompatible with existing uses on Aspen Ridge Drive.

You oppose this project because it will significantly adversely impact the residents of Annis Farm.

You oppose this project and support comments from your neighbors during the hearing.

You oppose this project being granted a special use review.

You oppose this project because it in no way supports the 2021 comprehensive plan.

You oppose this project because storage facilities have low tax revenue and almost no 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 that area walkable, street activated with real benefits to the neighborhood.

Thank you for your time, and we look forward to the upcoming hearing.

Thank you so much.

Up next, we'll hear from Michelle Batiste.

Hi, my name is Michelle Batiste, I live at 580 Homestead Street.

And I'm speaking now because I don't think I'll be able to be here for the public hearing.

Thank you all for giving us an opportunity to speak.

Lafayette does it right, right?

We embrace diverse communities, we embrace creativity.

We embrace commerce.

And my neighbors at Anna's Farm, we embrace smart development and commerce.

And thoughtfully planned development.

And Lafayette does that all over the place, from affordable housing to civic spaces and pocket parks where everybody can access nature.

Lafayette has thoughtfully planned gentle transitions between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas, which is a really necessary part of a flourishing and growing city, right?

And we need to do that to maintain Lafayette's character and our community connections.

So Lafayette does it right.

And it is why we all love living here.

It does not promote community.

It does not reflect Lafayette.

I've submitted written comments for the public hearing.

And I ask that you listen to my neighbors during the public hearing who will outline all the reasons why we oppose this project.

So thank you for listening and thank you for giving this careful attention.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Michael Watson.

Hello, Mike Watson, 708, South Carolina.

I mean, I I agree the Lafayette does it right, but I think the thing the Lafayette does right is the citizenry, the residents of Lafayette.

The residents of Lafayette stand up when they know the things are wrong.

I know that I'm not an expert on all things uh city government.

Um I personally see the law and the rules and the regulations too often.

I mean, like everything else in this country, they benefit the wealthy.

They benefit the people who are coming in with with with the team of lawyers, with the developers, with designers who are going to bring revenue into the city.

And it consistently in every single development hearing that I have paid attention to.

Um it is the residents opposing and is it is the moneyed interests basically bulldozing over the top of that.

And you guys are told that your hands are tied, that the law says one thing.

Um if the law is wrong, stand up to the law.

Man, that is a fundamental principle of our country.

If the law is telling you to do something wrong, and the law, we all know, like it's not a mystery that the law has been written by the victors, by the people who live who exist on the top echelon of society and basically extract the value out of the rest of us.

We know that.

That's been studied.

I mean, hopefully, all of you have I mean, I'm not gonna bring up figures and all of that, but like this is a fundamental issue with America that we have a lot of have nots and a few haves, and the laws typically benefit the haves.

I'm asking you, when you guys are ruling, regardless of what the law says, regardless of what the city attorney and the city manager are telling you, go with what's right.

Because that's more important than the law.

And if the law is wrong, challenge the law, and that's how the law actually gets changed.

For anybody who's here for thinking that they're gonna overwhelm the um the developer's interests here.

I haven't seen it happen yet, but um fingers crossed.

Other thing I want to talk about, and I'll shut up.

Uh, water, still an issue.

The the water levels, uh the snowpack levels are still getting lower.

Um I understand that there's all these rules and regulations uh governing when and how you can act, and that you have to put out notice and then it has to be discussed, and then it has to be an open hearing.

Some things like nature doesn't work on your timetable.

I mean, if you're gonna if you know you're gonna lose your job in the middle of summer, like do you just continue your spending habits until until all of a sudden you run out of money, or do you start saving now?

Like the time to start acting on our water crisis that we're going to face this year, 99% probability, is right now, not in June when the city manager says, oh shit, all of a sudden our our water reservoir levels are really, really low, and we have to take emergency steps.

We can do it now in an organized way, or we can scramble to cover our butts later in the middle of summer when all the reservoirs are bottoming up.

And also there should not be rules on weeds on weed removal.

Like the people the experts know how to handle that.

The experts are in your community.

They're not on your city staff, they're in the community.

Thank you.

And uh I look forward to it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I'm not seeing any more speaker request forms, uh, but I will just go ahead and ask.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak during this portion of the meeting?

Seeing none, I will see if anyone has called in.

No callers tonight.

Okay.

With that, we'll close public input.

Thank you all so much for your participation.

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

We have a few items tonight, including item A, the April 7th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

Item B, which is a second reading of ordinance number nine, series 2026, providing for additional appropriations during fiscal year 2026 for unanticipated 2026 revenues and expenditures required of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, specifically carry forwards of the 2025 expenditures appropriations of certain 2025 capital project items and modification of current budget line items.

Item C, resolution number 2026-10, adopting an amended budget and making carry forward appropriations for the fiscal year 2026 for the downtown development authority, our DDA.

Item D, contract with our tech group, phase one capital bond program and project management services.

Um item E purchase order with Wagner Equipment Public Works Backup Replacement.

Is there any items council would like to pull tonight?

Seeing no items, I will take a motion.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed, say no.

No one opposed, that passes unanimously.

We will move on to proclamations for tonight.

Uh and for our first proclamation, I will turn it over to Councilor Gianola.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh tonight I'm happy to give this proclamation uh for Earth Day for April 2026.

And I'll just start by saying my work with the Sustainability and Resilience Advisory Board over the years, it's become increasingly clear that Lafayette must continue to take meaningful steps to reduce the impacts of climate change.

This proclamation serves as a call to action, encouraging engagement from all members of our community, including city staff, residents, business owners, and visitors.

It aligns with our city's commitment to sustainability and community resilience as demonstrated through through the implementation of our climate action plan.

By recognizing Earth Day, we reaffirm our dedication to protecting public health, supporting economic stability, and advancing advancing social equity.

Most importantly, this proclamation reminds us that collective action matters and that each of us has to roll a role to play in shaping a more resilient Lafayette.

Whereas the first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22nd, 1970 to inspire environmental awareness and encourage conservation, protection, and appreciation of Colorado's rich and diverse natural resources, and whereas Earth Day continues to serve as a powerful reminder that the health of the environment is directly tied to the well-being of the community, and that each individual has a role to play in shaping a more sustainable future.

And whereas Earth Day offers the Lafayette community an opportunity not only to celebrate progress, but to renew the shared commitment to protecting the environment for current and future generations.

And whereas all people, regardless of race, gender, income, or geography, have a right to a healthy sustainable environment with economic growth and opportunity.

And whereas inclusive outreach, engagement, and representation are crucial to ensure sustainability and resilience efforts are equitable and consistent with Lafayette's climate action goals and policies.

And whereas meaningful progress depends on individual and collective action, and every resident has the power to make a difference through everyday choices.

And whereas the City of Lafayette will host its annual Earth Day Everyday celebration on May 2nd, 2026, and encourages all community members to participate in this and other events, programs, and initiatives throughout April.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare April 22nd, 2026 as Earth Day.

We encourage all residents, visitors, and staff to take meaningful action, big or small, to protect our air, land, and water, support a resilient future, and uphold every person's right to a healthy environment.

So move.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second on the Earth Day proclamation.

Is there any further discussion on this proclamation?

Councilor Fridland.

I saw on LinkedIn which give me a follow.

I'm pretty active on that.

Sorry, I had to.

Somebody described Earth Day and Earth Month as like the Super Bowl for sustainability.

And it happens all month long, obviously one day too.

And so anyway, I'm just I'm always very excited around this time of the year, and I appreciate such a great proclamation and all the work that everyone's doing around sustainability for Earth Month and Earth Day.

Thank you.

Any other counselors?

Seeing none, uh, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed, say no.

No one opposed, that passes unanimously.

On to the next proclamation, and for this, I will turn it over to Council Fridland.

Um yeah, I think uh a lot of people know that my two favorite times of of year on City Council are when whenever we talk trees.

Sometimes we decide we're gonna plant these trees or we're gonna work on these trees, and those are always my favorite ones, and also the recycling one when we talk about recycling.

Those are my two favorites.

Um anyway, I'm excited to talk uh to share this one.

Um, 2026, whereas in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture established a special day to be set aside for the planting of trees.

And whereas this holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska, and whereas Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and whereas 2026 is the 31st anniversary of Arbor Day in the City of Lafayette, a tree city USA member, and will be celebrated at the May 2nd Earth Day everyday event.

And whereas trees can be a solution to combating climate change by reducing the erosion of our topsoil, cutting heating and cooling costs, moderating the temperature, cleaning the air, producing life-giving oxygen, and providing habitat for wildlife.

And whereas trees are renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, food for our plates, and beautify our beautify our community, and whereas trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the city of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare April 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day, and encourage all residents to protect our trees, plant a tree locally, care for existing trees, and support community efforts to expand and preserve our urban forest for future generations.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second on the proclamation for Arbor Day.

Uh is there any further discussion on this proclamation?

Councilor Jensen.

In the past, we have had some community feedback about not planting trees this year because of the water.

And so I just wanted to address that and say to the extent we create a better tree canopy, people use less air conditioning, and um that reduces global warming.

So I just want to make sure that we will be following for the city whatever drought guidelines we set up.

Uh and we're we have a hearing on that next week, uh, specifically to talk.

Is that right to talk about water?

So um to the extent it doesn't make sense to water trees, especially in their early stages.

We will be considering that.

But to the extent we are able to water trees, it's helpful.

So I just want people to understand that that there is a bit of a conflict, but uh we're monitoring it and trying to figure out the best path forward, and it is important that we plant trees.

Thank you.

Any other counselors on this one?

Yes, Mayor, just very briefly.

I think it's uh wonderful that we have both the Earth Day Proclamation and the Arbor Day proclamation, uh, particularly with thanks to Mr.

Patrick Murphy, who may have stepped out, but uh semi-retired botanist and plant plant ecologist.

I really enjoyed that particular comment.

So, with with thanks to him.

Councilor Chianola.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh you know, we we try to do a lot for our tree canopy and for trees in Lafayette.

You know, recently we had a project where we're gonna plant 80 new trees in the city, and in particular in a part of the city that is kind of lacking trees.

And so this is a really uh important thing for the city and for, you know, as Councilor Jensen mentioned, you know, protecting you know human quality of life, but it's also the animal quality of life for the the critters who who live in these these uh neighborhoods who benefit from trees 24-7, right?

We we have a lot of birds who live in our trees, we have a lot of uh small mammals and things who live underneath our trees.

Um I I agree that water is an issue, uh, but I think trees do a lot to preserve the water that we use and and limit the the uh extent to which you know evaporation can occur through shading.

I mean, these there's a lot of good things that come uh through trees.

So happy to support this Arbor Day uh proclamation in Arbor Day and Lafayette.

Fantastic.

All right, well, we have a motion and we have a second.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed, say no.

No one opposes that passes unanimously.

On to our final proclamation for the night.

On to our final proclamation for the night, I will turn it over to Councilor Gallegos.

So proclamation for International Firefighters Day, May 4th, 2026, whereas International Firefighters Day is observed each year on May 4th to honor the dedication service and sacrifices of firefighters around the world.

And whereas the City of Lafayette proudly recognizes the members of the Lafayette Fire Department who demonstrate unwavering courage, professionalism, and commitment in protecting life, property, and the environment.

And whereas Lafayette firefighters respond to emergencies of all types, fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous incidents, rescue operations, community risk reduction, and public education, often placing themselves in harm's way to safeguard the community.

And whereas the firefighters of the Lafayette Fire Department embody the highest standards of public service, continually training, preparing, and adapting to meet the evolving needs of the community.

And whereas International Firefighters Day provides an opportunity for residents, businesses, and community partners to express gratitude for the essential work performed daily by firefighters and to remember those who have lost lost their lives in the line of duty.

Now, therefore, the mayor and city council of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, do hereby declare May 4th, 2026 International Firefighters Day, and encourage all residents to recognize and appreciate the dedication and contribution of our firefighters.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion on this proclamation?

Councilor Gallegos.

So I'm just thinking back to the wildfire we had in January and how the Lafayette Fire Department was one of I think four or five departments to respond and how quickly they were able to put that fire out and keep us all safe, and how grateful I am for the communication from the department on social media.

So thank you for keeping us safe and being such a big part of our community.

Councilor January.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll also give a big thanks to our uh fire department uh and a special thanks to our uh fire chief Bradshaw, who uh was acting city mayor uh last week when our uh city executive was out.

Um so thank you very much for stepping in to for that role.

Um I'll also just share that you know firefighters face a lot of uh health issues, you know, that they're they're operating in a really difficult job that just comes with just tremendous uh uh health problems that occur for the firefighters over the long term.

You know, a lot of these firefighting agents that are used are pretty significant.

So, you know, when they say that they're giving uh you know uh sacrificing themselves, you know, it's it's in more than one way.

It's kind of a long-term effort.

So really just want to address and say thank you to our firefighters for you know really putting themselves on the line physically um over the course of their careers.

Oh sorry Council Bullying.

Oh, thank you.

Just very briefly uh echoing the the brilliant words that have been shared.

You know, I think firefighting is an extraordinarily heroic profession anywhere in America, but particularly here.

And you know, we we've heard from residents, we've heard from from council members how the the climate is changing and what this summer is likely to hold.

And so I think that's gonna be very important for us up on the dais and for our city staff to think through how we can be creative to give as much support as we can to the fire department, whether that's uh additional resources or whether that's uh helping with scenario planning or evacuation plan.

So, really looking forward to to digging in further with you and your team, but just tremendous kudos and appreciation.

Any further discussion from council on this one?

Yeah, no.

Thank you, Councillor Johnson.

Um with that, we have a motion, we have a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed, say no.

No one opposed.

That passes unanimously, and that is our final proclamation for the night.

Uh before we move on to regular business, I'm gonna do something that's a little unusual.

We're gonna do a five-minute break.

That's only to make sure our mayor Protema is here for the start of the public hearing.

He texted me, so he's less than five minutes out.

So we will take a short recess and be right back.

I'm also confirmed.

I think so.

I don't know.

Okay, thank you so much for that.

We'll bring us back.

Um the next item on the agenda is a public hearing and consideration of resolution number 2026-11.

Approving with conditions and application for special use review for a special self-storage facility and caretaker dwelling unit and site plan and architectural review for lot 10 block one black diamond subdivision located at 685 Aspen Ridge Drive.

The public hearing was noticed in the Daily Camera on March 20th, 2026, and notice was mailed to property owners on post it and posted on the property in accordance with the Lafayette Code.

The public hearing is now in order at 613 p.m.

Tonight, the city council will hold a public hearing on the special use review application and review the applications for special use review and site plan and architectural review and make final decisions on the applications this evening.

The council will consider the record, which includes city planning staff's report and analysis, presentations by the applicant and the city planning staff, written public testimony submitted to the city, and including in tonight's packet, and any public testimony received tonight during the hearing.

The Lafayette, the council will evaluate the proposal based solely upon the record and and and the applicable criteria established in the Lafayette Code ordinances, which are highlighted in the staff report.

Um first, before we get into the presentations from staff and the applicant, we have a few preliminary matters to address.

First, because this is a quasi-judicial matter, the city council is bound by constitutional due process principles to provide a fair hearing to remain impartial and to make a decision based on the city's existing code and the evidence presented in tonight's hearing.

It is important that each council member remain objective and capable of fairly and impartially considering only the information offered into the record and evaluate, review, and make decisions on the application consistent with due process requirement.

Now I have two questions for my counsel just before we begin.

Uh does any council member believe they are not able, not able to fairly and impartially consider the applicant's the application based solely on tonight's record and consistent with due process requirement?

Seeing no answer, saying no.

Uh the next one.

The next question is does any city council member have a conflict of interest or any other matters he or she would like to disclose prior to proceeding on this item?

Mr.

Mayor.

Thank you.

I do not have a conflict of conflict of interest to disclose, but I do feel it is important to disclose that I had one meeting with several residents in the adjacent residential neighborhood to discuss the city's public hearing process in general so they could better understand and correctly navigate the city process.

I can and will fairly and impartially consider the application before us, based solely on tonight's hearing record and the applicable criteria in the code.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilor Ferlin.

Are there any other disclosures?

Hearing none, we'll get started with this hearing.

Um second, the city attorney has a brief advisement for council before we get started.

As council knows this weekend, I did send you a legal memo providing legal guidance regarding the special use review criteria in light of the fact that this will be the first special use review application most members of council have considered.

If council has specific questions about that legal advice and the review criteria, you do have the option of recessing into an executive session later after the public hearing during your deliberations to receive legal advice.

Thank you.

But before we hear from city planning staff and the applicant, I will enter the following materials into the record, and all of which are to be included in the city council meeting packet for tonight's meeting, including the city council agenda memo regarding these applications, the planning commission resolution number PC 2026-12, two staff analysis reports from city planning staff regarding the site plan and architectural review criteria and the special use review criteria for these applications.

The applicant's narrative letter, dated July 23rd, 2025, and attachments, the applicant surrounding development exhibit, the applicant's site plan and architectural plan set, the planning staff and applicant's PowerPoint slides added to the city council packet this afternoon, and written public testimony submitted to the city before 1 p.m.

today and added to the council packet this afternoon.

Are there any objections from council and to entering this items into the record?

Hearing none, those items are entered into the record.

And now the city council will hear from our city planning staff and the applicant.

Good evening, Mayor.

Stephen Williams, Funding and Building Director, Andrea Mimnaw, one of our senior planners and the project coordinator for this application is also in attendance tonight.

As stated, tonight's agenda item involves Lafayette self-storage and it's a special use review as well as a site plan architectural review.

So as a public hearing, we'll begin with staff's introduction, turn it over to the applicant for a presentation, and then come back for staff analysis before uh having time for council questions, and then public testimony in which the applicant has an opportunity to respond to prior to uh council discussion and then request for a motion.

So uh just quickly uh locating us within Lafayette.

This property is located uh in the area reflected in yellow, uh, northwest of the intersection of U.S.

Highway 287 and baseline road.

It's uh just off of Aspen Drive, immediately west and just southeast of Walmart's uh and just north of uh Sister Carmen as well.

So a couple of um places everyone should be familiar with.

Uh surrounding land uses include a warehouse to the north, uh, Sister Carmen, as I mentioned to the south, residential subdivision and us farm uh to the west, and vacant property across uh Aspen Bridge Drive to the east.

Uh and again, this application relates to a three-story self-storage building as reflected in that rendering on the right.

So the subject property is addressed as uh 685 uh Aspen Ridge Road and legally described as lot 10 of block one of the Black Diamond First Filing Subdivision, which dates back to 1982.

Uh zoning on the property is M1, uh, currently our only industrial zone district uh in the city, uh, and wanted to clarify that although public comments have been received regarding the future land use designation uh as being adaptable commercial, it's important to understand the proposals being reviewed under the current zoning, uh, which is industrial.

Uh the parcel is 1.6 acres in size, and the proposed building square foot square footage is just under 90,000 square feet, and that is spread over three three stories of development.

The building height is technically 32 feet as measured under our code, uh, which is at the top of the roof, and the parapet extends an additional three feet uh as designed uh to 35 feet.

Uh the proposal includes two applications as mentioned.

Uh the special use review application is required for the self-storage use as well as the associated caretaker use, and then the site plan architectural review uh is really for the site and vertical development aspects of the proposal.

Uh special use reviews are typically typically required for uses that have a unique operating need or the potential for significant external impacts that may require an additional level of scrutiny.

Uh self-storage uses were previously paired with warehouse uses in Lafayette under our zoning code.

So it was there was one definition, it was warehouses with uh self-storage use, and in 2024, uh we broke that out through a code amendment and defined them separately.

Um, but through that amendment, we also just kept uh the special use review requirement for both uh or for either, I guess I should say a self-storage use or a warehouse use.

And that context is important.

Uh the processes for special use review includes uh neighborhood meeting, as kind of outlined there on the bottom, uh formal submittable by the applicant, uh staff review, uh which includes referral to outside agencies, uh, planning commission public hearing, which occurred on April 8th, uh, and then uh tonight's city council meeting, and these reviews also require public hearings from uh both planning commission and city council.

And uh planning commission heard this application, as I mentioned on April 8th and voted for one to approve with four additional uh conditions of approval, which I'll summarize through my analysis later.

I'll turn it over to the applicant.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Thank you for having us this evening.

My name is Alyssa Knutson.

I'm a land use planner at Auden Johnson, Robinson Neff and Regonetti PC.

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

Again, I want to thank you for having us, and I also want to specifically the planning staff who's been extremely fantastic to work with throughout this process.

So I just want to point out I'm here with the rest of the Lafayette self-storage team, 1784 team, all here and available to answer any questions that may arise this evening.

Stephen, oh something wrong.

Okay, sorry, I wasn't expecting that slide first.

So just briefly, 1784 holdings, it's a national self-storage developer, and then they really focus on developing high class A storage facilities, as you can see in the images depicted here.

Stephen did a good job pointing out the location of the property, generally located north of baseline road and west of Highway 287.

And also in the industrial zone district.

So these images are meant to show the planned streetscaping along Aspen Ridge Drive and also planned elevations.

And just want to point out specifically that while the buildings proposed at 89,592 square feet overall, over the three stories, it has been reduced by 26,000 square feet almost in response to comments received from the public over the course of getting here this evening.

The property background, I just want to touch on really quickly.

This property is located in what is known as the Black Diamond Subdivision, which was platted in 1982 specifically for industrial development.

