Um this evening.

Don't see that there are any.

Do I have any recommendations for approval or for the minutes for April 8th and April 22nd, twenty twenty-six?

Um in the final moment I recommended that we bring up further conversation about um it's not entirely drones, uh, it's advanced air mobility, which sounds like the same thing.

It is definitely not.

So I just wanted to make that clarification because they are actually very significant.

Uh differently issues.

Okay.

Related, but not the same.

So that's my only do we have a motion for approval of the minutes as amended.

I also caught two minor name typos.

Okay.

Not there on the twenty second.

Um motion carries.

Lafayette Town Site 210 East Simpson Street.

The public hearing for the final planned unit development was noticed in the daily camera on May 2nd, 2026.

And notice was mailed to property owners and posted on the property in accordance with the Lafayette Code.

The public hearing is now in order at 6.03 p.m.

Tonight Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the final plan unit development application.

And we will also review the site plan architectural review application and make a final decision on the applications this evening.

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

The commission will evaluate this proposal based solely upon the record and the applicable criteria established in the Lafayette Code of Ordinances, which are highlighted in the staff report.

Preliminary matters.

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.

Planning commission 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 commission member remain objective and capable of fairly and impartially considering only the information offered into the record and evaluate, review, and make a decision on the application consistent with due process requirements.

Does any commission member believe that they are not able to fairly and impartially consider this application based solely on tonight's record and consistent with due process requirements?

All right.

Does any commission member have a conflict of interest or other matter here she would like to disclose prior to proceeding on this item item?

All right.

Hearing none, we'll get started on the hearing.

Before we hear from city planning staff and the applicant, I'd like to enter the following materials into the record, all of which are included in Planning Commission meeting packet for tonight's meeting.

Planning Commission agenda memo regarding these applications.

Planning Commission resolution number PC 2026-14.

Staff analysis report from city planning staff regarding PUD and site plan and architectural review criteria for these applications.

The applicant's PUD and site plan and architectural review plan set and plating staff and applicants' PowerPoint slides added to the planning commission packet this afternoon.

Written public testimony submitted to the city before 1 p.m.

today and added to the commission packet this afternoon.

Are there any objections from the commission to entering these items into the record?

No.

Seeing none, these items are entered into the into the record.

Planning commission will now hear from city planning staff and the applicant.

All right, we're gonna go off strict a little.

I apologize.

I didn't get this over to Mary Lynn, but I just want to introduce our newest planner and he'll be presenting tonight.

It's Jeremy Glein.

Uh he joined us in in December.

Uh and it's been a great addition to our our uh staff, but this is obviously it's his first time presenting here, so I just want to do a quick introduction.

Welcome.

Good evening, commissioners.

Happy Wednesday.

So first up for your consideration.

Is the PUD and SPAR for 210 East Simpson?

The applicant has proposed a planned unit development and site plan architectural review or SPAR for a mixed-use building complex.

Uh the PUD will also be used to consider a setback reduction and to conduct a special use review for the proposed single family dwelling unit in a mixed-use building complex.

Um, and that requirement is pursuant to the Lafayette Urban Renewal Authority or Lura requirements.

So, order of business, give a brief introduction about the project.

I'll invite the applicant up to provide some additional information, touch on staff's analysis, and then turn it over to you all for the public hearing.

And then we'll be happy to answer questions as a result of anything that comes up to help you with your discussion and ultimate decision.

All right.

So the project is located at the southwest corner of the East Simpson Street and South GO Avenue intersection, as indicated by the red square on this slide.

The images on the left hand of the slide are just different vantage points of the property along South Go Avenue, and they're indicated by the numbers there on the right as well.

Property is located in the B1 zoning district and is also within Lura's plan area.

Immediately south of the subject property is actually a different zoning district, that being the OTR or residential zoning district.

So there's a transitional zone there, which will come up a little bit later.

We'll talk a little bit more about that.

The project site has an existing office building that is oriented toward East Simpson Street on the northern portion of the property.

And so the image on the left of this slide shows that existing building on the north end of the property.

And then that red box kind of indicates the approximate location of the proposed garage and residential dwelling unit.

So moving to the image on the right, get into a little bit of site planning here.

So the area shaded in orange represents the setback requirements for this property.

It's being met on the west side.

It's just a five-foot setback.

On the south has a 10-foot setback, but the building's actually being located 17 feet from that south property line.

And then on the eastern property line along South Go.

There's no defined street side setback in this zoning district.

And so in that instance, staff has to revert to another section of the code that says any yard adjacent to a street shall be considered a front yard for determining setbacks.

So if that street side setback isn't defined, we default to that other section of the code.

And so based on South Go being a local street, that requirement is then for a 20-foot setback along that street frontage.

So you can see where that 20-foot setback line is.

Let me highlight it.

So this line represents the 20-foot required setback.

As you can see, the existing office building is deficient of that.

It maintains setback just over 12 feet.

And then the applicant is proposing a 10-foot setback, although the majority of the proposed garage and dwelling unit will maintain a roughly 13-foot setback to habitable space.

So properties just on the other side of the alley, directly south of this property.

They have a defined street side yard setback of 10 feet.

So properties along South Go to the south of this project site.

A lot of those are built to that setback line.

So as you drive down or walk down the street, there are a lot of 10-foot setbacks in that vicinity.

So going back a slide, based on the fact that everything south of this property, not everything, but many properties south of this property maintain a 10-foot setback along South Go.

And the fact that the existing office building maintains just over a 12-foot setback.

Staff felt that this was a reasonable request for this property for the new unit.

And I don't think I mentioned, but the project consists of a garage on the ground floor with a residential dwelling unit above.

And this is a little bit, well, it looks kind of like an ADU.

It's a little bit different because the primary building on this on the lot or on the property is an office building.

And so by introducing a residential use to that property, it requires what's called a mixed-use building complex.

So having two primary uses or two primary buildings on the same property.

So moving on to the elevations.

However, the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 23 feet 11 inches, so a little bit more than 10 feet under the maximum allowed.

So on this slide, you can see this deck.

South elevation faces the alley.

And you have the two garage doors and above the two-car garage door would be an exterior deck or balcony off that second floor residential unit.

This slide also has the digital materials board, and then just a couple of renderings down below.

There's some larger images of these renderings in future slides that the applicant will get into.

And that concludes my portion of the presentation.

So I will invite the applicant up to say a few more words about this project.

Thank you.

So my name's Kim Senko.

I'm owner of Baseline Design Studio.

I own that together with my husband.

We live here in Lafayette, and we do a lot of local work.

Mostly residential design.

We've done a couple of commercial things like the yard together with the owners of ventry, as well as the Fox Glove bar that's tucked behind there.

But mostly we do houses.

Also local, so they own 210 East Simpson.

The office is a branch office for Raymond James.

And Andrew is business owner and wealth management advisor there.

So they're local, they know the area, love the area, want to add a unit on the back for a live work setup for themselves.

So I'll start with this view just because it's the first one.

This is the main entry off the east side, so off south go.

And generally, so the first floor, you can see that is the one that's set back 10 feet, and then the story above that's set back additionally with that balcony, which really was kind of a massing move to try to break up scale and not present you on that street front with a two-story wall.

And then made some design moves just to add texture and scale.

So breaking up the siding with different orientations, horizontal on the bottom, vertical above, some added texture with the railings, and a little bit of warmth with the wood look awning above.

This one zooms out a little bit to the northeast.

So looking at the corner, you can see the relationship of this to the office in front.

So we've held back the 15 feet, which is the requirement.

And then the way we gabled the roof here was just to slope down to the office, trying to get kind of a stepping and scale, and it transitioned from the commercial corridor to the residential.

Yeah.

This kind of zooms you around to the other corner.

So now the alley side.

So you kind of get that wraparound deck a little bit connecting you to the commercial corridor.

So I put the plans on here, probably less important for your review, but just to give you the overview.

So the second floor above is the living unit.

You can see the balcony on the bottom right.

That's the that carved out balcony.

And then the first floor.

But the property had quite a bit of parking requirements.

So three spots for the office and two for the dwelling unit.

And we have an ADA spot.

So we had gone around with planners a lot on different options, parking lots and where to park.

We're happy with where this landed, especially because it keeps the parking off the street, so it kind of gets all the spots hidden in this garage, and then the ADA spot obviously is outside in front of the garage.

So it kind of gets all the spots hidden in this garage, and then the ADA spot obviously is outside in front of the garage.

And I think that's all the slides I've got.

I'd like to real briefly go over just staff's analysis, some of the higher level things that went into the consideration of this.

So the full analysis is included in your packet.

Um, but I wanted to touch on a few things.

So the Lura plan identified the single family dwelling in a mixed-use building complex as a special use.

So staff did analyze that special use as part of the uh for using the special use criteria within the development and zoning code and found that the proposal met that criteria.

Um it was also reviewed by Laura and um also within your packet as a notice of their decision approving this project.

Um so that was one step that we had to take with this one in particular.

The analysis for the PUD found that the reduction in setbacks along South Go will help orient the project to the street, and is also complementary to many properties in the vicinity along South GO in the old town residential district, as well as the existing office building on the property.

And then lastly, the SPAR analysis found that the project will be in compliance with all of that criteria related to architecture and landscaping.

So with that, staff does recommend that the planning commission approve resolution PC-2026-14 for approval of the final PUD and SPAR for 210 East Simpson Street.

That concludes my presentation.

And be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um do any commissioners members have questions for staff or the applicant?

And then we will move on to public testimony after we ask some initial questions if there are any.

So help me understand the zoning here.

It's a question for staff next.

Is this PUD?

Does this include a rezoning because of what you're doing here?

So it will be identified as the PUD, but it'll still have the B1 zoning associated with it.

So B1, as I have seen it in this area, has basically been either a commercial or a residential building.

And if the residence is not lived in for process of a year, then the zoning becomes strictly B1.

Is that correct?

I don't remember that all I've never seen that provision.

That issue come up on public road.

I mean, I have to look at the Lura plan to see if it if it if it changes anything, because what you're getting at is the residential use is kind of a non-conforming use.

What I don't understand, what I don't know for sure is whether the Lura plan that requires it kind of changed the use table within the B1 district in the urban renewal area.

I don't know if that has some sort of special provision that uh trumps our typical non-conforming language in our code, so I would need to look at that a little bit.

But you are correct, there are some residential, there are some homes that are still being used for residential purposes there.

I would I'm I'm gonna look at it this and hopefully I can get a more confident answer back to you.

But I'd like to think that we did treat those like a typical non-conforming use, and we said if they're if they're uh if they're not being used for residential for X amount of time, then you can no longer continue to use them for residential.

But that's how we typically treat things, but urban renewal areas always throw some wrinkles in that aren't aren't as straightforward.

So let me look into that a little bit.

Well, I mean it's the same area designated as part of the public road, and the but is going to be a pocket park now, used to have that particular situation.

So that's and that's what happened to that old structure there.

That's what exactly that was livable at some point.

The owner claimed it was still livable, but it wasn't based on utility bills.

Yeah.

And so the usage then.

I mean that's what you're explaining is what you're explaining is a very traditional non-conforming situation where once the use ceases to uh uh ceases operations for X amount of time, six months or a year, I think ours is a year, uh then that use that right to that use goes away.

So I'll I'll double check the LURA thing to see if there's any trigger anything that trumps that.

So my point is you're basically since the first part is B1 already, or it's a business use, and now you're creating a separate residential non-conforming use right behind it.

No, because it's a mixed use building complex, what the code says.

So it says if you have a if you have two primary uses, one of them being residential, one of them being uh non-residential use that's allowed, then you can do it subject to uh uh they call it a special use in there.

We are doing it subject to a PUD because PUDs are allowed to incorporate special uses as allowed uses.

So we analyzed it, we analyzed it using the special use criteria as part of the PUD, and now that's an allowed use.

But it's it's uh so by the way, but you're using words special use.

Yes.

So it normally when we have a special use, then that requires special use decision by the planning commission.

But you're saying in this case it does not.

The PUD provision in the land development code says that the PUD cannot allow uses that are prohibited by code, but it can make special uses permitted uses.

Okay.

So that's the provision.

I mean it's here.

Okay, so I think we're all doing a special use review.

It's a bit semantics.

Yeah.

We still reviewed it under using the special use criteria.

We folded that into the PUD.

Okay.

So thank you.

Yeah, it's not real straightforward.

The other piece of that three, though, is that you're of course.

You are um having a separate water tap.

Correct, but that's not related to that at all.

No, but I mean typically if you're having a separate water tap, that's usually because it's a separate considered to be that's like basically splitting the lot if you're having a separate tap, right?

Not necessarily, even if you have an accessory building on a commercial property that's over 750 square feet, engineering specifications require a separate tap.

If we had multiple multifamily buildings on us on a single lot, each of the multifamily buildings would have a separate tap.

Okay.

So it but that's why we don't allow ADUs or require ADUs to have a separate tap because we don't want to make it easy for them to subdivide them.

So uh it's it kind of depends, I guess.

But 750 square feet under current engineering specifications are a hard line where over you have to do one less than you.

This one is like 1300 living space plus garage.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

No question.

Couldn't can somebody just give us context?

What um how tall are the buildings around this building?

Are there any other two-story buildings?

There are two story in the vicinity.

I don't know the heights on the properties immediately adjacent to it.

Let's see.

Yeah, I would I would have to get you that information at a later day as far as two stories.

But there are two stories.

Um we have approved other ADUs above garages in the vicinity of this project recently.

Um I have a sort of a maybe a ran another random question, but we recently changed the short-term rental rules to say that short-term rentals could only be used on sites where the primary residence was full-time inhabited by the owner.

What would happen here?

Could this be used as a short-term rental?

Since it's sort of a funky Our room could.

They couldn't rent out the whole thing.

They couldn't because it could be a hosted short-term rental.

Uh or I think that's a terminology like Airbnb uses.

But it couldn't be they couldn't use the whole thing.

Because the primary building in the front there is a business.

That's obviously subject to conversations happening with the coming and things like that, but that's that's not not related to this.

Thanks, because there any other comment um questions.

I have a question for the I have a question for the applicant, which is the small one, and it's just a matter of my consistency on a position.

So I'm just gonna ask the question.

Which is nothing bad.

Um the the back patio that's sort of eaten out into the space there.

How deep is that overall on the back patio?

Because the side is only four feet.

10 feet deep.

So looking here into the wall of windows ten feet.

Awesome.

I'm I'm very I don't think four feet is deep enough for things.

This is just my position.

I don't think four feet's deep enough for the patio furniture on the side, so I'm glad that there's space that the wraparound portion on the east side is three eight, something like that.

The patio is ten feet deep.

So our plans that we have showed it as four feet all the way around.

So now that I see that this is cut out, that's fabulous.

I love it.

I just was sticking it all the way around and was thinking like, hmm, yeah.

I was just curious.

It's great.

Easy question.

Yeah?

Any other simple question also?

But the ADU or the ADA parking space that's for the business.

And it looks like the business people are going to be parking inside the garage during the day, say one, two, three cars.

Yes.

Okay.

Good idea.

Also to the outside lights.

There's dim as you can make in the area.

They are dim.

They are dark sky compliant.

For the um spar, I think it was.

We had to do the photometric plan, so we have the light levels.

And on a timer or the good things.

Yes.

And there will be some probably just limited pathlighting just to get up to the door, but again, downward facing.

Are you planning to throw an elevator in someday?

Or make the make the apartment?

No, you know.

No, nothing we've talked about.

A lot of people on various projects do ask us about that.

We've like future planned for that on a bunch of projects, but not on this one.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I think I had some questions for staff, maybe for clarity on the parking.

Am I catching that our code required five off-street parking spots for this property?

And that's there was no option to allow on-street parking as part of that math, or kind of what where's the parking requirement coming from?

Um the parking was a combination of the existing office use and then the new residential.

And so the residential, I believe required two spaces, two off-street spaces.

Um the office required an additional two office being the existing use in the front of the property.

There was like if you look at the aerial, they were already parking in the back.

There were three defined spots.

But they were just kind of on an unimproved gravel area.

Um so they had three spots technically off-space.

So they were basically re recouping those and then adding two more for the residential use.

Also, this predated Jeremy, but just to give you a little background.

Like there's no record that these spaces were ever required.

They were very informal.

They were on like kind of a gravel lot.

So we really kind of work with the applicant to try to come up with a solution that we felt kind of met code and also kind of acknowledged that this was likely built before, obviously, before any parking spaces were required, and they were kind of informal, so we felt like this was just kind of a solution that got an ADA space when they didn't have one and then asked about the additional parking should they need it.

Uh but it it was it was kind of uh there wasn't clear code direction, so this is kind of our best solution.

We thought it worked out well.

And through the PUD, they still would have required the off-street parking.

They couldn't have done that through on-street allowances or the ADA space or no sorry, not the P.

Yeah, well the PUD only allows you know planning commission to modify it by 20%.

So anything greater than that would require going to city council.

We just didn't really see that being I personally didn't view those spaces as like code required spaces that they were getting rid of, but they were also kind of being used.

So it's like I said it's a gray area.

And uh and you know, we thought the biggest no support part was getting an ADA space out of it, which is an ADA route.

Because there's actually a pretty significant grade from the street to the sidewalk in this area.

So we did explore like we don't like most cities, don't like to give ADA spaces on public streets.

But we did look into that a little bit and the grade changes and stuff.

It was just really difficult.

So the fact that we got one on private property with an ADA route or other garage.

Like I said, we just thought that was a good outcome.

Yeah, Steve.

Is the interior of the garage, was there a uh a wall split between the tandem parking and the two parallel, or is that just one open garage?

There's not.

There could be like there they are uh indifferent zones like the kind of specified which we're off as in which we're drawing, but there is if our new zoning code is going to require this much off-street parking for business use.

Well, up to as drafted until they add those as drafted.

What do we got?

