Unless you want me to move you over.

Go ahead and get started.

Lafayette Planning Commission meeting of June twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-six is called to order.

If I could have your attention.

Can we have roll call, please?

Yes.

Madam Chair Thomas.

Here.

Vice Chair Wilson?

Commissioner Laman.

Here.

Commissioner Metler.

Commissioner Phillips.

Commissioner Watson.

Here.

And welcome Commissioner Schoenbeck.

Commissioner Schubert, could you let us know if we're pronouncing your name correctly?

Is it Schoenbeck?

Yeah, that is correct.

The Americanized version is is appropriate Schoenbeck.

Um if you do need to have uh to uh put any uh make any comments or anything, please raise your hand so that I can see otherwise um I assume you might want to be on mute, but that's that's kind of up to you just for me.

Uh item number two, are there any members of the public that wish to speak regarding items that are not scheduled for the meeting uh for the public hearing this evening?

If so please fill out a speaker request form and come to the podium.

I don't think there are any folks seeing none.

Uh next item on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes for May twenty seventh, twenty twenty-six.

Do we have a motion?

All right.

Notice in the Daily Camera on June 13th, 2026.

Planning Commission will review and provide comments on the land use code.

Commission will consider the record, which includes planning staff's city planning staff's reports, presentations by city's planning staff, and any public comment received during this hearing.

It is important that each commission member remain objective and capable of considering information offered into the record.

So with that, does any commission member believe that he or she is incapable of evaluating, reviewing, and commenting on the proposal consistent with due process requirements?

If so, please describe the situation and recruise yourself from further participation.

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?

All right, with that, we will now hear from city planning staff.

Good good evening, uhisler with the city's planning and building department.

Uh thank you very much for your time uh this evening.

The objective of this item is to present the draft uh land use code uh to the planning commission and request uh the commission's review and recommendation to city council.

Uh the proposed uh order of events for the uh item includes a staff presentation.

So I'll provide some introductory comments.

Um Elizabeth Garvin with Planning Associates will walk the commission through the draft code that um their firm has prepared for us.

Um then we'll pause for planning commission questions.

We'll likely pause mid mid-presentation as well after Elizabeth's part.

We'll have a few cleanup items in the presentation regarding mapping and next steps.

Um and then following that um the chair would open up the public hearing, consider public testimony, um, close the hearing, and um the planning commission would then deliberate and vote on the measure the item.

Um so we've um had these goals you know in our slide deck throughout the years, uh, really for this project.

Um, really focused.

This is a big implementation effort of the legacy Lafayette Comprehensive Plan.

Uh it builds it kind of is taking the policies in that plan and converting them, translating them into specific regulations, and it's also building on just the work and the engagement that happened over that process as well.

Um also secondly uh is to make the land use code more user-friendly, easier to understand, uh, not only for applicants with experience in in uh navigating these types of codes, but also those new property owners and so on to predict uh create more predictable um development outcomes and to um review our development review process.

Uh, in terms of implementation, we're here tonight seeking a recommendation from the planning commission because this is a code amendment.

Um, city council right now is scheduled to consider this on first reading on July 7th.

Um, depending on what we hear at that time, that will be a public hearing as well.

Um the second reading is tentatively scheduled for July 21st.

So if we get comments from council where they want some additional work done or something, then that would obviously be moved to a further date, uh, but we'll know more at that time.

Um, if adopted, or when you know, when if and when adopted, um there would be some implementation tasks that the city would need to undertake.

Um so there are some specific properties we want to do some specific outreach to that have um uh receiving a new zoning district that we'll talk through later in the presentation.

So we want to have discussions with them.

Um we have some internal um processes such as um software updates to upload and create the new application types and so on.

We'll need to run a fee ordinance through city council to ensure that we have appropriate fees for all the any new or amended um development application types, and then technical corrections.

And so the ordinance that the city attorney's office is drafting for city council will include a provision that allows the city council or city staff with the city attorney's office to correct any um minor technical um errors in the code following adoption without going through a public hearing.

So specifically that would include spelling, numbering, cross-referencing, um maybe a standard was left out of a table, and so nothing that changes the actual intent or the um uh regulation in any in any way other than just correcting those types of administrative errors.

Um we're also suggesting an effective date of a few months past um this to late October.

Um that would allow those implement not only those implementation tasks, including those additional outreach to property owners, uh, but there are we're also continuing to get good public input throughout this process, and so there's a very high likelihood that we during that time period of three months would um come back through planning commission and city council with some additional edits and refinements to the code that would be substantive, substantial more substantial than uh beyond those technical corrections.

And so within that time period, we may also run another um code amendment through.

Um that said, this is kind of the first big milestone in adopting the code where there's a long road, typically cities spend at least a couple of years in what is kind of like a warranty period where they're doing amendments every six to twelve months, and so we're expecting that to be this the same here as well.

And so we're expecting that to be this the same here as well.

We also would be remiss not to thank the planning commission as well as working group members and community members for all the input and help that has gone into getting us to this point in this process.

The commission was really invaluable, as well as the working group members.

The documents uh that are being reviewed, you know, initially starting off with what's our zoning districts, what's an intent statement all the way to a 400-page land use code.

It's a significant amount of work that this group has put into that, and we're very appreciative.

Um I'm a city planner, and I don't know if I would spend that much of my free time on a zoning code.

So it's it's um it's not going unnoticed, um, certainly with staff.

Um we went over engagement a lot in previous meetings, but just um again, thanking the community for everything they've done.

We've uh tried to notify the community through um the citywide uh mailing.

Um we had pretty good response rate to our survey, had a uh a number of meetings, met with city boards and commissions and had an engagement page and received some really helpful comments and hopefully got the um uh city overall um aware and engaged um in the process.

Um in starting off the working group, you might recall that in the beginning we talked about a clear demarcation between the working group and planning commission's role of of guiding this code and engagement, um, and then city council's role in policy decisions.

And so we brought a few of those policy decisions to council in the last couple of months, and um council provided some direction on a number of things.

One of those was um uh neighborhood serving commercial, and so this was um a recommendation in the code um that would allow who would have allowed neighborhood scale commercial establishments in existing neighborhoods.

Um and so council, we talked, um, nothing is um set in stone right now, but we talked overall.

If we were to pick that back up, it could be uh we could look at the work plan in 2027 and look at potentially doing um another uh um engagement process to determine whether or not there's a more fine-grained approach to something like that.

But again, um so at this point that item is deferred until it's added to a city um until the it's added to a department department's work plan.

Uh secondly, the building height incentives.

So this was discussed quite a bit during the engagement process, um, and a majority of council was out in favor of keeping that in the code.

There is a height modification provision that allows council to just the discretion to consider request for it for additional height.

Um, and um there was some interest in that meeting of potentially um discussing it again uh when we bring housing policy items back to council um later this year.

Um and and lastly, uh there was a discussion around old town building height.

Um we recommended um there was some um discussion around measuring and feat versus stories.

Um we had recommended to council that um we also defer that and do a different a whole separate process for the commercial areas of old town, not only about building height, but just fine-tuning the standards that are in this code as well.

And so that would likely be just a separate effort.

Um so those were some of the deferred items that you're not seeing in the code that we wanted to just um highlight for the planning commission.

Um and that said, um, we'd like to turn it over to Elizabeth.

She's gonna walk the planning commission kind of article by article through the draft code and then break we'll break for questions at the end of that before wrapping it up.

Thanks, Bill.

Good evening, commissioners.

Okay.

Settled in, we'll do this.

So the draft, Land use code.

So I want to start kind of take us back out to big picture here.

And I have an imperfect analogy, but it's a it's a good way to kind of frame this.

The code that we're updating uh was mostly adopted in 1986.

That's a 1986 Volkswagen Rabbit.

Um, some of us will remember writing in those.

And um we are now in 2026, and so um that is uh 2026 um Volkswagen Atlas.

And the changes that have happened in those 40 years and and the way cars are made are kind of similar to the way we're going through an updating use code.

You may be really familiar with the current code and wonder did we fix that one window crank that wasn't working anymore?

And the thing is we put in a fully electronic system.

So some of the questions that are coming up and that you may be wondering about are things that we can answer because we took the the current language, carried it forward and cleaned it up, but some things were regulating in a different way.

And so this is part of what we've talked about, and part of what we'll go through this evening just to help ground everybody in the difference between the current code, which has really lent itself to the city's reliance on plan unit development, and the new code, which is more standards-based, which is where we were supposed to go with this project.

So some of the things we'll talk about are the new tailored zoning districts.

So in some categories like manufacturing industrial, moving away from one size fits all and putting more tailored districts in there.

New and updated standards where we have established objective regulations.

So instead of someone having to negotiate how XYZ is going to take place, the code says if you do this and this, you can get approved for the thing that you're doing.

The Lafayette specific form-based districts, we'll spend some time on those, and they're designed to be building blocks for a more cohesive development.

Procedures that account for both predictability and flexibility.

So we know we want people to comply with the standards to get through the process, and but we also know that there will be some site-specific issues to deal with, so we'll talk about that.

And then finally, some of the cleanup was just moving stuff out of the code and linking to external standards, standards that don't belong in land use code that could be in the public work standards or someplace else in city regulations.

We've pulled those out.

That helps for to create a cleaner set of regulations.

So we're not creating conflicts in the land use code with other regulations.

So having said that, let's get in on our little atlas and tour here.

What's in the new code?

Where do you find things?

I'm guessing everyone I'm talking to has read this.

But for folks who haven't who are interested, the code top to bottom starts with general provisions, that's kind of the legal backup.

Has zoning districts, then uses, the natural resource protection section follows that.

After that, there is a broader, more encompassing section that has site planning and development standards, so that includes our access and connectivity to a site, off-street parking, landscaping buffering and screening, which are the new regulations that the city did with WRA, the site and building design standards, outdoor lighting, and some updates to signs and attention getting devices.

That's followed by the subdivision and infrastructure standards, administration and procedures, nonconformities, violations and enforcement, definitions and measurement, and then at the end we have three kind of all-in sections that are in kind of their own place.

So that's floodplain, oil and gas, and wireless, and those are carried forward from the current regulations.

So just to ground everybody on how the code is organized and how one would find something in it.

So starting at the top, we have the general provisions.

Like I said, this is the legal background, so it's the authority, the intent.

The one thing that's in this section that will be relevant to the city as you transition from the current regulations to the new regulations are the transitional provisions.

And this is a set of regulations that describes how someone who is in the process continues through the process.

So let's say I have a complete application filed with the city.

What happens next?

Am I under the old code or the new code?