And it has since then into by 1999, it essentially had been built out as envisioned with industrial and industrial flex buildings.

In the early 2000s, is when the residential directly to the west, which was then known as the Bateman property, now known as Anna Farms, was farmland at that time and then planned for residential development at that time.

The city at that time acknowledged the importance of the industrial development to the east and required that the developer enter into a sound wall agreement, which essentially required that a sound wall be installed by the residential developer in order to mitigate impacts from the industrial.

It also required that notification was provided to potential purchasers of residential property in Anna's farm or the Bateman property at the time.

You know, kind of began in 2004, but that industrial was existing.

This is the earliest image I could pull from Google Earth Pro, but we have 1993.

You see that several of the industrial industrial flux buildings were built, and then beginning around 2004, we have Anna's farm beginning to be developed.

Briefly want to touch on the project timeline.

We had pre-application conference back in 2023.

And then it did go through two rounds of staff review.

I want to point out specifically that there was the required neighborhood meeting, but in addition to the one required neighborhood meeting, we held a second second neighborhood meeting where changes to the plans were presented to the public in response to neighborhood comments during that initial meeting in August 2023.

And now we're here tonight.

These are comments that came out of the neighborhood meetings, and also as we move forward and receive public comments going forward as well.

So landscaping to the east, west, and to the south.

We do want to point out that we know there's a much loved tree to the northwest of the property that unfortunately professional arbitrarists did find was deteriorating and not and kind of dangerous, actually, at risk of falling.

So has recommended that that be removed, and the plan is to replace it with new trees along there to provide buffering and screening from Anna's farm to the west.

There is notably, you'll see shaded on the southern elevation there.

That's interior loading spaces, especially essentially in order to further mitigate any sound or other impacts to the community, and that includes quiet closed garage doors as well.

The required parking is along the eastern elevation, and then the office is in that area to the southeast of the building as well.

To the northeast, you will see the care a caretaker unit.

We want to point out that was actually added in response to public comments to further ensure safety of the site 24-7 essentially.

Shared access is provided to the southeast with Sister Carmen, which obviously lessens traffic impacts from Aspen Ridge Drive.

And there will be screen trash enclosure to the southwest.

You can see it's well screened, it's at the very far southwest there.

Just making sure I didn't miss anything.

Oh proposed tree types, I'm going to touch on that in a moment.

But well, let me touch on it.

Actually, right now.

So at the planning commission, as I noted, they recommended approval.

These thumbs ups are kind of just showing that of the four conditions of approval, that 1784 is ready, willing and happy to comply with these, including providing dimmed lighting during certain hours of the day, overnight specifically providing bike parking, and then also modifying the landscape plan.

So the modifications are basically in response to public concerns specifically with junipers that were originally proposed and concerns with fire hazard there.

In addition to removing junipers from the plans, which has already occurred, planning commission wanted all landscaping to be evaluated to meet CSU extension firewise standards.

So that's under review, but the same amount of trees, same amount of shrubbery, everything, but going forward with that review.

Essentially, so number four is a condition that we did want to touch on a little bit.

At the time, Planning Commission did request that rooftop screening, appurtenances.

I've been practicing that word all day, and rooftop units not exceed 35 feet.

Technically, under the code, as you'll see on the second bullet there, those types of equipment are technically allowed to rise 10 feet above the highest point of the building or 10 feet above the maximum permitted height.

In this case, that would be 42 feet essentially that rooftop equipment could exceed.

However, after going back to the applicant initially agreed and felt we could comply with that requirement, but after going back to design, and because of the quickness of having to really discuss that during planning commission, didn't realize that there are these, there's these pedestals essentially that the HVAC systems sit on that are higher than anticipated.

And so essentially the equipment will need to rise about no more than two feet above the parapet, and it would be limited to 37 feet is essentially what would be required in order to avoid significant actually insurmount insurmountable changes to the building.

So what we are requesting this evening, and actually let me touch on these are elevations from the pedestrian level, showing that you wouldn't be even with that change in height, you still wouldn't be able to view that mechanical equipment from the pedestrian level.

So I guess the request at this point would be is if council were to choose to do continue to include that condition is to allow a height of no more than 37 feet for the mechanical equipment to comply with and oh and I guess sorry, let me touch back, and it still complies and is under what would otherwise be allowed, which would be the 42 feet.

So we feel like it still meets the intent.

And so would just ask that you consider making that adjustment.

As you're aware, and as you've already heard this evening, um, there are review criteria that you all consider for a special use application, and they are listed here.

Um I'm going to go through how the project does indeed meet the special use application review criteria in the following slides.

So let me just move forward.

Review criteria one is compliance with the code, and the project actually meets or exceeds all spatial requirements.

Landscaping well exceeds the minimum required landscaping.

In addition, the rear setback, which is the setback that most directly impacts ANS Farms, has been increased to 50 feet.

Originally, the original project was proposing 30 feet, but in response to comments, that's been increased to 50 feet.

And that is also an increase in the required setback from residential for industrial use is of 20 feet.

So significant increase in setback is proposed as part of this project.

The height allowed for any structure in the industrial zone district is 35 feet.

And as discussed, um, we are complying with that requirement as well.

And this cross section is showing, so up to that main center line to the west of that tree is that's our step represents the step requires or the setback that's proposed in that exceeds the required setback.

So the 50-foot setback, when you go further west from that, that represents from the property line to the nearest residential, which is approximately another slightly over another 50 feet essentially.

So there is a decent amount of buffer between the proposed building and the nearest residential.

Review criteria two is compatible is compatibility with the surrounding character.

And first of all, the site is obviously compatible with the zoning to the north, south, and southeast, which is all industrial, and as I previously stated, it's part of the Black Diamond subdivision, which has always been envisioned as industrial since it's plating in 1982.

Um we would contend that the this is a low impact use, it requires low traffic, um, low number of visits per day, which I will touch on briefly.

And so it will provide a good buffer between the residential and really more impactful uses such as the Walmart to the east.

Also, it provides a service that's complementary with residential uses by obviously providing storage for residential uses.

I'd also like to touch on um, did you guys um Suzanne Crawford is um this executive director of Sister Carmen directly to the south?

She did provide a letter of support with plant to planning commission, and um she emailed us or emailed the city, I think unfortunately later than the deadline today.

She has reiterated that she supports this project, has found that the applicant has worked to address concerns, and also feels that it's more compatible than other potential uses, essentially because traffic is so minimal, and that was a pretty big concern for her.

So low traffic use is important for her continued operations, and if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to just take some experts from that, if that's okay.

Let's see, sorry.

Um, these came in kind of so this is actually going to be the planning commission comments.

So she says this facility will share our driveway due to an easement from the original developer, and we believe that it is compatible use that will cause the least amount of disruption to the family resource center that we have in this location for 15 years.

For us, a facility with relatively low volume of traffic is ideal for sharing the driveway.

Finally, besides being compatible with our use, we believe that storage is a good option for the location and that it will not need a large amount of parking.

All in all, the developers have been easy to work with and have listened and attempted to address concerns, not just from us but from other neighbors as well.

They have taken community input into account and have designed the facility to have as little impact as possible on the neighbors.

In summary, we support the application and believe they would be good neighbors for Sister Carmen.

So I apologize that didn't make it into your record, but I just wanted to note that.

In addition, there is a slight hill topography that the building is essentially able to be built into, which allows it to essentially be viewed more like a two-story building from the western residences.

So further supports compatibility with the surrounding character.

Review criteria three is potential adverse environmental influences and the mitigation efforts and just the how the use operates lend to avoiding adverse environmental influences.

This includes the added landscaping, of course, to the west, south, and east.

And there will be no impacts or removal of trees on surrounding properties.

In addition, the junipers, like I previously said, will be removed, and there is a review for landscaping that meets fire-wise standards as well.

There's sustainability measures, which include using durable materials, minimal traffic, and low water usage.

Lighting will be downcast, but I'll touch on that a little bit more in a moment.

And then the sound wall, interior loading areas, and quiet operation garage doors, reduce further reduce impacts, and then the building will be sprinklered and storage of hazardous materials is not permitted.

This lends more to the point that Sister Carmen's comments were mentioning.

So this shows this is an existing 1784 facility, and this shows actual visits to the site, with between 9 and about 8 p.m.

being the heaviest amount of visits that occur in between 9 and 1, really the highest, with peak visits being four to 4.5 visits essentially.

So and then early and later hours obviously drops off significantly.

So limited traffic based on this use.

So the photometric here is showing that light will not spill on to any adjacent properties, and that's due in large part to downcast mounted lighting that will be at 10 feet, which further limits how much that light spreads because it's further shielded.

So compatibility with the comprehensive plan as been has been noted.

This is in the adaptive commercial classification.

Adaptive commercial, I mean, I think it's been noted, you know, encourages a more active street level, and that's being encouraged through the streetscaping that's proposed here.

It's also there will be a sidewalk, a new sidewalk installed that will go from five feet to eight feet to allow for further pedestrian activity along Aspen Ridge Drive.

It also meets these other urban design guidance for adaptable commercial that you see here, which includes transparency, so you have the nice windows that show transparency as you can see here, and then having an 80% primary street frontage, so the building fronts a significant significant portion of the sites.

And then minimal, sorry, let me minimal parking areas as well.

In addition to the designation in the comp plan, the project also needs several planning frameworks and policies as well.

So it offers, you know, like I mentioned earlier, a service that's compatible with, obviously, we all know there's growing residential in Lafayette.

So it is definitely compatible with that, and then also provides development of a site that's clearly been long for a long time underutilized.

This development, as I noted, goes back to 1982, and this site remains and so will provide some tax revenues where otherwise it does not, as it's been vacant.

Use of sustainable building practices, again, durable materials.

I'd contend again, the infill development is also a sustainable practice as well.

In addition, umises will be limited due to that interior loading and sustaining.

I won't mention that one again.

I've done that.

And then it is adjacent to public utilities that currently exist, close to services as well, obviously.

And then again, just touching on it, generates new tax revenues where it has not since since the 80s.

The final review criteria I want to touch on is that it shall not create significant adverse impacts on government services existing or free future developments.

Again, very limited traffic generation from this use, particularly in consideration with other uses that may otherwise be permitted in the industrial district.

In addition, there's screening from added trees and shrubs and noise light, dust, glare, it's all mitigated through the interior loading.

The sound wall that currently exists that was required as part of that sound wall agreement.

Moving trucks generally do not have the backup alarms as well.

There's also limited impacts to services such as housing, schools, public utilities, because there's very limited, and there's no new residence other than the caretaker and caretakers' family is also allowed to live in that caretaker unit.

So no further burden to schools, libraries, any other services.

Security is monitored through that caretaker unit that's added.

There's 24-7 monitoring and keypad entry that's required for the site.

The building will be sprinklered, no hazardous materials required or allowed, excuse me, and constructed fire and building codes.

And then finally, um the customer access hours in response to public comments.

We're moved back from 5 to 6 a.m.

to try to address concerns to the extent possible at this location.

So I thank you for your time.

With that, I'm gonna pass it to Michelle Bach with 1784, and she's going to bring it home with the approval criteria for site plan and architectural review.

Good evening.

Michelle Bach, 1784 Holdings from Scottsdale, Arizona.

So there's a series of architectural review criteria that is listed for the site plan approval as well.

And all the points are listed here, but much like Alyssa's portion, I'm just gonna go through them in the following slides.

Michelle, can you talk a little bit louder, please?

Yes.

So I'm gonna just describe the architectural design, the materials that are being proposed for the facility and how it overall functions.

So for our building materials, we are planning to use uh integral color CMU block.

This helps keep the block lasting longer because the color in the pigment is baked all the way through the block versus just holding on the surface.

We're also using out of split face texture, which gives it more aggregate color pulling through in that.

So that is all on our first floor, and then as we move up to the second and third stories, um, that is proposed as a uh eaves finish, which is also tinted all the way through the finished surface, and then some accents of some brick veneer and some metal paneling that is kind of framing around our tower elements as well as creating shade for each of those glazing areas, and above on the third floor, there's some additional canopies that shade over our spandrel windows.

So we do have two different types of glazing being used.

Um, so in the flat elevations below the 3D image, the ones that are solid colored solid black are spandrel windows, they are full glass inset flush true building material to the building.

Um they are painted on the back black, so there's no visibility into the facility.

We're not getting lights, spillage, or activity from people's storage units that can be seen by the public.

The corner elements are using vision glass.

The doors that are proposed in the corner elements do have lighting in them from dawn to or from dust to dawn with the additional condition that we receive from planning commission that does uh require us, which we're happy to comply with to reduce the lighting levels by 50% starting at 10 p.m.

And the doors that are shown in there are a marketing for our facility, and they are not operable.

So there is a small corridor that is only accessed by our store manager and maintenance team to keep the area clean and secure, but they are not operable for our tenant use, so again, not being able to see people open the door or see their personal items in there.

So again, not being able to see people open the door or see their personal items in there.

And then on the first floor on the hard southeast corner is where our office is located, which as Alyssa touched on, does have slightly different office hours, but Monday through Friday standard, like or Monday through Sunday standard 8 to 6 p.m.

Then additionally for the loading area that is proposed, it is interior to the facility.

So it is located on the south side of the building.

There are two loading bays, they're 14 by 50 feet.

They are flush, there's no like uh gray change in them.

They are our same finished floor foundation inside.

They are directly adjacent to the office, so interiorly, the office has a glass wall so that they can see all activity in and out of the loading area.

It is all key code access, so once a tenant um receives their unique key code, then they can access either a side loading door or the vehicular loading door, and it does work as if somebody were to come and the door opens and they happen to be in the right bay.

The next person to come, the door automatically knows which door was used last and opens the other door.

So there's no build-up of a vehicle.

And they are so deep interiorly to account for the size of the largest moving vehicle, but also in the potential that somebody were to pull a ramp out as well, that that portion has also been accommodated, so it all stays interiorly to the facility.

The door is only open for about uh a minute or two before it closed, once it senses that the vehicle is entered, it closes.

Again, the loading area on the south that I touched on.

And then on the north elevation here, these windows are for the manager's unit.

Um, I would like to note that for the lighting conditions, then the manager's unit is excluded from that.

So obviously, they don't have to dim their living room at 10 p.m.

if they don't want to.

Um, so that is excluded.

But um part of it is the exterior lighting as well as the interior tower lighting.

So we have the um wall packs that are located in the photometric plan that we shared earlier.

They're mounted at 10 feet because it's more of a pedestrian scale level, so that they stay at lighting, the pedestrian and the um very uh specific security level of the foundation of the building.

So they're fully shielded, so cut off from any above reflection, and then in the photometric plans as well, they do show that once they reach the property lines, they're um at the point one or zero marker to not provide any spillage beyond the property line.

And those are also subject to the same at 10 p.m.

They reduce to their 50% lighting levels.

Um then for the other two screening items for the trash enclosure.

Uh again, as Alyssa had mentioned earlier, it is located in the far south uh east corner of the site plan.

The dumpster itself is located within an eight-foot CMU enclosure that does aesthetically match the building design from the uh CMU materials used, as well as uh in addition to the screen wall buffer, it does have a uh natural landscape buffer that we are providing just to the west of it as well, so that that also helps with that additional screening buffer from the residential to our property.

Um then the rooftop equipment, as it was also noted earlier, um, these elevations have been revised to depict that the units are extending roughly that one and a half feet to two feet above the parapet wall due to the pedestal that they sit on.

And from a technical standpoint, those pedestals are anywhere from 14 to 16 inches tall, um and they are used to keep the unit off of the roof so that in the event of any water buildup or snow buildup, the units are not compromised by them.

And that's all.

And I'm happy to answer any further design questions or property questions.

So thank you.

So the intent language of the special use review criteria is uh noted here.

It includes a determination on the appropriateness of the use in a particular location, the proposal's relationship with surrounding land uses, its impact on traffic, and potential environmental impacts.

Those criteria are kind of echoed in the five special use criteria listed here as well that include compliance with the development and zoning code, the underlying M1 zone district, and those standard zoning parameters of setbacks, building height density, et cetera, the compatibility of the proposal with the character of the surrounding area, potential for adverse environmental impacts, compatibility of the proposed use and site plan with the comprehensive plan, and consideration of mitigation measures for traffic noise, light, dust, tow of operation, and impacts on public services.

The SPAR criteria are traditionally grouped into these four categories.

That's how it was done in your staff memo, staff analysis, and that's how it's presented tonight, with scale being appropriate to the site and function of the project listed kind of independently, and then criteria B through K, addressing architectural scale, quality design, proportion of building elements, appropriate building detail, appropriate building materials and compatible color, and then LM really related to landscape design and criterion O through S related to screening and lighting.

So we'll get into those details just a little bit more.

Staff found the application to be compliant with the underlying M1 zoning.

We've also found the proposed development to be generally compatible with the surrounding area, which features other buildings in the M1 zone district that range from 25,000 square feet in size all the way up to 118,000 square feet in size, and from roughly 17 feet tall to close to 30 feet tall as well.

And then the primary external impacts associated with this use have also been concentrated near the front and south of the property, which include the parking, the office and caretakers unit, and then the internal internal loading docks as was described by the applicant located on the south of the building.

So the special use criteria are also in general compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Staff acknowledges that the comprehensive plan is an advisory document that designates this area as a future adaptable commercial land use.

Proposed development can be found to be compliant with certain adaptable commercial design principles, including streetscape enhancements and the minimization of parking areas.

More specifically, the development proposal includes uh 12 feet of right-of-way dedication, which was also mentioned by the applicant.

This will afford an enhanced streetscape that includes an eight-foot uh wide uh sidewalk, um, eight feet of landscape tree lawn, an ADA ramp at the intersection with Diamond Drive, and the capacity for a future bike lane as additional uh development in that area uh occurs.

The bike lane just along uh that frontage right now independently doesn't make any sense, but when more redevelops and uh that whole street frontage or streetscape changes, then uh we have the space for that now.

Uh and then the proposed building also orients to the street, includes ground floor windows, uh, and is three-story and building height, which are also uh elements of the complan design principles.

Uh and then as noted throughout tonight's public meeting, several mitigation measures have been added incorporated into the design by the applicant, and then either conditioned by staff or planning commission to address potential external impacts.

Staff have also found uh the 19th SPAR criteria to be met, including the building and site scale, noted here, architectural scale and quality of design elements that have been covered.

Uh the building also, this um cross section uh kind of illustrates that the building also has exceeds uh the rear setback requirement.

So that setback requirement is technically zero feet in industrial zone district.

Uh our uh land use code also requires 20 feet of separation when there's uh uh residential use out there and uh or adjacent, and this is over 50 feet uh away from the property line that separates it from Anos Farm subdivision, but over a hundred feet uh from the nearest residential uh building as well.

So uh the proposed landscaping also exceeds uh standards and designs like uh so it's about twice as much.

Uh 29% of the site is landscaping landscapes versus the 15% requirement, and the landscaping design employs low water and drought tolerant species.

And then the lighting and screening requirements, which have been subject to discussion already, have also been found to be compliant as conditioned.

So those lights are now going to be on dimmers, and the applicants has agreed to reduce the intensity of both exterior and interior lighting, other than that caretaker unit by 50% after business hours.

So staff's recommending approval relative.

So the just want to kind of parse out the two conditions of approval.

Staff's original memo included four conditions related to motion sensors for the interior lighting and restriction on the lighting being limited to the hours of operation.

We had our standard technical corrections that needs to need to be done.

And then the one update that occurred in your packet tonight was for that fourth condition to be folded in the right-of-way dedication.

So that's always been a part of the plan with that 12 feet that I just mentioned for those improvements along Aspen Ridge.

We'll need to come back to you along with the drainage and access easements to be approved because when anything's dedicated to the public, city council has to accept it.

So those things are listed now completely.

It was just drainage and access previously, the right-of-way verification had dropped off.

But that's now in your conditions or approval.

And then through that planning commission meeting on April 8th, there was an additional criteria for that reductions in the luminosity to 50% after business hours.

And screening over 35 feet that the applicant mentioned needing a little bit of relaxation from.

And then they also requested a bike parking be provided for employees on the site.

So there's eight total conditions if uh both staff's and uh planning commission's uh conditions of approval are accepted.

Now it's time for questions.

Thank you so much.

Uh do any council members have questions for staff or for the applicant?

Counselor Gallegos.

I have a question for the applicant regarding exterior signage.

So I was just curious if there are any plans for large glowing signs or how the building is going to be identified.

Um we are planning for exterior signage.

It will primarily uh front Aspen Ridge Drive.

We have no plans for any sign fronting or facing any residential community.

Um we don't have a sign plan done yet, um, but it will meet all Lafayette standard codes and compliances for signage.

Thank you.

Any other questions from council?

Councillor Jen.

Counselor Gianova.

Um I have a few questions.

Uh for the applicant, maybe first you can come back up.

Um Integral Color CMU, can you just explain to me what that means?

I I don't speak building.

Yeah.

So the integral color comet just means that the pigment that you choose to um use on a standard gray block.

If you choose to color it something, um being in over call it means that it is baked all the way through the unit block versus just on the surface.

So if you were to have it only baked on the surface and then go and shear off an inch or two of the block, it would just be a gray block again.

So that's a CMU is just that gray block that we're sort of used to seeing.

Yeah, it stands for concrete masonry unit.

And so um, but by calling it integral means that the color is baked all the way through the full eight inches.

Okay, understood.

Um I want to ask about the inoperable door section of the building.