And we're treating old town differently than other parts parts of the town, so we're reducing it, and we're seeing Old Town differently.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions of the applicant or staff before we move on to over here?

So based on this entire lot is under PE, then in the future there would not be an opportunity to split the lot.

Correct.

Well, it would have to go through a review process, but I think it would be difficult to do that to meet middle mobile requirements and sizes and those sort of things.

All right, if there are no more questions first, go ahead.

I feel like in the interest of being transparent with previous ones, I'll ask this time.

Is there a bike rack?

I I ask every time I feel like it'd be unfair to not ask this time.

I don't know the answer to that.

Is that required through the parking of this property?

I don't believe it's required for residential.

Okay.

No more questions.

Um I'll bite on that.

Is there an EV parking provided?

Yes.

Okay.

I think it's a good idea.

Ah, so we have the building parking yet, but our understanding of course.

The building code.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

All right.

Uh hearing no more questions for staff of the applicant, we'll move on to public testimony.

At this time, we will hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the planning commission about the PUD application.

Please fill out a speaker form if you haven't already and hand it to Commission Secretary, Miss Lauren.

Um when you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record.

Before I call up the first speaker, I'm going to note for the record that it is now 6:38 p.m.

6.39.

Um we have a speaker list.

Okay.

63.

634.

Sorry.

Clocks are hard.

Um not the only one asked.

Um seeing that there are no members of the public wishing to address commission on this item, public testimony period for this item is now closed.

It is now 6:34 p.m.

Okay.

Um since no uh public testimony, applicant does not need to respond to any public testimony.

Um believe there was any written public testimony included in the meeting packet for the hearing record for this one.

So all right.

Are there any further questions for staff or the applicant?

Any all right.

Um is the applicant have any closing comments for the commission?

I doubt there's any more any additional items.

Okay.

If there are no further questions, no further comments for the applicant, I will now close the public hearing at 635, and we'll move on to commission deliberation and a decision.

All right, the item for discussion is resolution number PC 2026-14, approval of an application for final plan to unit development, PUD.

Um, and site plan review, site plan architectural review spar for lot one, block five, Lafayette Townsite 210 East Simpson Street.

Commission tonight should focus our discussion on the evidence presented in the record during tonight's public hearing and the applicable review criteria for both applications.

We are required to make findings for regarding whether the applications should be approved based on the applicable review criteria in the code and the evidence presented to the commission.

Uh so for planned unit development, just as a reminder, the applic the review criteria are in section 26-18-5 of the code and site plan and architectural review criteria are in section 26-16-7.1 of the code.

Let's start by considering the PUD criteria first.

Would anyone like to um start the discussion?

I was excited to see an opportunity to get some more housing in here.

And it seems like a responsible design that meets the intention of the comp plan and seems like a decent thing to add into the neighborhood.

I I think the same thing.

I think you know, Old Town is such an opportunity for these sort of responsible, thoughtful in-filled developments in areas where is empty lots close to all of the things that people want in Old Town.

I think it's respectful.

It's not trying to exploit maximize sort of the the boundaries of what is allowed in this space.

I think it's very sort of considerate of neighboring properties, views from existing homes, amenities, e Simpson, you know, the theater, all of those things.

I think it's uh the kind of thing that the complan.

I mean, I realize we talked about the comp plan wants to see, you know, this is the character building infill development.

And lived in by the owner.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Community buildings.

Yeah.

Responsibly sized, well placed contextual development that we want as evidenced by community feedback in all of the various forums in which we have gotten that community feedback.

Any other thoughts?

Mr.

Phillips?

They kind of have a concern because if the business, then all of a sudden they decide, okay, we're going to make this a residence.

They could very well do.

Then all of a sudden you have a residence with a non-conforming ADU because it's larger than 750.

So the attorney's shaking your head.

Good.

Clarify, please.

And I'm happy to let the staff wait on this too.

I don't think that that wouldn't be possible in this case.

So if you do approve the PUD and SPAR tonight, you are approving a PUD to allow a mixed-use building complex with a commercial use and a residential use.

That commercial building, the existing commercial building at the front of the lot would need to remain commercial per the zoning.

So it couldn't it most certainly couldn't convert to residential without some other you know change in zoning, um, which is you know, and I think even under our new land use code, it wouldn't be changing that designation.

So I wanted to jump in to let you know that that wouldn't be a concern here uh legally, it wouldn't be possible under current zoning and I believe anticipated zoning for this part of the town, but but um let you know that.

No problem.

Should I also say I think the setback request, the change in the setback request is very reasonable.

Yeah, it's reasonable.

I think they've done a really good job of the massing and the and the setbacks, and um it's gonna activate the street uh a lot better than and and provide a a flow harmonious transition, if I may, um to Simpson uh off of Go.

So I think the setback uh is very appropriate given where the massing of the building, the existing building is where the setback is.

I think it's very I mean the precedent is there for where the proposed and it's also the south side.

Yeah.

And the OTR.

I think there's no question that that's an appropriate uh exception to be made.

Um personally.

Okay.

Any other thoughts on the PUD or can we shall move on to the SPAR?

I think it's good use of the property.

Okay.

Or it's good.

Um let's see, especially use review.

Um trying to find the spar.

Site plan architectural review criteria.

Could we pull some of that up?

Um or if you've got um yeah, just the spar review criteria if you have that.

If not, we have it in our packets.

Maybe I can get it.

That's okay if you don't if you don't have it.

No, it's a good idea.

That's that's right.

Could could we actually see the um elevations instead?

I'm just thinking I'm just looking at the first uh the scale um analysis.

I'm just wanting to so I think it's interesting that it's you know, we've got a 35 foot height max in this zone.

And they're down at 23.

They're still gonna be taller than the building in front.

But it is interesting to see that very clear comparison in height and how much taller that can be than the building in front.

So and I'm always I personally am a big fan of you know, parking is a necessity.

Off-street parking, I think is the special necessity in these areas where we're trying to revitalize parts of the city and draw traffic onto that side of Simpson to not have the residential necessarily taking up all the street parking, is I think a bonus and you know, draws people from outside those immediate areas to the city.

I think by that logic, you almost have to have the second story so that if the parking is off-site or is on site, you have to have the second story in order to be able to accommodate the both I mean code necessary and practicality necessary off-street parking.

So any of these additions are gonna have to be two stories.

This one's very respectful, two stories, in my opinion.

Yeah, it's not.

And giving and all of our open land to car storage is insane.

Um this is the inevitability for all this kind of development.

But I think it's very respectful.

Any other thoughts or comments on the architecture?

Um I appreciate the modern aesthetic.

I appreciate that we know that this is going to be built in 2026.

It's not going to be built.

Yes, whatever.

Um other thoughts, or would anyone like to make a motion for PUD and SPAR?

It's just gonna last thought was a the it fits in with all the other reviews up and down.

There's a lot of them.

And it looks like a DU.

It looks like a accessory.

Also I think the landscaping plan is very um keeping with uh some of the historic old town flavors.

You know, it's not like yes, there's some grasses and all those things, but it's not just like hi, we put a line of grasses because we don't know what else to do here.

There are choices of things that are both appropriate for our environment, but also are sort of characteristic of a lot of the plantings and things you see in old town and old principal or county, and I think it's uh it has a creative touch to it, which I appreciate.

So it's not just lining things up and calling it a landscape plan.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

It's nice to see.

Can we go to the um proposed language?

Please.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

I move to approve PC resolution 2026-14, approving the two twenty two hundred and ten East Simpson PUD and SPAR pursuant to the content and findings in the staff report.

Did you want to condition a by draft or are you guys?

No, not if it's if it's not required, I'm not gonna add that.

We're five here.

Okay.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

Um thank you for going through this process.

All right, all those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay, we will um move on to next item on the agenda is a public hearing and a sketch plan review and comment for PUD amendment to the Willoughby Corner final PUD, located at the southwest corner of Emma Street.

Thank you.

Okay.

Emma Street and North 120th Street.

Public hearing was noticed in the Daily Camera on May 2nd, 2026.

And notice was mailed to property owners and posted on the property in accordance with the Lafayette Code.

The public hearing is now in order at 6.45 p.m.

Sorry about that, right?

Tonight the planning commission will be holding, uh, will hold a public hearing on a sketch plan for a PUD amendment and provide review and comments to the applicant.

Review and comments.

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

The commission will evaluate this proposal based solely upon the record and the applicable criteria established in the Lafayette Code of Ordinances, which are highlighted in the staff report.

Before we get to presentations from staff and the applicant, we have flu a few preliminary matters to address.

First, once again, because this is a quasi-judicial matter, planning commission 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 commission member remain objective and capable of fairly and impartially considering only the applic only the information offered into the record and evaluate, review, and make a decision on the application consistent with due process requirements.

Does any commission member believe they are not able to fairly and impartially consider this application based solely to on tonight's record and consistent with due process requirements?

Does any commission member have a conflict of interest or other matter he or she would like to disclose prior to proceeding on this item?

If none, a hearing number will get started with the hearing.

Before we hear from city planning staff and the applicant, I will enter the following materials into the record, all of which are included in the planning commission meeting packet for tonight's meeting.

Planning commission agenda memo regarding this application, staff analysis reports from city planning staff regarding the PUD criteria for this application, the applicant's narrative letter and attachments, the applicant's plan set titled Willow Corner PUD sketch plan, the planning staff and applicants' PowerPoint slides added to the planning commission packet this afternoon.

Written public testimony submitted to the city before 1 p.m.

today and added to the commission packet this afternoon.

Are there any objections from the commission to entering these items into the record?

No.

Hearing none, these items are entered into the record.

Planning commission will now hear from city planning staff and the applicant.

Thank you again, commissioners.

As mentioned for your consideration is a sketch plan for a PUD amendment to the Willoughby Corner PUD.

So the order of events tonight will be an introduction by me.

Go through some of the high-level topics that are being proposed for revision through this PUD amendment.

At that point, I'll turn it over to the applicant for their presentation.

And then turn it over to you all for any questions that we might have of either staff or the applicant.

Again, this is a sketch plan, so no formal recommendation or vote is being had tonight.

It's strictly for us to solicit comments on the concept plan that's being presented so that they can get feedback and proceed accordingly.

So for the purpose of tonight's meeting, staff is looking for some specific feedback on several topics.

Proposal to reduce front setbacks in two areas of the project, proposed reduction of one of the outlots, proposed reduction of minimum lot sizes in one of the planning areas, the addition of multifamily buildings to planning area B with corresponding height increases, and then the just the general orientation and location of the multifamily buildings that are being proposed in that planning area.

So just to get everybody familiar with the site, project is located at the southeast corner of East Emma Street and Canterbury Drive.

The project is bordered on the east by North 120th Street.

So the areas that are shaded in pink on this slide represent the part of the project that's already been constructed is in phase one.

So again, everything in pink has already been built.

So the balance of the project and what's being considered tonight would be for the future developments of the area of the project that's still in white.

So brief history.

Mostly for cleanup items based on some construction activity.

So as construction occurred after the PUD was approved, ran into some issues that needed to be cleaned up on the technical side.

So nothing related to land uses or heights or development standards, just technical cleanup items as part of that amendment.

The applicant currently has approvals through the existing PUD to construct 30 duplexes, 128 townhomes, and 36 multifamily units within the undeveloped area of the project, which is outlined in red on this slide.

Again, that's done, and that included 192 affordable housing units.

So with that, I'm going to get into each one of the specific topics and kind of go through them, provide an overview of the just the issues that have been identified to solicit your feedback on them.

So the first is just kind of a general topic of discussion regarding housing types and unit mixes.

So the image on the lower left shows what's currently approved in the existing PUD.

And that comprised of a combination of two different types of attached single family product, which was duplex and townhouse, and then also the multifamily product.

The image on the right shows what's being proposed as part of this amendment.

And that would include single family detached units, so no more single family attached, and additional multifamily units.

And so just to orient everybody, the the properties that would be affected by this proposed reduction are all of the home lots that front onto East Emma Street.

And that area that is highlighted in yellow represents an outlaw.

So there's a bit of a gap between the public right-of-way and then where the residential lots start.

And that's because of that outlaw.

One thing I wanted to highlight on this slide, the westernmost lots, so the two lots on the far west, you can see where that yellow outlaw kind of tapers down to nothing.

So those two westernmost lots and a portion of the third lot there would not benefit from that additional separation provided by that outlaw.

And in the next slide, I'll show a little bit more detail so it's easier to understand.

So the image on the left is what is currently approved.

This area of the project site was to or has been approved for duplexes.

So between the right-of-way and the house lots, let me get the pointer.

So it's a five-foot separation.

You have an eight-foot multimodal path, an eight-foot free lawn, and then the back of the street curb.

This also shows the 15-foot setback that's currently approved with the PUD from the property line to where the habitable portions of the home could be built.

Porches were allowed to encroach into that setback pursuant to the approved plan.

So in general, what you get is a 30-foot sick, or excuse me, 36-foot separation from the habitable portion of the home to the back of the street curve in the current condition or currently approved plan.

The applicant has requested a reduction in setbacks in this area from 15 feet to 8 feet.

The makeup of the area between the street and the lots remains the same, but you do get a reduction of seven feet due to that reduced setback request.

So separation of the habitable portions of the home between there and the street curve would be reduced to 29 feet as opposed to 36 in the current plan.

And the image on the upper left shows the current condition in the approved plan.

So basically you have a pretty wide expanse of space between the houses to North 120th Street, due primarily to the large detention basin.

So the detention basin along this length where these houses are to be built is approximately 135 feet in width.

And so that would remain the same, and then there's an additional 22 feet between the pond and the travel lane or the street curb.

So those distances would stay the same.

Currently, there's approximately 172 feet from a home to the street.

And with this request, that would be reduced to approximately 163 feet between those distances.

According to the approved PUD, Outlaw A was intended as a future amenity area.

The listed amenities within the PUD included community gardens, playgrounds, exercise equipment, orchards, and open space.

Given this outlots adjacency to the roundabout, many of those listed amenities probably wouldn't be appropriate, but certainly could be curated as open space.

So staff is requesting or seeking the commission's feedback on this reduction.

So image on the left is what's approved, image on the right is what is now being proposed.

The next request is for a reduction in minimum lot size in planning area A from 2,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet, so delta of 100 feet.

You can see in planning area B, it has current approvals for 900 square foot lot sizes at minimum.

So going back just a bit, the original or phase one development included both three-story and two-story multifamily buildings.

And those have been constructed.

The photograph on the bottom left shows that existing condition.

This is a picture taken from the site to show how those two-story and three-story buildings orient toward the street and just how that looks and feels in its existing condition today.

So the applicant is now proposing to add additional multi-story buildings to the east side, or excuse me, the west side of the project.

So along Canterbury Drive, they're proposing two-story multifamily buildings in this location with three-story multifamily buildings just beyond that to the east.

So that's kind of the overarching request.

The heights that were approved or are currently approved for the existing PUD for these buildings that have already been constructed were 45 feet for the three-story buildings and 35 feet for the two-story buildings.

And that is being requested now for these.

Again, the structure, the portions of the building highlighted in yellow, represent the proposed three-story buildings.

And again, they're requesting 45-foot height limits for those buildings.

Albeit the unit types are being changed or request to change them from the townhouses and duplexes to single-family detached units.

But the layout effectively is the same.

They're using the same same basic layout to accommodate that change in unit type.

So this is the last slide on the multifamily proposal.

Of note, here is just the general orientation of the multifamily buildings, which was largely designed to avoid trespass into this storm drain easement.

So you can see how the east-west alignment was to basically not encroach into this easement, which they're not permitted to do.

Potentially harder for pedestrian circulation through there during the winter time.

And that could spill over into emergency vehicle access or emergency response if this is too tight or if it has poor winter conditions.

And the final thing to note on this slide are the proposed setbacks at the northwest and southwest corners of the two-story apartments.

So in the upper corner here, they're proposing a seven-foot setback from the right-of-way.

And then in the lower corner here, they're proposing a setback of just over 10 feet.

This is the last of staff's presentation slides before I turn it over to the Apple camps.

But it just provides an overview of everything we just went through.

I can return to this slide as frequently as you would like, but staff is looking for feedback on these discussion topics.

I'll run through them just real briefly again.

The change in housing types and unit mixes from townhouses, duplexes, and multifamily apartments to single family detached and multifamily.

The reduction in the size of the outlaw or outlaw A, excuse me.

The reduction in the minimum lot size in planning area A from 2,000 square feet to 1,900 square feet, the addition of multi-family bit multifamily buildings with their corresponding height increases or heights of 35 and 45 feet, respectively for two and three-story buildings.

And lastly, the location and orientation of the proposed multifamily buildings.

And obviously happy to take any other comments that don't correspond to these, but we are looking for specific information on those.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Michelle Alexander, and I am the deputy director for BCHA, Boulder County Housing.

And with me today are members from our project team.

We have Susanna Lopez Baker, our executive director, Tyler with you.

Brickwell, phase two, Connor Culligan, our civil engineer with Kraft Civil, Walker Thrash, Virgo, and Adam Cantor with Cap Art Architecture.

Great team.

We have been navigating one of the most rapidly changing periods in modern affordable housing with shifting construction markets, evolving financing conditions, and changing needs among both renters and our home buyers.

In the midst of all this, we really are delivering one of the most complex multi-phase affordable housing for this community.

This community includes senior housing, multifamily housing, IDD units, and new opportunities for affordable homeownership.

Our BCHA mission is simple to sustainably maximize access to quality, affordable housing for Bull Dair County communities.

Our housing isn't just a shelter, it is a foundation for opportunity, health, and for belonging in our house in our houses.

BCHA currently operates over 60 communities, each with its own character.

We are really excited to see what Willoughby Corner would bring to us.

And so far I've worked on this project for five years, and I will always remember the opening night of Willoughby Corner as the snow fell.

Families were moving in, boxes going every each direction, and kids having snowball fights.

Since then, this neighborhood has built something special community, coffee clubs, book clubs, robotics groups, gardening groups, and neighbors who actually look out for one another.