This will tell you where you go with that.

The table that we have up here deals with two-part applications.

So that's like if I am doing a special use review and I was approved under the 1986 code, and I'm coming in with my site plan, my site plan needs to comply with this code because the approval in special use review wouldn't have limited my ability to comply with this code.

So this is just to clarify for staff and applicants where that goes.

That's kind of what's going on in general provisions.

We can move into zoning districts.

We have what we've classified as two categories of zoning districts.

So we have the conventional districts, those are the more traditional zoning districts, they're context-based.

So what's going on within that area, what's going on in the surrounding area.

But this is the regular kind of old school zoning district that says, here are your standards, you have this box to build in, go ahead and build your project.

And so you can see in the table on the right here.

Same with R1 Medium and R2 single and two family into a single N2 district.

We did this because the district distinctions were making it hard to do any sort of mix of development or bring new product through housing product.

And so we wanted to make it easier to get to mix of housing types, which is something that Legacy Lafayette talks about.

So in a little bit, we'll go through the new zoning map and talk about kind of where some of these districts are.

Some of the key provisions that we worked with bringing into these new districts are addressing missing middle housing.

So does types of housing that aren't single family or multifamily, but the things that could happen in between.

Bringing in the old town neighborhood standards into the regulations and pulling those forward so everyone knows where they're applicable.

Updates to employment in industrial districts.

It's on the next slide, creating a mobile home district, and also creating a civic mixed use district.

Let me talk about that on the next slide.

And I'm sorry, the font's a little bit small on this one.

So if you need to squint, have at it.

This is kind of the non-residential districts, not kind of, it is a non-residential districts.

Same sort of conversions here.

Except you'll see in this case, instead of consolidating districts, we've actually created some new districts.

We do that when we find over the years that the broader one size fits all district isn't reflecting development that's taking place and the scales of development that are taking place.

So you can see we took the existing M1 industrial and broke that into M1 employment mixed use, M2 light industrial, and M3 general industrial.

The difference that makes is it narrows up the uses that are allowed in each.

So across all of them, we likely have roughly the same uses.

But with this range of districts, it could be possible that you put an employment mixed use next to a regular mixed-use district, whereas in the past you might have been a little concerned about allowing industrial in just about anywhere.

So this helps as development changes over time, capture that mix.

We took the public district, the P public district, and we split it into parks and open spaces, so that those are green spaces, probably almost all owned by the city and not super developable.

And then we split out the civic mixed use.

So this is a this is a civic use, which are institutions like hospitals or churches or schools, and where they might want to have their development as a campus and allow some residential development with that.

So the green places are different from the more civic public places where there is development taking place.

We did roll the commercial mixed use and the regional mixed use center into adaptable mixed use, and I think I messed that up on the table.

But the thing is that we've expanded adaptable mixed use to apply to a bunch of different situations, and we did carry forward PUD, but it's more limited in the circumstances where it can apply.

So the form-based code districts, we have three overall districts, the form neighborhood, and the goal there is to provide mix of housing in a walkable setting.

The old town mixed use, and this applies only to old town, specifically to old town, and it's broken into three sub-districts that we'll talk about in a second.

Um, and then the adaptable mixed use.

When we started our conversation about adaptable mixed use, we were seeing it as a redevelopment district, and but realized it could play a role as a new development district that segues into a redevelopment district over time.

So we'll talk about that.

Within the form-based districts, um, we use a kind of a different set of tools.

Um they they come together for complete outcome.

So we have an applicant come in with a regulating plan that talks about how they're going to develop the site, and then within that, they identify the types of buildings they're going to use, the frontage types they're going to use.

So that is the space between the private building and the public front and the public areas like a sidewalk or someplace where the public can be.

How do we segue from that private space to public space?

Um, and then civic spaces, which are areas where the public is allowed.

Um they can feel like public spaces, but they're typically going to be privately owned and open to public use.

So let's go just a little deeper on some of those.

In within the three districts, right?

The form neighborhood is for new neighborhood development.

It has three sub-districts.

So there's the form neighborhood one, which is kind of residential core, so that's the basis of any subdivision.

It will require some mix of unit types or lot sizes based on the size of the project.

We have the form neighborhood two.

This is edge development.

So this is a transition between the core neighborhood where we have the single family or the duplex or the triplex, and we're transitioning to another neighborhood, or we've got a busy street, or we've got some commercial development.

So this is how we make that transition.

This is likely to be more townhomes, maybe fourplexes, and in some cases could be small multi-household development.

And then finally, for some developments, there's a requirement for a neighborhood center, so that's mixed use with some commercial.

This is something that's clear in legacy Lafayette.

It's policy that we've talked about implementing across the entire project.

And we thought about it in a variety of different ways, and ultimately we're able to take those approaches and simplify it down to a point system.

So we have a housing mix point system in the code.

This is the overall look at the points.

So we have points for detached, some for small detached, and which is defined duplex, triplex, fluplex, townhomes, courtyard development, multi-household, and ADUs detached.

And you can see the range there.

So I'm going to flip to the next slide.

And well, so each one of each development type has a number of points that they need to get.

So if you look at the top of the slide, if your parcel is up to five acres, you need just one point.

And so that could be going back to our list.

So that could be all courtyard development or it could be 100% detached homes.

If you want to get from the 0.75 that detached homes are to one point, you need to make 35% of those include ADUs, which is something we're seeing in new development.

So we're getting at two housing types there.

So that's at zero to five acres.

If you're bringing in a larger project, so you're at 20 to 40 acres.

The code requires four, a total of four points.

So there are a couple different ways to do this.

You can do the small detached houses with ADUs plus some duplexes plus some town homes.

There is in the code a minimum percentage for each type.

So you can't say, you know, I did one town home and then everything else qualifies.

It is about 30, 30, 20 along those lines.

So you could you could do the math to get yourself to this mix, or depending on if who you think the market is for what you're doing, or that neighborhood that you're creating through this project, you could add one more to it.

So you could do small detached, duplex, townhomes, and triplex, fourplex.

It's more points than are needed, but that certainly will meet the requirements of the code.

So this is intended to ask applicants to think about how do they comply with this policy that the city's established to provide a mix of housing.

So then the last example is the is the larger, largest project.

So we're at more than 40 acres here for the development.

The requirement is five points.

So you can see that can be 40% multi-household, so that's apartments, 30% townhomes, 20% duplex, and 10% detached homes.

You're still getting a little bit of everything in there.

And you're required to do a commercial center for development at this size.

So that is 30,000 square feet of commercial space, 30,000 square feet, not super big.

However, you know, if an applicant comes in and they want to do more than that, that's accounted for in regulations.

This is done, it's met through ground floor commercial in some areas.

So we're not saying everything in the development has to be ground floor commercial, just areas where we're going to see pedestrian traffic and where that ground floor commercial can be supported.

And then there are processes in there to allow for adjustments and exemptions.

So an applicant can bring in a market study to show that this area is fully covered by existing existing retail, which is easily accessible to these residents, and talk to the planning commission city council about not providing the commercial.

So is there the requirement?

But there is a process for someone to explain to you how that works in their project.

So second of the three form-based districts, we have old town mixed use, this set of districts, the old town main street, which is public primarily, and some East Simpson, the baseline corridor.

So that's a hotter pink at the top where baseline is, and then Old Town Transition, which is a new district since we've talked about this, but it reflects the different size of structures and mix of development that takes place south of Emma.

That's where the cutoff is on the red pink on the bottom.

And so these three districts are mapped and ready to go.

Key standards in these districts are there is a maximum lot combination square footage limit.

The goal isn't to have folks acquiring and merging a lot of lots.

There is an opportunity to ask city council to waive that through the regulating plan process.

There is a preference, particularly in Old Town Main Street, a preference for adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and again focused on keeping buildings there and reusing them.

And there are some ways for an applicant to adjust some of the applicable regulations in order to make an adaptive structure work for them.

Adapted structure.

So there's the mixed-use center, that's going to be a larger parcel as development or redevelopment take place in a center district.

We might see kind of tiers of development.

We're thinking really three-dimensionally about how that development takes place.

AMX 2 is adaptable mixed use corridor.

They may not be narrow in like a residential lot sense, but they might be in a commercial development sense.

And so we're thinking this is this is more development that moves along the corridor.

It may not have tiers to it, but how does this development take place and then how does it get redeveloped in a way that still connects to the community, and which is an important part of where we're going with adaptable mixed use.

Some key standards here are, as I touched on, this allows for new development and for redevelopment.

There are specific adjustments allowed for larger format buildings.

So if someone wants to come in and they want to do a new big box development, the code accommodates that.

The thing is if they want to do new big box development, there's also a big box conversion plan that needs to come in with it.

So this is what you might be developing today, and we want to see how it breaks down and redevelops into a neighborhood over time.

And then the redevelopment part of this also applies to an existing big boxes, how they might redevelop over time.

So to get us from the larger site, the larger blocks, um, to something smaller and manageable, and to build in some residential.

It does not allow full conversion to residential.

Part of the goal of the AMX districts is keeping some commercial retail or other light industrial uses in place.

Okay, so coming out of the districts, we're moving through the code, the use standards, and we've simplified the use table and updated it, making sure that we have modern uses in there.

All the uses have definitions.

Really small thing, really important thing.

And we don't want you guys to have to argue about the small stuff.

So if we can define everything, that's a good way to go.

More uses are permitted by right with clear use specific standards.

So things that might have come through for review and approval where you recommended conditions or council applied conditions to the extent that those are consistent, and we could reference and incorporate what the city wants to see on a regular basis.

That's in the code now.

Lots of those uses should go through either with site plan or minor site plan, really simplified approval that should shorten the time frame for approval and make that process more clear.

Some key new uses that you'll find in the code are a live work dwelling.

So that's the image that you see here, and it is exactly what it says.

I live in part of it, I work in part of it.

Food truck court, and then the distinctions between the types of drive-throughs that can take place, standalone drive-through or drive-through as part of another overall structure.

So we move into natural resources.

So the process here carried forward, applicable to existing development, our fencing standards, the new outdoor lighting standards, and the domestic animal standards.

When someone comes in for new development or significant redevelopment, not like I'm adding a patio onto my house, but I'm doing something that means that we should really be looking at the impacts of this development on the area.

They are going to need to meet the requirements for existing development, plus do an ecological assessment, comply with newly applicable setback requirements, which may or may not be adjusted through that assessment, and then keep or maintain the wildlife corridor connections.

So this is intended through the assessment and setback process to give the city kind of a wider lens look at the impact of new development or redevelopment.