Um it from the description that you gave, it sounds like that's gonna be lit 24-7 on those doors.

Um only lit at nighttime.

So from dusk to dawn.

Okay.

Um and then at 10 p.m.

when the facility closes, those lights reduce to 50 percent power.

See, what is the goal of the 20 or of the after hours late night lighting of those of that section of the building?

Um visibility of the building and the use of what it is.

Okay.

Uh in the packet, there's discussion of occupancy sensor, and that's not related to the door, the inoperable door lighting.

No, the occupancy center sensors are for interior to the facility.

So essentially, if no one happens to be because our facility has very low traffic use and customer usage on a daily basis.

So there are large hours of the day where no one may be on the third floor or the second floor.

And so instead of keeping the lights on all day, they're on sensors until somebody walks down the hallway.

Okay, great.

I want to talk about the loading door.

You said the loading bay is 14 feet by 50 feet.

How high is the loading door?

14 feet.

14 feet also.

Just trying to understand what size of truck is going to be able to enter in there.

They're size to like the largest like Penn Scar U haul truck, but not semis.

Okay.

I have one more question.

Um about the external lighting.

We've heard that this will reduce to 50% at 10 p.m.

I'm confused about the lights on the rear of the building.

I feel like in the narrative, there was a discussion that there's no lights on the rear of the building, and I'm just I'm confused.

Am I understanding that right?

Um so there are three lights shown on the west side of the building.

Um they also are mounted at 10 feet, same fixture that is shielded downward lighting.

Um we have them in there for security lighting.

To have a 50-foot setback or really a hundred feet between the next driveway and our facility.

Um we have cameras that obviously can see um at nighttime, but having just a few wall packs that also provide just an extra level of security.

So it's a no, so it's not a no-man's land.

Yep, understood.

Okay, uh that's all I have for right now.

I might have more.

Thank you.

Counselor Jensen.

Um I'm assuming that the equipment that you said can't be lowered to the standards of the planning commission is because it's a heat pump, is that correct?

Um it's the RTUs, the elevator, doghouse for it.

They are anywhere from four to five feet tall.

I don't know what you mean dog house, sorry.

The elevator like shaft that sticks up, it always protrudes above a roof line.

So that's part of an apparatus.

Um when we went back to adjust our floor levels to meet the condition, which we did, we reduced each floor level by another four inches, but we couldn't get enough to accommodate the pedestals that the units sit on.

So the differential that we're asking in the condition is because of the concrete pedestal pad that these um mechanical units sit on.

Um and then because even though we have a flat roof, no roof is actually flat, it does pitch, and we have pushed the units actually further away, um, also as a result of some of the discussion from planning commission.

Um the nearest unit on our roof is still 40 feet away from our western property um our building edge.

And the closer we get to the middle of the roof, the higher on the slope of the roof we are, so that's creating a couple inches, and so all in all doing the math where um having a height differential with specifically only the mechanical equipment.

So I know this is not a building code review, but it's uh more of a land use.

But uh what energy efficiency um measures are you taking in terms of heat and cooling?

So the building is um marketed as climate control, um, but the units do not run 24-7.

The thermostats are locked for managed units only.

They're mounted at the highest um allowed ADA level, so that uh tenants can't potentially temp uh tamper with it.

Um but they we do have a set ambient temperature for the summer and the winter um that they stay on and then the building kind of climatizes towards that.

They um run down the interior hallways, the HVAC um ductwork.

They instead of going and running a bunch of HVAC through every single unit, we run them down the hallway and we have vents on the sides of them.

The units themselves do not have a solid panel to go all the way to the bottom of the floor level, so that way the air can penetrate like at the ceiling height and go down and keep the whole floor of climates.

Um obviously the light occupancies uh they're all in LED lighting, all of our lights are LED lighting.

But what kind of system is it?

Is it a uh we don't use gas, it's electric um unit.

And um their standard five-ton uh HVAC unit, much like you would see at a residential home.

Um we have the furnace is electric.

Yes.

And what kind of a furnace is it?

Is it a boiler?

Is it a heat pump?

Well, we have a we have a water heater and heat pump that is serviced as where we can will be have gas um or electric in it, but the actual units themselves, the mechanical units are all electric.

Okay.

Um I would love more information if this should go forward about what kind of energy system and any of energy efficiency measures that you are undertaking in the place.

I would uh at some point if this should go forward.

So and this I have a similar question about the the landscape.

I heard Steve say it excuse me, planning director uh say that you're using drought tolerant plants, but it in a similar uh industrial thing that we reviewed, they got real specific with us about what they were doing and how much water they were saving.

So in if this should go forward again, I'd be interested in learning more about what you're actually doing to save water, what are you using?

You know, what you might be doing that could be water considered water efficient.

So I I would be interested in that.

And then could you just tell me how it works?

So somebody, you mentioned those two doors, one alternating.

Somebody drives into that bay, the door comes down behind them, and then their units on the third floor.

So what do they do?

Um, so at the head end of the loading area is a double elevator.

And so say your unit is on the third floor.

You can we have carts, we provide carts for people, or you can carry out whatever you want to do, and um, you can load your stuff up, put it in the elevator.

They are freight-sized elevators so that they hold someone's moving a couch or large piece of furniture.

Um, and you take the elevator to your designated floor.

Okay, all right.

That's helpful.

I I've never been in one of these or seen how they work, and I have no clue.

Thank you.

Council Friend.

Thank you so much for the presentation to both of you doing it.

Um first some general questions, and I have uh question about height that I would love to walk through with you.

A question about setback to, so just to prepare you a little.

Um how did you identify this specific site for the facility?

So we have a real estate team that searches all over the country.

We do develop um class A self-storage is across the country.

Um sorry, class A means uh it's just a higher level of a storage facility, the finishes we use, the um the services that we provide to our tenants, um having the interior loading at the level that we do, those are all just a different standard.

Um the 24-hour security, our facility is not 24 hours, none of our facilities are, those are kind of like just different levels of um types of storage facilities.

Um but we do have a whole division of our company that uh works on real estate, works on finding available land that um meets criteria or with a conditional user special use permit that we feel like we can develop in as well as we do feasibility studies on all of our potential properties just to make sure that the community, the population even has like a need for the quantity of square footage that can make the property work.

Thank you.

What are some of those criteria that you use to say this is it?

This is one that we want to move forward with.

I'm sure it's it's a lot of investment to say we would do this to learn this.

Uh a lot of it is um the radius from where the general population is pulling from.

We don't we typically have radiuses dependent on the size of the community anywhere from one, three to five miles, and what is the population?

Once you get past five miles of a property, most people are gonna find a different facility, they're not gonna want to drive to ours.

So, based on those radius um characteristics, then what are other driving factors?

Is there other commercial coming in?

Is there residential?

Is there new residential planned in the future?

Um we look at our facilities when we started that dependent on from when we go under escrow to when services are actually open and operating, could be upwards of five years.

So we have to look at these demographics and growth projections, you know, as the now as well as in the future to make sure they can be supported.

Additionally, when we look at the demand market, we do not want to cap the market.

So when we plan on a facility, we make sure that there's enough unmet demand that will still allow one to two other facilities to come onto the market.

Interesting.

So I don't know where all of the storage facilities are in Lafayette, but I know there are a few.

But I guess in that examination, you you determined it's not demand is not met.

And even to what you just said, even there's space for one or two more facilities potentially.

Yeah, and we evaluate existing facilities and plant, like if there are any other facilities potentially being reviewed by the jurisdiction in addition to ours.

Thank you for helping me on that.

Is this design fairly typical for you of what you build when you build self-sorged facilities?

Uh yes, it is.

We do have our own 1784 design and construction guidelines manual.

We've worked years to perfect and and revise so these are maybe maps.

Fairly typical.

And what is the anticipated life span of a facility like this?

Um we uh like to keep them for uh you know as long as they are producing and operating, so we're not in the business to to flip it on to a different use.

So could be 10, 20 years, I don't know.

Got it.

Or longer, maybe.

Yeah, or longer.

Ideally longer.

Yeah.

As long as it it can be.

So I want to talk about height, because I'm I'm quite confused about height.

In reading the narrative, um, I think you said something about this is actually the finished elevation, which I maybe is a term in this, which I don't I think I understand it.

Um, is actually lower than the property to the north.

Yes.

Okay.

I may phone a friend for this question.

Okay.

Help me understand this.

Maybe you can understand why I'm confused because if that property is, I think you said it's 25 feet, the building envelope.

But it's probably, I don't know the elevation of it.

But like the finished elevation of that is X, and your finished elevation is Y, Y being lower than X is what you're stating in the narrative.

Yeah, so I'm I'm gonna ask Jim to come up and he's our civil engineer, so he can kind of maybe break down the grades for you better.

Okay, thank you.

Um from a finished floor elevation, that is what our new building pad is.

So when we pour our building pad, that is the finished floor elevation.

And then from that, um, based on our zone, we are allowed 35 feet um to the top of roof.

And our building is 32 feet from the top of rough 35 to the parapet, and then the request of 37 to the um units.

Okay.

But he can describe degrade change and the cutting better.

Jim Browse pitch civil resources.

Um I don't think we talked about relationship of building height to the north.

I think it was discussing the fact that the building is sunk into the ground on the west elevation, so the west side of the building.

The average grade of the west side of the building is almost six feet above the floor.

So that the back of the building there's a bigger one in uh LS's.

Okay.

There we go.

So this the west side of the building, the green yeah, by the tree, actually actually will slope up towards the building, not down, but where the where the dirt is against the building is six feet above the floor elevation.

So if the floor here, the grade is up here almost.

Right.

So as you're looking at this building from the west, from the Amaz From side, it's gonna look approximately six feet lower than the 35 than the 35 feet.

Yeah.

Versus if you are standing on the sidewalk on it.

Yeah, or yeah, or the parking lot.

Yeah.

Yeah, I understand that.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

I I guess, yeah, maybe in the narrative, maybe it's old, or I don't know what it is, but I I pulled it right from there, so I don't know, maybe something to check.

Um I do have questions in terms of height compared to nearby properties, and what I'm thinking about is right, the like step up to the T, what's it T1 to the east?

Commercial Regional Commercial, T1, is that what it is?

That sounds right.

To the east, the Walmart.

How tall is the Walmart?

That's my question.

I believe it's a 40-foot building, but it also has an L what do you say, lowered floor elevation?

Well, the grade is lowered.

The grade of the physical.

I mean, I'm sure they're finished floor elevation as R because they're grade.

Right, that's what you're downhill from us.

Right.

It is regional commercial.

Regional commercial.

I mean you can be adjacent to the east.

Yeah, that's the track system.

I don't know that I asked that.

Steven, do you mind going up to the speaker?

It is regional commercial.

Um like where Walmart is, but I'm not sure what their building height is.

Okay.

We got some of those original building heights, and I'll dig that up.

Like, but it is based off the GIS information that we have, and it's uh kind of a best guess.

The analysis that I did was primarily like properties more adjacent, not Walmart, which is in a different zoning distribution.

So and then what I think I guess just to help clarify here, so there's that element that the applicant has talked about about it kind of being built into the hillside, which is about a six feet differential.

Yeah.

And then there's an element that talks about like how up hill, like where Anna's farm is, there's nine feet of topography difference between the finished floor of the home and the finished floor of the proposed building.

So there's also that topography change.

So there's kind of two variables there that they were, I think referencing both in our memo and then in their narrative.

So if one were to stand on the path on the drainage ditch, which lots of people will do, right?

How high, you know, like how high is it above that viewpoint.

So the if you I don't know if you can there we go.

It's just to the east.

The path is just to the east of that sound wall.

So it's comparable to that.

Um there's a point there that I I don't have that good eyes.

Um that talks about the um elevation point at that resonant.

It's gonna be comparable to there, but a couple of feet probably difference, and then it continues to slope down as you move to the east.

Okay.

And so that's like you said, it was the nine foot, and then it's also recessed.

Six feet into the yeah, so the overall massing of that facade is six feet less than twenty-nine feet.

Yeah.

I can do that math.

And then in the M1 zone, in what is this uh development called Black Diamond?

Correct.

Um, this would be the highest finished elevation in Black Diamond, is that correct?

Highest building by a couple of feet.

Yeah, we look like the that analysis looked like there was a 30-foot tall building out there.

There's a building two, I think it's two lots to the south that has a two-story element that is approaching 30 feet, and then the other ones look like one story, like kind of warehouse buildings, but they're at a taller elevation because they have a lot of uh garage bays that are probably comparable in height as the 14 feet if not taller, okay, to allow for that kind of uh space inside those buildings.

And then to the east we have the transitional uh what is it, regional commercial?

Sorry.

Regional commercial that is then at a lower grade.

So you could say uh I mean that height that height requirement, I don't know that Walmart got a variance, and it is kind of a one, it's a large one-story building because of how massive it is.

Um there too.

Um but I can try to dig that up.

Okay, thank you.

But you're right about the grade, counselor.

It slopes down.

Slopes down.

Um I just want to talk about setback.

I'm curious about setback too.

And sorry to my fellow counselor hogging the mic.

Um do you mind let's see.

You have it right there.

Okay, perfect.

Um so there's a 50-foot setback from the property line, right?

Property lines reflected here, and 50 is just over 50 feet to the building facade.

And in the setback, there exists some easements that are there.

Correct.

What is the tell me about those easements?

So there's uh a high line ditch easement that's immediately like that expands, so it's 60 feet in width and it covers portion of their property, and then the outlop that the city owns to the west.

And then there's an additional drainage and utility easement that's reflected here.

So those uh are also encouraging that building to be set further uh to the east.

So if I'm understanding that correctly, we're it's basically set back where it can be set back.

Yeah.

Right?

Like the easements tend to dictate that.

Without a vacation of that existing.

Okay.

Um I will seed the floor for my fellow counselors, because that was too many questions.

Uh other questions from council.

Mayor Proton.

Thank you, Mayor.

Excuse me, I think I have a comedialgy attack going on here.

Um I was wondering if we could go to slide.

Slide number, and this is in the packet.

So it's page 192.

Can we go to the packet or we can?

Um sorry.

Sorry everybody who didn't mean that.

I try to be quick.

What's your page number?

192 page number 192.

Ah, perfect.

Uh so my questions.

I'll just use this one.

Um I see the sidewalk coming from the caretakers unit.

And I don't know if this is a question for the applicant or staff.

And I know it was added, which I appreciate, the bike parking.

Is there any idea of is that where you're thinking the bike parking might go, or have you even got to the point of considering where that might be?

Uh no, the bike parking, we have an EV stall right here and some extra landscaping beyond the on sidewalk.

So we're putting the bike parking here next to the EV charger.

It's in right here.

Okay.

And there's an additional employees in a there are people employees in in addition to the caretaker?

Um yeah, we typically have two to three employees, with one of them being the like lead store manager in the apartment is available for the lead store manager.

Okay.

I appreciate that that thought and effort.

And I think it's still on here.

Uh, if we go to the top of this um slide, I think we can no the bottom, sorry.

Yeah, the bottom.

Uh the the driveway that's shared with Sister Carmen is just that segment right there.

Is that correct?

Yes.

And when one gets into the proposed.

What are we calling this?

The drive drive aisle.

Is that going to be at the same level as the sister carbon parking lot?

Um well, I do know that we are re um grading and redoing the entire driveway because currently it is not needing proper slopes and grading.

Um so that is being redone.

So I whether it is at the same grade elevation as Sister Carmen, I don't know.

The front door of the office is approximately a foot below where sister current is.

So they're they're pretty close to the same elevation.

Okay.

And this is in compliance with drainage, so if you had water flowing out of sister currently parking lot into yours, it would still uh the sister commands won't flow into ours, but um they're independent, the drainage is independent.

We were we're regrading the driveway to create more room and an accessible slope to create that wider sidewalk at the bottom.

That's why we're doing the grid work.

Okay.

Um and I I hate I really hate to do this to you, but the there's an image on the actually in the slide deck of the back of the building, and there's something poking out at the top of the building.

I'm just wondering what that is.

I know we said the lighting was if I understand correctly the back, the west side of the building, it's 10 feet high, but I don't know what I was looking at.

You know which uh this one?

Yeah, what is that?

Oh, that is the north side of the building.

So because you're looking at an elevation, you have to look at everything from where you're standing to the east.

So both um this as well as this is the awning that is happening on the north and the south elevation.

So the light's not actually on there.

No, we have no lights.

Over there, our lights are there's one right here, there's one right here, and there's one right here.

These are the down facing?

Yes.

So there are no lights at all on the back side.

No.

Well, other than the like three security level lighting.

But there's no lights in like these upper awnings, and there's no lights in the windows.

You can't see through these.

Uh so security lighting means there's no, is it like night vision?

So it it just means that when it's dark, that that portion of the building has some light on it.

It is for security purposes.

Light helps deter people from hanging out in the dark behind a little bit.

I'm right with you.

We just call it that.

Right, but will it be down face?

Okay.

But different but different from the other down fixing lights.

All the same.

All the same down facing uh lights.

They look like these two fixtures.

Okay.

And there's three of them on that back side.

Yes, you can see the blue text.

That's where the lights are.

That's where the lights are.

Awesome.

I think that's all I have.

Thank you.

Of course.

Any other questions from counsel for staff or for the applicant?

Councilor Gianola.

Trouble more.

I want to talk about setback a little bit.

I want to talk about setback on the front of the building and the back of the building.

Can you pull that slide back up?

I think it was early in the in the uh deck that shows like the site plan.

I think it was like the first slide on uh the staff presentation.

Maybe the second slide.

I'm not doing small crazy.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm not gonna die today.

I'm not remembering where it is.

The table is what you're talking about, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You can close your eyes so I don't move anybody.

Motion sickness.

I must have gone too far, though.

This is your presentation.

There you go.

Sorry, perfect.

So the required setback on the rear zero and 20 feet from a residential, and we have 50 feet.

And then on the front is a 20 foot required setback, and we have 69.

So the front setback is actually almost 20 feet more than the rear setback.

Can you help me understand that design?

Yeah, well, since we've loaded everything to the front from an like usable accessibility standpoint, that 69 feet is making up the um 12 foot right-of-way dedication, our retention basin that is all in the front here, our driveway, our sidewalk, and the building.

Like our on-site sidewalk.

Okay, so it's really this the right-of-way, the detention pond, the drive aisle.

That's that's 69 feet.

Okay.

Um that's all I have for right now.

I might have I might still have one more.

Councilor Bullion.

Oh thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um a couple questions.

Could you please go to the slide that says review criteria two compatible with surrounding character?

Sorry.

I don't see the number on my packet.

Thank you.

Um is regarding a question, a follow-up to the question that Councilor Friedland raised in terms of the life cycle.

So I appreciate your answer in terms of the life cycle.

Um, should this be approved?

But you know, one thing I just want to note on the map here shows that a couple blocks away is another storage unit.

And so I would take the point that that there's a meshing with surrounding character considering the nearby storage unit.

But I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more about the life cycle if, say, five years down the line, the market isn't there.

What happens next based on your your other experience?

Um, for one, that other facility is a single-story drive-up facility, it's a completely different tenant type than what we are.

So as far as a market analysis, both can coincide, uh, much like Home Depot and uh Lowe's in the same corner.

And so, but from a lifecycle standpoint, um, I don't think we've ever looked at anything less than five years before.

So five to seven years of, you know, from a projection, and I've never currently we haven't experienced that being being a detriment um of a facility not operating well and needing to sell it to some some other use.

Okay.

But thankfully I've not encountered that.

That's good.

That's great.

I'm glad to hear that.

I don't want to overindex on the five years, but when have you all ever sold uh what about we have sold property to um our REITs before?

So we own the facility, we own the land.

We usually have a managing storage rate um lease it from us.

So whether that is extra space, life storage, cube smart, um, those major storage companies.

They come in and lease and you know have their managers to run it.

We also have it um in-house asset managers that follow the project so that they have to not only meet our management criteria, they also have to meet the easing company's management criteria to continue to keep the property um open and operating to our standards.

Um then sometimes based on the facility, uh those reads sometimes will want to just outright buy the facility, and we've taken it into consideration and we have sold some in the past directly to whoever that is.

Understood.

Thank you.

That's really helpful for understanding.

Still operates as a storage facility.

Great, great.

Yeah, I mean we've condos.

Um that's very helpful for understanding the life cycle.

Um, my next question is on um kind of like employment.

So I appreciate the the explanation of the packet and the presentation about the caretaker uh and and the potentially the family.

How many jobs does this unit support?

Usually two to three.

Usually two to three.

Okay, thank you.

And full-time.

Full time.

How many part-time?

None, I'm just clarifying.

Okay, okay, great, great.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's great.

Um, and then lastly, could you talk to me a little bit more about Y'all's fire suppression plan?

I am very careless.

I leave a bunch of things in my storage unit, they catch fire.

What happens?

Um, so the lease agreements themselves have fire safety standards written into them of hazardous material that's not allowed to be there if it is found.

So one of the requirements of our managers is that they are required every day, usually multiple times a day, to walk the entire facility inside and out.

Um they check for anything suspicious, the security cameras are on 24-7.

We strongly believe in no blind corners.

So they are very prominent.

The second you walk into the office, there's an entire wall of video or TV screen showing where all the cameras are.

Um we do not provide uh convenience outlets, we provide outlets for maintenance purposes that are also on um mounted hire, so that also deter somebody from plugging in some sort of appliance out of their uh but like a power tool or something that could potentially um cause a hazard.

Um, so that helps cut that down.