We now have 192 households and more than 300 residents on the property.

Garden beds are overflowing, walking past are used, dog parks are utilized, and residents are out at the pickleball court and basketball court on a daily basis.

We have RTD on the property with two stops at all times, and they even use our property as the stop for the drivers.

This project was shaped by deep collaboration starting in 2017 with the East Lafayette Advisory Committee, Old Town, Arbidale Acres, Flag Drive Neighbors, Peak2 Peak School, Sister Carmen, Little Blafayette, Senior Advocates, and staff across planning, engineering, and transportation.

Together we prioritized traffic, safety, and transitions to Old Town.

Transit expansion was a priority, mixed income, mixed tenure housing.

Before the first resident was able to move into this, phase one required a massive civil build-out.

We built new roads, reconstructions of Emma and 120th, two roundabouts, signalized intersections, expanded water and sewer systems, stormwater infrastructure, sidewalks, and lighting.

And we were really confronted with challenges.

Road impacts, coordination schedules, conflicts, stormwater issues, connections, and utility adjustments.

They weren't minor issues, but we did learn, and we learned a lot.

And we're carrying those lessons into the next phase.

Phase two has 32 design units for IDD, and it was designed and shaped by self-advocates, caregivers, service providers, neuroinclusive design experts, and the county's IDD advisory council, which contributed two million for phase 2A.

This is one of the most community-informed IDE housing models that we have in the county.

Affordability is the cornerstone of this work.

Phase 2A delivers affordability of 40%, with over one third of our units at 30 to 40% AMI.

Our sustainability is a strength on this property.

We incorporated solar, geothermal heat pumps, and zero energy ready homes.

The smaller buildings that were approved on the 2022 PUD couldn't support geothermal or solar financing and our operational budgets.

The proposed larger multifamily structures make those systems feasible today.

These changes are about preserving long-term affordability and sustainability for this property.

We do know that some neighbors have raised concerns about building types, height transitions, setbacks, and unit mix.

And yeah, good evening.

Appreciate your time and insight commission and look forward to the dialogue and questions we're about to have tonight.

Why the changes?

I think that's probably the prominent question in all of your mind.

And we look forward to walking through the design team's effort, our logic, and what's been learned in phase one and how we're excited about this opportunity that was really conceived in 2017 in delivering a broad spectrum affordable housing community of much needed housing that ranges from older adult and veteran housing to families to now neuroinclusive IDD housing, which is a unique and specialized need that I look forward to speaking to, as well as for sale, now detached homes.

So diving in to the presentation.

What you see here is our current conceived design, splitting splitting out the phases.

So phase 2A sits there in planning area B, and that actually conforms to the use, the height, and everything within that planning area and the existing PUD, just to clarify.

The change there is the building form and type from what was previously considered as those nineplexes, and that's really to accommodate the special population being individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

So in interfacing with stakeholders, meeting with parents, having listening sessions, and interfacing with the advisory council of Boulder Counties.

Boulder County IDD Advisory Council, it's a mouthful.

We came to learn that we were really creating a nest of inclusion here of 32 units.

This is a two-story building, kind of an upside down U shape that represents phase 2A.

To the west, there is phase 2B, where you have the three stories of aggregated height in the middle and central to the site, and then two stories as it erodes to the adjacencies to the west.

And then phase three now represents instead of attached duplexes in townhomes, detached single family dwelling units for sale.

And those are locker will speak to that, but those will be at affordable price points.

In addition, there's an additional clubhouse on kind of the central portion of the site just west of Willoughby Street.

And then you can see the existing community amenities on the southern portion of the site adjacent to Canterbury, which Miss Michelle spoke about, you know, people enjoying currently.

As we also talk about outlaw A to the northwest, we can recognize the southern portion of the site that really aggregates outdoor space adjacent to those already activated and created amenities.

So phase 2A itself, I'll start with 2A, even though it's on the bottom, is roughly 1.3 acres, 32 units, with 58 parking spaces, and a 1.8 per unit parking ratio.

It also includes pickup drop-off and a lot of sustainability features.

I'll get into that in the next slide.

And then as you see 2B and its forms are kind of two interrelated buildings with centralized amenities.

These buildings now can accommodate elevators, which can serve the ADA population.

Building amenities that were no that were not previously conceived in townhomes.

The infrastructure distribution and taps are now no longer 128 individual taps and distributed utilities, but now one per building and you know trash chutes and improved livability for residents.

So open into 2A.

This actually started as a 48-unit initial idea, and through our conversations with stakeholders, we've learned that actually a more intimate offering with the balance of one and two bedrooms was appropriate for this community and the scale of serving their needs best.

So you have a courtyard orienting to the south, and you know, the rendering, you know, hand-drawn rendering at the top of the page really shows this kind of sense of home, and what we wanted to do is create a very safe place for this population.

That view is actually the west side of Willoughby Street where there will be pickup and drop off, a roof deck, but really wanting to create, you know, with the gable form, um, something that really felt like a place of home and safety for this special population.

2B is similarly is conceived in a similar manner, which is looking at the PUD and the intent of the PUD, whether that's height, setback, open space, and what we've done here is actually aggregated units, screen parking, um, and eroded the building to the west in those areas where we had that same height restriction and centralized that height of three stories that then allowed for more open space.

What you'll actually see is the net open space grew by about 4,000 feet from 10,000 feet to 14,000.

Um, all of that really pushed to the south, which relates to the other existing amenities, which seems like a much safer and more approachable location, having southern orientation than kind of the northwest corner.

So that is the ask around out lot A is really in aggregating that open space and freeing up more pathway, circulation, a central courtyard, as well as that plaza to the east.

And the intent around that design was no one wants to look at parking, but you know, let's respect our adjacencies with both detached single family to the north and east, and then a step down in the building's mass with a gable form representing kind of that same residential context to the west, along with the additional open space.

As you can see, the unit mix here was informed by lessons learned from phase one, which was that two and three bedroom units were most in demand, first to lease, and you'll see you know, 73% of the unit mixes those two and three bedroom units.

So we believe this these changes both enhance the site, the open space, the connectivity, the activated spaces for all residents, as well as create you know, an aggregate building and offering of both amenities, improved livability with elevators, trash chutes, etc.

at a modern sensibilities to create a cohesive broad spectrum community that follows the intent of what was devised and envisioned back in 2017.

With that, um happy to field any questions on 2B, or you know, Walker can present on phase three, and we can address questions after.

Yeah, we'll do it that way.

Okay.

I'm walker thrash with vertical, and we're acting as in the capacity of development consultant on the homeownership, which is phase three.

You're looking at on the screen right now.

Um just I'll give you the overview, right?

Because you've gotten the history.

But the overview of this project of phase three with home ownership, we had three big picture ideas.

Desirabilities number one, which is one of the reasons we've pivoted or attempting to pivot to single family detached units.

Um I give you just anecdotally, we're working on a couple of projects in Boulder County in one of our previous very recent projects of the first, we had 52 units that were in a selection process.

The first 22 buyers, and it was almost split town homes and single family detached, get a 50-50 in the development.

20 of the 22 initial lots that were selected for single family detached.

You're starting to see between attached and detached product time on market, and that in this market cycle that fluctuate a little bit, and you're really a nod toward single family detached if you can create it.

The interesting thing here with affordable home ownership and the way insurance works with attached product in the state of Colorado is we're seeing very little delta between those two products for actually creating them on a per unit basis.

Um, so it's one of the reasons to push to that.

Now, this is a very dense single family detached.

Our in the initial PUD, the concept was between 70 and 80 units contemplated as all attached.

This is 73 units detached, roughly within the same amount of real estate.

Um, but we can get it.

That's one of the reasons for talking about the setbacks, which were critical.

What we're trying to do there is really just leverage the outlots that are in front of the lots as additional space for our setbacks up the streets.

But another ideal was to try to keep consistent with the original idea of the PUD to have kind of the lowest density around that edge of 120 and Emma.

So that's we've kept that with the single family detached kind of on the perimeter of the development to kind of usher in density as you get deeper into the project.

Um but then the second big picture idea obviously is affordability.

So we're excited that we have worked on a few different programs and pending this going forward.

Chaffa has a program that's a pilot called Drive at Home, where they have issued or allocated funds to seven different projects in the state.

This is one of the projects that they allocated funds to.

And that's on the first 40 homes.

So we only requested it just because of the pools of money that were available.

So a little more than first half of this project.

So that has been granted to the project.

Should it move forward?

And then also the Department of Housing has issued a $2.5 million grant for the first 40 homes under this layout.

So for that, stacking those two on top of each other is the only way that in our pro forma, some portion of these houses would be in the 300,000, like upper 300,000 price range, which is really hard to do with single family detach in home ownership in a deed restricted model.

And I will say the PUD right now allows for 120% area median income.

We are trying to keep it between 60 and 100 because of being able to stack those two incentives.

We feel like we can we can actually best the PUD in that range.

And so we're capping the first 40 homes for sure at 100% AMI and the deed restriction.

And then third modular part of that is because it makes this project more competitive at the state level, really having a push towards sustainability and innovative construction practices.

But also we work with two different architects on this project.

I should probably scroll down.

Gives you a sense of some of the single family detached.

These are actual plans that we're working on in rendered state.

And we've worked hard to try to develop desirable product.

I would say diversity in product offering.

There's five different unit types within the 73 homes, all the way through to, like you see that top left-hand corner, ranch style home.

We have a few of those that are type A fully accessible, which is hard to do with modulars.

That took some creative engineering.

As far as sustainability, where those two bleed in together, when you deal with waste modular, is an obvious one to talk about sustainability, but we're trying to take that a step further.

In part of our grant application to the state, we said, hey, we'll do we'll we'll play under the Department of Energy's.

It used to be called net zero ready home, and now it's uh energy of DOE energy efficient homes program.

They kind of changed the nomenclature in the last year.

Very similar program.

Potentially, we're also working to go beyond that energy star metric that's within the DOE and try the next gen, which is the next level up involving not to get the details, but heat pump water, he does a handful of different things, um, and work with a rebate program with Excel.

Right now, the math looks like that's the direction that we would go.

We are in the thick of that right now in discussion.

Um big picture on the home ownership side is the capital because of the state and CHAPA both awarding those different programs is really lined up to do this project.

Our goal for the modular, partially was to get 40 homes on site next year moved into and be rolling right into the next 33.

Um so this really is kind of a ready-to-go project if this model of home ownership and single family detached um is the direction that the commission has to get.

That's it.

I'm gonna go ahead and I need to ask a question.

Sure.

But otherwise I'll lose the thread of um the why exactly did you go from the attached to the detached?

What how did the performer work out better?

I heard something about insurance.

I just I'm not sure.

Yeah, I would actually say if if I'm being fair, cost-wise, I'd almost say they're at par.

Yeah, right.

The attached and the single family detached, where we believe, and just what we've seen in the market is that there is more demand for the single family detached, even at this smaller scale, if you can provide it in these developments, like in the deed restricted, because it does allow you just a little bit of side yard.

It's a creative way to create like a 10-foot side yard to each home, and it's it we've just seen it in what the demand is for the deed restricted housing in this price point, and it's become an important like the buzzword right now in grant application rounds in looking at these different programs is hey, we know price points of consideration, but we want to make sure you're developing desirable housing so that we have the demand and that they're moved into immediately.

And that that's a subject, you know, that becomes a whole bigger conversation, right?

Um but just in the data we have, we have seen that these exact models have a lot of demand by buying.

Anyone else wants to build on that?

Or is now the time I'm I'm just I actually just because that was a little he gave us a lot of and I just need to understand that.

Actually, if I if I could build on that, I think and and keep in mind we're we're asking questions around again.

Yes, did you consider given that one one of the original?

I mean, the original plan here was a diversity of housing types.

There were three, we went to two.

What I'm hearing is that this was a subjective choice.

And so you're saying that the cost bears out the same for attached and single family in this thing.

Did you draw up any concepts that incorporated the three different housing types in this to say we've got a single family, we've got these apartment buildings, you've got some attached units, so there's more of a diversity here, or did we go when you were drawing this up as a we're going straight to apartments in single family, and we've made this commitment to split it into two housing types.

Was there any consideration of keeping the three when you were doing this plan, or did you just commit to the the two and bring us that?

I will say actually one of these plans started as a design for an attached product that we have detached, which is the largest of the plan.

It's at your the elevation, I think maybe the very far in the bottom elevation.

But what we found is that in yield, we were within a couple of units either way, because of the width.

And there is in the development going with whether we do it 40 and 33 or however, over the 73 units, to have it wholesale single family detached can keep us out of a different insurance category.

And when you start having I don't get like I don't want to go too much in a rabbit hole, but an OSIP or a CSIP policy that we would have to have for attached product, there's kind of a floor cost.

Okay.

And so if you only have a limited amount of them, it's a very expensive policy when you have 12 attached units, right?

As opposed to 40 per door.

Is there I'm not gonna hold you to this number?

Sure.

Is there a bracket of where that floor is of where we're gonna break towards a insurance figure that makes sense, like a minimum of where that insurance number starts to make sense from a quantity standpoint?

Um I would say not holding it to a because it's a very fluid market right now.

The insurance market's hardening costs are really gone up in the last 24 months, but um I would say that number is probably in the neighborhood of 25 to 30.

Okay.

Before on the per door, it starts to look like a uh a par cost with single family attached.

It seems counterintuitive.

But on a unit by unit basis, we're actually providing some of the single family detached at less cost than the attached product strictly because of the insurance.

Maybe this is a question for somebody else in here, but I'm hearing that we moved two apartment buildings because the geothermal didn't make sense at scale from a town home scenario.

My question is because obviously attached units share walls and thus energy costs.

Did you consider in your you know cost basis scenario here rather than just a market demand?

Is there a benefit from an energy savings standpoint of having attached units from a longevity standpoint here?

Because obviously I get geothermal doesn't make sense in a duplex scenario, but if we've got a row of townhomes, is there some of that thermal sharing that helps energy costs or shared solar or some other kind of sure the route we went with the housing, and and it is it is tricky when you're talking about individual ownership on every lot, right?

And some of the shared resources because then the homeowners association becomes a little bit of a bigger operating body.

And we're trying to keep HOA fees down at the same time, right?

Because homeownership's a lot, it's not what's the mortgage, it's what's every payment within the month.

So there's some consideration there on individual lots, but you know, fee simple ownership.

Um but the other thing is, and BCHA was clear about this when we started as an ideal, take the sustainability as far as you can to have a buildable project, right, within the total pricing that we think fits within these AMI targets.

Um what we tried to do is that these are extremely efficient homes as individual build.

I would, and look, I'm not an engineer, but as you look at that like party wall that you would have in a town home structure, we're building an awfully efficient R value for that exterior wall.

It's not apples to apples, but as an operating like energy model for each home, our townhomes are a single family detached.

The energy model is almost the same.

That's all the information, thank you.

Are they all deed restricted?

These are.

So it and we have not let me say I want to clarify out of the 73, the grants we're talking about for the first 40 homes, partially because this is getting more competitive, and the state does not want to issue grants of that size.

So we would probably go into two rounds here.

Um but in the first 40 in talking and accepting that we would take that grant on, we've actually said those first 40 would all be deed restricted.

So only those that have a grant associated with it are deed restricted.

Our anticipation is that the vast majority of these would be deed restricted.

In the PUD, we're not asking for this to change.

What was originally accepted was that up to 16 could be market rate at this count that actually would be 14.

We haven't really contemplated market rate units.

Our our objective is trying to develop affordable housing.

Is that the grants are only available if it's single with family detached?

Oh no.

So if this was a duplex model, those 40 units could still get this benefit.

That's correct.

And we're where the subjectivity is coming in is these grant rounds are getting very competitive.

Two years ago, they they were asking people to get in the grant round.

Now we're not even getting the full allocation per door that we could, but you're trying to present, hey, this is the most desirable product we can.

What their interest is is that you build it and it's full.

Like that that is a it's an early on question, and then you get into sustainability costs and all of those considerations.

So that's so you're being asked to say what is your typical unit that you're selling most quickly when you apply for this grant.

Are you saying that when you say we're doing duplexes, there's they're less interested in that, or there's some potential that you wouldn't get.

There's definitely duplexes getting grants, right?

Um I don't want to paint it in like a full broad brush, but what we're trying to do is say, okay, what's the most desirable product we can do in Lafayette against the median house price that's in the market, and we felt like with the data we had in Boulder County that the single family detached was going to be the winning strategy to try to sell them as soon as we build them.

Because in our model, there's no carrying cost, right?

So that's one of the ways that we're getting the house price down is in that drive at home program, the debt is three and a half percent of construction, and our anticipations there's no carry at the end of that, so that we're moving people in and a rotation immediately.

And we think there will be that type of demand here.

And how quick do you have to fill these houses?

You mean by this by the grant round?

Yes.

Yeah, that you're saying we're not really held to their standards.

You're saying you have these houses and you gotta get people in there.

I'm just curious.

We want to deliver the first 40 all within next year.

Yeah, assuming that we're following the path through planning, working to site development when we believe we would in timing.

And you think town houses would fill up that quickly.

We just see more demand for single family detached.

Um that's that's in our raw data.

I mean, this is my follow-on question.

If you're saying, you know, these single-family residentials filled in three days, and a townhomes filled in two weeks.

I'm making up numbers here.

Sure.

You know, yes, that's an additional carrying cost, which I do realize is an additional cost, but it is a matter of you know.

This is a I don't know what the scale is.

Yes, there's also let me say this the other side of the pro forma is revenue.

Yes, of course.

And so in the single family detached, there we're seeing a little bit of a delta per foot.

Yep.

And we are really you are threading the needle, right?

Of not making too much, not making too little.

Yeah.

And these product types skew a little smaller.

Yep.

But we're seeing them in the highest demand.

Uh and so when we talk about diversity of product type, I will say this.