But still bear in mind that there are parts of the city where the balance has already been tilted towards development and what you know, what does it mean to add on there without applying all requirements on the back of one development that's not going to make a huge difference in that area?

So we're trying to strike that balance.

How likely is it to live through a drought?

And then how are we going to park our bikes?

We have an entire section focused on connections, access and connectivity.

So what kind of bigger picture connections do we require for pedestrian bike and bus networks?

We have taken a look at off-street parking as possible.

We've provided flexible requirements and moved more to a parking max scenario, maximum parking on the site, and trying to keep in mind what parking does in terms of creating impervious surface and what parking does in terms of we've overparked for a long time now.

It makes development more expensive, and are we focusing on the right piece of this?

And then finally, there's some sustainable design requirements and new outdoor lighting standards.

And the outdoor lighting, I'm sorry, I'm going to look at Gabby and Phil.

We we don't do full-on dark sky, but we focus on getting the sky darker.

Okay.

Um by putting in standards that are looking at how light is cut off and what light pollution looks like.

And so we've taken you there.

Um if the city wants to go further, and that's a choice that you can make down the vote.

So we've had some discussions about open space and about open spaces and open areas and what does it all mean and who does what?

And so we wanted to try to clarify and kind of get everyone on the same page because this is one of these things inside the regulations that doesn't live in one location.

You have to look in a variety of different places to figure this out.

So what we wanted to assure everybody is that when new development comes through, and so it be that subdivision or commercial or industrial development or mixed use development, they are required to comply with the public land dedication requirement and dedicate land to the city.

The policy source of that is the parks recreation and open space master plan.

It is a requirement.

But when we take a look at it big picture from the master plan perspective, the city is looking at all of the pieces on the planning board and trying to make the right choice about what citizens need now and down the road.

So if we put a line under mixed use development and we move into the form-based districts and courtyard development and the multi-housing development, these types of development also have a private open space requirement.

So within the form-based districts, there's a civic space requirement.

We talked about that.

In some residential developments, it's probably going to feel a little more private just based on where it's located.

Within the form-based districts, because you will probably need to rezone to get there, if you haven't already met the public land dedication requirement, that will be required.

And so the way that we approach this is public land dedication is for everybody, that's a baseline requirement.

We add on and with private civic space for the form-based districts.

There's private amenity space required for the courtyard development.

So that's a shared courtyard space for the most part.

And then multi-household development, apartment development, they are required to have some kind of private amenity space, and there are some options for how to do that.

Could be balconies on the apartments, could be rooftop space, depending on the location and the height, could be ground floor space, but the goal there is that is private for the units.

And then of course, any applicant can come in and bring private amenity space with their development.

So it can feel like it's all the same on the outside.

It is not all the same within the code, and we want to make sure everybody does the part they need to do.

The one exception to the public land dedication is if your site has gone through subdivision or development where you've already dedicated, you do not have to do it a second time.

It's a single round, no double dipping on the dedication.

So you may see development taking place and not it will not have a dedication, and that means that at some point in time a dedication took place on that property.

So two things going on here.

The public land can be used for community parks, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, open space areas, and trails.

The design and use of the space should be determined as part of the individual dedication.

That's not something we do well in a land use code.

It's a little too much thinking about, you know, are you this box or this box?

And it is really much better done by the city through the process that you're already using.

The amenity spaces, these we can predict better where they're going to be and what they're going to do.

And so the design and use of amenity spaces can be predetermined, and that's in the code.

And we we make that distinction on purpose.

We try not to go any further down the road on the public land dedication because honestly, it's it's one place where in code cleanup is one of the single things that we are asked to take out more often than almost anything else.

We we bump into codes where they say, you know, you have to dedicate 0.5 acres for community parks and 0.2 acres for regional parks and and whatever and whatever, and it becomes its own mess over time.

So we highly recommend that the city stick with the process that you've got going.

The new stuff, the new amenity space will come in, and how that's designed and used can be predetermined.

Um but for the PLD go with the individual dedication and then determination of use over time.

Okay, getting off my soapbox.

Umdivision and infrastructure standards.

Um some of the key changes here in our continuing theme of walkability, and we've set some maximum block lengths.

Um we set maximum block lengths because we know from studying people that they only want to walk a certain amount, and we want to make it easy for them to walk that amount.

So we um we do that with block links.

Also, we do it to provide greater connectivity for safety purposes for emergency services, so they can move around the city better.

We've added cul-de-sac easement requirement, pedestrian cyclist easement.

So if you look at the bulb end of the cul-de-sac where it connects out to the public street, and that's the requirement is cul de fac to public street, that's where that cut through is.

So we don't have people having to go the long way around, especially we still don't have kiddoes having to go the long way around.

That's what that could be helpful for.

And then in the public land dedication, we've done some cleanup on detention ponds and mediums being excluded.

This is one place that we've been looking at where the edits didn't capture all of the comments, and there are going to be a few places like that that we'll tell you about.

Um and so we're going to need to go into the public land section as part of the warranty period cleanup and clarify better the difference between excluded and excluded from calculation, which is what's going on in there right now.

The administration section, the when we came in to work with you all on this project, and one of the first things that Stephen and Phil told us was that we need to get the administration cleaned up, and we need to be able to move projects through the process.

As we've talked about a few times, moving projects through the process is more than administration.

It's having those standards in place and having the administration run clearly.

So what we've done in the cleanup for administration section is we've gone through each procedure multiple times now to make sure that an applicant can figure out what they're doing, that staff can figure out what they're supposed to be doing, that everyone has review criteria, that we know if you're doing a neighborhood meeting or if you're doing a public hearing, and how you navigate through that, both the city and the applicants.

We've worked to limit PUDs to projects that provide community benefits.

We think that people should be able to develop in a way that Lafayette wants to see under the base districts, the or miss districts in the conventional districts without resorting to PUD, and that allows you a lot more administrative flexibility long term.

But we wanted to keep PUDs, they can be helpful if somebody wants to bring in a project that is you know completely affordable housing, and this might be something that you talk about in with the inclusionary conversation, and a PUD is the best way to get them there for whatever reasons, it should be in the code.

We included adjustment processes for site constraints.

Sometimes a builder or a developer doesn't know until they get to the site that there's something really funky going on there and they need to be able to work with it.

I had a client who had an applicant come in who had a completely unmarked sewer that went under their property and it messed up their development.

And so particularly in a community that has had older development, which in Colorado we have had a lot of fun and haphazard development over time.

This is one way to work with that.

And then finally, we refined the site plan review criteria to make sure that we're we're going through minor site plan, we're looking at compliance with the code, and when we're going through major site plan, we're looking at more policy-oriented issues along with compliance with the code.

We've also added a regulating plan.

So this will be the new thing that you will review and recommend on, and city council will decide on.

So a regulating plan is kind of a 10,000-foot site plan, might be a way to think about it.

So we're locking in place the parameters of development for a project, but not all of the details of the development.

So you can see from the list here what you'll typically see on a regulating plan that comes through planning commission.

There is an opportunity for an applicant to wave out a planning commission if their project is small enough that it also qualifies as a minor site plan.

So no reason to send everybody through if they're doing a smaller project.

But you're going to see so street alley, block and lot layout, the location of the multimodal transportation elements, the connections, the location of the easements, which helps us make decisions about where everything else goes, the building types, and so you will be the ones who see if an applicant is meeting that housing mix requirement, or if they want to do lot combinations in excess of what the code allows for, the frontage, the public spaces, the PLD will be on there, and the civic spaces will be on there both and distinguished on plan.

Surface parking and structured parking, and then the location of hazards or environmentally sensitive areas.

So it won't be fully engineered when you see it, but it will have the basic information to show you how an applicant's going to comply.

So just to kind of go back through because we did muck around in the application process.

We've created this list of who decides on what.

Just so we can show you kind of city council, so they're weighing the community impact, they're listening to the public, and they're making an applying policy.

They'll see annexations, complan amendment adoption, public right-of-way or easement dedication and vacation, land use code text amendment, major adjustments and major site plans, uh PUD preliminary development plans, the regulating plan, special use review and rezoning.

In the current draft, Planning Commission sees subdivision preliminary plat appeal and variants, and you're acting as a board of adjustment when you see appeal and variance.

We're having some conversation.

So the way the subdivision preliminary plat is drafted is planning commission decides, but it's subject to call-up by city council.

Um I think that seeing it in writing, um, staff I think wants to do some testing with that and figure out if that change is going to be helpful or meaningful in the whole scheme of things.

So the asterisk is we're going to be doing some testing on that to figure out if that's where the city still wants to go.

You don't see development sketch plans anywhere in this list because they're not binding.

Um, but you guys uh review them and give feedback, and the city council reviews them and give us feedback.

Um and then finally administrative approvals.

So these are applying standards and specifically delegated authority.

So director of staff can approve uh land use code interpretation or provide an interpretation, um, minor adjustments, minor site plans, and minor subdivisions, um, the PUD final development plan, um, the PDP FDP minor amendment, site specific adjustments, and subdivision final plat.

So we're trying to make sure that we've got everything in the bucket of who's making the decision, what is their decision making authority, and do we have the standards in the code to make sure that this is going to work?

Finally, um, we get down to definitions and measurements.

So decidedly unsexy and really helpful.

Um, we want to make sure that we're all making the same assumptions about how things will be measured.

Um I believe we worked out a new measurement approach for height as part of the discussions we all had.

Um, and then we want to make sure that we've defined the allowable uses and the key terms that are in the code.

We want the first resort for interpretation to be the code itself.

We don't want people to have to go ask for an interpretation.

We want to make sure that we've built that into the regulations.

And I'm gonna stop for a second.

Yeah, and see if you want to back up to anything, um, if there's something that caught your attention.

I think for me, the previous slide about the decision makers.

If we just back up.

I'm sorry, I can't hear.

The previous slide with the decision makers listed.

Oh, before that.

Um is that it looks to me just at first glance like there's much less for planning commission to be reviewing than what we currently have.

You're still gonna be reviewing you.

I didn't put recommendations in here.

Your review and recommendation list is pretty much everything on the council approval list.

This is simply decision making, and thanks for asking that.

Okay.

Yeah, that's on the argument.

Yeah, no, you're still busy.

Sorry, not changing that.

Okay.

I just I'm gonna come back to it, but I wanted to just put a pin in the fact that you said you guys finally came to a definition of height through this process.

I'm gonna come back to that later.

I don't want to dwell on it.

You want to just I want to like you said it, I want to come back to it when we have a little quicker discussion on it.

I just wanted to like flag it for everybody because we're back to it.