And then the entire facility um does have a fire suppression sprinkler system.

The materials that we use again are um block, structural steel framing, metal framing, there's no wood construction in the facility.

Um alarm system, there's an intercom system as well.

Um, so in case there is some sort of emergency or announcement that needs to be made, there's an intercom system throughout the whole facility.

Um, and then as far as the sprinkler systems also go, there is an 18-inch requirement that no one is allowed to stack within 18 inches of a fire sprinkler head.

Um we put fire sprinkler heads are in every unit, they're not just like down the hallways.

There is one in every single unit.

And so, because of that, we do have this requirement.

Um, it is a fire code, national fire code requirement about the 18 inches, but it is also repeated in the lease agreement that our tenants are um signing, and if they are found to be in violation of any hazardous material or stacking requirements, we have the right to enter their unit and remove or reduce the height of an object without um asking for permission ahead of time because they are in direct violation of the lease.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Amazing.

Uh Council Fredland.

Um just a couple questions on screening.

So you heard our Arbor Day uh proclamation and uh uh it's not tree day, but we can still talk about trees.

So um is there in the slides uh one of the maybe to the west, I think probably is the most important around using trees as a screening tool, landscape screening.

Can you help me better understand like what is that gonna look like?

And like, do we have I think you probably do based on the rendering?

Um, what types of trees will be um in which areas um and then what implication does that have, maybe like in the winter um or like as they grow.

Can you help me understand that?

Does that make sense?

I'll try.

I'm not the landscape market.

So as far as seasonality, and I don't know about that uh specifically, but um we do we are providing eight new trees.

Currently, there are two um along the western property line.

The one that is in the city-owned portion of the drainage, canal track in the um southwest corner that is a cottonwood, it is staying.

Um then just to the and it's kind of this like grayed out one here.

Then we are providing an alternating design of Cottonwood trees through here, and I don't have a full landscape plan upon me.

You know the difference of them.

No problem.

Um these trees in this slide, I want to clarify they are changing their species to uh adhere to the firewise comment so that they um not only are drought tolerant, but they're also um you know, fire safety plantings.

Um so we will be creating uh planting um eight new trees along this, um, and then obviously as stated before, uh removing the existing cottonwood that is um on our property in the north west corner because it was evaluated um by an arborist, and it is in an unhealthy condition and a safety hazard.

So it has been requested of us to remove it, and we will be planting a new one in its place.

Understood.

Um so as I look at this, I guess I I because the trash enclosure is down there too, right?

In that part it is down here with this other tree, and this line here used to be the juniper trees that have also since been removed.

Okay.

Um replaced with another species.

Um so the tree line and buffer still do exist, um, but again, just the species was changed to a more fire-wise.

So you do have some sort of lower profile, maybe screening for the trash enclosure, but also the I imagine trucks going through there, that's where the activity will be.

Yeah, and so there are a few trees also existing here that is saying those are Sister Carmen's landscaping.

Um so there's one here, there's one here.

So we are basically supplementing the pockets by adding uh a tree here, there's three trees here, one here, and four or one, two, three, four, six, I think.

Six here.

I'd also like to point out that the trash enclosure is almost five feet lower than the grade uh west of it.

So it's always done in the same hole that the building is.

So the screening is kind of over and above.

And it's a trash and recycling enclosure, right?

You have space for a trash and a recycling dumpster.

It we can look into that.

I would it is currently only a trash enclosure, and to clarify the use of the trash enclosure, it is only open to our managers.

Tenants are not allowed to use the trash enclosure.

If they have large bulky tracks, they need to take it with them.

Um the enclosure is locked 24-7.

Understood.

I don't know specifically how our commercial recycling ordinance impacts you, but I would look into that to make sure that you are in compliance with the commercial recycling ordinance.

I would also say too that I would imagine folks that are coming to your site may have other materials that it would be wise of you to consider specifically scrap metal uh is probably a high value material that you might collect.

I don't know if you found that in other operations, but just something to consider.

Since we don't collect tenants um trash or recycling are required to take it away from them, it's only accommodating what our manager we try to make that happen at the airport too, but people just leave it on the floor.

So I understand what you're saying.

Thank you so much, I'll write I saw Counselor Ginella Santa.

Thank you.

I I have two questions kind of following up on some of what we heard just a few minutes ago.

Uh I want to talk about them.

The lease agreement and the prohibited items.

Can you talk a little bit about what's included in there?

You know, specifically with regards to fire safety.

Um is anything categorized as a non-hazardous item.

So anything from a fire in the fire code that's also listed as a non-hazardous, sorry, as a hazardous item.

Can you give me a couple of examples?

Because I don't know about that.

Um like gasoline, gas tanks, okay, not allowed.

Um, okay, things like that.

Okay.

Things that could combust.

Have you considered lithium ion batteries?

Are you considering lithium ion batteries?

Will you consider lithium-ion batteries?

There has been a history of lithium-ion batteries spontaneously bursting into flames, and lithium ion batteries are not typically controlled well by water.

Yeah.

Um can follow up on that question.

I think it's worth looking into just given the the state of the world where lithium ion batteries are everywhere.

They're now banned from airplane luggage, and there's a reason for that.

And because that material is not typically controlled by water.

The fire suppression system, it just things get nervous when you think about that.

Other question I have is on your review criteria five on the on your presentation.

I don't know where that is in the slides you have, but not the staff review.

It was on your 1784 yet here.

I appreciate you giving us this, and I just want to get some clarity.

A lot of what you've explained here talks about significant adverse impacts on government services.

But I haven't heard from you really the significant impacts that might be to existing or future developments.

These kinds of things.

Also the fact that this was kind of anticipated to be in this location and also coexist with the residential, and I think it's a compatible.

So I guess the existing or future developments minimal.

Obviously, the site to the east is that's a zoned commercial.

Is that the industrial reason?

East is commercial, you're right.

That's that transition.

Yeah, so that's a remember regional business.

So the fact that it's a low traffic generator, obviously, woodland, um, to obviously existing and future development, um, lower impact on the road use, and also if the future use to the east were to be a traffic generator, the low traffic would offset that as well.

Um also just the mitigation measures.

I think um we were intending to bake into the presentation, so I apologize if that wasn't made clear as clear as I would have liked, but you know, the interior loading docs, the screening, all the mitigation measures that we've kind of essentially discussed.

Okay.

And I think I might have been confused because you had two slides on review criteria five.

Okay, yeah.

And I was maybe only looking at the second one, which is really focused on government services, but now I see that you've got you know the discussion of treaty screening, noise light dust, etc.

So thank you very much.

Yeah, you're welcome.

That's all I have.

I saw a few final questions on this side, Councillor Judson.

Uh it shows on one of the maps, and there's so many that I don't remember which one that you have detention ponds and that they're not accessible.

I think it says what tell me what that means since there's a neighborhood with children nearby that you might want to protect from bodies of water.

There is a detention pond uh between the building and the street, and it'll have a fence around it.

Okay.

And a wall and a fence.

A wall and a fence.

Okay.

Mayor Proton.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, one last question.

Did we how did we uh decide where the uh trash enclosure was going to be?

I know that might be something between you and city staff that you worked out.

Um it's moved a few times.

I can imagine really lots of neighborhood feedback, lots of staff feedback, um, really primarily just where is the best spot to screen it?

Elevation-wise, what natural buffers can we add to it?

Um accessibility to it, um, the building footprint has also changed over the course of the last three years.

So as things have pushed and ebbed and flowed based on feedback and review comments, that's where it's landed.

And in the the in your uh your understanding of what probably would be the most likely behavior since that's not for the tenants to use.

Um is this an empty this dumpster once a week thing, or is this because there's not there's only staff using it, is it frequently emptied or not?

You know, I'd I am not sure about the frequency.

Um, I do think it gets emptied once a week, but it may be once every other week.

Um but it's not twice a week because there's so many people using that.

No.

That that's all I was worried about.

Thank you.

Counselor Gallegos.

There are some live animals living on the site.

What are you doing for a prairie dog mitigation?

We um we will be removing the prairie dog population.

So relocation.

What?

Yeah.

Mayor.

Whatever is available.

On this one, um, the applicant will be required to address the prairie dogs on the site in compliance with the Lafayette code.

Um they may not have gotten to that step yet since they currently have no entitlement uh to build uh right at this moment.

So once they get to that point, when they get to that point, then they would be um able to move forward with the plan in accordance with our code.

But they will be required to comply with our code in that regard.

Thank you.

We have also um agreed to help Sister Carbon as well.

Help what?

With the prairie dog.

Just helping them mitigate it.

At Sister Carbon, is that what you said?

We have agreed to help them.

They requested, we agreed to it.

Okay.

Uh hearing no more questions for staff or the applicant, we will move on to public testimony.

I just wanted to respond real quick.

There's a couple of questions that I didn't have answers for.

So the height of the uh Walmart building on the latest elevation uh that we got a couple years ago when they changed their paint colors, shows 30 feet at the front, and it steps down gradually as you move to the west, and then there's the tower elements that are featured in that front are roughly about eight feet taller than that, so they get to extend above that 30 feet, but the primary massing is 30 feet or under.

Uh and then I think um Councillor Jensen had a question about the there is a water table kind of calculation on the landscape plan, and it shows a very small, like 330 square feet of moderate uh water use, and then the rest of it, which is around 21,000 square feet, is all low water use, and there's nothing at a high water use.

So all of that same information.

Cottonwoods are very thirsty trees.

Uh this is a specific cottonwood type, and they still have to.

We didn't get a direct response from the Highland Ditch out there, so they're gonna have to coordinate that.

I don't think the ditch is gonna want a high water use either, but the specific cottonwood that they is a low water uh cottonwood.

So and then is the grass bluegrass?

Or is it some kind of drought tolerant press?

I don't know that off the top of my head.

Um I can look at that though too.

So that's what I did as well.

It's listed as a fescue.

Um then uh you have to answer, go ahead.

Okay.

Um yes, it is listed as Assad fescue mix, um, which we have found that um it's not specifically listed on Colorado, but it is part of the best far away species uh native plants.

So that is what's currently proposed is the sod fescue mix.

And do you know how often it has to be watered once it's established?

No, I do not.

The landscape line also reflects that as a low water usage.

Okay.

Okay.

Now, hearing no more questions from Seth, we'll move on to the public testimony.

Okay.

At this time, we'll hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the city council about the special use review application for a self-sourced facility with a caretake dwell and caretak dwelling unit.

Please fill out the speaker form if you haven't already and hand it to our city clerk.

Uh, when you come to the podium, you must state your name and address for the record.

Uh a few other things before I start, like I said at the beginning, uh, you will have five minutes, and the most equitable way to do this is to give everyone exactly five minutes.

So uh at the five-minute mark, I'll be letting you know.

Uh and the other part is I know this is of great interest for many members uh or for many residents of our city.

Um the only thing I will I will ask is let's be respectful of one another.

Some people may agree with you, some people may not agree with you.

Regardless, everyone has the same opportunity to address counsel.

Uh so with that I will say let's just maintain the core and let's be as respectful as we can and let's not do any of the clapping, no cheering, nothing like that.

So uh just come on up and address counsel for the five minutes and then be respectful of everyone else's time and everyone else's comments.

Um before I call the first speaker, I'm just gonna note for the record, uh the time is now 7.51 p.m.

and we will begin tonight with Megan Rest.

The applicant does and just as a logistical note, page four mirror has the list in the numbered order.

Okay.

All right.

Good evening, members of council.

My name is Megan Rast.

I live at 646 Homestead Street, about 80 feet from this proposed self-storage building.

I will focus on criteria one, two, and four, compliance with the code, the surrounding area, and alignment with the comprehensive plan, essentially and specifically why self-storage as a use is not compatible across all three.

So, under criteria one, this is a special use review, meaning it's not a permitted use.

Denial does not infringe on property rights.

At Planning Commission, a slide appeared comparing permitted and special uses, but it was misleading and unfortunately kind of shaped their discussion.

The reality is that all but one permitted use in Table 26A are more community preferred by us neighbors.

You know, you got us on the feed mill.

Um, but there's way more special uses in the M1 than permitted uses.

More broadly, requiring a special use review for self-storage is not unusual.

And in many places, it's becoming more restrictive.

Parts of at least 15 states have outright bans on self-storage because, as Commissioner Hergie noted, it is a quote dead use that cannot be repurposed due to its design.

As recently as last week, that liberal bastion of journalism, the Wall Street Journal, highlights oversaturation and community pushback of self-storage, and you know, here we are.

Under criteria number two, compatibility concerns are significant.

Key information about surrounding uses has been incomplete.

You know, Kenry was built in 1982 when the Black Diamond Subdivision was created.

It is the only true industrial use.

Today the corridor includes a community center, a daycare, and youth sports facility.

It functions as a community-serving commercial area.

It already functions as adaptable commercial and will soon formally transition to it in the code.

Well, the application was submitted under the current zoning.

As noted by the city attorney in the planning commission hearing, you may consider anticipated zoning and surrounding context under this criterion number two.

Under criteria four, the proposal not only does not meet the comprehensive plan, it does nothing to contribute to it.

This site is does the designated adaptable commercial.

It's intended for walkable, mixed use, community-oriented development.

Cell storage is a low activity, auto-dependent use that does not support that vision.

This is especially important along Aspen Ridge, a key multimodal corridor for connectivity in our transportation plan under the comprehensive plan.

Other cities, especially Denver, ban self-storage within a half mile of RTD because it creates an active quote dead zones right where we need housing.

That same concern applies here.

The applicant's claims are inconsistent with regard to economic benefit, which my neighbor Don will address.

Ultimately, Commissioner Hergey stated many times at the Planning Commission hearing and used as her basis for denial that this locks away or locks in, excuse me, a low activity use on a key site at the same time.

The city is updating its land use code to guide a more vibrant future to meet our comprehensive plan.

My neighbor Maureen will speak to this vision more in her own testimony.

I wanted to briefly share why this matters so much to me.

I spend my career working inside large corporations to harness the power of business for good, supporting small and diverse businesses and sustainability.

I moved to Lafayette because of the values in our comprehensive plan, and I've been encouraged learning more about the background of council and in conversations with my neighbors as part of this whole process.

This is truly a really special place.

This tilted on its axis when I learned about the actions of 1784 Foldings in Bethesda, Maryland, where their development desecrated a historic cemetery of formerly enslaved people.

Please give weight to the Bach testimonies, plural, submitted under our diversity inclusion priorities of the comprehensive plan.

Given Lafayette's own history with unmarked graves, I cannot comprehend bringing a company with that track record into our community.

I've worked in large corporations my entire career.

This is not a typical profit-driven situation.

This crosses a line.

The company's chairman and CEO has a history of financial instability as submitted in my written testimony, including the firm right before he founded 1784 Holdings that lost a half billion dollars with a B, faced an SEC investigation and litigation, and left communities in the dust.

This is not a track record that gives us confidence.

It is not who we are, and it is not who we want.

We submitted written testimony and are here tonight to go through the dozens of concerns and issues with this project underneath the five special use criteria.

This is not just about one building, it's about alignment with our values, our comprehensive plan, and our future.

Each one of you should deny this project tonight, and we hope that you do.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll hear from Bill Young.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Bill Young, and I live at 642 Homestead, which is directly across the alleyway from this building is being proposed.

I'd also just set aside that I spent 10 years in the construction industry as well in constructing commercial and residential buildings, so I know actually how to put them up.

My focus is primarily on criteria two for incompatibility with the surrounding use.

With additional comments on criteria four on the comprehensive plan.

Compatibility is the most significant concern in the record.

The proposal introduces a three-story 35-foot structure, and as we heard today, with a little bit more on top, into the area, staff described as a one-story commercial and industrial buildings.

This mismatch in scale is not meaningfully addressed.

Planning Commissioner Fatima Kerchie, and I apologize if I pronounce her name correctly, rejected it as incompatible with the surrounding character and adjacent uses.

I strongly agree with that assessment.

This concern is compounded by disputed and inconsistent measurements.

Revised one day before the planning commission hearing from 120 feet.

Well, residents actually calculate this closure at the 80 feet.

Distances are also inaccurate.

The applicant states my home property line is 19 feet when it is really eight.

And similarly, overstates the width of the alleyway and the distance to the midpoint of the high line lateral.

I welcome anyone to come out with a tape measure and measure my property lines and you'll find this to be true.

Their own page five chose an eight-foot gravel path instead of the cross section growing showing of 30 feet, confirming the data was available to them.

This is especially troubling as the staff stated in the planning commission.

This inaccurate cross-section from the applicant was sufficient to ensure its true rending of which to make a decision.

Overall, the building is approximately 82 feet from my house, 75 feet from my property line.

I'm concerned that the staff report did not check these figures until last minute, and even with their correction to 104 feet, still not correct.

Setbacks and adjacency further underscore incompatibility.

The proposal is closer, taller, and more directly oriented towards the home than the nearby structures at Kenra and Sister Carmen, which are both lower and further back from that six-foot fence.

You can see in the actual photo in the handout, the sister Carmen cannot be seen above that six-foot fence.

These are differences that are not meaningfully analyzed.

Elevation data is also misleading.

The applicant compares building heights to residential roof peaks rather than finished floor elevations.

Overstating compatibility.

And Kenry Hype is taller, and in Kenry's height is taller than my second story.

This building being taller and closer than Kenry would absolutely be perceived as a full three-story structure, unlike what has been presented here.

I'm concerned for my neighbors who have one-story homes as well as their elevations have not been included in the analysis.

Also, staff should confirm that the elevations are independently verified.

Developer does have a rending from the West on their own website, which is in your handout.

It shows a large blank wall facing residences, specifically my home.

So their statements about architectural design claims also do not align with the evidence.

Building spans are the width of four homes plus an alley space, underscoring really the size of that massive wall people are going to be staring at.

Respect to criteria four.

Um I also can share concerns about the height as it relates to the future development patterns and whether the proposal supports or undermines a comprehensive plan's long-term vision.

The proposed 35 hoot provides no meaningful transition or step up design to respond to the nearby one-story homes.

We just heard about the step-up design at Walmart, so it seems like a natural path to do.

So in nearby schools that are actually approximately about 75 feet away.

This lack of a height transition is inconsistent with the attempt, both a land use code working group discussions and the comprehensive plan.

That is where they emphasize that gradual transition.

Since August of 2023, the neighborhood has consistently requested a reduction in height to better reflect the transition principle.

The applicant has provided conflicting reasons to neighbors for why they did not propose having a level below ground, learning directly from a neighbor in Marsh that all our homes have a full basement that is approximately nine feet tall.

So you can go in the ground.

For these reasons, I would ask City Council to deny the application that's currently proposed and require design that actually reflects the site conditions that respects the established character and residential context of the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Don Ross.

Good evening, and thanks for your time.

And I also want to thank you for the care that you took in asking the questions you did.

I'm Don Bross, and my wife and I live in uh Anna's farm.

I attended the uh last planning meeting, and I was very interested that there were no realistic views from our perspective of a project that's been underway now for over three years.

It doesn't, if you have the kind of money that has been used to present from the east many times, from the overview many times, from the south many times, but somehow there's no way to show you or before you, the planning commission, what does it look like if you walk down Homestead Street?

So I'm not a professional, my son used Apple, and uh we came up with what we think it kind of looks like, and if you look from here, you see this is fence, and this is looking down the alley.

And for us, granted that this is probably a half story too high, but what this also doesn't show is the new the character of the buildings to the west of this project, even our garages look better than this.

You could build a mausoleum that would have some of the same artistic characteristics, and this is thank you, going to be about as dead as a mausoleum, as I'll get to in a minute.

We need it, we thought you needed a true rendering by good people that would say this is what it'll be like, and it's acceptable.

We've never been here to complain about Walmart or any of these other massive structures, so why this one?

Well, because our concern was something that just was admitted tonight, that we're gonna see this over the fence.

And that's not even talking about the folks looking at our second story.

So I'm glad that you've asked the question you had.

I think you're getting on to the idea, you know.

We I didn't want to leave here thinking you didn't know what we're signing off on in terms of its effect on Annus Farm.

Because that's what happens sometimes.

You don't get the whole story.

Paul Harvey died too long ago, and I wish he was around.

Next, under criteria four.

I am a little bit worried that the economic justification of self-storage doesn't clearly align with the city's stated goals.

The staff identified economic prosperity as the this is the planning commission staff as I understand it.

Uh prosperity, economic prosperity is the ethical outcome, but yet there's no clear explanation how a self-storage facility limited in jobs, daily activity, and broader community benefit meaningfully advances that goal.

It is difficult to reconcile spare trust us with long-term economic viability or community serving land use.

It is stated by the proponents that the storage unit will create jobs.

Two that's economic prosperity, taking off all that land.

Even the applicant says in their own narrative that self-storage uses do not relate to housing, education, or regional cooperation underneath the heading strong economy, which is capitalized.

I found it difficult to understand why the applicant refers to page 43 of the comprehensive plan, which is about increased sales tax from commercial uses.

Well, if you had a sports board there, you'd probably be able to make that argument.

But this isn't gonna do that.

Self-storage generates very low tax revenue, unlike the commercial loose of other kinds.

Planning commissioner Fatima Hirji found this proposal incompatible with the comprehensive plan, thinking primarily of the compatibility, but thinking about the other issues, when she voted no on the planning commission earlier this month, and I share that concern.

The comprehensive plan is intended to guide decisions in a way that protects community character.

That should be capitalized character.