It's one of the reasons, and you can see here, we were we worked with two different architecture firms to try to develop five different plans.

Each plan has a few different elevation types.

This is not gonna look like track home around the you know, all the way around the bend.

It's it really was meant to be a pallet of color and different design.

I'm gonna just opinionate for a second.

I think it's not that it's any of that.

I just think our role is to consider the long-term community character and viability and all of those things rather than turning around a house and product in a short period of time, which is obviously this is part of it.

So I think that's that's just what the questions are, which is good to know.

Yeah, no, I appreciate it.

From you guys' standpoint, but it's um an important but there are other bottom line is if somebody can't afford a $600,000 house can only afford something in the $300,000 range.

High $300.

And if they if they got a town, if they had a town home in that range, they would refuse to buy it because it's not single family home.

No, I don't think that's the characterization.

It's what can we provide at upper 300,000s that is the most desirable product we can provide today?

And the assumption is that same desire would carry into the future some period of time, right?

If it's desirable today, is it desirable tomorrow?

Single family detached is just kind of proven that this market cycle.

And that's you need all the product types.

I'm not like we gotta only build single family detached.

I will say it was part of what we thought put us in a good competitive environment to get the funding for the project.

At some level, we're playing by a lot of different rules.

Any other questions for this particular member of the applicant?

Yeah, we know a lot more.

I guess I do have another question, which is we talked a lot about the desirability of single family, but you've got a lot of apartments.

And I know you said that two and three bedrooms were more desirable when you're looking at apartments, but how do you compare townhomes and apartments?

Like aren't townhomes gonna be are there were there rentable options and the other housing types previously, or was it only for purchase?

So I think there's where we're kind of like crossing line into the multifamily section of the development, right?

And what is phase two B.

Yes, I think we need to.

Yeah, no, do it.

Tag team.

Um look, I think um actually since probably 2015, we've seen this build for rent model emerge of renting cottage product, town homes.

Um to Walker's point, you know, the housing market is a broad spectrum, and we're not saying one product type is the solution.

We're saying there are certain characteristics within certain contexts that fit uh that context maybe best, or what we're observing today from a demand standpoint from a market standpoint.

Um I actually built a lot of builds for rent from 2018 to 21.

Um, and had friends who built townhomes for rent.

It's a great product type.

The challenge is twofold as it applies here.

First, when it comes to serving uh individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, you can't take a town home and slap a sticker on it and say, here you go.

You know, the centralized amenity, the social nature, the courtyard, the acoustics, like this population that we've come to learn and interface with and have uh QA sessions.

Um I think that's what I love about my job is you have to get in your residence mindset and lifestyle and daily life and see how you can deliver a community that best serves those needs.

So the existing townhomes and the plan never had neuroinclusivity as part of that consideration whatsoever.

Um it was 2017.

I don't think that was really you know part of the lexicon at the time, even so I think you know that's one component of why two A shifted.

And two A, sorry, that's the one with you showed us the bottom right.

Yeah, the bottom right.

Okay, yeah, okay.

Yeah, so that's you know, South Central in the site, um, that's I think it's still in planning area B, but you know, this is really conforming use within the PUD itself.

So, you know, that was first and foremost.

And then secondly, you know, looking at I don't know if I can go back all the way, but looking at the townhomes for rent, it poses kind of a variety of challenges.

Um, whether that's sustainability and geothermal and PB, whether that's community and bringing people together instead of having them in their separate townhomes with interior stairs and you know, saying this is for rent, which was part of the intent.

Um the unit count for rent and for sale is within you know a small percentage point margin.

Um it was 70 70 to 80 units for sale, the remainder for rent.

You know, we're within those parameters of the total 400 units.

But you know, another function we're facing is you know, the practicality of if you look at that original plan and you deliver these block town homes, people are gonna want the ends, you know, those have good daylight.

Usually interior is gonna be last to lease, and that's fine.

That's a dynamic.

But then the remainder of the site is eight packs, seven packs, and concrete.

So the ability for community connection, path, open space, and really that activated interface that we're seeing in phase one that drives community is there's less of an opportunity for that in just a bulk mass of town homes and saying they're all for rent.

And then there's kind of the pragmatic constraints of costs.

You know, in general, townhomes cost 30% more to build, interior stairs, then apartments.

Sorry, what do you mean?

Correct.

Right?

One foundation for two foundation systems, two buildings for 104 units instead of individual tap.

So all those small things add up, um, which really then helps.

If we're solving for the same math, our affordability level then increases.

Um the aggregation of the units, I think drives community.

We have elevators, it drives resident experience, livability, and it allows us to enhance and deepen the affordability itself in the AMIs that are served.

So you know that's a little bit of the logic behind why in this instance, townhomes for rent or townhomes as neuroinclusive housing are maybe not the most appropriate solution across the board.

Okay.

One more question, then we'll move on.

And we'll finish this.

This is simple.

You mentioned it about five times in the last 20 minutes inclusive.

Yes, sir.

What what percentage are you are you planning to have a percentage of these apartments or houses?

Yes, great questions.

But the way he's describing this sounds like with you you said with the apartment building that you wish to build, then the other one.

You're talking it's it's easier for your inclusive uh apartments to be in there versus in the town houses.

And that got me to thinking are you planning for a certain percentage of these apartments to be occupied?

Great question.

Yeah.

So phase two A, these 32 units and the amenities, the courtyard, everything associated with it, is specifically to serve.

Correct.

But it sounds like you're that neurological.

It sounds like you're describing the additional phase 2B is for individuals and families as affordable housing, which which is very similar to two of the buildings in phase one.

Um I think the distinction he keeps drawing is the cost is when you're driving the full multifamily, the cost of these 32 units is higher than the other multifamily, doing them together.

I just misunderstood as you're describing the other apartment building.

But did sorry, were you just saying that the other apartment block is basically subsidizing this one?

Is that kind of these these will be financed separately?

Um but you know, as a whole, I would say there's cost benefit that drives deeper affordability for both projects individually.

But one is not supplementing the other just for clarity.

And both are serving, you know, this phase 2A is 30 to 60 percent AMI averaging 48.

Um and phase 2B is 30 to 70, averaging 55.

So when I throw out deep affordability, I just wanted um you know the commission to have a true metric on on what we mean here.

But the single family or 60 to 100.

Correct.

Um can we move on to the next part of the applicant?

Because I know we've got public hearings still, so I want to make sure people I know I started that whole detailing.

But I guess I did.

I did.

There was just there was a lot in there.

Right.

All right.

I wouldn't say anything.

That's a lot.

Oh, we didn't have a staff.

Sorry.

Oh, I didn't.

I thought there was more applicant presentation.

I thought that's what I think.

That was a perfect slide.

Oh, we can talk about it.

I think I think we'll move into the public hearing.

Um, and then I'm sure we'll have more questions and um after we after we have our public hearing.

Our public also always brings up such great points.

Um so we'll move on to public testimony.

At this time, we will hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the planning commission about the special use um about this application.

Please fill out a speaker form if you haven't already and hand it to the commission secretary.

I have right now three forms, I believe.

Yes.

Um before I call up the first speaker, I will note for the record that it is now 848 p.m.

So that was a little bit.

747.

All right.

Um Karen Norbach, please come to the podium and say your name and address for the record.

Thank you.

Thank you to the disabled.

Yeah, I'm a lot of them.

Karen Norbeck, 800 East Genesee.

Good evening.

Tonight you are reviewing amendments that amount to a complete rewrite of a planning commission and council approved sketch plan.

I was here when the council approved the $3.5 million purchase of the property with a plan to partner with BCHA to build affordable housing.

I attended the first neighborhood meeting, had coffee with members of the development team, and then became a member of ELAC, the East Lafayette Advisory Committee, charged with providing input on the development plans.

As a representative of Old Town, I was an advocate for those residents who would be affected by the addition of 400 more housing units in an area that already deals with issues created by traffic to and from the nearby Peak to Peak school and takes pride in its uniqueness.

The issue was how do we lessen the impact of an entirely new neighborhood on our oldest.

For five years I attended every ELAC public planning commission and council meeting pertaining to this development.

I easily have over a hundred documents in my laptop related to it.

I posted detailed updates about the process and plans on next door.

I was here when the council at BCA's request authorized an $88,000 contribution for community outreach, and I spent many hours on the phone with Marcus Pochner hired to conduct that outreach.

BCHA went above and beyond to engage the community about this development and highlighted that in their 2019 sketch plan presentation to the commission, which I just handed to you.

On top of the land purchase, the city contributed over five million dollars in water rights, add in fee waivers, and the staff estimate was close to a $10 million investment for just phase one of this project.

The original sketch plan shows the attention given to the community.

Traffic concerns were addressed with lights, circles, and bus routes.

The heightened scale of the development was designed to lessen the visual impact by putting the three-story apartments at the south side and coming down in height to the northern side of Emma at Emma, where the focus was on trying to emulate the look of old town with smaller scale homes and front yards set back from the street.

As you know, developers come in with their plans with little concern about the neighbors beyond required meetings.

But this community is a partner with BCHA, which acts as Lafayette's housing authority.

In the project's first sketch plan, we saw something different.

That's why I am so incredibly disappointed in what is before you tonight.

We have a complete disregard of all those years of work and outreach.

Former planning director Brazzle told me planning is partly art.

Well, a new team has come in with a broad and heavy brush rather than a scalpel and swept away all that vision, done the bare minimum outreach, and brought you a plan that seems to be the antithesis of what the city wants from new developments and what was promised to the community.

We see rows of the same housing type, three-story apartments in the middle of a development, towering over the single family housing behind.

I watched as you spent hours assessing silo in the range and made point after point about diversity in housing, massing scale, and avoiding rows of the same housing type.

Tonight you are presented with what might be the best, or is it the worst example of how not to build in Lafayette?

I found out about this amendment on Lafayette Listens, and my first response was how dare they?

Followed by a complaint to staff about the lack of notification.

Susanna kindly reached out to me after that, offering to talk and arranged a virtual chat with Vicky Ulan and me.

We thought the changes must be related to funding issues.

But instead, it was shocking to hear her say the first plan was missing utility boxes and the roadways were not big enough, hence the changes.

We were also told that people don't want duplexes, that they are the last to sell.

So you might want to investigate that as you consider adding this missing middle housing to the new land use code.

We all know this is a re a regional affordable housing project.

Federal law prohibits giving Lafayette residents first dips to live there.

But BCHA needs to live up to the commitment on promises it made to respect this community whose support made this project a reality.

We were told at the outset that this would be handled the same as any other project, but it feels like there's an expectation that Lafayette will just do what BCHA wants.

Prior to the 2023 presentation, the council, they attempted to use ELAC to strong warn them to give fee waivers by implying counselors didn't support affordable count housing, which of course was not the case.

This clunky new sketch plan is so far from what we were promised and what we deserve.

Tonight I ask you to put pushback on these changes in favor of something more fitting for our town before it's too late.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next up we have Christy Walsh.

Christy Walsh, 330 North 120th Street.

I want to start saying I support affordable housing, but I also want to see development that supports the character and values of the town and does it compromise the quality of life for the existing residents.

The ELAC spent considerable time and the city likely spent considerable dollars to find a consensus that was palatable to everyone.

A development of this size certainly increases the burden on the neighborhood for traffic, light, noise, utilities, etc.

Is someone who lives across the street from the development?

I can personally attest to the burden on utilities when my water pressure diminishes to nothing at my morning shower.

Um traffic when someone drove into my front yard after trading the brand new stoplight, like the starting line of the Deuton of 500, watching Traffic come down Emma racing towards the stoplight, hoping to beat the new uh red light instead of just being able to turn when the traffic was clear at a stop sign, or the light pollution since the garage lights are on all night long with no motion sensor to turn them off, even in two o'clock in the morning.

An excellent history of this process and a summary of why we are here today is presented by Karen Norbeck and Vicky Ulan as their substack report on a political hobbyist in Lafayette CO.substack.com.

And go to the article titled Bait and Switch at Willoughby Corner.

I wholeheartedly support everything discussed in that article and what Karen said here tonight.

A couple of things to highlight in my own words.

During the planning for this development, we were led to believe that sufficient work had been done for regarding utilities, traffic, drainage, etc.

This was presented to the ELAC as being for the entire development, not just for phase one.

For this to change now uh years later demonstrates that this was best case incompetent or worst case, just faked in.

I'm hoping it was the former.

The city has been hosting and notifying about open houses for years.

Since these are generally focused on people who wanted to live in the live in the development, has it always been worth going to every open house?

In the last notice for open house, there was no indication that they would be presenting a proposal for such a massive change to this development.

I also subscribed to the BCAH newsletter, BCHA newsletter, and for the development.

And the last time I received an email newsletter was over a year ago in March 2025.

If I hadn't been contacted by other members of the ELAC committee, it would have no idea that this le that this was coming.

After all the hype about community engagement over the years, this leaves the impression that there is an effort to slide these changes in under the radar and hope that the neighbors don't notice until it's too late to make a bunch of changes and avoid opposition from the community.

Talk about tonight.

They listed a bunch of groups that they engage with.

None of those were the community members or the neighbors.

I haven't heard boo about this development since the ELAC shut down.

As an example to demonstrate that feels like BCHA hasn't really done its homework, is their statement that they determined they didn't want to buy people don't want to buy duplexes, they would be hard to sell.

Very short Google search shows that these are alive and well in today's housing market, just rebranded as paired homes.

These are included in new development, market rate planned communities in Westminster, Thornton, and Erie, just to name a few.

The uplands in Westminster is advertising, quote, thoughtfully designed paired homes offer the perfect balance of privacy, low maintenance living, and connected neighborhood feel.

If developers who are only interested in only in the market to sell housing at top dollar, find value in paired homes and aren't afraid of insurance or liability, how can this be a problem for BCHA?

This simple example makes it difficult to believe that BCHA has done due diligence on any subject.

They're putting out tonight that this is their data comes from projects in Boulder.

We are not the city of Boulder, and the things that we want in Lafayette are different.

If the developer wants or needs to start over from scratch, they should be required to start the community engagement process over as well.

Their proposal should be in keeping with the updates to the city's land use code and should be grounded in reasonable due diligence with the neighbors.

I urge this committee to reject any new proposal until such basic standards are met.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And finally, I have Vicki Uland.

If there's any other speakers, uh anyone else who'd like to speak, please provide a speaker request for them.

Thank you.

Before you hit the timer, um, we're having a little trouble hearing back in the seats, so if you guys got to move my thank you.

I'm Vicky Ulan 303 West Simpson Street.

I'm speaking to you tonight as a member of ELAC and the land use code working group.

As a member of ELAC, I volunteered five years and hundreds of hours to helping the city and BCHA create an affordable housing development that is truly a part of the community rather than a disconnected housing project on the outskirts of town.

We felt like we had achieved that with the PUD and sketch plan that went before planning commission in 2019 and was approved by council in 2022.

But now BCHA wants to completely change phases two and three of that plan with very little public input.

Back in 2018 and 2019, when the sketch plan you approved was being developed, BCHA touted how much public engagement they conducted.

They showed you a slide about their community-wide outreach, including open houses, community coffee and backyard meetings, and working with ELAC.

For the major changes to more than half of the development that BCHA is asking for tonight, they did the minimum, notified neighbors within a hundred and within 800 feet of Willoughby Corner.

Because there are so few properties in this notification area, ELAC successfully lobbied for the BCHA to send the out neighborhood meeting notices to all of Old Town and flag drive for the original PUD and sketch plan.

BCHA chose not to do that this time, nor did it notify ELAC members, even though Stephen Williams told us he had suggested they do that.

So what you're seeing tonight is a sketch plan with no input from ELAC and minimal input from people who live outside of Willoughby Corner and will be directly affected by these changes.

That's concerning to me.

Also of concern is how this new plan ignores a key thing that neighbors had asked for in the development, and that BCHA said in their presentation to you in 2019 that it was emphasizing, which is stupid duplicating the old town residential character.

There are two key aspects of that.

The first is building heights.

BCHA and ELAF worked out a plan to put the three-story multifamily buildings at the south end of the lot where they were there were already tall industrial buildings.

Then there was a step down to two-story town homes and duplexes as the development near to MN Canterbury, which is more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.

As you know, the comp plan, the old town residential overlay zoning, and the draft land use code all specifically mentioned step downs.

Now BCHA wants to plop down three-story apartment buildings in the middle of the development.

So from south to north, the development would go from three-story to two-story multifamily housing buildings, then back to three-story multifamily, and then two-story single family.

This patchwork of building heights is a major departure from what BCHA promised us they would build and what old town residential zoning calls for.

When Karen Norbeck and I asked the BCHA executive director why BCHA wanted these changes, she said it was mainly due to two things.

They thought they could sell single family homes better than duplexes, and to make up the number of units they would lose by doing that, they needed to build more apartments.

Also, she said during phase one, BCHA didn't build the infrastructure, including utility boxes and road widths necessary to construct the duplexes in townhomes, they had told us they would build, which makes the question, why not?

The only the other thing Elec and surrounding neighbors asked for in order to duplicate the old town residential character is substantial front setbacks along Emma.

In 2019, we reluctantly signed off on reducing the front setbacks from 36 feet to 15 feet because BCHA said they needed that.

Now BCHA says they need eight-foot setbacks in order to build the single family homes they want.

These tiny setbacks will not look like any of the residential properties surrounding Willoughby Corner.

Finally, the mix of housing BCHA now proposes, apartments and single family homes, is not in keeping with the proposed form-based code.

We we all know, like the back of our hand.

The original Willoughby Corner plan called for three types of housing multifamily duplexes and townhomes, which is closer to the four types of residences the code calls for in the neighborhood mixed-use centers of this size.

Now BCHA is proposing only two types of housing grouped together in a way that's in opposition to the form-based code.

What I'd like is for you to send BCHA back to the drawing board.