Um the point system that you described, that's new from the last draft, right?

That's okay.

That's something that we hadn't really seen before.

This is like um, I don't know if you it's something that you discussed because that was new to me.

Maybe I missed something.

The height definition?

No, the the point definition.

I'm sorry, I am having problems tonight.

Um the point system is fairly new.

Um, we had gone, we me had gone super complex with it, and um staff sorted that out.

So you saw earlier versions of it which had the same distinctions in project sizes, um, and then required some combination of F1, FN1 district and F N2 district, um and um and or the neighborhood commercial.

Um and so we expanded that kind of going down a what what if um category like what if somebody wants to do you know these and these um and decided it was getting too prescriptive.

Um so moving back to a point system um leaves some of the decision making applicants' hands.

Um we took out some um locational requirements that we had in the first draft, stuck with some of the percentages though, so it is newer, um but the concept was there to start with.

Actually, point of order.

Um in this process, um so when we want to change what has been presented to us, are we going to do that as conditions at the end, or how is that going to be handled?

Are you asking about when you're reviewing a specific application?

No, I'm talking about this document.

Oh, this document, okay.

Um so tonight you're reviewing the whole code and we've prepared a resolution to which you can add modifications or conditions for council to consider.

So um the way that our code reads right now for text amendments to the uh to the land use code or the development zoning code, it does say that planning commission can recommend approval or recommend approval with modifications so you can suggest um or recommend uh changes to what's been presented before you tonight uh when it goes to council.

Okay.

Um so then my next question would be on how we're doing this tonight.

Um I got a long laundry list.

When how and when do you want to address that?

Because right now you seem to be at a rather summary level of the terms of presenting and and whatever.

So is this gonna be before or after the uh public comment or how's this gonna work?

Yeah, I think at this point, yeah, we had suggested that the planning commission have kind of the clarifying questions here, public comment and then deliberate where you could ask you could certainly ask more questions before deliberating and voting.

Okay, yeah.

I I have a clarification question, which is probably because I'm only here since December, and I know there's people in this room who've been on this committee for a long time.

So maybe this is self-evident to everybody else.

But the old town overlay districts.

Emma feels like an arbitrary choice to me, both for well there's a historic backing for Emma not being like this this line, right?

I think even if you didn't know anything about Lafayette, when you come in from South.

The line is an Emma.

It's Kim Park, it's folding, it's not Emma.

And I'm wondering why that's the line because it's it's very clearly like you know, uh the old Ford dealership, the Lafayette Floor is like all of those are old town.

I'm very curious why that line is drawn where it is.

It feels like it's anticipating something that it wants to happen in the future, honestly.

Um, but I'm curious why that line was drawn there, because both for historic reasons and just for how it feels now.

That to me does not feel like where the line should be.

So I'm curious what it what it was.

Right, yeah.

So I think reasonable minds could disagree like where that is, and the planning commission can certainly um provide that recommendation.

The initial um line was drawn because we went through a visioning process with the downtown development authority, and that planning process led to a different character areas which had that as a demarcation point at MS Street.

So that was a logical first place to at least start.

Um but that's a conversation that the planning commission can definitely have tonight, and we can um take that on.

So that's perfectly within your purview to do that.

Okay, I was just curious if there was a more debate that had been had about it, or if it was just a suggestion.

Okay.

I have a few questions.

Um one is a process sort of question.

I'm curious, it seems like a zoning map is a big deal.

And I noticed you said we're gonna approve something and then have a have time to talk to the landowners about these zoning changes.

Why not talk to them before we approve it?

We had the the final code where we could actually tell them what it was changing um a few weeks ago, and so there hasn't been the time, there hasn't been the time to do that up until this point.

So um there's a couple of things.

One, that's where the effective date is pretty helpful because it allows that those conversations to take place.

Um and through that, um, if there are properties that are going to revert back to the to a different district, um, staff would bring those through without expense to the property owners that we would batch them all together and bring them through was the US again.

Come through you.

And on a council, yep.

Yeah.

And another question is jumping around, but um the big box conversion zone plan.

Um if we don't really want them, why are they allowed now?

Like, why have a zone that says you can build a big box now, but we're not gonna want it in the future.

So we want you to make a plan of how it's not gonna be a big do we want it now.

Yeah, I think there's um we have standards now to at least have a better big box if one were to come in, but there may be a point in the future where the city there is a project that the city does want to approve that is a larger format building.

Um if that's something that's a pretty big policy decision that the city could make of the maximum size of any building on a commercial property, is certainly not something something that could be batted around.

It's not something that we've necessarily um the code hasn't really considered a full out prohibition.

Yeah, we didn't we we've talked about this one quite a bit, and we didn't feel like we had clear instructions um policy-wise to prohibit um large format or big box or whatever.

Um from our perspective, it's better to have standards in place that guide how it can take place rather than um saying nothing and doing nothing.

And I think, like Phil said, it you want to send out the recommendation that there's a policy um change about that and that um the code not included, that's fine.

I think from a market perspective, we're still seeing big boxes um being developed.

They haven't quite hit their um death year yet, even though many people don't want to see them anymore.

Um so it we we took the middle road and said, okay, if it's gonna be here, it needs to do this.

Okay, um, thanks.

Osa.

Do we since we're talking about big box the big box conversion?

My question is how would this work?

So if if I come up and I say I'm gonna build a target, does the city come back to me and say, oh, by the way, in 20 years when you close that store, you have to sell that property.

No, I think it doesn't.

No, I I like the idea.

I think it's fantastic, but I'm just wondering why you're gonna make it happen.

It it does it does two things.

We certainly are not gonna tell Target what to do with their property.

Um, but it creates thought at the beginning of the design process.

Um so that um staff and planning commission and city council are in a position to say, you know, here's what your redevelopment plan looks like.

Can we make some adjustments to the initial development plan that get us closer to what we want to see on the back side of it?

Um and then it also um asks an applicant to think about how um how the site connects with off-site um conditions, and so some of those things that you can do early on, like you know, target know you're not a silo on your own, doing your own thing.

You're part of this neighborhood, and we want to see those sidewalk connections and roadway connections taking place now, even though you're going to be a larger piece of it.

Um it will allow you to have conversations about if it's a mixed-use site, you know, do we do we make sure that we bring the target up to the busy street-ish?

There's still room for parking in there, and then we put other uses behind it to buffer those neighborhoods.

Um so we think it's gonna help that longer term conversation take place and put some expectations out there that the city isn't um isn't gonna be um allowing it to kind of you know devolve from target down to whatever down to whatever, but we want to see something different taking place uh once that box has passed its reasonable life.

Can I jump on this that's from the big box train?

Yeah, um, I'd written a question about the conversion.

I mean, I get that we're asking people to bring a plan for new projects, but there was um provisions for existing big box stores that were more than uh 100 parking spaces or more than five acres or more than 6,500 square feet.

Do we actually I'm gonna keep asking this question?

It's gonna annoy everybody, but I'm going to keep asking the question really to a bunch of these things.

Do we actually have any of these properties that meet this standard that is set out in the code?

Do we have any existing big box properties that are over 65,000 square feet with over 100 parking spots and over five acres?

No, that for an existing development.

Like we've set a standard for a big box conversion in the code.

Do we have any properties in the city limits that meet that?

I mean, along 287 would be a very curious because there's I've asked this question a couple times, and then the answer is like we don't know.

So I'm curious if this is applies to things that are actually existing.

Yeah, that was the fantastic.

Okay, that's good news.

Um, I just wanted a clarification question.

I I wasn't sure I understood on the public land dedication chart.

Um I think I wasn't sure if this was I was understanding.

Um I think you said like uh reading down the chart was adding additional things.

So I just wanted to confirm us.

The public land dedicated, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

It's getting outside.

Yeah.

Um the private amenity space, is that even in the case of those lower lines additional to public land dedication?

Or in the case of those two lower lines?

Yes, no, the um the private amenity spaces on the on the courtyard and the multi-house, that is in addition to we should read this as like a cumulative.

And then the private civic space is also in addition to.

So everything underneath mixed use development is in addition to.

Okay, thanks.

Any other clarifying questions for that first?

That was a lot, that first portion.

Go ahead.

I mean I heard you mention that for like an apartment project that if there are um like balconies for each of the units that that square footage can essentially count for that private amenity space.

We've got that in there.

Okay.

That's better.

Um I think you mentioned that with the points table.

Yep that there were minimum percentages required for different types.

Is there also maximum percentages?

Like, for example, is there something that says it can't be all one type?

Yeah, so if to get to the points and to use the minimum percentages, you cannot max out with one thing.

If that's essentially how it's set up, if that's the question you're asking.

We tried to poke at it to see who was gonna come in with the you know, I've got a gondola, someone can live there.

We're done now.

Um so um well, that was the the minimum.

The minimum.

But for but there's a we got some great public comments.

You can't hit the you to get to the other minimums.

You're you're not gonna be able to do anything at a maximum.

So the minimums are like 30% of the first one, 30% of the second one, 20% of the third one.

Oh, okay.

And so that's gonna add up to then there's only a teeny tiny bit left for whatever you wanted that thing to be.

So we we tried to do it so there was not a work going on for it.

So it specifies you have a hundred percent.

You're gonna break it down in this way.

You're gonna have 30% of something, 30% of something else, 20% of something else, and then they can fill it out.

Uh showing it on the plan, and likely with a summary table.

Okay.

So really, there's no essentially it wouldn't be possible for someone to just do two housing types.

And if that was property.

Small property, yeah.

You can't.

That was the five-acre.

Yeah, the first one.

Sure.

Okay.

Yeah.

But on the second one on this.

Oh, okay.

Five to our missing a zone.

Five to twenty.

Well, five to twenty zone.

Yeah, there's yeah.

It would be it would be possible to do just two two valuing types on five to twenty.

So depending on what they were, yeah.

Yeah.

That's I think that's the question.

Okay.

Yeah.

And really related to the points.

Um, we had some good questions about how points were assigned, like why certain things got more points than other things.

Could you talk a little bit about that?

So I'll start um and then I might ask staff to jump in.

So the goal in getting to um a housing mix um aligns with the goal of getting to housing that is affordable or attainable.

Um, we we want we wanted to give preference to um those housing types that would provide um more units, maybe at a lower price point.

Um, not all of them, you know, we all know you can do a duplex for millions of dollars.

But so we started with the baseline of kind of detached house.

And the working within the plan policy, wanting to see a mix so made it so that the way you can do fully detached house is to add the ADUs to get you to one point.