I don't see how this fits the long-term version of this town that wants to have the character that brings people in to public way to our restaurants or bars and our activities.

And I don't see how setting that aside here will serve any of those objections or objectives.

That was Floyd.

Objectives.

So I thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Karen Knight.

Good evening.

My name is Karen Knight.

My husband Andy and I live at 604 Homestead Street.

I would like to address landscaping, noise pollution, and operational hours under criteria two and five.

Under criteria two landscaping and screening.

The applicant's proposed landscaping plan raises concerns about both effectiveness and safety.

The area that we are concerned about is the area that lies between the back of the storage unit and the fencing bordering Annus Farm.

The last the original landscape plan included junipers and other species, which are identified as fire hazards and are discouraged under the Boulder County fire safety guidance.

These selections were originally a part of the design, but they have since been required a condition under firewise standards.

This raises questions for us about whether the updated screening from the new landscaping will actually provide adequate safe buffering.

And a discussion with the applicant, responsibilities for these plantings was attributed to a landscape designer rather than the applicant directly.

We have made repeated clarification requests about this issue.

Under criteria 5, screening and health related conditions, some buffering adequacy, and an operational hours.

This storage building is located in a transitional zone, which is a bridging between commercial and industrial areas and residential areas.

This facility, by its very size and purpose, is a poor choice for a transitional zone.

It is incompatible with both our neighboring houses and businesses, with a height of 35 feet or possibly 37 feet, and a width that equals four of our single homes combined.

It does not provide a buffer, and it fosters a quick abrupt change in zone.

This storage unit will be the tallest point on Aspen Ridge Road, rising close to 50 feet above 287.

It will tower over Walmart.

Noise impacts, which were were also properly also poorly analyzed.

While the report states compliance with ordinance standards, there is no detailed evaluation of the HVAC systems which will be operating continuously.

Large external heating and cooling units will produce a constant hum.

They will produce noise levels between 60 and 75 decibels.

The state of Colorado and Lafayette noise regulations stipulate that during the daytime the HVAC noise level must be at 60 decibels at the property line and nighttime levels to be at 55 decibels.

This low frequency hum admitted from the HVAC systems in the evening can lead to sleep disturbances, even though they may fall below legal decibel limits.

At the April meeting with the Planning Commission, one of the planning commissioners made a concerning comment regarding the noise emitted from the HVAC system.

They felt that this issue should not be addressed now, but they will quote sort it out in the complaints.

This is a complex issue and should not be tabled.

Daily operational noise will also add to noise pollution.

It will consist of traffic noise, other metal rolling doors, daily conversations, trash disposal and pickup.

Operational hours are also concerning.

The proposed 6 to 10 p.m.

hours exceed those of surrounding businesses.

Residents have consistently requested 7 a.m.

to 9 p.m.

hours, but these requests have not resulted in any adjustment.

The applicant has conflicting information on this regard.

At one point suggesting any change of hours would not make the project financially viable while elsewhere stating that between 6 and 8 a.m.

on average, only two renters will use their facilities.

This uses usage does not sound does sound minimal until you realize that this is roughly 700 and plus intrusions yearly in this tiny 6 to 8 a.m.

time span.

Planning Commissioner Mettler recommended a condition for operating hours to be reduced, but it was lost in discussion at the meeting.

One mitigating factor with noise pollution is distance.

The farther you are away from the noise source, the lesser the impact.

We in Annis Farm do not have this luxury.

The facility of five minutes are up.

We appreciate your time.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we'll hear from Wendy White.

Good evening, counselors.

My name is Wendy White.

My husband and I live at 554 Homestead Street.

My testimony addresses criteria number three, environmental and safety impacts, specifically fire risk and site safety, including flood concerns and hazardous materials.

Plus criteria number five, operational impacts focusing on hours of operation and related neighborhood impacts tied to livability and compatibility.

Fire danger is the greatest concern because of our proximity to this 701 unit three-story building.

At the Planning Commission hearing, Chief Fire Chief Bradshaw noted that the building will be sprinklered, but stated that the fire department does not have experience with this type of business.

While we are not questioning the competency of the department, it was not explained how they will prepare for a fire in a nearly 90,000 square foot Class A building containing Class A stored combustibles like wood, paper, and plastics, plus large volumes of unknown stored items on three floors in a dense configuration, which creates risk and difficult conditions for firefighters.

Class A facilities do catch fire, and the often rapid nature of these fires can overwhelm sprinkler systems, causing catastrophic damage.

This is especially true, as counselor Giannola mentioned, of lithium iron battery fires.

This concern is heightened by the applicant applicant's acknowledgement that prohibited hazardous inflammable materials could be stored in units.

While the facility would have security cameras and on-site management and customers signed contracts agreeing not to store prohibited items, enforcement relies on an honor system that can be easily violated by concealing items.

There are also six hours each day when customers access the building without on-site monitoring, only remote camera oversight.

No one at the planning commission hearing addressed whether this facility's risk assessment changed upon learning that enforcement rests on the honor system.

How is it acceptable that public safety depends on a flawed system that can be and is already readily circumvented?

Flood risk is also unresolved.

The site borders the high line lateral ditch, and city engineering staff have confirmed that emergency overflow conditions, including scenarios similar to the 2013 flood, were not fully addressed.

While on-site runoff is discussed, there is no clear plan for high flow overflow events or protections for adjacent homes.

Removal of the existing cottonwood tree also raises concerns about bank stability and erosion, which does not appear fully evaluated.

Under criteria number five, moving truck noise pollution is another concern.

Unlike all the other industrial buildings on Aspen Ridge Drive, which place their loading bays on the east side away from Anna's Farm, this proposal locates its internal loading bay on the south side, which exposes Anna's Farm to external vehicle and truck noise.

The applicant claims that noise will be minimal and suggests most customers use Penske and Uhall trucks that do not have backup beeper alarms.

However, local rental locations confirm to us that these moving trucks do have backup beeper alarms, with operating hours seven days a week from 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

And somehow 16 hours is considered limited in the application.

Residents would be directly impacted by frequent backup beeper alarms, engine noise, and affiliated activity.

The landscaping buffer will not mature for years and offers uncertain sound protection even at maturity.

This raises a basic question.

Why wasn't the loading bay located on the east side to reduce impacts?

Parking lot air and noise impacts also remain unresolved.

The traffic study estimates 135 daily trips, although the applicant claims the traffic will be less than this based only on anecdotal data from one of their own facilities described as larger but not identified nor located and with no way to assess comparability with this facility.

How is this?

How is this acceptable data?

And with only two interior loading bays and only five standard parking spaces and one ADA compliance space, vehicles may cue in the driveway or circulate while waiting, creating the potential for idling, exhaust emissions, and additional noise.

The planning commission raised concerns about what happens when multiple customers arrive at once and loaning bays are full, but no clear operational protocol was provided and no condition was added to address it.

Taking together these unresolved issues and concerns, raised serious questions about compatibility and risk to surrounding neighborhoods.

Thank you so much for your consideration and leadership.

I appreciate you.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Sue Surface.

Good evening, members of council.

My name is Sue Surface, and my husband Jack and I live at 638 Homestead Street.

I'm going to speak about the impacts from the building's shadow and lighting, which fall under criteria three and five.

And with criteria three, my concern is the environmental impact of the building's shadow.

The project is expected to cast significant shadows onto nearby alleyways and homes because it blocks morning sunlight from the east.

I know this, and it's personal to me.

As I live in a one-story home where because I am one home west of my neighbors, the only natural light my home gets, and the only sky I can see from my home is through this parcel.

In your handout, we gave a couple of photos of the sky from my kitchen.

And in the foreground, you can see the cottonwood tree, my neighbor Wendy is discussing tonight.

The shadow from this building will reduce solar panel efficiency for at least one neighbor.

And finally, the shadowing also raises safety concerns because it would contribute to ice buildup in the alley, which is already an issue we have alongside the row homes, creating slippery and potentially hazardous conditions.

We're all so close together in Anna's Farm that this size and scale of building being so close to us will drastically change things and create a major blocking out of natural light and views of nature that we can now see from our kitchen window.

Under criteria five, I want to focus on lighting and noise, since both affect how this project fits into a residential neighborhood.

Lighting is a major concern.

The staff analysis does not fully address building signage, interior light spill, or the differences between what the applicant describes and what the site plan actually shows, especially regarding the rear lighting.

The applicant says there will be no rear lighting.

And the staff mentioned that in their executive summary for today's meeting, but plans clearly show multiple fixtures that would face the neighborhood.

They were asked about the glow that the sign would create, and it's deeply concerning to us.

We want natural light, not artificial light at all ours.

Further, there's also no real analysis of glare or light glow from the building's large white exterior, which could significantly affect nearby homes and nighttime visibility.

Together, both the shadows and the light from this proposal call into question whether this development can truly operate in a way that does not have severe and significant adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.

Now, if you just take a second, picture your house.

Picture your neighborhood and ask yourself, would you allow this immense self-storage to be built next to your home neighborhood?

Of course not.

As our elected city council, we implore you to do what's right for your Lafayette citizens living in Anna's Farm.

And just vote no, please.

Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Maureen Bros.

Good evening, City Council.

My name is Maureen Christopher Bros, and I live at 530 Homestead Street, Lafayette, Colorado.

A most wonderful, charming and character laden community is Anna's Farm.

It sets Lafayette apart.

We can all choose to live elsewhere in Boulder County, but we chose Anna's farm for a reason.

My testimony focuses on criteria number four, specifically how this proposal does not align with long-term planning, built form, and the comprehensive plan.

The applicant justifies the need for more self-storage based on population growth, but there is growing community concern about over saturation of storage facilities, especially along transportation corridors.

A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted how communities across the country are pushing back against this trend.

And cities like Denver have already restricted self-storage near transit because it creates low activity dead zones that do not support walkable development.

The multimodal transportation plan calls for a study of the Aspen Corridor for potential connectivity between modes, and we support that.

Lafayette already has a relatively high per capita supply of self-storage compared to nearby cities and Denver.

Within Boulder County, Lafayette has multiple facilities, and residents already have strong access relative to our population.

This raises a basic question of need, especially when another storage facility already exists directly across Aspen Ridge Drive.

The claim that this site provides needed services is difficult to reconcile with existing supply.

The comprehensive plan designates this area as adaptable commercial, intended to evolve into walkable, mixed use districts that include residential, office, and retail uses that activate community life.

It specifically discourages standalone low activity uses that do not generate pedestrian engagement.

Self-storage is a single-use auto-oriented building that does not contribute to this vision and is not adaptable in the future.

As Commissioner Fatima Hierjee noted during the hearing, and that was the planning commission.

Self-storage has fixed functionality.

It cannot realistically be converted into something more active or community serving.

This limits long-term flexibility and conflicts with the intent of strategic infill and evolving commercial districts.

This concern is especially important given timing.

The Lafayette Land Use Code update is underway.

It's been going on.

Approving a large permanent storage facility now risks locking in a non-conforming use, just as the city is refining its long-term vision, a vision that we do support.

A major concern is also the impact on Sister Carmen.

The applicant highlights its proximity and suggests coordination.

But Sister Carmen is a community donation center that relies on trust and controlled drop-offs.

The applicant's trash enclosure will be locked and managed only by facility staff, raising a real concern that any or many of the 700 self-storage users could leave unwanted items or donations outside the facility.

Well, Sister Carmen has submitted a letter that appears supportive.

Many neighbors understand this as their effort to mitigate risk.

If problems arise after construction, Sister Carmen would have little ability to address them.

And the lease-based restrictions, the applicant references are not enforceable as zoning conditions.

Unfortunately, the five minutes are up.

We appreciate it.

However, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you to everybody.

Up next we'll hear from Nancy Selinger.

I feel like we're all friends.

My name is Nancy Sellinger.

I live at 650 Homestead Street with my husband Alan Sellinger, who's up in the hall because he's been teaching all day and he needs to stand because he's gonna go crazy.

Um first I'd like to talk about uh I I have been at the meeting since 2023 along with my neighbors here as well.

And it's been really strange because at first I thought, okay, this is not happening, but then it came back in 2026.

And so I attended both the city council and planning commission meetings on the 7th and 8th, respectively.

And the biggest impressions that I took away were that the new land use codes will go into effect later this summer.

However, in the meantime, currently proposed projects are subject only to the 2021 codes.

However, they could, these new projects could still be considered in view of the new land use codes coming up.

However, this is another however, the new whatever projects will come up, they will be subject to new fire safety codes.

So I got really confused because I thought, okay, so you're only responsible for one thing, not another.

Anyway, that was what I didn't quite understand.

Um if we move down to under to looking at Sister Carmen and Ken Ray, yes, they they are pre, you know, they're there before we have been there, and I think it's important to take what they're doing into consideration.

I've been in our home for almost six years.

Six years ago, we asked Ken Ray to please put down cast lights.

They have never done it.

The lights stay on all night and flash right into my bedroom.

In addition, there's a new engineering uh facility right next door.

They have three large windows and they have very bright lights that go on all night, well, not all night, but at least till after 10 p.m.

I have photos that I can show you if you're interested to see them.

Those also blast right into my bedroom.

Um the last thing to take to take a step back.

What are the goals for the city of Lafayette and how can we all work together to grow our and share a community?

Will the new land use coast accomplish this?

How can we meet the Vision Zero action plan?

Can we repair, replace, or build new sidewalks, save bike paths to connect neighborhoods more effectively?

How will a fourth storage facility placed diagonally from the existing one fit in these goals?

In 2021, 2022, and 2023, new storage facilities became a hot topic for investors with the promise of high returns of passive income and steady tax revenues for cities.

It's 2026.

The economy is more volatile, and these investments no longer hold the same possibilities, with some investors not seeing expected returns, communities pushing back against low job creation and significantly lower tax revenues along with light, noise, disturbances to homes, and unfortunate lasting effects to natural environment and local wildlife.

In March 2026, an industry insider uh article quoted 10 different um storage facility experts in the field and said a lot of projected projects may be difficult to justify for the foreseeable future because we're seeing economic impacts, we're seeing people are developers are using old numbers, and it's not their fault.

They're just using the numbers that they had, and they're saying we have this amount, it'll cost this much to build, this is how much we need to earn per square footage.

We're not seeing those numbers right now.

We're seeing volatility in Boulder County in many parts of the country.

These are things that I would like the Lafayette City Council to request to have those numbers re-evaluated.

What are the costs?

What what will the revenues be to the city?

Does this still make sense this many years on?

Um I can supply that uh industry uh letter if you're interested article, excuse me.

Um, since 2023, the proposed facility, we continue to push back.

What will be the message to residents?

Can we pivot to another idea?

At the last meeting, we heard an idea about a bike shop, maybe a cafe, mixed housing, mixed commercial commercial use.

I think we have an opportunity to just take a moment and a breather and say they have the developers and their uh I guess how do you describe it?

Their consultants have worked diligently and and have tried to respond to everything that we have said.

However, I still don't feel that this is the right fit for this space, and I think we have a better opportunity ahead of us with new land use codes, as well as think about.

I mean, I guess at this point, we've made sort of every point six times, seven different ways, but I still think that there's still room for us to reconsider this and possibly work with a developer and say, is there something else that you can pivot to?

That's another option.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Uh seeing no more speaker forms, I will ask is there anyone else here who would like to speak that hasn't yet spoken.

Seeing no one, I will turn to our city clerk.

No one on the phone.

Okay.

Uh seeing no other members of the public wishing to address the council, the public testimony period is closed, and for the record, it is 8 32 p.m.

I will now turn it over to the applicant, seeing if they would wish to respond to public testimony.

Okay, I'm gonna hit as many notes as I can.

Um probably working a little backwards.

Uh, I am going to start.

I did mention earlier that we have worked diligently with Sister Carmen and some of their concerns.

Um, I want to address the item disposal item.

We have worked with them, and we both have an agreement that if there is found unknown found dumping on either property, that each property owner will review their security camera footage, and we will determine the best course of action from there.

So we do have that in assigned agreement.

And I am gonna go back to a few slides.

Hold on, grab the rest of my notes.

Um there's uh obviously a lot of questions about continued lighting and sound buffering and landscaping.

I think we've already discussed the design and the plan.

If there's any specific questions that the council has further, then I'm more than happy to continue discussing those.

Um I do want to go back to specifically the setbacks and the views for the council.

Um this setback cross section here, sorry, was not revised from planning commission to now, but we did as far as the numbers go, but we did um add some extra dimensions in it to hopefully help understand the overall area.

Um, and to please note that from a survey standpoint, we have um surveyed from our um our whole property all the way to the sound wall.

And so from the sound wall to the neighborhood parcel line is like their home parcel line is being supplemented with um county parcel maps and Google track maps and um measurements from that.

So this note does list a varied uh right-away on the Anna's farm property.

Um, as you work your way north and south along the road, it does vary, which um is where some of the numbers have gone from 104 to 120, 106.

There's very because the homes are set back at different distances to our building.

So that's kind of coming up with some of the overall variation in the original application materials that we were being reviewed by staff.

We were using a dimension that was further south, which has a larger setback.

And when we uh prepared materials and revisited the cross-section to go to planning commission, we decided to show um the closest scenario, which is where the 120 to 104 discrepancy came from of showing a property that was further north that happened to be the closer um dimension to our parcel.

So and um we also, in relation to this mechanical unit uh discussion, we prepared these two line of sight exhibits that again we have everything measured up from this sound wall from a grade elevation, our building elevations, landscaping, is all modeled in here in our model software where we have the grade changes on.

So the top image is shown from Aspen Ridge Drive, somebody standing in it approximately six feet tall, looking at the building at eye at the six foot straight on the building.

This is really intended to be a perspective to show that even though the mechanical units sit a couple feet above the parapet wall, due to just general perspective views and distance, you can't actually see it from eye level on street level.

And then the same we did it from the western side as well for anybody from Anna's farm community in the adjacent street, looking towards the west.

Again, this is intended by the unit discussion, but just to show that if since the units are set back 40 feet from that parapet wall, that again the line of sight perspective can't be seen.

But just from the visual standpoint, kind of shows the perspective and grade change.

So I think those are all I don't know if Alyssa wants to add anything.

I just um wanted to briefly touch on the commercial or the comprehensive plan designation.

Like we find that here we go.

Adaptable commercial.

Um so I just want to touch on when I when I read the intent for that, it is to allow larger format commercial spaces to transition over time into more mixed uh walkable communities.

This I I feel that this is a more unique site.

Obviously, it's an infill site, a smaller site, and doesn't fall within that larger format commercial space ready to transition.

So it is slightly unique as far as the classification that it's been designated as.

Nonetheless, the urban design standards have been applied, as I noted before, with added landscaping, sidewalk, um, added transparency.

And I do note there were some mentions about the building being longer than uh multiple houses put together.

However, again, that is something that this designation encourages, more of a building frontage along the entire lot frontage.

So trying to incorporate or did incorporate those elements, despite the fact that this is somewhat of a unique site for the designation that it is in the comprehensive plan.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Um before I close the public hearing, I just want to check with counsel if we have any further questions uh for the staff or for the applicant.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and time is 8 39 p.m.

And we'll move on to council deliberations and decisions.

Sorry about that.

Um, so the counts the item for discussion is resolution number 2026-11 recommending approval with conditions of an application for special use review of site plan and architectural review for lot 10, block one, black diamond subdivision.

Before we begin our deliberation, the city attorney has a verbal advisement for council regarding the review criteria for tonight's application.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just so council knows I did provide a similar verbal advisement for the planning commission.

And so um I thought it would be beneficial for council to provide a verbal advisement tonight regarding your review criteria.

So, council, before you begin deliberations, I want to briefly remind you of the legal framework that guides your decision on this application this evening for both the special use review and uh I won't be focusing as much on the site plan architectural review, but I will answer any questions about those criteria if you do have any.

Um, as a reminder for council, in this matter, you are acting in a quasi-judicial role.

You are not acting tonight as legislators or policy makers tonight, as you heard in your quasi-iditional training recently.

That does mean your task here is not to make new policy or decide how the property should be regulated in the future under the city's new land use code that hasn't been adopted yet, but instead you're acting more like judges this evening, charged with applying existing law to this specific application.

Your task is to consider the application before you and the evidence and testimony presented in the hearing, and then decide this application under the law in effect today, which are the current zoning regulations that apply to this property, the current Lafayette code, the applicable review criteria in the code, and competent evidence in the record this evening.

With respect to the special use review application on which you had a public hearing tonight, uh the council's responsibility is to evaluate it under the criteria in Lafayette Code Section 26-15-4, which you've reviewed a few times tonight.

Those criteria include several separate considerations, including compliance with the 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 on surrounding properties or government services.

You heard a great deal of public testimony specifically about the comprehensive plan criterion, as well as the other criterion.

You've also heard analysis by city staff and testimony by the applicant.

And the comprehensive plan criterion is an important part of your your review, so I will be focusing a bit more on that in this advisement.

But it should not be considered in isolation or treated as overriding the rest of the code framework this evening.

In terms of Colorado law, it does distinguish between an advisory, the courts do distinguish between an advisory comprehensive plan and binding land use regulations.

A comprehensive plan is considered an advisory and non-binding document unless and until it has been made or specific provisions have been made binding through adopted land use regulations in a legally sufficient and sufficiently specific way to put property owners on notice of the regulations that apply to their use of the property.

Colorado courts have also recognized that even where code references consistency or compatibility with a comprehensive plan, that does not require the decision maker to find consistency with every single individual goal, policy, or provision contained in that document.