If they want to completely change half of the sketch plan that was originally approved by PC and Council, then I think they need to do more public input than the bare minimum of a neighborhood meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other um members of the public who'd wish to speak?

Please bring up go ahead and okay.

Go ahead and introduce yourself.

What's been said by the citizens here?

I was involved with the project, but as you know, I keep up with a lot of development going on.

Speaking on a lot of issues.

You know, through the various grants.

Oda would ask the planning commission to do is that uh I think this needs to be deferred, as has been stated for more public input.

The uh, as you know, the city council just deferred making taking action on the Lafayette Cemetery.

Which to the public to the families to be more transparent.

Not them saying they're not being transparent, but to let the poor people understand.

This is a big deal.

I wasn't for it to begin with, and I'll get shocked for saying that.

But uh I think there needs more transparency, being the citizens, you know, we put up what was it, five million or something, whatever our contribution or ten million.

So there's a lot of money on the table.

And I think not a neighborhood meeting, open house like we had before, just did it did a pretty good job.

You're very astute people.

I'm a little knowledgeable, but I've still know an audience out in the finance.

I don't want to know it.

But if if it just could explain to the citizens to the general public what they did to you all here today, uh I think we go a long way and bring it back to trust in the community.

And uh when I got the agenda, when you know I look up the agenda comes out a week ahead of time, I saw this, but then think much about it until you know Karen said, Well, this is going on.

So I'm not you know, a lot goes on in the whole planning and the dynamics of everything.

And I would not against the project, not for the project, but we really I'm just asking a deferral.

I know Thomas I'll be asking for construction or the housing market and costs going up and all that, but I think just do a better job like we did the first part.

People change, managers change, consultant change.

That's all I'm asking.

If we could just have a public uh meeting like was done, you know, and in the nice room they have there.

So let the people try to understand, ask the questions one-on-one.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no other member of the public wishing to address the commission.

Public testimony period is now closed.

It is now 8 07 p.m.

for real for real.

Does the applicant wish to respond to the public testimony?

Um including written public testimony that was included in the meeting packet for the hearing record.

I think I speak for planning commission when I say we would all appreciate that response to some of the public comment.

Good evening, Commissioner.

My name is Susanna Lopez Baker.

I'm the executive director of the Boulder County Housing Authority.

Thank you for having us today.

I'll be really brief.

I do believe the team addressed many of the concerns you heard today.

But a couple of things, the appropriate infrastructure and traffic studies were done to scale.

So I just want to make sure that that's certainly the only thing that was not that I believe we're hearing tonight is just the utility boxes, just room for them, space for them, all of those details.

We work very very closely with city staff to identify that.

And they made us aware of that probably about I'm not sure, maybe sometime in 2024 would be my guess.

And so we've known that we were going to have work to do.

When we sat down with our design team, that was in uh 2025.

That we really had to buckle down and figure out how we were going to make space for things.

Um the site is now ready for the additional 208 units that we have always promised to deliver to the city of Lafayette.

BCHA doesn't anticipate any increased traffic as the number of units remains the same.

And so all that extensive traffic work was done in Willoughby phase one for in preparation for phases two and three.

But in um terms of the home ownership, that local data comes from uh Erie and Longmock projects.

Um and I do want to say to you that I wish it didn't take so long to build affordable housing, but we are approaching 10 years on this project.

And over that time, things have shifted, things have changed, and we do believe that this amended design protects the integrity of the original design from eight years ago.

Um and then I just want to also point out we don't need to make up any units.

Um we are essentially staying the same on unit delivery.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um I think we can ask any questions.

Go ahead.

Um applicant, we've got the applicant now, um, and the applicant and the design team who would like to start, and then we'll turn over to discussion.

I'm just gonna ask a point of clarification.

Okay, go for it.

Uh you just said something that I would love for a clarification on.

You said that the amended design protects the integrity of the original design.

Is that a unit count observation?

Or would you care to expand on that comment?

Absolutely, yes, in terms of unit count, it does that.

And then I think also we um know that we want the neighborhood has always wanted or requested that we have a drive-up feel, and so keeping the outer area um coming down 119th onto Emma be those homeownership one and two-story homes.

And so we've kept that piece.

We've not wanted to we initially, and originally way back when we wanted four stories on the property.

We didn't do that.

We are staying within what is already in existence on the property, which is those two and three-story buildings.

That's what I was referring to.

Okay.

I have a question, but oh, sorry, good.

Sorry, my name's Adam Cantor.

Um Director of Planning for Kepphart.

So we're working on site planning and architecture.

Uh just on phase two.

We're not working on phase three from an architecture standpoint.

The other pieces that are that are held um sacred really are the open space connections.

Um we've really tried.

Could you turn me pull up the slightly?

Can I interrupt for a second?

Sure keep doing this.

And I'm surprised staff hasn't educated you that open space in Lafayette is a particular thing.

It's not area that just happens to be unbuilt on.

Open space is truly land that's purchased for open space.

So please stop using that term when we're talking about open areas.

Open areas.

Thank you.

Do we have a slide you showed that the original comments and the proposed comments?

Yeah, that's a good one.

There it is.

This one is close enough.

We all know what's going on.

No, no, it's this one doesn't, this one doesn't really do it for that.

How many times are you saying?

What I was trying to clarify really was maintaining the structure of the open areas.

And that you can see between the two multifamily buildings, right?

It is a stormwater easement, yes, but that is a strategy that we employ to have enclosed open areas that become usable, and then it makes that full connection all the way through to the detention pond, right?

So we are maintaining the integrity of that.

The previous plan, it's really difficult to see here was all alleys.

There were no streets per se.

So when we took a look at that plan, it felt very much like you were driving around back alleys.

There the only streets were Canterbury.

And the one that runs north-south.

It's gonna be well.

Thank you.

So the change that we that we have made, the changes that we're asking to make really put a create a street presence that we didn't have before, that we couldn't see before.

So the the product type, I understand is a departure, but it doesn't necessarily change the fabric of the plan.

The the the streetscapes are I would say actually improved because we're not just driving past the garage doors everywhere.

Um there is still some of that, but we've tried to alleviate that as best we could.

The what's sort of missing from apartment conversation is that by maintaining two stories along Canterbury, we really felt like we were holding again that integrity and allowing the mass to stay away from the major streets, right?

Having it more centrally um located.

So I just wanted to pull those out and say, yes, we did really think about what the original plan looked like and how we were able to bring forward something that made sense for today's planet.

The you mentioned the storm um drainage there.

What why wasn't that on the original plan?

And what how was that taken care of?

On why did that become the it's it's it's existed, it's always existed.

Okay.

But what we're trying to say is that we wanted we're using it and trying to enhance it.

It's a pedestrian corridor.

So it isn't just a storm drainage area.

It isn't just a pipe that runs across the site.

We're saying that this is a one of the major bones of the entirety of the plan.

It is it is a major east-west pedestrian connector.

Okay, I have um I this is a little bit of a hypothetical, but I know we're just in sketch plan, so you're just here to get some feedback.

But imagine that this was being proposed and the planning commission said no, we do not accept these changes to the PUD.

What does that mean for the development?

Like it uh is this like uh the development doesn't get built situation, or is this uh it would make the houses more expensive situation?

What what what would what would that mean for you all?

I well I want to be clear the original PED is not buildable.

So we would have to go back to the drawing board.

Why?

Yeah, I I'm not seeing the evidence of why it wasn't buildable.

And if it wasn't, where where did that I know there's been some turnover in the um in this in the teams and in in our then city staff?

I just want to emphasize we're all team here.

We're trying to build some some cool uh affordable housing, and we want to, but to the point of all the people who spoke, wow, there's been a lot of volunteer hours put into this.

Um not not um not to mention ours, um, but the ELAC folks put in the put in the time.

Why I'm not seeing the evidence of why I mean we could all look at technical documents, we understand them.

Um I'd like to know why.

I can speak to that.

Yeah.

Um I spoke to public works quite a bit over the last week just to try to wrap my head around this.

So the way I understand it when we were going through this process, uh we were processing the PUD for the whole site, and I think originally we were looking at CDs for the whole site, and they really wanted to get phase one going.

We broke phase one CDs out, reviewed those on their own, came back later, started reviewing the rest of the phase.

Those townhomes are too tight, they're not wide enough.

You didn't meet the 10-foot separation spacing for uh domestic lines, uh the 35-foot separation for two utilities and alleys really was gonna blow it up, and it even goes up more if you have to get your stormwater and your sewer and your water lines lines in there is too tight.

Uh so I don't think it was ever officially denied, but the response from our public works team is what you're proposing isn't doable.

And it was spacing of utilities.

It was too tight, and there wasn't there wasn't enough space.

Like hypothetically, some of in this middle couldn't be duplexed for this reason.

Maybe not the connection.

But that doesn't mean none of it could.

Yeah, that that's I guess.

Single family or bust, is that what we're hearing?

Yeah.

No, we could you're right, but we would do we do um a reduction in the units.

Like it would not have been buildable at the scale.

I'm just kind of curious.

So the first phase.

Oh, suddenly it came out that wow, this it was not possible to put the utilities there.

And I'll get a dollar, I can go back and find the paper from when we approved it, and there's probably a sentence or two in there from the city saying, yeah, this is we can cover this.

We can do this.

What happened?

Well, it I don't I don't I don't want to speak too much to that, but you can say there's there's been over the years there's been different city uh uh engineers who have been fine with lesser clearances, and there's been other city engineers who want more you know, greater clearances for easier maintenance uh construction.

I don't know if it was that.

Uh I I don't know if that if that language is in there.

It's in my experience, it's not been uncommon that you approve a PUD without all of the fine details with the understanding that it might not completely be buildable.

And that's what that's why it's generally best practice to build to approve PUDs at a at a higher scale and less detail because there should be some some give and take within it as you're moving through the site planning process where you're getting the construction drawings and three-dimensional plans and profiles, and you're going through all that, and sometimes you discover stuff during that process that it didn't work in an architectural PUD.

So give or take is just some minor adjustments, it's not literally redesigning the development to be two housing types.

I mean, it's something not as good.

It wasn't fair for this, but also I'd like to point out we would consider just three housing types because they're providing housing to a special population of people that the other one wasn't.

So uh you know that it you know, just like we would consider affordable housing, a housing type and a market ready development.

Uh so it's good building type, but sure.

It's more of a building type form type situation, but yes, I hear what you're saying.

You know, yeah, so I'm not saying it was that or this, but what that was was not doable.

There's probably multiple solutions to addressing the issues.

This is the one they chose us as what we're responding to.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Um I just don't want to get too it won't it won't help anyone if we get too um twitchy up in here.

I wonder if let's provide some really good feedback and some really clear.

Could we pull up your what you'd like feedback on slide?

That would be really helpful.

Yeah, that would be really helpful.

I think I think I could do one of the art clicking.

Um I don't I don't want to tamp down the discussion, I just want to make sure everybody stays um at a at a high level and and um professional.

Um do we want are there specific questions that we want to that we want to ask of the applicant or staff?

Um I know I've got some.

Um do we want to start with the applicant since they're up here, or do we want to keep going with the applicant?

I should say.

I have a question for the app again.

Go for it.

So it I it sounds like you guys put a lot of thought into this to end up here.

Could you talk a little bit about some of the other alternatives you might have thought about and why you selected this instead?

Yeah, I'll actually if I can have Adam come back up here.

Is we drew a lot of different design work for this project.

Essentially, what really led us to this are having more open areas that was really important to us, easy access to the RTD, that's something that we had to consider.

So those were some of the key factors as we were redesigning what we wanted there, and then also um not only affordability on the single family homes, but also just the availability of that.

And so we hear I hear from a lot of people personally around the county, and what we're really hearing is they want to own their own home without a shared wall.

So that became really important to us too.

I do want to share too that why we shifted to the IDD component is because I used to be the deputy director of housing and human services where the IDD advisory commission lives, and I did a lot of work with that team, including hiring two housing navigators that work countywide.

Um but I heard at hearing after hearing, and in this chamber, several families speak to the fact that they didn't know where their adult children were gonna live after they passed away.

These were older adults, and so that really I have a niece with IDD, that really stuck with me.

And so I started studying it.

I went to conferences, I started asking questions, the team was on board.

That really pushed us on the two way model, and which is the IDD community.

We are so excited to be able to build that here in Boulder County.

It doesn't exist today, and it's a huge unmet need.

In 2018, it was the highest need in that community trending, and not only that, but just um statewide, it remains a problem.

And we do have a priority.

We are working um right now to ensure that our tenant selection plan, we have a priority not only for um families with IDD needs, but also who live here in Boulder County.

So I just want you to hear all that.

That 2A became the heart, the IDD community became the heart of this.

And so when we had to decide if we're gonna build a TOA, that does mean we lose the townhomes.

That's the direction we went.

But I'll let Adam talk about some of the different models we can can I follow up with that.

Um you have to lose the townhomes because of the the performer is not working out.

No, okay.

Because of the space we can have this 128 townhomes in the space provided.

Okay.

But but you might be able to fit 20 town homes.

We could, yes.

And we did play with some of that design work.

We did.

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

So still sticking with the 2A.

Okay, so you have one and two bedrooms.

Correct.

Okay.

I'm assuming that do any of these are you are you assuming any of these adults, since they're living with their families now, will require some supervision if they're living in a separate and where are those people gonna live?

Yeah, which is why we have the two bedrooms.

So they really are designed for like a caregiver model.

So not only are they two bedroom, but they're two bathroom.

So they actually have a completely separate living space with the middle being a shared.

And so the one bedrooms are then are designed for those who have their disabilities, they still can live by themselves.

Correct.

Correct.

And the whole the whole um the whole building community is designed for independent living with light um supports in place.

Great question.

If I could just go back though, I I did want to hear that.

No, no, no.

I I wouldn't thank you for that.

I would love to also hear what what other design models you thought about.

I don't really have a ton to add on this topic, right?

When we were given direction to design a neuro-inclusive building.

Well, is that what you're asking about?

No, no, no.

I I'm trying to understand, you know, I look, I don't love all the parking lot that's there now that didn't used to be there.

We're not that psyched, I think, about these huge multifamily buildings that weren't otherwise, you know, previously proposed.

We've heard a lot of comments, you know, a lot of single family homes doesn't make me feel real excited.

I understand that this isn't necessarily for me.

But still, um, so there's things that I don't love about where you ended up, but I assume there may be reasons you ended up there, and I'd love to hear your thinking around that.

Oh, so before we landed on on the three building scenario that you see now, we had a solution that tried to away the nine plexus or something very similar to that.

So we showed that as a plan.

The feedback we received was that that population doesn't want to live and cannot live in a separated scenario like that.

It must be but what about everybody else?

So yeah, I think the I think the IDG that portion is another solution that we had that we had.

The two A part is good with two A.

I think we're good with that.

But the kind of rest of it is.

Because once we landed on 2A, it really limited what we could do otherwise.

That's what I was doing.

Because we had we didn't want to come back to you and say we cannot deliver as many units as we said we could.

So we came up with a solution so that we could deliver the amount of affordable housing that was promised.

And what that had, but that is it be it becomes these apartments.

And we did have another solution where we had more, but it was four apartment buildings actually.

So three stories and then two stories on the front, they were not two large buildings.

We did have that access point was still there.

All of those things sort of shook out as we got into the amount of exterior and the cost that it will take to build four buildings versus two.

Um and so plan it as where we are.

So we we really did feel like keeping two-story at the edges was uh uh gonna be a successful way to move forward.

Okay, so is it also true that you know if you were to do the apartments and the two A, so that you have that ability to have the number of units, you could still be doing duplexes instead of single family theoretically.

I mean, we uh we'd have a lot of duplexes that have been built recently here in Lafayette, and they seem to go pretty fast.

Yeah, they're going to be the one across the winter coaster from the post, has been sitting there a long time.

Well, there's a reason for that one.

Yeah, there's a few in town, I think there's reasons for it.

So it's and again, Walker can speak to this much much better.

What is it?

What are we gaining?

What how does it change the fabric of the plan in exactly if we were to have four or eight or twelve duplex buildings versus smaller single lot housing?

I think I think it complicates it complicates his process.

I think part of his process in terms of from the financial side from the process.

And from once the end user owns this property.

I mean, I'm a homeowner homeowner.

I live here in Lafayette, understand everything that happens.

If you have to go to your neighbor to paint your house and come up with an agreement, like that's just a complication down the road.

These are most likely first-time homeowners.

The majority, I would say almost all will be.

And they may or may not have those kinds of skills, right?

I mean, so we're trying to put forward something that we think will be viable.

We can we can deliver and that we'll leave into the future.

I'm I'm I'm just gonna make like a broad broad stroke statement rather than something specific about this.

I think comp plan everything that we've gotten feedback-wise for all these years in this town is the diversity of housing types.

You know, some of these single-family home samples that I'm seeing here.

You got a nine foot side yard, and you know, from the like and I'm so practical from a practical standpoint, you have to own a lawnmower to mow your nine feet of side yard.

Like this is a giant pain, you gotta irrigate it, you gotta do all this stuff.

Like, it's not an ideal thing for everybody.

Not everybody wants to mow, not everybody wants to maintain a yard.

Patio homes are really popular.

There's a lot of people that want to age in place.

There's a lot of people who don't want to do this home maintenance.

Like, I think the idea of providing the diversity of housing types within a community is to allow a diversity of lifestyles and people, different phases in their life and all those things to live within a community together.

I think a lot of the reaction maybe to this like sea of parking in single family homes, and then everybody'll still use the word siloed into these apartment buildings, is that you don't have that same mix, which is the old thing or or Col Creek Village is a great example of this.

There are town homes, there are duplex.

I moved into a duplex when we first moved here.

We were renting and we were starting to think about buying, and it was like, oh, this would be such a great community to live in.

Can't quite afford one of the single family larger, obviously it's a very different different neighborhood, um, different size of homes, but we could potentially afford a duplex, or we could potentially afford a town home.

We ended up doing something different.