Similarly, the courtyard development is likely going to be smaller units, smaller lots, but doesn't necessarily, but that does give one full point.

And then you get to the encouragement part of it.

So you have more points for the duplex.

For a small detached house, so that is actually a way to do kind of a more homogenous development.

But the cost of land is such a big pro big part of the cost of housing by meeting the small detached house standards that will bring some of the pricing down and provide also more compact and walkable development.

So it's it's kind of keyed off the baseline is the way development has worked in the recent past.

And then the encouragement is add a little bit of something else here.

Also, it takes a look at things that we think the market will readily accept in Lafayette.

So the things that we've talked about across this project, what what end of the missing middle housing types and do we think would be well received with Sal would rant and that people would need to?

So that's kind of the basic foundation for it.

I don't know.

Jake, you want to add anything else or catch it off?

Pretty well, I don't know.

Uh it's kind of a in a way it's the inverse of kind of our existing housing stock in many ways.

So it's trying to uh trying to, we don't, you know, a lot of times when you incentivize things, you send a things through density bonuses and height bonuses and things like that.

We don't have those tools at our disposal with this code.

So this kind of incentivizes some of those housing types that we don't necessarily have, so that's why it assigns a higher point values or the other kind of approach or thought behind it.

Such as the triplex forplex, that was originally, I think, at 1.5, but after some initial discussion, um, we were seeing that that's that's one of the fewer scene uh housing types in Bahia.

So yeah, increased it to two.

And some people want to live in multifamily where they're not paying for all the amenities and the pools and the stuff they're not going to use, and so they just want uh the you know, a simple apartment in a smaller building that they're not paying for all of those types of things, and we don't really see many of those being built either.

So when point systems like this are used, are they often revented?

Like is this something that you're calibrating pretty regularly as the development changes on the ground?

Yeah, I know.

I know Boulder uses it, I don't know how often they recalibrate, but that's something else we talked about.

It's we can kind of go in and recalibrate this as we're seeing things, and if we want to do a course correction, it's kind of it's an easy framework to recalibrate within.

Actually, on the recalibration front, uh big picture question.

We've had a lot of things come before us, and there's a lot of frustration from the public about the comp plan and how things are not in alignment with the comp plan, and we are working, we are working with the plan that we have, not the plan that we want to have.

And I know that this process has taken a long time.

And I know that this process does take a long time.

This is you know, just the reality of the situation we live in.

Looking at the October thing, and I'm also hearing like this might maybe get pushed out further, which I feel like will make nobody happy, is my guess.

Uh, my question is like, could it be sooner?

Here's like feels like you're talking to people sooner.

And this is just like a is this realistic question?

Because it, you know, it feels like we're gonna have to be making amendments, bringing things forth.

I guess I'm wondering about the feasibility of, and this is a question for everybody else, too.

The feasibility of like, do we get something that is imperfect but workable in place sooner rather than later, and then make those amendments as they come up rather than working towards something in that just the deadline keeps getting pushed up and we keep having these things come up, and then everybody gets more frustrated because we're really want to be uh considering all these applications against the land use code and this comp plan that we don't yet have.

Like what is a reasonable, the reason most reasonable soonest time frame that we could see this being implemented given everything that's on your plate in order to make that happen is a question that's great.

Putting you on spot.

Yeah, that's a great question.

And yeah, typically ordinances are effective 10 days after they pass.

Um in this case, we were looking at that time period.

There's a probably a couple of caveats.

Um Director Williams can correct me, but um it's unlikely that uh full application would get in front of the planning commission within that time frame if they were to submit right now.

And so there's the we saw the risk as being fairly low in terms of that.

Um though um it it is a possibility to um to implement the code sooner.

Um it absolutely is.

We would need to do a couple of things around fee ordinance so that's something that we could be directed uh to do.

Um would also want to mention within that period there was an opt-in.

We want to have an opt-in provision so um we can get people in who are interested at least.

Um we do that with the building code, for example.

So they'd be opting into the code as it is.

Yeah.

And um, but that would kind of lock us in, or lock that would that would be that yeah, we wouldn't be able to do these ordinances or additional updates and things.

I'm not gonna correct anything.

I'm just gonna clarify.

Well, one we had a schedule that we're trying to meet.

So in terms of adoption, you know, this is when we were attempting to get you guys and city council the code to review and approve.

I think it is pretty close in terms of like how risky it is or what our preference is, what we've suggested, you know, there's a couple of benefits to a delayed adoption, but it ultimately would have to be approved by council as to whether or not they want to have something on the books now and spend, you know, just know that in you know three or six months we're gonna have corrections that we come back and and have to make.

The the benefit to I think getting something out there is to start like right now, we're setting the expectation, like we have a code that we're intending to adopt.

Like it gives a lot more clarity to developers that like, hey, this is the target, you know, now we can come in and start having conversations about how our application actually works under the code, and then as Phil mentioned earlier, like in terms of the rezoning, like we we've been working at this, so we've been trying to take as many comments so up until like the 11th or 13th hour, we've been taking these comments and trying to incorporate them into the code.

Now we actually can go to those, you know, I think one of the easiest ones is we've had a you know um black diamond where we had the self-storage is getting rezone from um one to AMX zoning.

We didn't have an AMX zoning to go out and notify those property owners that hey, this is what your this is what the change is gonna be.

And so now we have that opportunity to do that due diligence as well, and we could do that in that amount of time.

But again, it's the recommendation really I I feel like the expectation was that you guys were gonna have a code to adopt it and act now.

And if you want to give us direction that that's your preference, we're certainly take it today and give you and we can respond with what does that mean?

And really what that means is we have corrections that we have to make.

So um, you know, and but that's uh I think we always understood we'd have one of these two paths to kind of pursue because we're not gonna get it perfect.

I think the other context is I could stick with this for another six years and try to refine it, right?

Like it's just one of those documents you don't want to put down and you want to like it's a it's kind of like a I mean for me this is the first time my career had an opportunity to do this, and you want to get everything in there, and I don't know that that's gonna happen.

And you know, it's more logical to get it to a certain point and then make refinements more regularly than a 40-year increment, which is what we've you know, kind of done.

Um, although we have had changes over time as well.

So I hope that answers your question.

Does it give you a little bit more context at least?

It does.

I just think at some point the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah.

So it's good to have deadlines at the same time.

Um, as part of this presentation, will you be kind of explaining here's here's what it would look like if you wanted to make a change?

And here's here's what that process would look like.

Um, because I know I've been on on PC now for a long time.

I'm gonna say how many years, and um it's been there's always that just kind of like how do we actually go about creating new policy, like other than this process where we hire a consultant and we have like, okay, I'd like to raise my hand and this has been a problem, or you know, how is that going to be fleshed out um over these next few months and making sure that that actually happens.

So if you have direction to give us tonight, we'll take that, right?

And if you have something that comes back like that you've noticed, or if you want to give any of the feedback over whatever time if we have a time period, you know, if if it's set and you still have something that you wanted to correct, like let's say we adopt it and enact it, you can still provide staff of feedback.

We're gonna be like working to refine and you know, iron out the wrinkles or however you want to like you know phrase this or couch this, right?

You can always provide that thing.

If there's something specific like that you're noticing now that you want to change, that's what we want to hear tonight too.

I think it's more like you know, I'm I'm reading the the zoning.

It's a lot to digest, right?

A month from now for a glass of wine, as one does.

You know, we had the working group, but we didn't really um have a like, hey, let's get these two bodies together and see what what bubbles up.

Um I guess I'm just wondering if there might be opportunities for that.

I imagine that's something we wanted to do.

Yeah, there would be.

I mean, at a minimum, we could we would likely be coming and having like a presentation with planning commission of this is what we're finding, these are the things that we're seeing and seeing what you what you all think.

Um there'll likely be some discussions with council.

I know we've had joint um council planning commission workshops before.

And so that's sure, exactly.

And so that's what I was like, oh my we should be doing that for this.

Yeah, absolutely.

If if that if that were to happen if something were to come up down the road after this is adopted, would there be budget to hire would it to be typical to hire rehire a consultant to assist in the redrafting of elements or with that thing that could be?

Yeah, yeah, or is Elizabeth done tonight and she won't runs away, she runs away.

I don't know what there's a scope of services if it's if it's complex enough, especially for based code, we would probably want some additional help.

I was curious because you said there's a warranty period.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So like we check in and real live orangey or just call warranty and we disappear tonight.

Is that like are you gonna be coming back to visit us over the next six months?

Or I think a lot of that depends on um the level of changes that you guys want to make.

We're gonna be here in back, we're gonna be in Denver.

We're not going anywhere, I don't think.

Um so yeah, I mean, we're gonna we will be here to take calls or to help with that.

Um code that we've shepherded through with staff to get this far.

And so um absolutely we it we usually get one or two pretty significant questions after a new code is adopted.

Um it it often more along the lines of, hey, we put this thing in and we love it, but now we've got this weird interpretation.

Um and so what changes do we need to make to stop this interpretation from taking place?

Um so yeah, we'll be here.

I don't know if we'll be in front of you, that'll depend on whether your staff wants to bring it here or they want us to come up and do it.

But uh yeah, we'll do one to period, absolutely.

Um I noticed a comment that came in that asked about um neighborhood meetings and the ability of the staff, planning director to waive neighborhood meetings, and the note that that was a little concerning to someone.

Is there a process, an appeal process or something where if a citizen was very alarmed by a decision that the planning director made or something, there's there's a way to escalate that.

Yeah.

I think there's a process now.

I mean by now that's probably more of a reaction to the fact that we have a fair fairly iterative, like you know, you guys sketch plan requires a neighborhood meeting.

Are we different, like if you combine applications, there's points where neighborhood meetings feel like they're consistently happening, and like there's a question too about why the neighborhood meeting isn't reflected on the annexation, and we've it's actually not in our code that it's a requirement, but it's tied to the rezoning piece.

And so typically we've encouraged applicants to have it at the front, so I think it gets the optics of a neighborhood meeting occurring for the annexation.

But like if an annexation was just like we want to come into the town and we want to be developing resources and we have no like that's kind of frustrating to some residents too.

They show up, they want to know what's happening, they don't necessarily care where jurisdictionally a piece of land is located as much as they care what's happening on the land.

So there's there's right sizing and timing for that, but I'm not one to really stick my neck out there, so unless unless it's something that like um, you know, is kind of more redundant or like a repetitive thing, and it's not gonna be something that gets waived.

Um if you guys are comfortable with it, you know, you can give us direction that you don't like that language.

We could also try to look at something more balancing where it also gives me the discretion to require it if it's an application that you know may need that kind of input or something like that.