Instead, the courts have held that the decision maker that's you this evening may interpret criterion like this one broadly and holistically, considering whether the application aligns with the comprehensive plan's overall goals.

Here the Lafayette comprehensive plan, your comprehensive plan expressly states that it is not intended to serve as binding legal review criteria for individual development applications.

As a result, the comprehensive plan should be applied holistically or may be applied holistically tonight by counsel.

Considering whether the proposed use generally aligns with the plan's overarching direction rather than requiring strict consistency with every individual policy in the plan.

Lastly, just a comment uh regarding due process since you also do serve in a legislative role, um, and it is your responsibility as council to ultimately adopt uh land use regulations in the city.

Um land use regulations that are in effect tonight and that govern your application tonight are uh required to provide fair notice to property owners of the standards that govern the use of their property and uh provide meaningful limits on uh discretion of the decision maker in a quasi-judicial uh setting.

Um let's see here.

So I just wanted you to keep that in mind that tonight, while you can and should and must consider all of the special use review criteria this evening as you review this application, um, including the comprehensive plan.

Uh I wanted to remind you that uh to do that in a holistic manner and to look at the plan as a whole, and that no specific provision unless the specific provision of the comprehensive plan has been incorporated into the code through legislation, that it cannot be uh used as an independent regulation that governs this application on its own.

I'm happy to answer any questions that council has now or during your deliberation this evening as you work through the criteria.

Of course, I did focus on the special use review criteria.

You do also have a site plan and architectural review before you this evening that does have its own review criteria that are equally important for you to consider.

Um so if you do have any questions about those, either staff or I will be able to answer those tonight.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Uh we'll move on to deliberations.

And before we do, I want to say a few things, and really what I'm doing is just buying time for my council because this is the first time that we've done this, at least as a new council, and we've just received a lot of information.

So uh the first thing I want to do is make sure I thank a few people.

First, our staff.

I know this has been a long process, so uh we're here.

Thank you for for the years that have gone into this.

Uh I of course want to thank the planning commission because those are those are difficult decisions and the work they do is important to the city.

And lastly, I want to thank our residents uh for being civically engaged for being here and for for making your voice heard.

It's incredibly important, and we truly truly appreciate it.

Um I also just want to highlight there are two recommendations uh for us tonight.

Uh the first being from our staff, which includes four conditions, and the second, and if you want to pull those up, that'd be great.

Um the second is also actually an approval uh recommendation from our staff with four conditions.

And the second recommendation came from our planning commission uh where they also recommended approval.

And not only did they uh agree with the conditions laid out by staff, they added four further conditions.

Um so hopefully that bought enough time because now we deliberate.

Now we figure this out.

Uh and of course, as our city attorney said we were required to make findings regarding uh whether the review criteria has been satisfied.

That is our job here tonight.

And speaking of that criteria, and speaking of section 26-15-4, um, and the special use review criteria, I think the best way to do this is to just break this down one by one in terms of criteria.

Uh that makes it easiest for for me, that makes it easiest for likely all of us.

So uh the first criterion is compliance with the Lafayette zoning code.

Which counselor would like to start the discussion on this criteria.

And actually for our staff, could you pull that one up?

Well, that'd be great.

Mr.

Mayor, if I may, I wonder if it would be valuable for us to have a discussion prior to going into each criteria.

Sure.

Um I think it's it's it's hard to go into a box so quickly if that if I may.

Um can I ask what the discussion would be?

Just broad projects, whole thing.

Yeah, I mean, if there's questions or concerns that folks are have on their mind, I don't know.

I mean, maybe just doesn't piggyback, you know, if we I think maybe we start with special use as the general discussion, because I think that's the broader issue, and then we get to site plan after.

Yes.

That was the idea.

And I know that as we as we go along, I'm sure our staff or city attorney especially might be a big part of this conversation, but uh our staff would be happy to answer questions as we go.

Um but yeah, we I'm happy to whatever helps us, whatever makes this go as smooth as possible.

So uh is there something you'd like to start with?

Um I mean I've got a lot of thoughts.

It's uh it's hard to order them, I suppose.

Um I think that the number one thing that I'll say here is that you know I I feel like we are in a really challenging position because we have an old zoning code, but we have a new ish comp plan, right?

And so this really puts us in a very awkward and odd place where we haven't actually, as our city attorney uh uh really spoke to, we haven't actually fully implemented all of the elements from the comp plan that were so uh you know robustly uh workshopped with the community to get to a final stage, but all of those things haven't been fully implemented because we're still in our zoning code update.

So I think part of I I suppose what I'll just say to like sort of kick it off because I think some of my comments and thoughts around each criteria are based in that in some ways that like we are in a uh we're in between a rock and a hard place.

We're in between a screening wall and a big building.

Um you know, it's a tough place to be.

Um and I think just as a sort of general comment, I think it's something we need to consider in the future, because I think if this keeps happening, which it it probably will, um, because if an application is submitted today or tomorrow or three years ago, um, and it's uh you know, before the zoning code gets updated this summer, we are gonna continue to be in this place for quite some time.

Um and it really is not fair, I think, to the applicant, it's not fair to the community because we're just in a place that's really really uncomfortable and really challenging, and certainly challenging for us.

So I just want to say that right off the bat, because that's generally how I'm feeling that you know we are we are in a place that feels very awkward um because of that.

Counselor Gianola.

Yeah, I I thank you.

That was really a good starting place for the discussion because I think it is it is challenging.

One of the things I'm struggling with is just the concept of special use by itself.

You know, we're we're looking at this as it's it's not a use by right.

It's a use that you have to kind of show that you meet all these criteria, and I'm I'm struggling in my mind to see you know why certain uses are special uses.

You know, in I think when staff talked about uh when they when they started initially, cell storage wasn't an established special use, it was lumped in with warehouse, something like that.

Um those are different are I think quite quite different uses.

But I can see the overlap.

The a couple of these criteria I feel like are easy lift for almost every application that we're going to see.

Number one, compliance with the zoning code.

I don't know that we would see an application that doesn't come to the you know compliance with the the municipal code.

I I think we're looking at even broader than the zoning code.

I think it's municipal code is the criteria in the municipal code in the zoning code.

Um and then compatibility with surrounding area.

Uh self-storage is uh use that's in a only industrial zone.

So how if it's allowed an industrial zone, I don't understand how it can't comply with you know the industrial zone.

Environmental impacts, it's generally low activity.

I mean, we've heard the the public talk about it's a non-use.

So okay, check, check, check.

If if if we just get easy checks, why is it a special use?

This is where I'm struggling.

Like there's got to be something meaningful in the code to say that well, what what leverage do we have to say what special uses do we allow and what don't we allow?

And so I just really am struggling with this on this particular type of use and what the criteria are in our code.

Counselor Jensen.

I think there are other additional conflicts.

Um for example, the community wants um trees that will screen, but our fire code is getting rid of evergreens because they're brittle and and fire susceptible.

And there are uh within I've been sitting here looking at various elements of the comp plan.

The applicant gave us elements of the comp plan they think it meets, but I can give 10 other things out of the comp plan that I don't think it meets.

So you've got some that it meets and some that it doesn't.

The economic benefit doesn't seem to be very great as far as I can tell.

And um I I was looking up on my phone um whether trash and dumping is an issue uh in storage units, and what I looked up said that it is that people leave storage units, they leave food, they leave hazardous materials, they leave all kinds of things, and yes, it is the responsibility of the owner uh of the property to remove them, but there will be a time period when you know there's stuff there that is not compatible with a neighborhood and potentially mice and other things that come along with that.

So from my point of view, there's a lot of conflicts here, you know.

Uh and yes, it meets the zoning code, but I don't think we got the whole story of the proposal and how it might impact the character of the surrounding area, because I can't imagine there's not dumping uh stuff or people just leaving their storage unit without cleaning it out, you know, and what I looked up confirmed that.

Additionally, I think I looked up like in the last six years, about 1,400 fires in municipal and storage facilities created in that are in municipal areas where the fire department had to respond.

That's significant to me, you know.

Um so I'm having a hard time because I think there are many elements of the comp plan that this doesn't meet, but I also think there are some that it does, you know, and and one of the criteria here is compatibility of the proposed use and site plan with the comprehensive plan.

And the main one I am concerned that it doesn't meet is creating community serving economic facilities that the community you might want to go to.

This is clearly not polling from people in the neighborhood who would want to go there.

I I think the applicant thinks it is because they're gonna be driving from about five miles, but I'm talking about the comp plan talks about walkability, and this is not something the neighborhood is gonna walk to.

And other uses would be in my mind more uh supportive of that element of the comp plan is trying to create community supportive economics where people would actually go there with intention and they would walk there.

So I'm struggling with you know where to go.

And I also heard people say some of the data we have been given is not accurate, and I don't know if there's a way to have a third-party fact finder tell us or any of that.

So I'm I'm gonna jump in here because I think our city attorney definitely wants to address a few points there.

Um I know a couple of the comprehensive plan, possibly points, but also just to reiterate what we're looking at and what we should be uh looking at tonight in terms of just what's on the public record and then the criteria.

Um, not necessarily looking things up.

And I just want to just want to go over to our city attorney because she's far more eloquent than I will ever be.

Yeah, she wants to explain it, please.

I actually don't have anything specific at this point.

Um, the only uh only comment I have about um uh some of your questions and thoughts, uh, Counselor Jensen is uh regarding I think you mentioned fires or something that that have occurred in other jurisdictions, and I would just caution you that that that we don't know anything about those fires or what caused them or or what the condition of the building was.

Um I I just wanted to uh caution council to that you can't make a decision based on something we don't have in the record or information about or thank you.

I appreciate it's probably not relevant to tonight's application.

Thank you.

Counselor Bullier.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, just very briefly because I I think I'm aligned in my brief comment here with the previous three counselors.

As I look through the criteria here, and I just want to note with tremendous appreciation to the applicant to staff and to residents for coming out as well to echo that statement.

And this is very, very thoughtful.

And I see elements that do not align, elements that do, and then gray area in between.

And I want to make wearing that quasi-judicial hat.

I want to make a good neutral decision.

But I'm curious, particularly for those who have undergone this process before, like, for example, uh, criterion number two, compatibility with the proposal with character surrounding area, it absolutely is compatible immediately here.

There's another storage unit two blocks away, and that it is clearly not compatible with the residents immediately west.

And both of those things are true.

And so I I can make a decision tonight, I feel comfortable with that.

But I am curious for how our attorney, staff and fellow counselors, and you, Mr.

Mayor, see that when we have very compelling, I think, well thought out ethical arguments put forward by multiple parties.

I think that question was for me.

Uh yes, I've been through this process before.

And this is as everyone has pointed out, it's difficult.

Uh the compatibility of the proposal with the character of the surrounding area is challenging because the surrounding area, if you consider what it is, it's compatible.

But if you consider where it physically is, that's the hard part.

And in the case of what it will be doing in that area, characters the question here.

Um it's unusual.

The use that we see is not what the new zoning land use code says says.

Um special use is a question of like why do we need special use?

Because we're in that transition where we're trying to work out what is it that makes this special.

And um that's another hard one.

Um it is different from what's around it.

It falls within what we have today.

And the the applicant's point of due to population, there's a need for this.

Uh we have a we have a stuff thing that we do as people.

And the it's it's appropriate.

Well, it's not a pro, I don't know if it's appropriate, but it's a tool that we use to determine how much how much storage space are we gonna need for the population that exists.

It's not great.

Um I'd I'd love to see something even better.

Um, but that's that's one of the ways we know if storage is something that we would need.

And there's no adverse, I'm just looking at the criteria.

The adverse environmental impacts, you'd have to stretch.

I I can't find an uh adverse environmental impact.

And we did go through the lighting.

Um I from what I'm seeing, just with what's presented, the lighting is maybe more um more in accordance with what one would expect in that area.

They've addressed it.

And I do appreciate the fact that the applicant has listened and adjusted to what people have asked.

And the fifth one, like mitigating, there's a lot of mitigation that happened right on there in that last bit and piece.

And going back to number one, meeting uh building setbacks, building height density, and zoning requirements.

It's what we have today.

Um the comment about activating that area with the multimodal transportation plan is is an aspiration.

Um it is near there is some bus transport through there.

I think it's much more, it's greater towards uh baseline run, but it might change over time if we ever get air TD to I'm not gonna talk about RTD yet.

Um but we could we we have a transportation issue.

Um and if I do understand correctly, there is tax revenue from uh storage facilities that comes from all the storage facilities that it goes into it.

I think it's our affordable housing.

No.

No, it's divided three ways right now to their um historic preservation committee for grants to our arts department for arts uh maintenance and then to our historical society for their general operating, about a third, a third, a third.

And when we estimated this project, we thought currently we bring in about 90 to 100,000, and that this would bring in an additional 40,000 in the storage tax revenue, but that's what it goes to.

So we are we would if this were put to pass, we would be receiving tax revenue for it just because it exists.

Uh it's assuming people use it.

And I don't know, the applicants seem to be pretty confident.

Um I I'm I'm looking at where it is and the fact that um Sister Carmen has reached out and talked about what goes on in that area.

Uh I think it's significant.

And it's important to me.

And I would hope the relationship would continue because Sister Carmen is a you know keystone species in this in this world that we live in in Lafayette.

And I think that's why they took the chance to send a message to us to talk talk about their experience with the applicant.

And it doesn't look pretty.

You know, the the way this is rolling out.

I I can't say that this is you know a beautiful match over what the comprehensive plan uh might have, but right now it's it's aligning with it wouldn't have gotten like Councilor Genello said, like it wouldn't have gotten here if it didn't match City Code.

You did say that right.

I did say that.

Okay.

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

So criteria number one.

Criteria number one, thank you.

So that's a little bit.

No, that was a lot, sorry.

That was a great answer.

Um I'll give a worse answer.

I think just it is a difficult one, right?

And uh I appreciate you asking these questions, being that this is the first time we do this because I remember the first time I did those.

Oh my gosh, how do I how do I get through?

How do I do this?

Because yes, the the questions that you're all asking, they they are difficult, they are difficult to answer, and our job tonight is uh is difficult.

Uh and I think to Council Gianello's point, right?

You you can make a case for some things, you can make a case against other things.

Uh but putting on my quasi-judicial pad, right?

Compatibility of the proposal with character and surrounding areas.

The surrounding areas are zone industrial, right?

Like we have to look at that in just an objective way.

Some of them.

Yeah, some of them.

And zoning code, right?

It likely wouldn't be here if if it hadn't met that.

Um so and then for small stuff, I I do just want to highlight there are there are conditions that have already been um given to us by staff and and by planning commission.

So if we find that it's not quite 100% there, there's something else that we in our in our discussion tonight or deliver to deliberations tonight want to maybe just tweak, or maybe we want to add something.

We can always discuss a potential condition.

So uh not as good as an answer as our mayor, but that's great, buddy.

I tried.

Can I ask a question on that?

Um Ms.

Mayor.

Yeah, of course.

Um so conditions though are on the sp on the site plan architectural review specifically, right?

On the on the special use review.

It either passes or it does.

Yeah, we can't condition the special use review, right?

That's a good question.

Mayor, can I address that?

Of course.

Um with respect to special uses, those are typically designated special uses because they may require additional conditions to make them appropriate in a or to help them be more appropriate in a certain area.

Um they're also called conditional uses in other municipalities.

Um conditions are appropriate for a special use to the extent they further uh further the application's um compliance with the criteria in the code and further mitigate any adverse impacts.

Now, an application can also come to you uh from the applicant with design um elements that already strive to address those potential external impacts.

Um and the applicant had done some of that prior to planning commission review and has done a few more things between planning commission review and tonight.

Um to the extent council uh can tie a um condition to furthering one of your criteria to ensure that it's compatible.

Um that could be appropriate.

But yeah, I would want you to tie it to uh to one of these specific criteria and say why it helps further the satisfaction of that criteria.

Um and you can look at those conditions again if that would be helpful and see if you do agree with those conditions and that they carry it out.

So it's so I would need to see the conditions again to tell you whether they're specific to the SPAR or the special use review, but uh they're driven from that.

Conditions can be appropriate.

Fair enough.

Councillor Gallegos?

Yes.

Um so I'm looking specifically at the criteria, and I'm struggling with two, three, and four.

So one based on today's zoning code, yes, it does meet M1 zoning.

But as far as community character and environmental impacts and compatibility with the comp plan, I'm thinking specifically of economic vitality, which has come up a couple of times in public comment.

So currently that space, there's nothing there.

And compared to zero, two to three jobs is still something, and it is still going to bring in tax revenue.

I'm not gonna meet my friend for coffee at the storage unit, but maybe I could find a way to meet my friends and bring my storage in together and make a day out of it and try to build community that way.

So a couple of the people who spoke asked to have a more graduated transition where it was lower uh building height near um Anna's farm, and then it's that it and they said they had talked with the developer about that, and it wasn't something they wanted to do.

Is that even possible to do uh the a building like this?

So maybe only a portion of the third floor was the full height, you know, uh, and it would be closer to Annards Farm, it would be uh a little bit shorter.

Is uh Director Williams, is that an option or is that not?

Um I think I'm not an expert in self-storage facilities, but I would assume that that's an option.

So you think it could be done?

Yeah.

Well we can also open it back up to the applicant to ask questions if he wants specific answers as to their appetite for such a change.

So well, uh if I could jump in.

Yeah, but this is this comes up in the comprehensive plan as a big portion of the relationship between neighboring uses, right?

It talks about transitions from one development to the next so that you're compatible.

Um I think the example that they give is a graduated height, absolutely.

Um so you know again, the weighing of this, as you said earlier, Councilor Jensen, there are some things where I can check the boxes for the comp plan and some things where I give it an X, give it a zero.

One of the things I'm struggling with is in the applicant's own criteria for meeting the companies they gave aspects around sustainability, and I'm just not convinced by some of those sustainable design features as really meeting the sustainability criteria of the comp plan or kind of Lafayette's goals generally.

And you know, I I think you asked questions about the type of HVAC as one example, and gave them every opportunity to say this is going to be highly efficient, it's going to be set to to you know mitigate, you know, the the energy use didn't come up in the discussion.

There was there's uh opportunity for energy efficiency and design elements that just we we didn't hear.

I think the uh things that we did hear, I just didn't find um really all that meaningful as far as sustainability features.

And I'm trying to talk while I pull it up.

But sustainable building practices for new designs.

They said they met that, but I don't know.

What would that mean, uh, Councilor Genoa?

Meaningful sustainable.

I mean, to me, the meaningful sustainable building practices are things like you know, the lead certification type, you know, high energy efficiency, energy efficiency in lighting.

Um I just wanted to offer that um those types of issues are implemented from the comprehensive plan through our building code.

Um so keep that in mind, and Mafia is ahead of the curve on a lot of things in our building code and is about to make another jump forward um this fall with our building code, which we have a new one under review right now.

Um but just know that those things are not things you could uh you could those aren't regulations that apply in the special use review or or site plan context, but they are enforceable standards that we have in our building code in terms of uh what Lafayette has legislatively adopted to achieve those sustainability goals.

So know that those are already partially implemented through our building code, if not fully implemented, I would need the building official here to appreciate it.

Yeah, I mean the the that to say that you meet it, this is the hard part for me.

To say that you meet it without giving any of those examples, that's where I struggle.

You know, and I just don't I I don't understand that you're saying this, but I didn't see those examples come through.

If that's the example of how you're meeting the comp plan, yeah.

I need more, right?

I that that to me is an X, not a check without those examples.

Any other thoughts on council before I start kind of pushing us toward a decision here?

Because we're we're eventually gonna have to decide.

Council Friends.

I do feel like we've had kind of a high-level conversation, so I do feel like if you're open to it, it might be appropriate to go to each criteria one by one.

Yeah, I just want to see if there's any higher level.

Yeah, Councilor Jensen.

So, you know, I'm a big fan of Sister Carmen and all that they do, and I'm grateful for them engaging with us.

But it's interesting to me that what Sister Carmen might need and want is gonna be kind of really different from the community that and the city, you know, they don't want very much traffic.

You know, they want it to be peaceful, and the community might want somebody mentioned a sports bar.

I'm not saying I I would, but you know, that might be what they want, and they might want you know something fun that they would enjoy, you know, walking over to in their neighborhood.

And I can see where there's a conflict.

This is again goes back to all the different things that conflict uh what Sister Carmen might need and want versus what the the the neighbors and I think uh represent representative out.

Counselor Boyer was talking about um, I forgot.

I just lost my train of thought.

Um multiple things are true.

I'll I'll pass.

I've forgotten what I was gonna say.

Um, but I I do think there's still many ways that this could go either way, and I do think having had storage units myself, and I have a good friend who is an organizer, and what she does is help people clean out their storage units, and the stuff she tells me about what is often in the storage units makes me think there is potential for adverse, and I know I'm not supposed to consider that now, but it's part of who I am.

But I know that the applicant said they meet things like um, you know, the lighting code and the dust and the noise, but I don't think those are the only environmental impacts that this might have.

I think there are others.

And the thing I struggle with is the environmental impacts are supposed to be tied to the use, not the site plan.

So the use as self-storage.

Right.

The environmental impacts of self-storage as a use to me are different than the environmental impacts of a three-story building that's X feet away from a sound wall of a neighboring development.

That's right.

And I think we're supposed to consider for the criteria here, the environmental impacts of the use of self-storage as the use.

Is that right?

City attorney.