But the point being I've lived in several neighborhoods around my life that has you're still part of the community, you're gonna start here, and then you move to this and this and this, and here it's just I'm gonna be a renter, and then my next step up isn't until I get to a 400,000 dollar um single family home.

I just I I get what you're saying about the HOAs, maybe.

Um, but I'll bet there's a different way to do it in this neighborhood.

I agree.

I I mean it's so successful right now, like being here and then being in the community building and like seeing the community is awesome.

People I think would want to at different phases of their life, maybe they get married, maybe they have a kid, maybe they retire, like stay within the community that they're building here, having those options, I think is the goal of this.

And I think having that diversity of housing types is what the goal of having some of those other options in here is, yeah, which I think is the goal.

Like it's far enough out on its own out here.

Yeah, which is great, and it's got great connectivity, and you know, I have neighbors here, I have neighbors in Boulder who, you know, for the IDV building to be able to like come visit and hang out, yeah.

That's gonna be such a cool amenity.

Yeah, it's gonna be so nice for that community thing.

And I think bringing having those things to bring people here is great, but when you build a community, you don't want to leave it.

Yeah, and that's what everybody feels so passionate about all this stuff.

But I think creating that opportunity for that to be here, not because it's a fast sale, not because it's what people want, like we all compromise, we all figure out how to compromise and change paint color, whatever thing.

That's what community is, right?

And I think that's why we're all looking at this in the long term.

Well, I will say one thing.

No, thank you.

This is really great feedback.

I I really appreciate hearing that too.

And I think the other um piece though is that as a first-time home buyer, and because we've gotten so much support from the state level, or maybe able to offer these homes under 400,000, which is a huge, huge accomplishment.

I think a few years ago we had no idea how we were gonna do this.

Yeah.

So be able to say we're doing it, we're doing it.

But I think the other piece is that if I were a home buyer and I had this very similar price house, could choose a single family or a duplex, and then later on, when I'm thinking through generational wealth building, there is a difference when you have an inter interior town home, and and the first time buyer is gonna have to pay the same price unless it's deed restricting.

It gets better, and it's deed restricted, which is a problem for that.

But I mean, but the world's not perfect, right?

Like this is a super.

No, yeah, you're right, exactly.

And I know it's these are all tough compromises.

And this is uh just a starting place for so many families.

Yeah, it seems like for that first one, as far as feedback, you know, you're hearing it.

Yeah, like if there were a way to bring in some more diversity back in, that would be I mean, the nine foot the nine foot, sorry, those those those units along the wastewater, what's not what's called stormwater swale thing.

Those are maybe get a different treatment than the ones on Emma.

It feels like there could be some different options, but if there were a way to build in some more diversity, it feels like that would be really appreciated.

I just the the nine-foot um side yards, I just they don't get they don't become functional, especially when they're east-west and there's a 20-foot um, you know, a wall on either side um that's it's gonna be habitable such a such a rare amount of the time.

Whereas if you compare them just becomes if you can make them duplexes, you can at least have a 15-foot um and then divide it in half um for each unit.

I don't know.

I mean, I know this is all stuff that you guys have considered.

I'm just this is not what what was originally proposed, and yeah, the bait and switch is is it's getting painful at this point from these different developers and as to now get it from the affordable housing, it's like why I um it's it's frustrating.

And I understand that you guys are dealing with a lot of things, a lot of moving parts.

Um I'm just not hearing or seeing the evidence of no, we can't do this because of this and this and this, and here's exactly why.

I realize we're also up at sketch plan.

We're not we're not down in the weeds and showing the 10-foot separations between the utilities and all that.

Um maybe that would be helpful.

Um maybe that's what we need to see.

So I think you're getting support for the inclusive for the ID house.

That's great.

Um I guess I'm not I'm not making that connection between and maybe it is okay.

You know what, we're gonna be able to offer 375 units.

And I don't know how that changes the performance.

Maybe that maybe that messes with it.

I don't I don't know.

That okay.

Um I just I don't want to throw the whole the whole thing out, and that's kind of what this feels like.

Yeah.

You seem kind of fixed on the on the number of total units.

Yes.

Is that some kind of contractual obligation?

Correct.

Yes.

That's actually written.

Okay, that's we need that kind of like we need to understand that.

Is that a contract with the state or with us through the PUD or where does that um it's with the city and it's tied to the costs for water uh and funding that we provided to older community housing authority to help finance the water?

And so there are contractual obligations related to the water dedication that require specific numbers of uh units to be provided in the different phases of the project.

And so um a big part of this plan is that they are trying to maintain those numbers in that contract.

Is there a world?

That's that's really important.

It feels like that the number is really key and that you're losing the diversity to maintain the number.

Correct.

That was the decision we had to make.

And I'm curious from the staff perspective, and this is probably a really big council question, but if if to maintain product diversity, the number of units changed one way or the other, is there a part of that contract that can be amended, or is that like a set in stone cannot be changed?

Umending a contract of the nature that we're speaking about is um that is a council policy and legislative decision, they could choose to amend it.

But that would be entirely council's uh discretion to do so.

Yes.

It just feels like maintaining so many of the characters of the of the characteristics of that original design.

Um it's just as really important and a lot of it has been lost.

Um it's really helpful to hear that it's a unit count thing.

And I understand the need for two and three bedroom units.

I know that's also really important.

Um what's the numbers on the houses, like the number of two-bedroom, single family, three-bedroom, are there any four-bedroom units?

Single family is all twos and threes, vast majority is three.

Majority is three, yeah.

Which makes sense.

Of the unit types.

Out of the five unit types, there are two unit types that are two bedrooms actually on the slide.

I should know at the top of my head.

You can do it, Penny.

Yeah.

Uh should be right.

Are the red ones the visitable or the fully accessible?

Here we go.

Okay.

So you have 11 two bedrooms out of 73.

I I feel like I heard somewhere way early on in the presentation around a per certain number of units being geared towards seniors.

Is there is there a level of certain units being age restricted also or or a percentage of units that are those zero entry?

Can you speak a little bit too?

So if any of that is part of the age restriction in the homeownership units, if you color coding is a little funny here, but if you see the purple and the red.

So the red are actually designated as type A fully stoppable.

The purple is the same unit type.

So it's still a ranch one story to one, a very livable unit.

Okay.

And that's what I want to I'm I'm not trying to push product, right?

Because we were just trying to develop affordable housing.

One question I have is there a is the model more diverse housing or against single family detached in this conversation.

Okay.

But but that doesn't mean different model types.

That doesn't mean five product layouts.

That means okay, we need a different product type because I may want a single family home, but if I can afford a duplex, then that in five years or in two years, that that single family over here in my neighborhood comes up for sale and I and I move up to that.

Um I think I just that doesn't I mean I guess I'm just not seeing the numbers, but I I see a lot of duplexes in a lot of town homes that that are really desirable as a first place to live after the rental apartments.

And I I I just I do think that I understand that we had to put a lot of single family units in to keep that unit count, but the size of those lots does detract, I think, from what people want in the single family home.

I mean the tiny side yard.

Yes, it's technically a side yard, but it's not very usable.

So the single family home for the yard, which is a yard and not uh a gravel alley.

You can walk around the exterior like silo.

Sure.

Uh and look, in the in the details of the design here.

Yeah, so that would be a lot of different things.

Like as you see these in the bottom, right?

This is these are private side yard purposely designed with a bedroom type so that you're not stirring into neighbors' windows.

And they have been pretty successful in just being a unit type that people enjoy, right?

Maybe that's what maybe that's what we need to see.

Because I have a scene of that's a lot of things.

So you're alternating windows?

Yeah, literally down to how the bedrooms situated on the house so that you have a private side yard.

I've lived like that.

I know what it's like, sure.

Not hanging out and checking your neighbor out there.

Um if we're talking about unit types, making sure we hit the number just curiosity.

Was there any consideration or thinking through the inclusion of ADUs on any of these single family?

So yes.

Yeah, there's not a lot of things.

Yeah, I know.

I will say, gotta ask it.

This is a really tricky thing with affordable homeownership.

Yeah, right.

Because you're already cutting a really tight slice, and then you have to be able to afford that and a rental bitch.

It's tricky.

I want to talk about the code.

We did look at because we are fascinated by that one more than it in several places around cottage courts.

Or designing the lots where well there's that's part of the hard thing is there's no there's no extra room on these to even like future-proof them for it's it seems it's yeah.

And you just mentioned cottage courts, like that you know, scaled down versions of what you're doing with the IDD to allow a little bit more density, more little open pockets for people that yeah, don't want to own a mower and don't want to have to take care of um I realize that that is a HOA thing, but I just don't um it just seems like such a that that's the kind of thing we're looking at with a new land use code, and it's exciting to see these different ways of doing things and create little communities within the the bigger community.

Um I think the diversity is the diversity, and this is this is really important.

So it's not that we're anti-single family homes, it's just making it so that that's the only thing we see.

And um a mix.

A mix, yeah.

And somebody who's down at 50 or 40 percent of AMI is gonna be, you know, they're living in the multifamily, there's no bridge to get them to the the single families at 120 percent of, you know.

I mean I it doesn't seem like there's no there's no middle.

There's no middle.

Here or here.

Yeah.

And these are single family homes that are.

So there's a there's a funny I will say this, because the the attached product in town home, if you're gonna keep to two-space parking, it actually becomes trickier.

Oftentimes that's the larger square footage in like this D-restricted housing we're talking about, because to maintain the width, yeah, you end up with slightly more footage.

So the town home is not by default.

18 feet or 18 feet or 25.

It's oftentimes in the like upper slice of the price point.

Yeah.

Because one nice thing about the single family detachment in the side yard is we can create two parking spaces, but not with the large house.

And so that is some consideration for why it's done that way.

Okay.

Um it's tricky.

I mean, it sounds ridiculous, right?

But can we talk about also I'm sure that you also thought about this, but maybe you could tell us about your process.

There's a lot of space and it's really tight design for parking.

What what other options did you explore for where you could put those cars so that you get more of that space for this housing?

That's just the is is this minimum parking?

Is this max maximum?

Where were we at on the the are you talking about the multifamily?

Yeah, yeah, this is like a lot of we're within for homeownership, having two is an important number.

And so we're at to hit some of these different price points.

You it's either a covered spot, like carport with storage, and then an uncovered spot, or it's a two-car garage.

And but sorry, the sh the parking lots there.

I will say we are underparked currently at Willoughby One at 0.77, if you may remember that.

Uh so we needed to make up some parking.

So parking here is being proposed to also, I mean, I guess this is one big shared property, so anyone could just park.

Yeah, we do not have assigned parking at Willoughby Corner, so parking is open and available to anyone anywhere throughout it.

And there's a lot of parking.

No parking on 120.

Yeah.

No.

There's also bus lines.

How many bus lines are currently?

Two.

Two bus lines.

Okay.

That is the biggest thing that we heard from our residents, and you know that we they wanted to see increased parking.

Number one complaint in the housing right now there.

And realistically, you have to drive with the state.

I mean, which is what it is.

It's possible.

We can hope for another future.

It's just that doesn't it?

BRT is right up onto our seven.

And we do buy every resident.

You know, BCJ doesn't have this area.

So drive around.

We also do provide bikes to every resident as well.

Provide bikes?

We provide bikes and eco passes to every resident.

Correct.

Well, all these things are great.

You can go to one destination and you never have to.

I know.

I know no.

I mean, that's not you guys at all.

That's just the reality of the place and the time in the world on which we live.

Which is you just don't want to like optimistically design parking lots, and then you got people parking in weird places.

Um the next thing on your the list of things you wanted feedback on, I think was the setback from the setback.

Uh uh for me, uh the reduction and front setback of the down while the detention pond felt fine.

I feel like that's a ton of space because of that pond, so that feels less sensitive to me.

The reduction on Emma feels a little more problematic, and we heard about that from some of the public comments.

What do others think?

Just driven on Emma in the traffic.

Yeah.

Like I hit it today, hit peak to pink track today trying to leave town.

There's a lot of cars.

We got very busy now during big time.

That feels very close.

Even with the all the pedestrian and the multimodal, like it's still quite busy.

What's the what's the actual so it's 29 down to 21?

Is that right?

Or what what was the actual I think it's down to 29.

Down to 29.

36 to 25.

From the from the front wall, not including the porch to the drive lane.

Yes.

Um are we right now just an applicant question or are we in commission discussion also?

We're in we're still doing applicable questions.

Yeah.

Um, can I ask you a question about the oh wait, do we totally skip the detention pond?

I have so many thoughts, but yeah.

Uh is the detention pond that's facing the detention pond?

Uh the setbacks.

And so there's a sidewalk facing the detention pond.

Yes.

Do you anticipate there is any landscaping separating like we've got sidewalk?

It just careens off into detention ponds.

There's there's a slope there and landscaping.

But I mean it's just it's just odd, there's no like decorative landscaping.

It's just your sidewalk drops off into a detention pond.

There is some decorative.

Yeah, there's definitely landscaping.

There's currently, and we'll maintain that.

Yeah, the trails there.

Okay.

But it will connect.

I will say that uh that the setback question is a major one on Emma or detention, but to gain the alley widths we need and get the utilities in.

There's just a certain amount of buildable real estate.

We're trying to leverage the out lot as there's just additional space.

If that front row were back to duplexes, would that help you solve that problem?

We still have still have the length of lot, right?

So now we're getting into it.

I would say our biggest constraint really is financing on the project if we're talking about if you ask me my priorities of like what are the constraints.

And the DOH grant and chap of the 40 homes of the whole eastern sliver of Emma is in that program.

Right?

So that is also a consideration of what we were trying to do is deliver so that it's not in piecemeal, deliver 40 in a pretty concise chunk and set the edge of the loaded of the project.

So it really is kind of the perimeter who's going first, and then we were building internal.

Um to fit the housing types that we've got.

That's that we have worked through the grant program on.

So that's you're doing that because that works best for you, or you have to have all of those that are get that financing all together in one space.

Yeah, it's a it's not me, right?

It's to deliver sub 400 price point and stack those two on top of each other.

That is the housing type.

Because those are smaller units, right?

That are all that parameter.

That that ranch we're talking about that's on the parameter is a two-one, that's our smallest unit type.

It's 900 square feet.

So for me, the setbacks on Emma, I have two things, which one of which is an observation about what's happening currently, but you have traffic.

We have increasing speed of traffic, which I think anybody who drives there observes, which we got public comment on, you know, uh high schoolers, people learning to drive.

That's increasingly like a route out of town.

Um street trees.

The street trees.

The attrition of the trees of what were planted last year is abominable.

Honest to God.

I don't know how that many trees that were planted last year died.

I have talked to somebody, whoever your installer was about warranty planting.

Like somebody needs to oversee that.

I do not know how that many trees died last year.

I assume this is gonna happen again.

I I don't know why that attrition rate was so high.

Something's going on.

But the street trees are functional for so many reasons, right?

Like when they grow up, they protect these front of people's houses from the street, from tr from cars.

They're a safety thing, they're a shade thing, they create an atmospheric environment, you know, they create all these things.

My concern is from a financial standpoint from a maintenance standpoint, all of these things.

We plant trees, they die.

We don't have the money to replace them again, because so many of them already died.

So we have this very tight corridor with a setback in which people do not have the space to plant their own trees in their yards because of how tight these setbacks are.

The street trees die.

So now we've got a very unpleasant sort of environment along this multimodal path.

The the grass strip here has trees, dead trees, so they could get cut down, so we've got a safety issue.

We've got affordable housing that now has no street trees, which isn't what anybody wants for this kind of development for our neighbors from our city, all of these things.

You know, this is kind of my concern about making this like much shorter.

I know that this is really nitpicky thing, but this is like the long-term development of this, that if not nitpicked, it gets to the point where you're like, hey, we have this whole development where people have their homes basically on the street and there's nothing between them and the cars.

One of the solutions for that is homeowners.

Well, if they have the space to plant the trees, but if they don't have to maintain them.

Well, yeah, if they're if their porches are into that setback, right?

If the porches in a setback, they've got little time space for trees.

Are they going to be able to plant them?

Is it their responsibility to plant them?

I they just may not have the.

No, I mean it's yeah, it's being loud voices about those trees dying.

I'm gonna be loud voices about the tree dying.

Obviously.

But I mean, is that one of the considerations we need to be taking back?

Is the street trees along Emma?

Like internally.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

That seems like a straightforward fix.

If you guys go right now and look at how many of those trees, not along Emma, but the whole development that died from last year, it is a crazy number.

120th internally, huge number.

Astonishing number of dead trees.

It's really crazy.

But you know, these are things.

If if you guys walk away and it's like, okay, great, you're on your own.

If we don't have room for homeowners to plant trees in their little little squeeze setback, then what?

It's only getting hotter, it's only getting drier.

You know, we're not gonna have space for people to address that on their own.

Again, I know these are minor things.

But that is what making that setback too small potentially takes away the opportunity for people to have the shade, have that nice environment, and also protect themselves from oncoming cars and traffic and all those things.

So you're saying that you need that you need this setback in order to um meet the unit counts.

Um, if we were to, for instance, um modify four unit count, you know, take away four units um so you could slide that street back, that alley back that's parallel to Emma.

Um is that you know, that would be one particular one way of, but then that requires that requires going back to this contract that we have with Lafayette and modifying that unit count.

But that only, you know, that's only one solution.

Um the multifamily, the the giant multifamily is um, I guess I'm just I'm just trying to think if there were places to to thin the unit count to get to to try to get back to the character that this project started with.

Um, is that something that that could be addressed or something that could be discussed?

And I know that's a bigger conversation with city council.

Um I think a question to ask is that 45 feet is everything written in stone.

Are you gonna die on the vine if you can't be able to 45 feet?

Yeah, I don't that wasn't that's one of the next things.

Like, why do you need 35 and 45 feet?

Why do you need 35 feet for a two-story building?

Um I don't understand that.