Um it's never like not allowed for uh um an applicant to do, right?

It's just required at certain times.

So I hope that gives you clarification on that one.

Um and then we had a comment about the parks at open space zone and how you know those are actually two different things, but they're combining one zone and a suggestion they be divided.

Did you look at that and do you have a response to that or a reason why that wouldn't be a good idea?

Yeah, yeah, no, that's um it's a good comment.

So currently the um areas that are parks, areas that are open space are zoned um as public um in our current code.

That public has a large umbrella of different uses, so city hall offices, police station, rec center, so on.

Um and so what we've done with this is that we wanted to at least differentiate those two uses of parks and open space, and we created its own own zone for that.

And those mixes, those use mixes are intermingled with that with that one zone.

Um that said, um it is um we're we're not as concerned about it as staff um because we own and control those properties and we control how they're used.

And so, like right today um the zoning code would allow those types of uses to be on open space, but we have a charter that says otherwise, and the charter trumps the code in in any situation.

Um in that case, um it's a comment that um that could, that could, that's reasonable that could be accomplished.

I'm not sure it's we weren't sure if it was necessary or not, but um it is it's a it's a fine comment to make.

Well, we have three old town zones.

Yeah, one of which is like a block, I think, putting everything like having city hall and then all of the open space in the same zone seems like we've got granular detail of just smooshing everything into one zone seems it could be done.

I think we were trying, we were we we were thinking we were taking a step in the right direction by call by pulling those out.

But if the feedback that we're getting is we need to still refine that more, then we can certainly certainly take that.

But um, we're not concerned about the uses because we control those properties and we're bound by their charter.

Yeah.

Yeah, but yeah, it's a I think people like seeing it.

Yeah, you know, because there's no concern.

There's no concern on your part about dividing it further.

Like is there are there a risk there that you're worried about?

It's it's it's it's a little bit more work we would have to do because we then we really need to look at all the the uses that are on both parks and open space and ensure that you know as a trailhead with a bathroom, that's a structure.

So what is so we would need a spend a little bit of time just looking at that.

Um in this case, they were reasonably in the same ballpark, and so we kind of put them together.

It's carried forward from the current code, isn't it?

Cleaned up.

Yeah.

How many uses?

Yeah, yeah.

I guess I'm I'm just a little surprised that you did that.

Um you are aware as much as we have emphasized and re-emphasized in Lafayette how open space is different than how it tends to be defined in communities around us and how we look at it and how it's paid for.

So in my mind, I think this is a huge misstep lumping both of those together.

They need to be separated.

It's not a maybe should, it's has to be.

What's the you mean the the park space from open from the open space?

Okay.

Two separate, because they can't share special uses on the special use table that they don't share.

So we're not gonna put a food track, food truck on open space.

I'm sorry, that ain't never gonna happen.

Right.

So I think maybe just don't just try and work your way out of it.

Just simply accept the fact to separate it.

I'm not trying to work my way out of it.

I'm trying to understand what that step would get from a regulatory perspective if the properties are all owned by the city.

So here's the thing.

How it's paid for is different because open space is actually a tax that has been voted on by the citizens of Lafayette.

Okay.

Park land, it could be city-owned land, right?

Like the rec center, some of those, whatever, right?

But that's not from that tax.

So it's a very separate piece of property.

So your concern that somehow something's gonna be allowed that violates the term of the purchase or dedication.

I don't even want to add have it come to as a possibility.

Okay.

Don't have.

It's not in special use.

It's not a special use, so therefore, if they are zoned differently, that won't be that special use designation under open space.

It it would be better reflective of um uh you know anything that could happen in the future if the open space parcels were pulled out and colored differently and zoned differently and set nothing.

It just does nothing over time.

It stays open space on the I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

You just simply have a separate zoning vegetation, open space that applies to strictly to cities open space as we define open space.

It's it's very simple.

It's not all these well, maybe should could bam.

That's it.

Right.

Every I appreciate you trying you're trying to understand and clarify this.

I understand that.

We have a question from um Commissioner Shame Beck.

Schoenbeck, sorry.

I don't know if you're here.

No, here I am.

Sorry about that.

Um this uh dovetails on some of the earlier comments, and I don't mean to interrupt the open space conversation, but do we feel like the land use code um is clear on how to amend itself, or is that a separate document/slash process?

Because it it seems like the confidence to adopt quickly will be based on the strength and clarity of the amendment process itself.

Yeah, the the code amendment process is the same as it's always been.

Um that's um from state statute, and so um it is as simple and as effective as the city's always used it in the past.

Um what what we hope with a new code is that it's easier because you know where everything is and what you want to change.

So um in making amendments, you're not stumbling into a different problem going forward from having made that amendment.

Um so you should be in good shape for um cleanup that you want to do that requires a minute.

So go back to your original question.

If you wanted to put it in place um faster, counting on cleanup state amendment process, you should be in good shape for that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

We want to continue with some rest of the we don't have a lot.

Um but what we could do is just to make it clear, we'll be coming back for questions.

Um I just wanted to clarify some of the stuff before we get to the public hearing.

And um, yeah, so um thinking about the zoning map.

Um, so we've kind of described this in the memo, but the general approach overall was to try to do a one-to-one conversion.

And so the tables that Elizabeth showed you earlier, um, this a part of that shown here.

Um we've taken if it's the current zoning districts, such as those first three uh rows, the RE1, RE2, and R0, that would be the one-to-one conversion to that neighborhood rural, for example.

Um so that was most of the city, but there were some specific areas that we either got a request from or that we saw that we wanted to flag for the planning commission and council.

Um there were five of them.

Um Aspen Ridge Drive, shown as number one, you're familiar with that area.

Um Downs Street, just um kind of north of baseline on the east end.

Uh parks and open space, which is in several areas, but just shown um on the as number three, um, South Boulder Road in the tech center, uh, and lastly uh Gall Plaza.

Um so with Aspen Ridge, um, this is an area that includes um some office retail, um, some light manufacturing, some um kind of pseudo-recreational style uh type uses.

Um the comprehensive plan identified this whole area as adaptable commercial, and so on the zoning map, we are showing that as AMX uh to adaptable mixed use corridor in order to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um in this case, we wanted to the area is large enough to warrant um kind of bringing this up to decision makers.

Um street has a couple of properties that we wanted to highlight that we saw once we started doing the mapping.

So the two properties to point out one would be a west property, uh, and so the old town residential, the overlay district as it really as it stands today, kind of goes straight north on one area, straight up and down, um, and that splits a lot on the left in half.

And so when we make that overlay district its own zoning district, it creates split zoning, and that's not ideal in terms of just administering the regulations.

Uh and so in order to remedy that, we're recommending that um it's basically the house right now is in the district or overlay district, and I think the garage is not.

And so we're recommending we just move that old town.

Um, what is the district now, the old town uh neighborhood over that entire property?

So the whole property would be there.

Um we also got a request from a property owner um on that right piece of property um requesting um uh N3 zoning, um, the specifically for some additional design flex flexibility as well as potentially pursuing attached housing types.

Um attached housing types, uh at least duplexes are across the street, and then um attach housing to the um uh just to the east of of that property.

And so in thinking through that as a team, we thought it was a reasonable approach to expand that N3 zoning to match that area to the south and to the east.

Parks and open space, we just kind of dived into, but those are generally zoned as public.

There are places like shown here that are zoned industrial.

So what we've done, we've taken those properties that the city owns, and we've kind of cut them out and created that own that specific parks and open space zoning district that we wanted to point out.

We'll spend too long in there since we just had that discussion.

The South Boulder Road area.

So there are two properties here.

The Northwest area is a currently operates as a church and it's zoned R2 single and two family residential.

It's on the corner of 287 and South Boulder Road.

In that middle map, you'll see that it's the comprehensive plan designated that as adaptable commercial.

And then to the right, you'll see that that northeast that northwest property recommended as that AMX to adaptable mixed use corridor to align with the comprehensive plan.

In a similar vein, we're looking at that southeast parcel.

It is currently zoned as C1 regional business, and the comprehensive plan includes that entire tech center kind of area as a collective flex, and the district that is most that we kind of tried to model the that a collective flex off of is M1, employment mixed use.

And so that's what we were recommending for that entire area.

Currently, there's an assisted living facility on the southwest portion of that pro that area, and that would be allowed and allowed use in that new zoning district.

The last one was Gulf Plaza.

When this area was annexed and then zoned, there were kind of rectangular commercial zoning applied to the northeast and the southwest corners of that intersection.

When the housing was built though, that zoning didn't change, and so there are portions of that home that you kind of see there outlined that are either wholly or partially within that commercial zoning district.

And so that was addressed in the comprehensive plan, showing that as in the middle map as housing areas, and we're recommending that we kind of just bring that residential area into that neighborhood zone and the commercial into the commercial zone.

Again, you've seen this already, but we would be doing some additional outreach once we hear from planning commission and council what the appetite is for these particular changes throughout the process.

We also received public comments and prior to this meeting.

So we've talked quite a bit about the open space and parks zoning.

The public land dedication, this is a comment that we got, and this is something.

So we went to Low Guess Open Space Advisory Board a couple of times throughout this process.

At our last meeting, we talked about the wildlife habitat regulations, but also this public land dedication.

And as Elizabeth mentioned, we had some staff comments included, but those didn't make it into the final draft.

And so we're completely supportive of more emphasis on open space in this case.

So right now it's really emphasizing parks.

And so in that case, it would say parks or open space could be eligible for the public land dedication.

We talked a lot about the private credit for facilities, and so that was a topic brought up during that time.

And so there was a lot of kind of back and forth discussion around whether or not the percentage could be waived.

So instead of waiving all of it, is it just going to be 50% waived?

The high quality, the quality needs to be really high if we were to give a credit for private recreational facilities, and then clarifying Low SAB's role in a development review process.

And so those are things that were intended to be in the code, but we're not that we'd like to get into the first this first round of edits.

But if planning commission agreed with those comments, we could also bring that forward and just get it done with the code initial process.

Public process, a lot of emphasis on not reducing opportunities for public input, as well as some concern with the demarcation between a public hearing process and an administrative process and wanting to weigh more on the public hearing process.

And we already noted a concern about not requiring neighborhood meetings with annexation applications.

So that's certainly oftentimes are accompanied with another application that requires that meeting.

But if planning commission wanted to get more certainty, we were certainly open to that.

With the form neighborhood, we've heard about the encouraging greater housing diversity with those numbers, and then requiring more commercial space in the neighborhood.