That is correct, and the impacts of the use can be addressed through the site plan.

That's why these tend to go together.

So you can think about the site plan and how it addresses what council sees as evidence in the record of an environmental impact.

So you you should also consider the site plan in that.

Right.

And I guess where I struggle is let's imagine that we had a different use in front of us, one that was not a special use.

And we had a site plan that was the same shape building with the same setback with the same, and so we're no longer considering the potential for adverse impacts under the special use criteria.

Now we're considering it under the site plan, which I think does include the same set of criteria.

It is a different set of criteria.

That is inclusive of some of these criteria, I believe.

It say that again, it's not a what it's not.

Some of the site plan criteria are inclusive of some of these criteria, or I I'm not as familiar with this site plan criteria as I am with the special use, given that this is up on the screen right now.

One thing I wanted to say, and as I was looking at the comprehensive plan, when you get into policies and strategies, there are some of these that this project supports and some that it doesn't.

But when you get into the principles that are in the comm plan, it's clear to me that this project doesn't really jive with the principles.

With regard to some of the specifics, you could disagree.

But the principles of sort of the the land use framework that you know we hope to see in the future, and as counselor Fridlin said, um, you know, we're in this hard place between these principles stated in the comp plan and the code that we have to deal with right now.

Um but but the principles of the complan as I see it.

Um I'm not sure this meets the principles.

Okay, I'm hearing things that are specific to some criteria, so let's just start breaking it down one by one.

I think that's uh most that's the best thing we can do at the moment.

So let's start with number one, uh, which is compliance with the Lafayette zoning code.

Um I think I'm gonna just run through these because I think we all kind of know what we're talking about, at least to a certain extent, and just I want to know if you'd like to start discussion, if you disagree, whatever it is uh you kind of want to bring up.

Uh we're just gonna go one by one.

So for the first one, compliance with the Lafayette zoning code.

Appears to me.

I think yes, but I would like to see if we could do a graduated um setback on or graduated height differential that uh if it were to go forward would uh closer to Anna's farm would be lower height, and then it would get taller further away.

I uh that's in mitigation measures, is that maybe where that should be?

Yeah, um Mr.

Mayor, I see criteria number one is the strongest for the applicant.

Um and I guess I'll we'll come back to those.

Maybe you a question that floats in my head is let's say there's very expensive, like they go five feet deeper.

I don't know that that five foot reduction would address many of the concerns that we heard from the public.

Um maybe slightly, but I I think for criterion number one, that's a the applicant's done a very good job meeting those.

And exceeding does anyone disagree.

Uh seems relatively straightforward.

Um let's move on to a number two, uh, which is uh the compatibility of the proposal character of the surrounding area.

Any thoughts from counsel on this one?

Yes.

Amen.

I do have thoughts on this.

I think this is one of the it's a ch this is a challenging one, I think, for the proposal.

Um, I think we heard a lot about height.

Um, this is going to be taller than I I believe all other uses in the M1 zone.

It appears that it's going to be taller in terms of elevation, obviously because of grade and all these things, but um then you know the the regional business to the east and certainly taller than the residential uh to the west.

And so compatibility with the surrounding area, I think that is a challenge for this proposal.

Um compatibility with the character, you know, I think if you look around that area, it's not you know directly to the north, directly to the south, these are not you know, these massive sort of boxes, right?

They're very different sort of architecture and um and look and feel.

Um so I I do think this is definitely a challenge.

Um there are mitigation measures that I think do try to address some of the specific impacts, and I think we'll talk about some of those in five, but you know, uh and those are you know, trying to address those challenges, you know, but but screening a use from the view doesn't make something compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

In fact, the fact that it needs to be screened, I think sort of concedes the point that it's not necessarily compatible with the surrounding areas.

So um I think this one's really challenging to say that uh it meets the criteria.

I think it I I'm not I don't at this point I don't believe that it does for this for this criteria.

Uh just before I turn, can you just make clear why you believe it does not?

So as just for our city attorney uh and for just for council.

Um I feel like it is it is certainly higher than the the surrounding areas that currently exist.

So that's one incompatibility.

Um it um it is you know, I think the character and design is significantly different than the directly adjacent properties, certainly, um and other properties in the in the district and certainly to the residential um adjacent uh districts.

Uh counselor Fridling, can you point to something that was in the record tonight about the surrounding um the surrounding buildings that that you're saying it's not sure similar in character and real quick before you um do that?

I uh you know this is this height is allowed on this property.

And um I so anyway, I just if if there's something in the record that you can point to that about the surrounding buildings that shows this is to go to your point about the character of this building and this use with those.

Yep, I'm trying to pull up the packing out refresh, so give me one second.

Um I mean I think in terms of specific height, right?

We've talked about that in number one, right?

It meets the height requirement in the code.

Yep.

Okay, right?

So I'm not saying that it doesn't meet the height requirement of the code.

What I'm saying though is this would be the highest property in the in the district on that street.

Um certainly higher than the residents to the west, and uh because of grading the the regional business to the to the east.

In terms of character, um I mean we have quite a few renderings, we have quite a few pictures, right, of the of the character of the buildings to the north and south are are different.

Um I don't know how we define compatibility necessarily.

I would be interested if we have that in the in the in the code, but to in my mind that leads to at least a question of is this compatible with the character of the surrounding area?

Can I jump in?

Was that sufficient?

I I I could use a little more on the buildings to the north and south, um, what you meant by the character of those buildings.

I mean the the architectural character, first of all, also their uses are very different in terms of their commercial uses, right?

Um job creation, activity, you know, one is I guess a manufacturing facility and one is a community serving, you know, drop-off and uh community donation facility.

So they're very different in terms of character.

And and um can you articulate what's incompatible about those uses with this use?

What's our definition of compatibility?

Sorry, say that again.

That's what is the definition of compatibility in our code?

Uh is it defined?

That they don't conflict with each other or interfere with each other, or that they they I'm I'm defining it in the negative, you know, it would be incompatible if the uses would conflict with each other, interfere with each other, prevent the appropriate use of the others, um, or prevent the appropriate use of this site.

Um planning staff has more than I have on that right now.

But does it does it get along with, right?

Is it is it a use that is um compatible with it?

Doesn't necessarily need to be synergistic, but is it is it somehow interfering?

I'm so sorry, I'm struggling with this.

Yeah.

Why are we only focusing on the north-south axis of compatibility?

Because I can hit the homes immediately to the west with a baseball.

Like I I can throw and hit a house.

So that also counts as surrounding area for compatibility.

And I, as we've heard it throughout the record public hearing testimony, this is perceived as incompatible by the immediate western located properties.

Um I take some of Councillor Fridlum's points in terms of north-south, but I think by definition it's incompatible with the immediate to the west property.

And they have kind of a cottage style of uh architecture, and this given that it's industrial zoning is an industrial facility, which is not compatible with that cottage style architecture, and it's by its very nature.

I I do think that I remember the other thing I was gonna say that there is this conflict in that this was zoned industrial before they moved in, and they had lots of information that it was zoned industrial, as I understand it, but there is an inherent non-compatibility between you know a neighborhood and industry.

It just is.

And and so from David, from your point of view, I I think I agree with you that the character, just the essential character when you have two different kinds of zoning right next to each other, and not enough space to do a real good buffer, um, then they're not they're not compatible.

I'm gonna try to jump in here because I I just want to be clear and and we are quasi-judicial, which is why I I'm making it as clear as possible for our city attorney.

And the questions that I ask.

I think I understand where you're coming from, Council Friddlem.

I just I also understand the zoning is industrial and the zoning to the west.

Um residential, you know, of course I'm trying to just get to the to the point, if you will, of why you believe this is a denial or this would uh fall under not complying with the criteria.

And I I just want to come back to that question, and what I hear is is too high.

It's it's too tall for what's immediately to the west.

However, basing just off of the information we've gotten tonight, it seems as though that is not true.

The evidence tonight that we saw on record shows that because of the grading, the height of the building is compatible with the height of the building to the west because of the different grading.

Because of because of where they sit.

So I just want to make sure because we can go back to the to the slides.

Um at the top of those buildings, uh actually we could pull the slides back up.

So I I just want to circle back to that and hear from you directly as to why this wouldn't meet the criteria and how too tall wouldn't necessarily be the criteria that you are using to deny them.

So I didn't say denial.

Okay.

Well, you you did say it didn't meet the criteria, so I just want to I just want to be clear with that.

Number two that we're talking about.

Yeah, that specific criteria.

I was saying that it doesn't feel to me like it's compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, which is what it says on the slide, right?

And so, as we've discovered, right, like there's fairly similar heights, very similar architecture in the in the M1, in the M1 zone.

And this is different, quite different, and thus uh I I think that at least begs the question of is it compatible?

Pending definition of compatible.

Because if compatible, as I think we were starting to find it, is it doesn't allow that use next to it, then what are we doing here, right?

Like that's gonna be a really, really high bar.

So I do think we need to answer that.

But to your question, the height is certainly a part of it where we are potentially approving the highest point in this district next to a residential area and in an area that we've talked about stepping up.

And so there are implications further to the west for the residential properties, and implications further to the east, because now we've set a precedent of graduating heights in a transit corridor that then starts to go up and up and up.

So I think that's why I feel like where it is now, it feels incompatible with the character of the surrounding areas because of that height difference.

So specifically just based on that height and the compatibility with the all sides.

I'm hearing north, south, also west.

Well, certainly west.

North and south, less so, I think, right?

Change that view at all.

Say that again.

What we're looking at, does that change your view of anything at all?

Being that we are seeing what's immediately west.

Um yes, uh, we could pull up the pictures uh that the renderings from the applicant of the view from the driveway, the view from the screening wall.

Um, that when that screening wall was put in place, it was envisioned what existed there, right?

Um, and what potentially would be compatible with those current uses, and that's why they built it to that certain height.

And so now coming in, and this is something that's significantly higher than that, and thus the screening wall is no longer effective to screen that use, um that it that does mean something to me, yes, absolutely.

Okay.

And it's not just this one slide that's in the record, right?

We have a number of rendering course resources.

I just but this is the one that kind of showed us the West, so I just want to make that clear.

There's quite a few that show the West, but yeah.

I appreciate it.

To be clear.

Um with this, the second uh uh criteria.

Is there any other is there any other um things here?

Any other thoughts here, any other questions here that counselor Ginotto?

Yeah, I I still struggle with this and the mix between the building envelope and the use.

And that's where I struggle.

Um the use itself to me seems compatible.

It's allowed, or I won't say it's allowed.

This use already exists in this zone district.

We have another storage facility, not quite across the street, but you know, half a block away.

Um the use itself, not taking into consideration the building.

If let's say we had a use of a storage facility that was one story high, I don't think we would be having this same kind of discussion.

We would say the use is compatible, right?

The use.

The use as a special use evaluation, we're gonna say you're allowed to have this use by we're gonna give you this right without kind of taking into consideration the building envelope.

This is where I struggle is how do I weigh the site plan and the actual the use in absence of the site plan?

Because to me, I think that we this is the way I'm interpreting the code, is we're evaluating the use, and then we can use the the site plans mitigating factors against things that might not be a compatibility to the use.

And I just struggle because I can't see that the use as a self-storage facility is incompatible with the surrounding area, uh the commercial to the east uh M1 industrial to the north, and one you know, community resource center to the south, and to the west uh uh residential use, self-storage, it doesn't necessarily conflict.

Can I jump in real quick?

Yeah.

So I I'm really interested in human terrain as a thing, and so in terms of the surrounding area, there's like a few thousand people, maybe a couple thousand people who leave live immediately to the west of uh of the site, and I think they have character, um, some of them.

And so I think that I don't I guess I'm not understanding why we're focused on the north-south access and the east that's important, but I'm really thinking of this this neighborhood exists.

It has character, it's established, it's been around for a while.

I stipulate that it came after the zoning, again, number one criterion, yep.

But I I I don't see this as compatible with the character of their thousand plus neighbors.

I don't see that as compatible.

Can you say more?

Can you explain why?

What is incompatible?

It's the same question the mayor asked.

Councilor Friedman.

Thanks for jumping in.

That was my next question.

Well, it's like how why are water and oil incompatible?

It's a storage center, I think a very well-designed one, very thoughtful, et cetera.

But we're talking about a quiet residential neighborhood of mostly two-story houses that has character.

That is a distinct character from an industrial facility 50, 60 feet away with a significant amount of traffic, people dropping things up.

Those are just different characters.

I guess I'm struggling to articulate it.

It's just because those are very different uses.

It was a great neighbor.

I know that's not relevant to this discussion, but it was a great neighbor considering some of the other neighbors I had.

But like they're incompatible with a quiet residential neighborhood.

I think by definition.

One of the other things that someone spoke to in uh were the blocking of sunlight in that neighborhood.

And I think that's an issue in terms of compatibility and um sky, you know, and so that that I you know, you want to be able to see something outside your window besides concrete.

And so that's an area where I would say it isn't compatible.

Is that a problem because of the height, Counselor?

Sure.

So it's short, if as uh uh I think Councilor Gianola was saying if it's one story, it wouldn't be blocking the sunlight in the sky for people.

Okay.

Anything else on on this on this particular criteria.

I guess I would pivot the question back to you, Mr.

Mayor.

How is this compatible considering the tremendous uh weighing in from the public that that they again we all would stipulate they have character that comprise the neighborhood to the west.

How is this compatible with them?

So that's that's a good question, and I think it's framed if I can push back a little bit correctly.

I don't think it's necessarily how this is compatible with just the residents to the west.

I think we have to look at this as objectively as we can and as comprehensively as we can in a quasi-judicial way.

And we it is M1 zoning.

It is zoned the same to the east and or sorry, to the north and to the south.

Uh just looking at what has been said, you know, the height is allowed through the zoning and what is currently allowed through through our um planning and building.

So I I don't necessarily think I would say that I think it's fully compatible.

I think that's kind of a spectrum, if you will.

But uh like many have said, however, I think asking the question, how is it compatible with the West and the residents that live there is is a difficult question to answer because well that's not necessarily what we're what we're hoping to answer.

We have to look at things comprehensively.

And for me the question here is more towards the zoning code, right?

Um I I understand a lot of the things that are being said, but they're more geared toward that first criteria here.

When I when I look at the proposal of the character and surrounding area, yes, I want to take the West into account when I do that, but as we've also heard, the M1 zoning was there long before any residential was there.

Um I think the applicants have done a good job.

This has been a three-year process.

Uh I think the applicants have done a good job to create as much.

I mean, you can't create a perfect barrier, you can't create a perfect kind of kind of uh transition zone, but I think they've done as good of a job um to try to make that as compatible as you can.

So that's kind of how I would answer that question.

I know it's not a perfect answer, but uh just it's hard for me to say it's incompatible when I can't find a specific part of the criteria that was in our record that would make it incompatible for me.

If I can add to that, the city attorney was saying that giving us an examples of it.

Uh things that were incompatible.

If we look at compatible.

I'm not gonna do this here.

Yeah, yeah.

So if you look at relationships, it's compatibility, right, right?

Are you gonna get along?

Are you gonna like work together?

Um I I'm trying to give an example.

Like you wouldn't want to put a cement factory next to a you can't just do that.

Okay, sorry.

You wouldn't put a cement factory next to a water plant.

A water sprinkler plant.

A daycare.

Daycare.

Daycare.

Yeah.

So I mean if we're we're trying to work out uses compatible uses.

So there are some things that don't work next to one another.

I mean, if that that might help with understanding, like we have documentation from sister carbon.

We don't have documentation from the other side.

We do have documentation and public testimony from the third side and then the four strides of the street with nothing over there yet.

But there could be something over there in the future with different zoning codes.

So if we look at how does this how does this play out in the future with the new land use code?

That might help put it into perspective.

Mr.

Mayor Putum had respond very briefly.

I love the analogy.

And I'm kind of seized on this with the character of the surrounding area, and I completely agree with the mayor that it's not just the West.

It's it's the entire cardinal direction.

But to take your analogy further, this feels a little bit like imposing an arranged marriage on a couple that maybe one party is very interested in the marriage and the other is absolutely not.

So I think that's relevant.

I'm not saying that's a deciding factor, but it is relevant since we're going boom boom boom down the list.

And again, I I completely agree.

Criterion number one knocked it out of the park.

For me, criterion number two, I don't see it.

But I appreciate a piece of the Council Fridolin's list.

Um, I think when you consider that zone, right?

That corridor, it's not these like big box warehouses, right?

One after the other, too.

So I think we've I think others have talked about the residential incompatibility, which is challenged, but I think even in this corridor, it's challenging for it to be compatible because it's not these big box pieces, right?

Which this development as proposed is a really big uh illuminated um you know uh project, self-storage box.

So um, you know, with not many windows and all these types of things.

And so, you know, I I I think to me too, to think of it as a whole, I think we've talked about but that's the north-south orientation is still to me a little challenging for that reason too.

Okay.

Anyone else on this?

Uh we have three more to go, so just on special use.

Anyone else on number two?

Great.

Let's move on uh to the third.

The potential for adverse environment impacts.

Anyone want to jump in here?

I have a question about that one.

Are there specific environmental impacts we're supposed to be considering just the ones that uh I think were highlighted in the uh compliment talks about traffic noise light pollution, those kind of things, or can we consider um the universe of environmental impacts City Attorney, please jump in?

Some guidance for council on that one.

Um it's uh environmental and in this context is looking at impacts on the immediate environment or the surrounding environment, um, not in the earth-day sense that you talked about earlier.

Okay, but uh it is uh environmental impacts on the environment.

So it is generally things like traffic noise, light, dust uh activity, even uh so those types of environmental impacts that could result from the use.

Okay, yeah.

I think I already said that I personally believe there will be some adverse environmental impacts in terms of people leaving things in their storage shed that um cause a problem, and some of whether or not that can be mitigated is up to management.

You know, how how well do they police what's in their units and when somebody leaves you know a unit and it's a dump, how long before they get somebody there to clean it?

You know, and I I don't have good answers to those questions right now, so I think there's potential, but they also could be mitigated by good management practices.

Um and it's interesting to hear that they don't have any like recycling bins or you know, even trash bins, um, which you would think I would think anyway, somebody who's cleaning out a storage shed would really want and their practices to do the opposite of that, and which I think will lend itself to people not disposing properly of their stuff.

There wouldn't be the need for the sound barrier wall if they weren't anticipating some sound pollution.

I do appreciate the amendment of the lights facing down but there still is the possibility of a glowing sign obstructing views.

I was just gonna ask if the city attorney would uh comment on the screening um and uh just in general um excuse me when there's a development in question um if I can get this up there are there triggers uh to determine whether or not screening is something that's used in every development uh project and what what generally might that be thinking are there triggers for whether screening is required yes and it those are I think those are primarily addressed in our um site plan and architectural review criteria know that we also I believe in the planning director should definitely correct me if I'm wrong I believe we have specific screening requirements for things like um waste containers uh I that's all okay um I guess I'd clarify that the sound wall is built as part of Anna's farm development so it's not part of uh this proposal it's not directly related based off of a noise impact that we identified was going to occur here um so the and then the screening like for a building of this size like landscape is traditionally you know introduced in order to soften some of that massing impact so and that's included here as well does that answer your questions well no okay but thank you you you gave me the way to ask the five the the actual and the question I needed to ask the screening that is the wall the the the fence that goes along that way when was it there before Anna's farm was built?

No.

So it was specifically farm yeah.

So this was to screen Anna's farm from everything that we used to help buffer the proposed residential from the existing industrial.

Along the whole Anna's farm.

Yes.

And will we do and I'm assuming that might continue if there were developments if we're both there.

We could pull up aerial or something but the uh it I don't know that there's anywhere for it to continue that it doesn't exist already there's gaps because there's a road connection um just like two blocks or a block north of here so there's a right-of-way connection that connects Annus farm to um Aspen Ridge um and that obviously doesn't have a wall but uh otherwise there's a wall along the residential portion of the development it is a as I understand it it's looks more like a uh residential fence with some foam in between it's not a sound wall that I've ever seen before but that's what was built as part of the Annus farm development.

So yes that that answers the question Councilor Gian O I mean the environmental impacts if we're saying that is not necessarily the Earth day environment but it's you know the the ability to impact the surrounding area and just environmentally right and so again I I struggle I struggle here.

You know we have this tall building that is adjacent to some one story homes.

I mean it's not directly adjacent as far as I understand but they're not you know they're they're within the shadow let's say of the morning sun of these uh one story buildings we've got a photo that we've got in the packet that was provided um with the public testimony and the the impact is significant in that case right of the building and I I the balance here for me as it has been through the review of the site special use review criteria is the adverse environmental impacts of the use of self-storage as a use versus the building envelope as a three-story not special use M1 permitted by right building that environmental impact of a three story building regardless of the use is present but the use specifically as self-storage I think is neither here

And I the balance here for me, as it has been through the review of the site special use review criteria is the adverse environmental impacts of the use of self-storage as a use versus the building envelope as a three-story not special use M1 permitted by right building.

That environmental impact of a three-story building, regardless of the use is present.

But the use specifically as self-storage, I think is neither here nor there.

It doesn't weigh in favor of that type of environmental impact.

It's more the building.

And so again, I think of well, if this was a one-story building of a self-storage facility, I've got to keep all my words correct.

One story building of a self-storage facility, those environmental impacts aren't present.

And so to me, that tells me that it's not the use per se that gives an environmental impact.

It's the building envelope, it's the building mass, it's the site plan that gives the impact.