I don't know if if you can speak to that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We're we're just matching um what was there.

But what we get to ask for originally, right?

The four-story building with the screen strength.

The senior building strength.

The three-story building with uh with a pitched roof doesn't get into 35 feet.

It even measured the way Lafayette does to halfway to the highest peak, right?

It's not 35 feet anymore.

It's like 30 to the Eve.

It's it's tough.

You can do a very low slum roof, maybe it gets you there.

Um the 45 is probably for us to get our sky deck.

Um and just to have flexibility with our roof.

So you need the 35, you need the 45 for three story, and you need the 35 for the two story.

I mean, I could go back and look at our elevations.

Yeah.

I just could tell you.

I'm just trying to think of what the heights are today.

Yeah, I'm curious what the plate heights are.

Like, well, we always do nine foot ceilings, right?

That's marketable.

It's 11.6 uh floor to floor.

Uh-huh.

So then you're at 23.

I get it.

Look at our elevations to understand what our what style we're after, but my guess is it's probably so 23 to the top of framing without a roof.

Um just it just seems tight.

It just seems tall.

Um, and I don't know what kind of pitch you might be thinking about.

Um you're saying that was in the original PUD with was those heights for two and three.

We're not asking to increase building heights.

Okay.

Okay.

We're just asking to put a total in a different place.

Okay.

Understood.

So that's really the issue.

Okay.

Um take out on the building heights.

Congress civil engineers.

So about just pulling up the spar from phase one and the two-story building had a roof height of 27 and a half feet.

That's measured to the half or to the midpoint.

Thank you.

Um just to give you a sense of what was constructed out there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um it sounds like I mean, if I'm trying to summarize, tell me if you think this is accurate.

It sounds like unless the number of units is decreased, there just aren't a ton of great solutions here.

If we want to build an IDD happening in that.

Yes.

Correct.

The IDD housing is two or three stores?

Two.

It's two.

Okay.

Um is there a reason why that one is not three?

We just need 32 units there, so it's smaller.

Okay.

So this is a smaller building.

And that's and that's what was in the main area from a high-story standpoint, so it's limited to two stories.

Okay.

That's the same thing.

So our intent from the get-go is to work within the confines and what we read in the PUD.

Um, you know, and that's why we use the reference points of the 45 feet.

That doesn't mean we're going to be maximizing it.

It's just that design flexibility.

I think what we've learned, you know, in assessing that PUD and revisiting it in 2026 now is you know 128 town homes for rent, whether it's for ID or for families as pure block town homes.

There's a lot of roof and impermeable surface throughout the site.

And the ability to prioritize and create responsible areas of density and height while we're while still respecting our adjacencies.

Yeah, that's right, to the west, to the north, to the east.

You know, it's part of that intent, and then also prioritizing that rather than experience throughout the community.

Right.

So I think Adam was talking about that east-west corridor connector.

Um as a way the BCHA's experienced residents will walk a lap, a bigger lap, a full loop.

So, you know, in reassessing that townhome form for rent as it was intended, there's a few trade-offs.

And as a developer, I can guarantee you two things.

My first pro forma is wrong, my first design is wrong.

Like this is an iterative process of listening and refining.

And this is not the final design.

This is a sketch plan.

This isn't the initial design.

Well, we really like elevators and serving the ADA population and trash chutes and not having trash throughout the site or in the hallway or at the front porch.

So it's always, you know, it's a business of listening iteration trade-offs and decisions.

And so what you're seeing is our current iteration of the plan, of the sketch plan, and the result of a lot of time and effort and procuring funding.

And in some instances, you know, looking to fulfill a product that was made 10 years ago in a way that fits the learnings from phase one and people's current modern lifestyle, and sometimes that does represent some change.

But the key components that drive the multifamily buildings is sustainability.

Geothermal heat pumps and systems and the rooms that it requires and the distribution it requires works a lot better in a cohesive building instead of you know 12 and 9 flexes scattered throughout the site or four packs of town homes.

And the funding and cost considerations are a part of the reality we all have to live in every single day, and that changes.

So the plan you're looking at is one where you know we see a path forward in accomplishing sustainability, resident lifestyle, a larger unit mix of twos and threes, which are larger footprint by nature, with ADA access and elevators and trash shoots and centralized amenities and open areas.

I didn't I didn't call them open space.

Open areas.

That was careful.

I'm learning.

I'm teachable, I promise.

And so that's really a function of what we're asking for when it comes to some of that height.

And the goal here is not we got you, we got 45 feet of height, we're gonna build to the very maximum.

It's to create that flexibility to iterate on design and refinement as we go through the process.

So you know, I just want to come up here and say that.

So I mean, trying to consolidate this down a little bit the key points.

So one key point, and this would be something that needs to be brought to council's attention in the presentation of council, is if council supports the unit mix, then council may need to be open to revising the unit total, right?

Because that's what you're building towards a unit total.

So council thinks is we happen to think on the planning commission that the diversity of housing is important, and if I trust what you're telling me is true, the only way to bring back that diversity is to reduce the unit count, correct?

Correct.

If we're gonna do A, yes.

If we want to do anything, well, the diversity in the land use table is you know, layering either town home use or duplex use.

And that seems like something we can continue to work on if that's the feedback from to Mac.

Yeah, right?

Well, I think that's probably all we seem to agree on here.

Yeah, I mean, and the idea of the cottage courts, the idea of even and and it would be like here's here's a cottage court that has eight or six small units, and they are small, and they are one bedroom or two bedroom, and um you know, some of that creativity then then swapping out for some three-bedroom over here, so that you've got that diversity of of unit type, but also those little mini communities.

Um I'm curious about, and I I'm sure I know what the answer is cost for um either putting parking underneath the multifamily, having some covered parking, I assume that's gonna be a lot more, or buried parking.

I assume that those are not going to fit that that's not going to be affordable.

I mean, rough order, you're talking 40 to 60,000 per structured park install.

Yep.

Just all of that represents directly my my area of additional gap and reduction in affordability.

So just getting some of the getting some of the area opened up instead of having it paved, but yeah, if that's not that's not doable.

Okay.

And part of that original PUD was it's mainly you know, those blocks and packs of town homes for rent, you know, in the 2B area.

Um, and then there was you know, additional units above the clubhouse.

Um, and then you know, there was a reduction of a few units to accommodate the 32 units of 2A that was really a function of the interfacing with stakeholders.

So, you know, there are some trade-offs there.

There's always trade-offs, right?

And that's so in that two A thing.

We mentioned earlier.

So you again were going by the old things, but yeah, but why not?

Three story.

Yeah.

So we started with 48 units.

We thought that was a great plan.

Um what we learned really in interfacing with neuroinclusive housing solution, neuroinclusive housing solutions, that's a math form, whatever time it is.

Um the IDD advisory council was we don't want this to feel like an institution.

And so that recommendation, we started with 48 units, 25%, you know, corners were too bad.

And that based on feedback and iteration and refinement was refined down to that 32 unit, which felt less institutional, and but those 32 units were also a balanced mix.

Uh and and that's what I'm saying is the first plan was wrong.

And um and we continued to listen and refine, and that's what we're here to do.

So that's why we're having the sketch plan presentation.

But it's only institutional if you only use it for whatever that term is, neurodiversity.

If if you restrict it to only neurodiversity people can be in two way.

What happens if you have another floor and then you open it up to it's a great question?

I asked it myself.

Then it's not less institutional, right?

Yeah, I mean what I've learned um about this population is there's a high degree of vulnerability and there's kind of data that supports that.

Yeah.

Um there's also a need for predictability and safety as key priorities.

So you know, in mixing those populations and you know, adding density and height to that building, it kind of created it's always trade-offs, but it kind of created more negatives for the intent of what we were looking to accomplish than just the benefit of unit yield.

You have data to support that?

Yeah, I mean, as far as you you think that's what it is.

Uh we have data as far as those who have been you know subject to um let's say nefarious behaviors um and and data around their experience and vulnerability.

But I think uh that's a actually a good point that you're raising, because we really tried not to do a three-story anywhere.

We really didn't we knew that that was important to the site.

We knew what the PUD originally said, so we really did try to not go more than three star or two stories anyway, because that's what well the townhomes were two and a half.

Yeah, they were two and a half because we have D.

And you know, if you use the same metrics, you'd be talking about 40 feet in a height.

Two is 35.

I mean, that's that form of mass is something that we could probably accommodate and call it 12 foot vector leg, three stories, that's 36 plus a cable half.

You know.

If if there is a if there's a design solution around, hey, we think 40 feet is a recommendation, you know.

I think this should be a collaborative dialogue.

Um this isn't us trying to impose, hey, this is what we need because we've secured 4.3 million dollars of funding for this project, and therefore we you know, those are things we're open to, and really it just comes down to design solutions, people-centered solutions, sustainability solutions and the math, it makes it all viable.

It seems like um it seems like there's a lot to think about.

Um it also seems like it'd be really helpful to have another neighborhood public meeting here, maybe reach back out to the committee that was working on this before with the next iteration.

Thanks for um bringing that up.

So we did um two community events already.

We have a third client.

Um and then the East Lafayette group, um currently they're not meeting, they don't have a chair, there's not a data bylaws.

Um happy to meet with people.

We had members of the ELECT come to some of those open sessions that we had in support of the project, and so we've we've talked with a lot of people over the last several months.

But we're of course open to that.

I mean, I think it'd be great to, since this is a community that's being built, right?

Like this is a community that doesn't exist yet.

I think it would be great to open it to the larger community who has an input on like you know, we want this area to share part of Greater Lafayette.

Yeah.

And there's a lot of people in the community who might want to be moving there, and I think if you're only limiting it, we're not limiting limiting.

We invited everybody, we put ads in the paper, we post on our website, social media.

I mean, we know it is never mailing lists, and I never got it, but you know, I just think like the idea that like, hey, we we want this to be part of the greater law community.

Um, I think everybody's super invested in this.

Yeah, we're getting across the world.

And it sounds like maybe there the the lack of continuity with teams and that that makes it a challenge because you you don't have that institutional knowledge.

So I would say so.

Well, yeah, yeah.

We are definitely invested in the emotionally invested.

Yeah, we are too.

Trust me, like millions of millions of dollars on our are on our side too.

Yeah.

So um I think the the addition of the multifamily buildings, um, any other discussion that we might want to have and feedback about the location of those, the height, the um you know I think corridor of darkness right there with the sun and the winter, just like nobody in that north building is literally ever going to see the sun.

But the often turning them in that orientation increases the view, the view corridors.

Um not really through the middle of the site at all, but on either side of the of those buildings.

Um but I guess I wonder about putting that a little more to the east of the site.

Um so that's the same thing.

By the uh, so east and south.

We did we did look into that too.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, everyone happens.

Aren't they?

Purely the footprints are probably 30% undersized when you're talking area.

Sorry, can you say that again?

Okay.

Well, there's kind of two components.

First off, you know, that area in that planning area was considered for rent, and I don't have the history on that on the western side.

The eastern side, you know, the goal was the drive-by traffic on 120th is looking at more of that you know, home feel and contextual nature, which is probably the highest traffic corridor on the east.

And then functionally the footprint is smaller in land area.

So there's kind of a few considerations.

Um, we can draw and iterate and show different orientations.

It was what we actually studied in 2B.

Um, and you can't really see it very well here, but was actually articulating the windows to open up those views to the west and down the corridor.

Um, you know, this is early conceptual architecture.

But you know, part of that site orientation is um both kind of from a solar standpoint, southern sky, east to west, and then also opening up the view and pedestrian corridor and that connecting plaza between the two buildings between neighbors.

Um you'll actually see the same spacing in phase one between the two southern buildings, but it has a road in between.

So instead of you know, courtyard, um it's a north-south orientation, so just being completely straightforward.

Um but as far as building spacing face to face, height to height, um, that dimension exists on the site today, something you can drive and look at uh with a road in between.

That's um the furthest southeast buildings have that same dimension.

The little row between the remote.

Yeah, the F is those two southeast buildings where the road is.

Yeah, okay.

That's basically a similar spacing dimension.

I see that you can see less long narrow.

Yeah, it's not at all.

Correct.

Yeah.

As far as the length.

Yeah.

Um you're entirely correct.

But it um that's at least a reference point, you know, for knowledge and context.

Yeah, just the solar shadow, not as very different.

Yeah, the the units on the first floor on the north side, they they won't get any sun in the in the winter.

Six months out of the year.

Yeah.

Um maybe the you know, a shadow study.

No, it wouldn't be a good thing.

And I sketch up can do that pretty easily as far as I don't know.

Yeah, and just showing some of the sections through these these spaces, but but I think um I understand the the large roof gives some economies of scale, but then I'm also hearing that the townhomes didn't want to didn't want to have that large roof.

So I'm I don't I don't know what like why is it that we don't want to have is it just the shared walls or is it just is I guess it's the I at some point there was a mention of not wanting to have a large shared roof over the townhomes, and I'm not sure.

Um, large shared roof on the townhomes.

Look, I think the townhomes maybe it's a condominium rule with the with the wall that has to extend above, right?

I don't know.

Yeah, and what was previously conceived in that area was were townhomes for rent.

Yeah.

So you know, as far as party work agreements HOAs, none of that necessarily applies because it's single ownership.

Yeah.

Um, the function that or the the challenge that those townhomes for rent would face is a function of cost, a function of distributed utilities with a tap per each unit, a function of ADA accessibility, um sustainability when it comes to you know geothermal.

PV, maybe you can do it.

It's just an aggregated system is gonna be far more cost effective, far more efficient, you know, single inverter, two inverters versus 20.

So it's really it's probably not one particular thing, just like any anything in development, it's the aggregation of all the challenges that that form and type creates for marginally or some would say maybe not as much of a communal and resident oriented feel.

You know, there's no elevator, there's no trash hoot, there's no centralized amenities.

Um I think there's appropriate context of townhomes for rent.

It just I don't I don't buy the elevators and trash chutes create community.

Um I've got a hard stop on that with the trash shoots or too much.

They create convenience.

I mean, it is better than leaving trash outside.

I'm not gonna chat with somebody who'll trash no in your neighbors, you know, like chips drive community and friendship.

But but I'm gonna but I you know thinking back to living in Col Creek Village, I knew the neighbors in the townhomes because we went and met and we would see them and play with our kids at the playground right in front of their townhomes because that's where the that's or walking the dogs or going to the mailboxes.

Um there's a nice big old open park that's surrounded by townhomes, which is then surrounded by some duplexes and then the single family.

So that mix is what created going going to those shared community spaces that are um open areas, not open spaces, uh open green areas.

Um that's what created the community.

Um and we see opportunities for that, whether it's the plaza space, you know, open areas to the east side of those buildings, amenities within the building themselves where people are crossing paths and then also opening up and connecting further to the south.

Or yes, we're eroding the north west out lot A, but you know, the trade-off is an additional 4,000 feet net to the south where all those where the pickle wall is.

That's that's you know, that's my core.

Um I think part of like needing there the larger, I remember talking about this with the first round.

Um the larger area on the south, um, you don't have if I'm if I'm a single mom and I want to send my you know six-year-old outside to play, I I got I have to go with them rather than being able to have something right right in front of.

And I realize that's like such so hard to accomplish.

But um it does we do there's places where it is accomplished for sure.

But um outlaw A.

Yeah, and yeah, I don't know if that's a message.

I think that potential exists here.

Yeah.

And then also, you know, Jane Jacobs, eyes on the street equals safety.

You know, you actually do have that opportunity to watch neighbors' kids in in a central plaza.

But you can't get to them from your is a single loaded corridor and then I mean it's the apartments are gonna be.

They're doing loaded corridors.

They're what?

It'd be dual-loaded, so units on both sides.

Yeah, just sorry, dual lo dual and single corridor.

So I gotta run down the stairs to get to the lot of cars.

Yeah.

Um have we looked at the single um the single stair model?

Um, is that something that has been considered at all?

I mean, I know that's popular in Europe and Pacific Northwest.

I think it's certainly fascinating as it reached in maturation cycle when it comes to design and implementation here and now.

I don't know yet.

I mean, you could still have one big roof, but at least that that creates community rather than a single corridor of doors into apartments.

But I'm curious about that.

Is not allowed in Mafia.

Okay.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Not yet.

It's not that stone yet.

Just because we were talking about solar a little bit ago.

Just curious, was there any consideration of doing solar covered parking for those apartment parking lots?

I think it's a great idea.

Um right now with the gable forms, we we have southern exposure.

Um, in those runs where we can accommodate you know quite a bit of PV.

Um, but you know, creating energy and shade.

Right.

Attached unit situations.

Yeah.

Can the uh I assume it's a two-way parking um is is one way single one-way parking.

Does that ever help compress?

I mean, is it it it seems like maybe that might be helpful here?

I realize that compresses, it makes radii smaller and everything, but um engineer.

Hey, can you talk about it?

There we go.

He's like, oh if I sit here silently, harder will speak.

Fire is a big consideration.

Source once you reach that 30 foot height, you have to have a 26-foot drive lane, so that forces the two-way.

Um I did not study one way on this.

I'm a little worried that we don't have the full north-south dimension to fit in.

Because you would still want that to be a double-loaded uh one way, so you can kind of snake through would be a consideration.

Okay.

Actually, just on that note, I'm thinking about emergency egress in this situation.

This feels like a real dangerously tight little situation in terms of two exits north and south.

We got a fire.

There's a lot of units and a lot of people in this situation, which we've been talking about a lot in all the developments.

We are not singling you guys out on this, but like this is a lot of cars in an emergency situation.

I see a lot of choke points, which is not to say answer anything right now, just in the next iteration of this.

But it the the first plan had um had another entry from the west.

Yeah.

Just some to think about in the iterative process of we know that it's coming.

So let's get out in front of it.

Hopefully.

Oh, on the on the approved plan, was that a road access on the marine?

Yep.

And I mean, and at the time it's like, well, we've got all these roads, you need more open space when that's sorry, open area.