So the comprehensive plan includes housing areas typology, but it also includes this neighborhood mixed use areas, and those are still going to be there.

But for the neighborhoods that, for example, would be annexed that are far away from there, there's a desire to ensure that there's some sort of neighborhood commercial.

How much what it looks like is the real sticking point.

And so we're hearing from folks in the development community that it there's market realities that it just won't work.

We're also have residents that say this is really important.

We have policies that say this is really important.

So what we've tried to do is kind of meet somewhere in the middle and provide a requirement, but also some exemptions if it's if the for extenuating circumstances.

But we would like to include that throughout in the other areas as well.

Um so that's something that could easily be expanded and an interest in allowing nursery or greenhouses as well, which is something that could certainly be considered.

Um and then um just looking overall um whether or not we want to provide water features and playgrounds, discouraging um uh or encouraging drought tolerant landscaping and parks and so on.

So those are some of the themes that we've heard for public comment specifically for this meeting.

Our recommendation is um the resolution that we approved, however, we'll be taking notes because we were expecting that they would be a list of things that would likely want to be changed.

Um the city attorney's office is taking um feverishly taking notes.

Um we would bring this to council on the 7th, um, tentatively second reading, depending on what we hear on the seventh on the 21st.

Um we would break for questions before public hearing.

Would your intention be to if we suggested changes to make them before you go to council or just to notify council that we have recommended?

If you um communicate those to us tonight, um we will put those in the memo in writing for counsel.

And uh we can add them to the resolution, and so that the final version of the resolution could include all of those, and we would have the chair sign that version and pass that along to council.

Would it would we have a code that has struck language and then new language?

Would it be that kind of or would it just be in the resolution?

Like so that you could have the code okay.

Here's here's what it was originally, it struck through because planning commission recommended this language instead.

And then council could discuss those specific changes and compare.

Um I think we could do both where if it's agree.

Hey, make sure you clean this up, make sure that this district addresses X, Y, and Z, or it could be change this sentence to this.

And we could probably do that.

Having that before and after, I realize that's a lot.

That's a big lift over a 400-page document, but I think that will be important.

So Chair, can I make one comment real quick?

Um, as we're hearing uh, for example, um Phil's summary of some of the public uh comment that you've received.

Uh I do want to reserve or at least advise the planning commission of the fact that some of the if you do incorporate uh, for example, certain um public comments or even suggestions or recommendations for changes to the code that planning commission has in a resolution.

Um I do need to be able to give council legal advice on those and to provide legal review of those because as this come to me.

For example, I can say one that I would definitely like to review would be a neighborhood meeting for an annexation.

Annexations have a specific statutory process, and you uh the statutes say that you cannot apply zoning or subdivision regulations to an annexation until after it gets passed the first step in the uh process, which is submission of a petition and then um an eligibility review by I think it's eligible, sorry, substantial compliance review by council, and then not long after that in a in a mandated um time period that I believe is no more than 60 days or say public hearing.

So there would be a pretty immediate opportunity for the public to comment on a um proposed annexation, although that that hearing is um limited to certain issues.

But uh I so things like that I may need to perform legal review and advise city council as those recommendations are transmitted to them where um uh you know they'll have that advice, which means they may or may not uh decide to incorporate all of Planning Commission's um recommendations, for example, if there is a legal uh infirmity with a recommendation, and I'll make sure they uh to explain that.

Uh if there is something along those lines, I'm happy to provide that advice to planning commission as well.

I think you should have that.

But um anyway, that was one that just uh occurred to me where as um well taken as that that uh suggestion is for the public or maybe a voluntary neighborhood meeting could occur.

I don't know that we can mandate it because of state law.

So just an example.

Um city attorney's office will continue to work with staff and we'll if I um am aware of any legal issues as you start working on uh finalizing recommendations for council tonight.

I can alert you to those.

I just have to reserve the ability to do further legal review if I can't do that on the fly because uh it is not the best way to practice law.

And I can want to do what is best for the city.

So um there may be issues that I need to do further research on and provide advice up.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Okay.

Any remaining, or we could move.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think do we want to ask a few questions to clarify anything that um that Phil just shared with us?

Go ahead.

Glory.

Um so in the administrative section, you've kind of done a lot of things to um under the headline of streamlining.

Um, which seems to at the lower end um provide a lot of perception, if you will, of power to the director of planning to make decisions without coming before the planning commission, etc.

At the very minor end, of course, those would impact zoning board of adjustment, things that would be brought before the zoning board of adjustment, I would imagine.

And have you I mean have you looked at that and come across with any kind of idea of the impact?

Is that going to virtually eliminate the zoning board of adjustments, or what's that going to be?

Well, I think if it there, I think the modify correctly correct me, but the modifications are specific and limited to a fairly small amount for a director versus city council, but when it breaches that amount, then it would be it would trigger the board of adjustment review.

So I don't think the board of adjustment would go away.

Hopefully there wouldn't be a lot of board of adjustment meetings with a new code that is more responsive to current conditions.

Um along with that, the graft LUC replaces the current site plan and architectural with a streamlined site plan review.

Um currently in our process, um that's one of the places that the few places that the planning commission can have a major impact in terms of our recommendations.

Um that concerns me, obviously, because you're you're streamlining it, and if so, streamlining it to what extent.

I think the intent of that comment was about the review criteria, and Elizabeth could probably speak about the specifics, but it's been condensed and um consolidated is what I believe that was referring to.

We would still be a recommending body still the council would be the decision maker on a major site plan.

Yes.

Yeah.

Well, and it brings up a good point, which is now all of a sudden we have sort of this new category of minor site plans and minor subdivisions.

Um in those decisions that don't come before us in those categories.

Is there a call-up process for those?

I don't believe there was originally a call-up process in the original call.

The code was taken out.

So I don't I don't believe so.

No.

No.

So the applicant does not have the opportunity to call this up.

That's a final decision.

Can you state?

I don't know if I'm totally following.

Can you apply it?

That's probably the only reason why they would want to have you review what would otherwise be an administrative decision.

If you guys so the the major versus minor site plan, the thing that we discussed through the working group was a 10,000 square foot uh commercial or industrial uh building allowance.

And that would if it's under that, it would be a minor uh application for old town.

We had a discussion as to whether that was too large and came back at 5,000 square feet for a commercial edition with an old town uh being minor versus major.

Those were all things that we discussed through the land use working group.

Um if you have changes now, or if you want to ask or recommend uh uh like a notice of decision that has the ability for the planning commission, there are tools that we can uh work into the code if you have concerns about.

Oh, is this the call-up of the staff decision?

Yeah, Commissioner, okay.

Yeah, but more specifically the director of planning.

Yeah, yeah, so that that's definitely an op an opportunity or an option.

I commissioner could center.

Okay, so you mentioned uh a couple of rezonings, and you brought them up on the screen.

A particular one to look at is the one you mentioned, which is the two churches on the southwest corner of South Boulder and there are three churches.

There are three, and then I just want to clarify that.

Sorry.

Yep.

Those there.

So you have them like red, which is AMX 2, is that correct?

Yes.

Um, so I don't know if I'm wrong here, but I'm looking at uh your table use and um the document itself.

I always have to go back and forth because the PDF pages are 30 pages off from document pages.

So page 123 of the document.

You'll note that under the under community and cultural facilities, under assembly, religious, or secular, um, there is no special uses for any of those, including in the AMX too.

I think it's this, I think that was kind of a typo.

Like it needs to be bolded.

It's just the the two subheadings on that use, because I saw that too.

Like oh, so everything else there applies to religious or secular?

Is that what you're saying?

I'm thinking that if located on Main Street, these are all special use, and then building footprint greater than 7500.

Yep.

Is everything but the assembly religious or secular?

This is a heading.

Is that correct?

Okay, and it was really I was like, well, wait a minute.

Did we just say that we couldn't have that answer?

That's exactly right.

There's a lot of things.

So we have that used, but then we just I mean that's I don't think that's something we need to vote on, right?

You can just make that a little bit more clear.

If yeah, if you don't like the formatting of that, we can certainly make that.

I think it just needs it needs to be clarified.

If I could just uh I'm just curious where that came from, given that we have three church bodies, three communities of faith on that piece of property.

I'm curious why it got that designation, even in the original font plan.

I guess I don't know what the spot was there.

Um I I'm not aware of why, but I would assume it's because it's a hard corner and three of the other corners were existing commercial.

Um, and so long term it likely made sense for for that.

Yeah, um, whether or not access and other things would probably play a role in that particular site significantly.

Um is is another probably question that would be raised, but it's just interesting looking at the rest of the zoning for other communities of faith in in the city, they're NC.

Um lots of them are in C.

Now we've got a two properties where there's three three communities of faith and they're getting a more commercial zoning, and I just I understand the street orientation, but it um it seems a little it just seems a little incongruous with the rest of the another option for the planning commission to consider is that the comp plans at 20-year horizon, we're doing this now in year five.

We're doing an area plan for this specific area that will consider all of these.

So if this is something where you kind of wanted to wait and see, especially what happens, you know, what's what a vision could it be to impact that site in particular?

That's something that could be deferred and not necessarily changed through this process too.

What would be the base zoning that it would if if it if this weren't too like a neighborhood to neighborhood and two zoning?

Yeah.

So it's certainly an option.

Yeah, discussion.

That's why we wanted to highlight these before any change was actually made.

Okay.

Um yeah, could do sorry.

Okay, on page 51 of the document.

It gets in a day discussion about referral of park dedication requirements and water rights.

And then it makes a statement about being deferred due to article 14 article 14, yeah, chapter 30, etc.

And this kind of brought up something that we were looking at a different situation on water rights.

And I actually sent an email to you guys and the city attorney back in April, I never never got an answer on, which has to do with Article 4, Section 120-94A1, talking about commercial water dedication, and it has sentence in there.

Number one, is required to dedicate less than 10 acre feet at the sole and absolute discretion of the public works director cash in lieu of water rights may be substituted.

Now I guess looking at that 10-acre feet is over three million three million gallons of water.

And why that would be in this day and age under the sole discretion of the public works director, whether cash and loop would be substituted or not, I think is questionable.

I don't know if that's something we would address here because it's sort of ancillary, but it is part of the land use code.

So would this be something I could bring up at the end as a recommendation to have that changed, or how would that work?

This is a carry forward from our original from our current code as well in the developing resource district.

So Commissioner Phillips, I want to make sure.

Do you have a specific question?

Because that is an entirely separate chapter of the code and is a uh policy decision that council.

So that would know it to be a separate correct.

It would.

Cool.