So for me, I I struggle because I want to say there's there's absolutely an adverse environmental impact from this proposal on the neighboring community.

But it's not because of the use.

But the use itself.

I struggle to say that it's not giving that environmental impact.

And I don't want to know what environmental impact self-storage could give.

And that's why I again struggle.

It's like, why is this a special use?

Wouldn't it be a use by right if this criteria didn't mean anything?

But the criteria has to mean something.

So what does it mean to provide an adverse environmental impact?

And I don't know the answer to that.

Counselor Bullier.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I feel like the applicant's done a very good job on this one through attempts to mitigate.

Uh and to Councillor Gianot's point, um, and I'll defer to our city attorney, but I interpret this as something dramatic for lack of a better word, right?

Adverse being the key word for me there.

So to your example earlier, the cement plant, right?

Or a glue factory.

So I'm thinking like those have adverse environmental impacts.

I could quibble and pick on well, there's going to be cars coming and going to the facility, there's we're paving what's currently essentially a green field, and then there's going to be heat trapped by the asphalt, but I don't think that would be fair criteria to apply.

I don't think that counts as adverse because this is not open space.

This is not a park.

Um it is to be developed at some point.

It is currently industrially zoned.

So I I commend the applicant for trying to both be responsive to feedback they've gotten uh throughout this process from city staff as well as the planning commission.

And then I I also my read, and I could be wrong, but my read is that if we were to request things to address point three here, I think they that were reasonable.

I think they would be pretty responsive.

That's my read.

I'll jump in next because I want to echo the the thoughts of Council Billier.

And I this is the part where I certainly agree with the conditions that were brought forth in the recommendation from the planning commission uh for indoor and exterior lighting be dimmed to 50% after business hours.

So I just to echo the thoughts of the counselor.

I think I think the applicants done a commendable job in taking the input and kind of working towards solution here.

Anyone else on this particular criteria?

Great.

Moving on to the fourth, uh, the compatibility of a proposed use and site plan with a comprehensive plan.

Counselor Johnson, I'm gonna turn to you.

I feel like we've talked about the comprehensive plan a few times tonight.

Do you want to go ahead and start this one?

Well, for me, the uh the biggest issue is sort of as I mentioned the principles in the comprehensive plan of um more walkable, more neighborhood uh use-friendly neighborhoods that uh are connected to neighborhood-based services.

And I feel like this misses the mark just by its very nature, not because the applicant has done anything wrong, you know, in and they have really tried to address the issues that have been brought up.

But it's not something somebody would walk to from the neighborhood, you know, and and that is what I see as um part of the comp plan.

And I don't think also the economic benefit to the city is all that great.

I I'm it says here in the comp plan a typical goal of any community is to diversify diversify its employment and tax bases to mitigate the impacts of economic downturn to provide employment and economic opportunities across a broad range of fields and industries.

And you know, we have a storage facility just down the way, and um it doesn't feel like it achieves that in the economic sector as well as the more sort of one of the things that talks about in the plan is not wanting to look like a cookie cutter of any other city and to support our diverse sort of eclectic artsy uh lafayettes, and this is not that, you know, uh in my opinion.

So I I would say my uh overall compatibility, and not just any one or two criteria, but just the theme of the comp plan is missing here.

So I'm actually going to turn to our city attorney here uh because I remember the the term being used was holistically, and I want to just kind of remind council how we're supposed to be viewing the comp plan specifically under this uh criteria and under this application.

Absolutely.

So again, the comp plan is advisory, not binding.

Um it specifically says that it is not intended to be used as a language in front of me.

Um it is not intended.

This is direct language from the comprehensive plan.

Uh it is quote, not intended to provide legal review criteria for specific development proposals.

Um in the legal advice I provided counsel over the weekend, I did refer to a couple of uh appellate cases from Colorado from Colorado in which the courts have looked at special use reviews and uh where there were references to similar criteria and criteria and like consistency or compatibility with the comprehensive plan in the courts will uh uphold the decision to approve a special use when you're considering a criteria like that if you're applying it holistically and not applying it as a legally um binding regulation that hasn't been adopted in the code.

So it's it's just you can look at whether this you know our criterion says um compatibility of the proposed use and the site plan because you are looking at the whole proposal proposed use and the site plan with the comprehensive plan.

Um so you can look at the comprehensive plan holistically and make a a finding on whether this um is on the whole or whether this is compatible on the on the whole or you know broadly with the comp plan.

Um you're citing specific criteria or specific, I'm sorry, specific principles in the comp plan, um, and I would encourage council to continue to discuss those.

Um but I um I would caution council that using uh the comprehensive plan as a whole.

Um you make your findings this is this is a tough one.

Um when you make your findings on this criterion, continue to talk about whether it would further the purposes and the goals of the comp plan or frustrate and prevent um the purposes of the comp plan as a whole.

Um but but in trying to build the case, should there be a lawsuit on this, you probably want us to cite specific pieces of the comp plan if we think it disagrees with it instead of just saying we don't think it supports it as a whole.

I mean, do you need the specifics or do you just keep it?

I if you're going to look to the comp plan as a whole, I would also focus on this part of town in the comp plan and what applies there as opposed to picking out the broad six uh guiding principles at the front end of the comp plan, right?

Um and then I have to remind council those particular, you know, none of these particular provisions have been adopted as binding land use regulations on this property.

And so you are still, in spite of or in addition to this criteria, you're still bound by the current zoning.

You're still bound by the current criteria, and you're still bound by the site plan criteria that you that you do need to consider.

But you have the zoning in one, and then you have compatibility of the proposed use of the site plan with the comprehensive plan.

And so it's like you're trying to tell us to do two things that are the opposite.

Um that's what I feel like.

Um and it goes back to David's initial conversation about the rock and the hard place we're in.

Yes.

And I I do want to acknowledge that you are close to adoption of a new code that will more specifically implement the comprehensive plan, and at the same time, you're you're making a decision in a quasi-judicial role under our current code.

And and I I do recognize that as difficult.

It's it's particularly difficult because of the timing in this case.

Um but it is still your role to consider our current code as you make the decision to make it.

And also the current comp plan.

Yep.

Yeah.

Yes, compatibility with the comp plan as you consider the current code, right?

Right.

Yeah.

Mr.

Mayor, as we're talking about this item number four, I just want to correct the record a little bit based on something I said earlier.

Um I pointed out the sustainable building practice and said that I didn't see it, and now I'm looking at my notes again, and I have a note that the applicant did say that you know they support sustainable building practices by using durable materials.

And so I I forgot that they said that.

And I just wanted to put that on the record that that was the one of the sustainable building practices that they said in support of that element of the comp.

I don't still I'm still not convinced by that element as supporting the comp plan, durable materials.

Um so I don't know that it changes how I feel, but I just wanted to put out there that there was a statement of support of that element in the applicants uh that I maybe mischaracterized earlier.

Any other members of council or uh councilor Fribland, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I I want to echo some of what uh counselor Jensen was saying.

I think it really comes down to community character, right, in the comp plan, which is um you know, which is stated throughout, right?

Our vision statement, right?

Creative, eclectic, inclusive, diverse, welcoming public spaces, unique neighborhoods, diversified and strong economy economy, meaningful connections within our community, right?

That's one place vision statement.

Um strengthen and build unique neighborhoods, right?

We've got a community character guiding principle, um the community engagement things that are in community engagement pieces that are called out in the comp plan, I think, um, further to sort of support this holistic uh view of the comp plan.

Um we also have right adaptable commercial is discussed for this area.

Obviously, it's not in the zoning code, but it is called out on the comp plan.

And you know, that's sort of like urban design principles of walkability and mixed use and things like that.

Um I I think all comes to a place where this is a challenging one for the for the use and for the proposal.

Um, I think compatibility again, definition is hard, right?

Like what is compatibility with the comp plan even mean?

Um however, I think there are um more strikes against uh than there are for in terms of compatibility with the comp plan at this point.

I would agree with that.

Um other thoughts on this one before we move on to the last of the of these five.

Council Garrett's.

I had mentioned earlier about strong economy or economic vitality, how it is bringing in tax revenue, and it is bringing in some jobs.

So this has been vacant for such a long time, I think that addition is a positive.

That's a good point.

Thank you.

Uh I wonder if there are you know conditions that we could put in place that might enhance the compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

You know, we've got this big, I'll call it a big blank canvas on a building that doesn't have a mural on it in the in the photos, but could be an interesting uh mitigating factor that you know Lafayette loves their murals just throwing that out there as a uh as an eclectic and silly thing for Lafayette that you know we don't ever see that on a uh often on a uh a site plan, but I it it's not up to me, it's up to the applicant to throw those kinds of things in.

City attorney.

It's late, so I'm sorry I'm not as articulate as I could be.

Um but I do want to encourage council to remember that as you implement your comp plan and with the comp plan now, it cannot and probably will it it cannot be implemented in every way on every property in every zone district in the city, right?

And you will have different uses and different developments still coming into the city.

You'll have redevelopments in the city that cannot all be artsy or employ hundreds of people or you know the there's it's I would caution you not to apply every provision of the comprehensive plan on this development proposal because you can't do it on every development proposal.

It's so it's this is why I get it's difficult.

There is some subjectivity here in these criteria.

There's I should say there's more, there's there's discretion in these criteria.

Um but you have an application in front of you.

It is the one that is in front of you.

It is the one you have to consider tonight, is the one you have to consider under our current code, not not the code that uh that you may wish we have you or you again, like judges have to apply the existing law.

Um again, you should be considering this.

You should be considering this criteria and you should be considering the comprehensive plan.

But look at it in a way that you have to recognize not everything can apply to every property in every development that comes into the city or is redeveloped in the city.

So can I push back and just say, well, some of the things have to apply to every development in order to comply with the comp plan.

It's not that every development has to come has to comply with every single element, but every development has to comply with something in the comp plan in order to be compatible with the comp plan.

As you implement it, yes.

Yeah.

Any further thoughts on this one?

I I do, but I can't articulate them.

I I don't have a good feel for this.

I think as our discussion earlier, I feel like there's things of the comp plan that the proposed use in site plan support, and there's other parts of the complan that it doesn't support.

I am I'm struggling.

So a way to help counsel with that is is look on the whole of this application and what you've heard in the record this evening in terms of compliance or I'm sorry, compatibility with the comp plan versus things you've heard that you believe is reliable competent evidence to the contrary.

Um look at both.

And so uh and then make a decision on the whole.

You will have some of these criteria, and any land use application has this where you're going to have where you'd have to actually have to exercise your discretion and look at everything you've heard and make a decision.

But you cannot, you know, you have to have evidence to rest that on.

Yeah, and and I'll just echo, you know, some of the things that the applicant said of strategic infill.

I mean, here it is.

Here's an undeveloped parcel that has been sitting vacant with no use, no contribution to the community, maybe other than a prairie dog.

Yeah, and that to some people that's a uh a valuable use.

Um but I do think strategic infill is something that I've stressed on the comp plan as you know, we should be really trying to promote that as a way to use the the vacant parcels in Lafayette efficiently.

And here is a plan that gives it a use.

Can I ask a question?

Uh it is my understanding, I think I read in much some place in all the materials, that this is the only industrial residential interface in our city.

And and so that is one of the things I think makes this really unique, is the the needs of the businesses in that what black diamond area are really different than the needs of the neighbors.

And so you could pick out the pieces of the comp plan, and I think you have a really good one, which is an in-bill development on a piece of property that isn't doing anything right now.

Um but that what makes this unique is the neighbor interface.

And so I I was sort of focusing on the neighbor interface pieces of the comp plan in general, and I feel like it doesn't achieve those.

If this was industrial, like on the edge of town, those other elements of the comp plan, I think it would make sense.

But this neighborhood industrial interface is the challenge.

I hear you.

I think I think it's that's yeah, it's a difficult one.

Um but I want to move us forward.

I won't I want to make sure we we're good about this because it's it's getting late.

Yeah.

Um so we'll move on to number five, which is a consideration for mitigation measures for traffic noise, light, dust, hours of operation, and impacts on public services.

Uh Council Friendland.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um I do want to highlight and correct this one.

Because if you says the attorney on the well, two attorneys.

Um this is not the full sentence that is in our code.

This is the beginning clause that is in our code.

So do you mind pulling up the full piece here?

And I apologize we're looking at the code at 10 p.m.

No, this is music to my ears.

Thank you.

All right.

Goes down further as you if you want me to scroll down later, but uh several components to this one.

Yeah, so just the beginning piece of it, not specifically the impacts that are listed.

It's at least what I'm reading here.

I think it's this is what's on the website, so I think it should be the same.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Taking into consideration, right?

Any of the mitigation measures.

This special use shall not create significant adverse impacts on services, existing developments in the surrounding neighborhood, or on any anticipated future development that would be permitted, right?

So to me, that is very challenging for this proposal.

Yeah, because I believe I think it's reasonable to say there would be some residential impacts for the group in the to the west.

And in terms of future development, too, this is going to be zoned very soon, adaptable commercial.

And a uh a proposal like this that is you know, not building you know, neighborhood serving it, you know, the folks of some apartment building built down the street in the future, you know, might use this some, but this is not a place they're gonna come and gather all these things, right?

Like it it potentially has an impact on the future development opportunity.

Um and so I think to me, you know, that is a challenge.

I think they do have mitigating uh mitigating measures to think about some of the you know, traffic, parking, um lighting, right?

I I I applaud them for that because I think they have thought thought through it quite well, but there's some of these other pieces in that in that phrase that give me pause and make it seem like you know it's it's it's a little more challenging than initially, I think.

Um counsel again on this one.

Um I I do if I do need you to point to facts in the record that would indicate this would have an adverse impact on anticipated future development.

Um I need specifics on that one if you could.

Sure.

So this is not an active commercial use, right?

This is not a uh you know, community serving restaurant or commercial space in that way.

Um and so I think that's the biggest challenge for it.

Um I think that was stated in the record.

Okay, now and help me understand how that's an adverse impact on future development.

Um for adaptable commercial potential.

For future development in this area that could come in around.

That might be zoned in the future, yeah.

Um, adaptable commercial and things like that, and it's stated in the in the you know narrative around walkable neighborhoods, right?

Mixed use, uh, different types of opportunities, things like that.

Um so this is you know, I think as we saw in in the planning commission discussion, right?

Um and in the record that uh public hearing, um this is a this is a uh I don't know what the right term is, but uh a more passive use that doesn't build up a neighborhood in that way to make it active and and and sort of bringing folks to it to try to uh uh and your worry is that it sets a precedent for that kind of development in the future?

I think it potentially potentially harms future development, has impact on future development, and they may not be able to get you know fully uh uh realized in terms of because this is sort of a sitting there as a kind of a open space that doesn't allow for that vision as a whole.

Can I ask a follow-on question that maybe gets to the heart of this?

So trying to use my Superman eyes.

Um shall not create significant adverse impacts on existing developments in the surrounding neighborhood.

Is Anna's Farm an existing development in the surrounding neighborhood?

It is.

And did we not hear tremendous public input during the public hearing and submitted for the official record that it would create an adverse impact on that existing development?

To the extent you find uh to the extent you find that that testimony provides reliable um competent evidence of specific adverse impacts, and you can you can cite those, you should you should.

Okay.

Um I would I would say to Counselor Fridl's point, I stipulate that the residents of Lafayette are competent.

Uh competent and reliable.

I and I'm not saying I I want to be clear, I am not calling residents.

I'm not calling out competency residents.

I'm saying that the information that they testified to is based on verifiable facts that they're qualified to testify to.

They are certainly qualified to testify about their neighborhood, about the distance of this development.

Um it's you have to weigh whether the testimony included speculation or had other uh other um.

Absolutely, but I think we could stipulate tenants of reliability.

People are reliable to testify about their own experience in their own home.

I think we could stipulate that.

So I heard uh an outpouring of reliable testimony from the residents in the existing development.

Um then I think for subportion A, B, C, I think we could also talk and add things.

But I think to Counselor Flippert's point, to me, this is a very um very compelling argument to consider.

Um again, A, B, and C, we could talk about intrusions of noise light, etc.

etc.

But I I think I worry that in this process we are underindexing on the adjacent community as an existing development and the compatible character.

I'm what I worry that we are under-indexing on that in this conversation.

I know that that's not the sole driving factor.

We have to consider everything um holistically.

But Counselor Fidland's pointed uh out a very, very important argument.

So if I could add a little bit, you know, we have some evidence in the record.

We have some photographs, an actual photograph of the wall of the sound wall from the neighboring development.

And I believe that in the photograph I see the Kenray building, which, based on the record of the site plan, the overview, the setbacks, the new building that's being proposed is going to be closer to the sound wall and taller than the Kenray building, which is visible in this photograph.

And we don't have a good, I feel like we don't have a good reliable uh perspective rendering from the West.

We have a couple of renderings by the uh the community.

I don't know how trustworthy these renderings are for me.

We have a rendering by the applicant.

I don't know how trustworthy that rendering is.

Um it's set back or it's from whatever elevation.

I I don't have a good sense of this.

But knowing that this Kenray building is visible and that the new building would be closer and taller gives me a perspective that is reliable that says this is gonna block more of the sky than the Kenray building from this perspective that's viewed in that adjacent neighborhood.

And to point C here, significant intrusions of noise light dust or glare.

Is blocking light an intrusion of light or the absence of intrusion of light?

And I think the answer is yes, this is a uh significant impact includes but is not limited to.

So I could read that in the opposite way uh with an example of white.

I think based on some trustworthy materials and my own logic and intuition uh about what what I understand is going to be you know present from this development.

Well, and additionally, uh piggyback hand that uh blocking sunlight has ice consequences, and if you're a senior who is struggling to manage your snow and ice anyway, this could make your life a little more difficult in terms of dealing with lack of sunlight.

Any other counselor on uh this one?

Just to note that appreciation for the applicants uh tends to mitigate a number of these issues that were earlier in the package presentation that can't be clearly in terms of uh noise, dirt, etc.

Great.

Uh council Friendlands.

Could this one be conditioned?

You brought up earlier, Counselor Jensen, the graduated heights.

I wonder if there could be an agreement to increase the screening wall height.

Um is there a way to condition against adverse impacts, significant adverse impacts to surrounding the existing development.

I mean the stepped height is one way that could mitigate that.

Is it higher screening something else that I mean I think you I heard you say?

I think you have the sunlight blocking problem though if you do the higher screening.

Correct me if I'm wrong, we don't we have uh we're considering the issues with use.

As counselor Gianola was pointing out.

Good point.

The mere existence of a building is anything tall is the problem, is that's a good point.

It's not necessarily the use itself.

So again, that balance of like I don't know what the criteria mean.

Well, it doesn't matter what the use in the in any case, something that's yeah, it's the site plan that's the problem.

Yes.

Not necessarily the V.

And this is where I I continue to struggle with the same thing.

Well, I mean, I don't think we can condition the use to alleviate height.

Well, the mitigating factors are based on the site plan, I believe.

Because it's like the screening.

That's a site plan.

That's not a use.

It's the uh the noise blocking.

That's not uh that's a site plan, not a use.

So I think the mitigating factors can go to the site plan.

Right.

So that's what you would condition.

I don't know.

Speaking of site plan, that's where we're headed next.

So let's go, Counselor Gianola.

The first one is the scale.

Can I ask a question, a process question?

Sure.

So if these criteria that we are supposed to evaluate this special use by if we would all believe that they come out on the side of a no to this project, then this site plan doesn't even matter.

We should definitely talk about the site plan, and I could turn it over to our city attorney just to make it very, very clear.

If we are leaning towards uh denial, uh how clear do we have to be?

How specific do we have to be, and what do you want from us in that instance?

I um counsel, I have been taking notes.

Um as you've been discussing the various criteria, um I would still encourage council to articulate specifically and cohesively through those criteria if you do believe you are leaning towards a denial.

Um had a lot of discussion, but articulate with specificity how each one uh has or has not been satisfied and based on what specific facts in the record.

Um I would need that to to prepare a written decision for you to consider uh at your next meeting.

The reason I want to talk to site plan is because a lot has been talked about the site plan, and I just want to make sure we go through that.

It's a little shorter than the other one, and they're kind of lumped together, so we can definitely talk site plan.

Um but I think just to finish off our city attorney statement, is if it does for whatever reason go to it or not, we would have to specifically call out the criteria for which we are denying.

So I think that's why you're taking notes.

And you're you're thinking also that some of our issues might be resolved through conditions we'd uh put in the site plan, perhaps.

Possible.

Uh and we don't know until we talk about it.

So let's start with the first one, which is uh the scale is appropriate to the site and function of the project and/or building.

From what I have heard, um there's a lot of concern about the scale, um, which is essential to the function of the project for the applicant, but is the issue that is of concern to the neighbors, and that those two conflict with one another.

Council Gallegos?

I would say yes, given the M1 designation and it coming before us today.

I would I would agree with Counselor Gallegos, um, just because we're in this one, this one to me, scale and the appropriateness, if you will, uh to the site lends itself a lot to what it's zoned and what we're looking at here.

So just looking at that, but then also looking at the project, uh I would say this fits, if you will, at least in my estimation.

Is this a place where the idea of a graduated height would come in where we could add that as a condition here?

Maybe I believe that would be the next one.

Architectural scale, quality of design, proportional building elements, appropriate building detail variety, appropriate building materials and compatible color.

Where does setback come in?

On this list of criteria.

That's where I have a I mean, we talk about in implementation of increased setbacks.

Is this the staff analysis?