But um I feel like we gotta get it be able to get it.

We've got to be able to get out.

So um thread more needles.

Yeah, am I reading Willoughby Street correctly that that's a right and right out on Emma on the north?

Or is that a full turn interchange?

Colors out all the movement.

It looks like a run around.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

It looks like it, I just yeah, yeah.

Um, on our list of things that need are needed, the the feedback is needed.

We covered those.

I remember like the question was kind of starting around like the orientation of the multifamily.

It sounded like it just you're trying to really respect the original PUD in certain ways, and then that's forcing you to compromise in really strange ways.

That's fair.

It's yeah, yeah.

Well, just the way that you're talking about it, where like, well, this is what was over here, the unit.

This was rent, but now it's yeah, yeah.

The multifamily, you were trying to respect this like phase two polygon.

And you you don't think you could fit the multifamily there if these phase shapes changed, or if the phase shapes also changed through an eventual PUD amendment.

Yeah.

Could you do something?

You know, relocate the multifamily.

Not not saying I want it on the east side, but just obviously you're iterating designs and you're spending a lot of time on what the different layouts look like.

And you have to respect the strain agasement, obviously.

I was just I feel like we started with that question and then we talked a lot about the apartments, and I'd love to hear a little bit more about what the iterations could look like to just move those around or change the phasing polygons or whatever.

I guess maybe I'll I'll come at it from some of the constraints we're working with.

So we talked about the storm draining.

Everything's got to get to that pond, right?

So there's got to be kind of two strong east-west corridors for that storm sewer.

There's an existing one here that lines up under this roadway, and then we have this one here.

I think there is room to we did shift this one on the south side to the north 10 to 15 feet.

There's an existing storm drain or an existing easement for that's draining canterbury site into the pond.

One of the other big constraints we're working with, or obviously our access point on the Emma access on the Canterbury.

Um the sanitary sewer for phase one goes all the way through this drive and then into Emma.

So that drains all of phase one, so we really don't want to touch that.

So that road kind of has to stay like that.

So that really creates that constraint from this alley to the pond.

Because I think the more that we understand the constraints, that really helps.

And this will be really beneficial for council.

The more that we understand all the constraints, forcing this to end up in this current proposal, it makes it clear as to the why.

And then uh 2A is basically surrounded by water and sewer as well.

Like that infrastructure went into place.

Uh which sort of makes that almost like an infill type of lot with some of the development that's occurred today.

Um those are kind of a strong civil engineering sort of constraints that we're working with in as well.

We love a constraint here.

Tell us all the details.

We love an eddy gritty.

I don't I don't I maybe I missed if this got asked earlier around the IDD facility, but or not facility, but the IDD building.

Was there a consideration of obviously we don't want it to feel like a facility by being this three-story sort of like institutional building, but having part of it in this building and part of it in the other apartment building, or did that's was that hard, was that difficult from like an admin perspective?

You mean split.

Like if you had more units by allowing that to get split between two, so the folks who are in those units, it doesn't feel institutional, but you might have one of those buildings be three stories.

So you're still getting the unit count, but it doesn't feel like, oh, this is the concentrated IDD building.

Well, I think to you I think some of the other things that you talked about already, but one of the things that um I didn't hear you talk about together is as we were just learning about the community, what we really sort of learned, and I used this comparison was that it was almost like a dorm room, so we were kind of creating this like safe split space that had multiple living rooms and had multiple areas that people can learn and and then also kind of creating this nest and you do use that we're already but in the back, so it kind of creates like this really nice courtyard, so there's a lot of outdoor space for the residents in that building too.

And so we would have lost that if we had to split it between two.

And so we were really kind of or bringing those amenities to both buildings.

Correct.

That's double the cost, and so that would have been that's not doable for us.

Is this what you need?

This is good and great.

This is really, really, really great.

One direct question not addressing I'm thinking as we're talking how we iterate this.

On the truth.

Well, kind of on the setback, because part of it what I'm trying to think about is how do we how do we salvage the grant that's happening right now at the same time, right?

On the homeownership.

No, that's important.

I mean, we we don't want it built.

If we if we figure out some different diversity in because we have 73 units, there's only 40 in the grid, right?

A little bit more product diversity in home ownership within those 33, which is more central in this PUD.

Address the street trees.

And I'm not asking for an answer tonight.

But is there um that setback question is gonna come up because if we're designed to a hard note?

Yeah, that's gonna be a problem, right?

Um I'm trying to understand setback on in the outlaw because those homes are in the variant.

Yeah.

I mean that's fair.

That's a fair question, I think.

Yeah, I think I think that's where if the if the units could slide, if that's if that alley could slide back, um how how much does that impact?

You know, is it taking out units, or is it um compressing some down, or maybe some of those in along either side of Willoughby Boulevard, do some of those become attached again?

Or is there a way to so that so that all of those units on the north side can slide down that six feet or eight feet?

So yeah, the and just so we know like the lot widths are only 26 feet on even on these single family detached.

I think they're only like a foot different than the attached product was.

Um we really kind of stayed in the same grid for the most part.

Um but that that setback, if we pivot on that the site plan and the housing stock they've got, we're gonna be in a new application for that grant.

That's my concern.

Um so that comes down to truly truly does come down to that setback question.

Is that a little bit like you have to have that that's what's the do or die?

Yeah, I mean, or and look, I don't know about I never die.

But I mean it's it's definitely very serious.

Oh, we're not changing product here.

They know all of the product type that we're trying to address in those first 40.

Is that little guy that's hanging out there with no outlet, one of those 40?

It is, but that's a single unit.

It's not as big a deal as all of the stretch of homes that are along it.

Street trees don't as a whole die.

There's something about something happened here that was very wrong.

So this is not a standard thing.

Like the whole idea that street trees die.

No.

Something which is a good one.

I feel like we could address that.

Which units, which units um are the 40 then?

There's I see 23 on the north side.

Uh unless I'm miscounting.

I'll just point to maybe.

Yeah, that's the biggest here.

It is honor correct or wrong.

These, these, and this group.

Is that single unit right there?

Oh, yeah, that one's a little bit more.

So not the northwest.

So it's not the northwest ones.

Like west of Willoughby Street along Emma.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay.

Right?

Yeah.

And so to your point around the Maybe there's a little bit of rethinking of what we could do with some unit type of the 33.

Because it's still almost half the units, right?

Yeah.

Then you would just have a different setback on the for on the easternmost, right?

Like or is there a way to re- I mean with the with the drainage area, those are like that's a I think a safe setback from the purpose of like somebody careening off the road and going through the drainage.

Yeah, I mean how to do it.

That's somewhat where it comes out the street.

Yeah, but it's too.

Yeah.

But where you get pinched, I I get the question, like your question, where you get pinched on the 29 is like right there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um but dealing with a single unit is uh as complicated as well.

And that's I mean that's not one of your 40 either, anyway.

Correct, right?

I think the the ask is to try to maintain the feel that's that is found in Old Town that was part of the original intention.

Um the the large units on that west side aren't doing that.

Um but it sounds like now you're locked in on the east side.

Um you couldn't move the multifamily over there anyway.

Yeah.

The way the utilities are on, there's a reason that it's real segregated on the east.

Yeah.

It really would be difficult to just flip-flop.

Are the who is the those garages are there because of parking requirements?

I'd say requirements and or just utilitarian for the individual homeowner to have two.

I mean I mean from an affordability standpoint, that feels like an easy thing to lose, also.

Parking?

No, not parking, my god.

Uh the garage.

Uh-huh.

Um, you mean it's in terms of like carport?

Yeah.

Well, yeah, I guess it's very different from a I was wondering if there's some way to be able to bump those units back at all if you amended how you're handling parking for those units.

It's just tricky, it's pretty tight.

Right.

I mean, we were we're also dealing with just basic separation between parking and like back of house and trying to have like a comfortable distance.

If we tighten up much more, you you're gonna see it.

You're gonna be gonna have a tennis ball in the back of your house.

That's right.

So on on the plants that we have, there's phases and I feel like I just lost my uh battery, but is is whatever you were proposing in the grant that you have delineated as a specific phase, because I swear I saw one that was like you know, two B.

Kind of a three, yeah.

We we have in like we have entirely a 3A, 3B, but we weren't because we were segregating them in the PUD that way.

Okay.

We didn't I could easily share the P.

So like a three A.

Okay.

I was just trying to just for thinking about what it is that's the use it or lose it is what I'm hearing, is basically this grant money.

Do you do you think um team up here?

Um the if these ones had a smaller setback, these 40, these ones right here on Emma that are the 40 in the 40, if that was smaller and we tried to step it up, moving west.

It would be weird.

It would be weird, or would it be a transition and to be a transition?

Yeah, yeah.

One that gives a diversity of different people want different yards.

Yeah.

I could see that.

I mean, I guess to answer your question, I'm wondering if we could get to we could maybe live with the setback reduction for those for those ones on the east side that are in your 40.

I think there is an argument to be made for affordable.

An imperfect affordable housing solution is better than no affordable housing solution.

But the but I still think that y the unit count question has to be a part of this.

It just we're letting we're letting we're letting the tailwag the top here.

That's the flexibility that we have potentially.

And I realize that's work for our council, but um and our council I mean that council.

Um I just that seems like what needs to shift.

If there was some um errors in emissions on the original plan, if there was something missed, then um we can't we can't jeopardize the character of the whole development because of that.

Well there there's also probably a discussion to uh about this this how this unique housing type that's could be so valuable for the county, but is also creating some pretty significant change requirements.

I mean, should we should we decide whether should council decide whether that that they want that if it means that you need three-story apartments where there weren't before?

Um it certainly seems like it would be a valuable contribution to the county.

The city, but I think some single family residential is part of the plan.

It just wasn't always old.

Yeah, to be clear, like size type, these lots are almost the same size as the attachment.

Yeah, oh yeah, sorry.

I was talking about two B.

Yeah.

I was talking about two B as a really it seems like a really unique solution here that's being offered because the county needs it and it this could provide this really important resource, but it is creating constraints on other parts of this neighborhood.

It seems so I'm just wondering if that's something council should can should talk about.

Yeah.

I mean, yeah.

Okay.

I think on on the vein of the multifamily apartments in 2B and then their relationship to outlaw A.

Is there a world where maybe I don't know, I don't know what units are being proposed for that northwest portion, but could a could a half dozen of those units be shifted to the southern multifamily building?

So outlaw A can still kind of say stay a little bit larger, maybe have a small pocket park on that northwest corner.

Because it's near some of the single family homes that it's not just stuck between a parking and a roundabout.

And then letting that southern area kind of be absorbed by housing a little bit.

Like just shifting a small portion.

Yeah, you're saying essentially grabbing.

And putting it there.

Yeah, and then letting out law A kind of exists still as potential some sort of small park space or I think that's not more open to studying.

Our initial reaction was that you know that was probably the dead zone.

As far as hierarchy of open areas.

Um we considered that maybe the least valuable.

Just because it gets so much traffic.

But we're not yeah, yeah, it's just your most traffic exposed corner.

I mean, I see that as a big beautiful shade tree that actually helps to scale back down to a pedestrian.

And shaded by the apartment building.

But yeah, that's like potentially open the studying uh a consideration.

Like you're not gonna be hanging out there, that's a very busy intersection.

There will be here.

It's not very busy a lot of the time.

Sure.

It's busy for 10 minutes twice a day.

Well, for that.

If I'm biking there, I'm yeah.

And what was really previously considered an outlaw A was you know, a pocket corner of parking.

You know, it was just this kind of wedge with some extra parking spaces.

Yeah.

And parts gate.

I guess the the question is where is the little the little park spaces for the folks along Emma?

Um, you know, they don't seem to have a spot right now.

Um because we've got parking right in front of their, you know.

And they don't have yards.

And they don't really have yards.

This park, I guess, here.

Well, the park has a plot.

Streets on both sides, and it's um it's more that's like the only spot to have any kind of a pocket park that's along that that's closer to Emma.

Is there a is there a way to shift?

No.

I guess no.

There's no foot side yards.

Yeah, you can you can just about like lie flat on your side if you don't stretch out.

Well, and walk walkability-wise, I mean it's just over six hundred feet, but totally from like a kid parent perspective of visibility.

Like it's it's nice to be close enough.

If you were to take the two units that are on either side of Willoughby on the north end of the the park kind of um and make those park areas, make those small pocket parks or make one of them.

Um that would be more appealing.

I don't know if you know what I'm talking about.

Like the barrier.

You're basically saying you know, grab grab a stack or two and then bring it to the sound.

Um, no, no, go to the other.

Oh that yeah, but I'm talking about in the the part where the root over.

I don't know if there's another plan you can pull up.

Uh it's the single family at the top of the like plaza.

The divided area.

Oh, I'm sorry, but it's covered up with with two-story right now, proposed proposed MF two-story.

The northern part of what we call the hot year.

Yes, the northern part of the hot dog.

Twenty on either side of the the twinkle, the hot towel the hotel.

How many millennials does it take to um just the idea that then you would have some more visible little pocket parks or maybe one side or the other and the the people within that area you know, talk about eyes on the street.

That that would provide a a visible kids park on the north side of the site that we don't really have right now if you maybe duplexed up some of those.

If you duplexed some of those um songs are for me, you need to go to city council and talk about the number of units.

Yes, that's that's gonna be a I think that's I think that's a critical thing for staff.

To discuss.

Um we're at 940.

Um so do we have any further do we feel like you have feedback?

Do we did we give you enough?

I think so.

I really do appreciate it.

I mean, we're trying to turn something back around.

But this design is a response to conversations, right?

And this is a critical conversation when it comes to reference.

And we all want to see something there that is affordable, obviously.

Yeah, serving.

So nobody doesn't, I don't think anybody doesn't want something there.

So I think we've kind of gone through this discussion.

Um but we can I'm gonna close the public hearing, even though I should have, I guess closed a little while back at 940.

Um we'll move on to commission review and comments.

I think we've done a lot of this, but I just want to kind of make sure that we've covered everything.

Um item for discussion is sketch plan application for a PUD amendment to the Willoughby Corner POD final plan as a reminder, our role this evening is to review the application using criteria set forth in the city's development and zoning code and to provide comments on the application.

Uh these comments have been documented by staff, provided to the applicant and to city council before its review of the sketch plan following the city council's public hearing on sketch plan.

Planning staff will compile the planning commissions and city council's comments and provide those to the applicant.

Um do we have any further com comments on sketch plan?

Anything that we haven't covered.

Um it seems like we've kind of hit a lot of this.

Um I what I did find it interesting was setbacks.

Because originally we gave them a big setback when we came here two years ago.

Yeah.

It was to myself it was interesting how important those setbacks were.

Yeah, and it sounds like it's a factor of again that unit count and needing to push to push that.

So I think that's really the question.

Um and having a sense of how many units it would take to get back to the setbacks that we had to get back to some of the mix um that we had.

Um and still make the pro forma work and still make the the finances work, I guess.

And I think the other comment would just be I I think there I appreciate that efforts have been made to do outreach.

Um, but it sounds like some leaders from our community who have been involved for a long time had not been we're not aware.

Uh and maybe some direct outreach to them, they could help you get some folks together who have been involved in the conversation for a long time, maybe, and just do another round with them too.

No.

Right.

Um if there is no if there are no further commission comments or questions, uh this matter is now concluded and we will move on to the next business item.

Thank you for the uh iterative process and um look forward to seeing how it develops and continues to change.

All right, other business, we'll try to wrap this up.

Uh there any commission comments or committee reports.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Phillips.

So at the open space meeting, um the director of the Thorn Nature Center, which is something we approved a while back that was constructed.

So kind of what happened in between is that um there seemed to be some issues with how they were using Cole Creek for some of their programs for their younger children.

This was a while back.

And the open space committee had just kind of big discussion on it, what they thought was acceptable and they didn't acceptable in terms of what they could actually do on Col Creek.

Um then I this the director of the Nature Center then finally came back and reviewed their operations and their programs, uh which they have quite a few and also gave us I think a level of comfort on their on their restrictions on what they were allowing to be done since that particular facility has direct access to Cole Creek.

Um and uh what I didn't realize is that uh they're also part of a coalition called Nature Kids, which gets some GoCo grant funding, which does a lot of things.

Um summer camps, uh paid job, uh youth job training and family camping.

So there's actually quite a bit that that happens there.

That's uh Thorn is awesome for the community that's you know, particularly those with who have uh who are in the lower income levels.

So that was really nice.

Um and then the other uh big thing was um then discussion of the grain elevator and the silos and that uh they're going to uh go for national landmarking.

So then uh we'll open up for grant funding for maintenance of the silos because there are some sort of issues with graffiti and other things there.

So that's something.

Is there anything in those right now?

Well, it's actually two silos and a grain elevator.

And I did actually ask if maybe the grain elevator was something that could be actually used as maybe a place for um historical displays or climbing.

Well, that is an antenna right now.

But I wonder if they can for some kind of antenna.

So um so that that's it.

Great.

Any other commission comments or committee reports?

Any department comments.

Our next meeting the 27th.

Uh the building official will be here updating with uh presenting the code amendments, code change.

So that that'll be twenty-four twenty twenty-four IBC.

Sorry.

We're a code cycle behind.

So okay, great.

Thank you.

And uh yeah, I think that's about all I have.

I think the CO for Dutch Brothers is imminent.

Uh people will be able to get their sugar coffee soon.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Welcome to our new member of the planning session.

Yes, welcome, well.

Yeah, I heard your name this morning, so that's why this is an early and now you know that now if we use the term open space and most open space.

You pretend like we invented now.

No, but it means we for us it's something very specific.

It's that way for everybody.

Capital versus lower case.

It has two different meetings like many work, and why are we not using it?

You know we have to trademark it.

I moved to adjourn the meeting.

Secondary motion carried, uh motion seconded.

We are adjourned.

You guys can take that outside.

What about other changes?