Um page uh one thirty-three.

About mobile homes.

I think I have the right page.

No, no.

Sorry.

Actually 164.

30 pages off.

Never mind.

Okay, and and this actually applies to we had they there's a teeny tiny mobile home development that's on Emma and Michigan.

And I've noticed that in uh mobile home section you've got a lot of requirements for distances and spaces.

So if and a lot of those mobile homes are that are there are very, very old.

So if they were trying to replace those, would these new regulations then apply to them in terms of distancing, etc.?

Because I doubt those are to code even currently.

Right now, um I if they were to replace the mobile home with a mobile home, it would likely not trigger a full redesign of the full property.

But if they were to reconfigure the lots and things like that, I would think that's when it would.

That hasn't happened, my knowledge, in quite some time, but I'm aware of the property that you're discussing and believe that we've got to be able to do that.

But that one's still in the home community.

I mean, right now, for example, with with houses or whatever, if you you know destroy down to a certain amount or whatever, and they're non-conforming before you were redoing them, then after a certain point, you have to apply current code.

Yeah, but they have to be discurrent code.

So with this particular zone for um mobile homes, would they then by the replacement of a mobile home to a new one?

Would they all of a sudden have to conform to all of these distances that you have have current have in this section of the code?

Yeah, to my knowledge, we have not if if it if there was a distance issue and they replaced a mobile home with another bubble home, it's to my knowledge the city has not made them made a lot unbuildable or unrentable due to those separation requirements.

But I'm not talking about unbuildable and rentable, I'm talking about do they have to conform to these current codes and how much they have to be from between each other and from this and from that.

Yeah, or can they just simply replace it with a new one as long as they're not changing the configuration of the park.

I believe it's typically been the latter.

I don't know that we've like I think that's saying is that we haven't had that experience yet, but um typically the we would apply the code the same way.

So if there was uh provision for them to have some latitude, like if it was a natural, like if I had a fire, they would have uh a latitude to rebuild in that location without having to come into conformance with setbacks.

If it was a redevelopment, like a willing redevelopment, that's when we typically apply these setbacks.

Mobile home is by its nature mobile.

I understand.

So if they would have redesigned, at some point they go, okay, this thing is falling apart, it's 50, 60 years old.

I want to put a new one there.

They pull the old one out, put a new one in.

Do these all of a sudden all these rules on distances apply?

I don't think so.

Yes.

Aha.

You got a problem there.

You might sorry.

We do have a provision in there about if an existing mobile home is uh uh located on a lot that doesn't meet the standards.

Um and I guess we could do some more clarifying on here, but we do clarify that the mobile home can't be replaced by a larger one, but it can be replaced by one of the same or lesser size.

So what we could do is add some more clarity around replacement of technically legally non-conforming existing um in that section, just needs probably some more specifics about whether or not it needs to meet setback spacing or or which things it does need to comply with.

If so.

Because it's obviously we don't want to lose correctly.

It's not our facility, and it was put in at a time where a lot of these rules were not in place, obviously, due to distances between and from and et cetera.

So that and the fact that uh newer mobile homes are most likely larger than what's there, because I don't think they sell ones that small anymore.

That's by nature, they're gonna be larger if they want to replace it just by what's available on the market.

So that's something you might want to care, take a look at.

Okay, and next page down, still applying to mobile homes, and this is be a question for city attorney under F retaliation prohibited.

Um there's a lot of interesting things in here.

And my interest in this is due to some years ago we tried to see if we city could regulate in any way, shape, or form the mobile home park owner, their behavior in terms of raising rents and all this other stuff.

And basically it was shut down at the state level.

We're trying to get state legislation changed and got shut down and said none of your business, all you can do is what you do now, which is once a year.

They come in, they say we're code compliant, pay 25 bucks, and we hand them a certificate, and that's the extent of our regulatory involvement.

But this has all kinds of language we would have loved to have.

So my question to you is this has state regulation changed substantially?

Yeah, let me let me uh let me provide an update and and let you know where this came from.

So yes, the city was very limited in in what it could do and still is in some respects.

I mean, um, under our current code, uh we have design and subdivision standards, but really no other um no other standards or requirements uh that would apply to the private business practices, for example, of um a mobile home park.

Uh now in 2019, and so what you might be referring to probably happened before 2019.

Does that sound right timing-wise?

Somewhere around 2005, maybe.

Oh, okay.

So definitely before 2019.

In 2019, the state legislature um passed, I think it's House Bill 19, I think it's 1309, but it was a mobile home park over site act, or was an enhancement to the mobile home park act um that added oversight uh dispute resolution and enforcement procedures and greatly enhanced the rights of residents of mobile homes, uh provided a complaint process for um for disputes between mobile home park residents and owners or landlords of the mobile home.

Basically, all of the things that you're probably recalling the city could not uh put its toes in.

So there were some major changes in 2019.

Um and also the creation of this mobile home park oversight program, uh, which is housed in DOLA's division of housing.

So it's under the Department of Local Affairs.

Um with that 2019 law, that new oversight program was created, these new complaint and enforcement procedures were created all at the state level.

Uh however, in that law, one of the things that the state legislature did was uh authorize cities and towns to, if they choose, uh bring in action in municipal court against a an owner of a mobile home park if they retaliate against a resident that chooses to avail themselves of that state complaint process, or who makes a complaint even to the local government or to some other authority or files a uh case in court.

Um so it and I think the reason that the state provided this one little piece here being able to issue a citation into municipal court is that the state's program doesn't have a um criminal or other penalty process, but it does have administrative uh enforcement procedures.

The state can issue orders, they can find um fine the parties, they can order corrective action.

Uh so there's a lot of things the state can do, but um uh local governments are essentially um expected to cooperate if the state needs anything in those enforcement programs.

Um but we were also given this ability to say, hey, if if uh if a resident advises the city that they've been retaliated against, um the city could choose to prosecute an action in municipal court.

Um we don't necessarily have to, but we wanted to provide that ability.

So after the uh that bill was passed in the state in 2019, um the city attorney's office did prepare an ordinance to add this to the code, just so we had that other remedy available.

Now, from what I understand, and if you go on the state's website or look up mobile home park oversight program, there is so much good information.

It's very well uh written and directed towards residents.

So late, you know, layperson can read it and avail themselves of those procedures.

Um so there's a lot at the state level, I guess is my point that has probably corrected the issues that you recall seeing when you were on council.

Um so uh I am going to go ahead and daylight one discussion that staff and I have had recently about this particular provision is we are definitely retaining it.

We want to keep this as an option uh for the city to have if if there's a reason to prosecute a violation or if the state, you know, just depending on what's happening um with a resident at the state level, uh, but we might move it to chapter 75 of the code, which is uh our offenses section.

It just seems when we were looking at this, we're like, this isn't so much a land use regulation as it is um uh uh method, yeah, to to and uh to enforce um a violation of state law or of someone's rights.

So we might move it, but it will definitely be in the code, one way or another.

Um I think the reason it was parked here in 2019 is it just fit nicely with our mobile home park regulations, but with this land use code update.

Well you may see it in a different part of the code, but it will be there.

Um great questions.

We've actually had a lot of conversations about this, so I'm sorry, I probably provided more information than you needed, but uh that's why this isn't there.

Commissioner Phillips, I do want to make sure we're honoring the time of all of our public who want to get to a public hearing.

Do you think these questions are they do you want to ask them prior to that, or do you think we can hold until our just our questions after the public hearing?

Actually, I just got one more and then the rest of all can wait.

Okay.

Um so on page 141 is industrial uses data center.

So I guess that's I don't know, I missed that.

That's probably the first time I've seen that.

Is this this just come out?

Because I was under the impression that the city may have been process of reviewing it, and I certainly would hope that city council would weigh in on whether, you know.

Hey, do we even want these?

And if we don't, how do we deal with that in the code?

But here I see law code that says, yeah, they can be, and yeah, just here here's some few constraints, and that's that's about it.

And of course, they can talk about water in the end, water capacity.

Um which is a whole other obviously nationwide is a huge issue.

What page are you on?

I'm sorry.

Which page are you?

Well, it's on the document page itself is 141, but if you're looking it up, it's 172 on the PDF.

Yeah, so that is one thing that was brought up and requested by the working group at one of our meetings.

So we added that in right now in our current code.

Right now, in our current code, if we got a data center application, it would be it would we would need to do what's called like a use classification of what's the most similar use.

And that could lead it being classified to a use that's fairly widespread, and we don't have any guardrails right now if that were to happen around water, around noise, vibration, all of those those concerns.

Uh and so the first step was just getting it defined and saying where it can and can't go.

And so the code right now reserves a data center, allows through a special use review in the M3 zoning district, which is the most intense industrial district.

Um with specific use um criteria is how it's approached right now.

Um the criteria itself or the location is certainly something that the planning commission could deliberate on, though, and provide your your thoughts on with the well that I just suggest maybe you might refer to page 139 where they're talking about adult entertainment and the restrictions thereof as a useful tool, maybe for how to address noted okay.

All right, shall we continue on?

I have one big picture question.

Okay.

Isn't a page specific question, but it goes back to my height question.

Told you I was gonna bring it back.

Okay.

So I understand the council gave the guidance of deferring certain things because they were complicated and you know, neighborhood serving commercial all of that.

But that that for all I understand.

The deferral on the old town height question.

This one I do not understand.

I have never seen a clearer, more agreed upon guidance from every bit of public input.

Us, I do not think anybody had any disagreement on the height in old town.

You guys agreed upon what two stories of height meant.

This deferral, I do not understand.

This feels like a very easy thing to wrap up in this.

Draw a line under it, put it in the code, be done with it.

We understand why this particular thing is being deferred, because this feels like the scariest thing, and also the thing that everybody agrees on, and I am totally lost as to why this got pulled out for further discussion to never be agreed upon.

And we just use it.

And I and I so I think as the staff team, when we were looking at it, we you know, uh we were gonna keep the heights consistent to what they are today, and there was a reservation about having two separate ways to measure height, and a question about is a 35-foot two-story building any less impactful than a 35-foot three-story building.

And the answer is unclear, and the way we kind of had the conversation at council was given that this is like an omnibus piece of legislation, that when something comes up that probably warrants some more analysis and engagement, it's been kind of our default almost to say let's pull it out and give it the attention that it deserves because there's just a lot of unanswered questions.

So if it if the height is at 35 feet is the real problem, and that's that's the problem, then getting to a different height is probably a whole conversation, right?

And so I think it started to open up bring up more questions than we anticipated.

And so the thought was if we folded it in, if we kept the same heights as we do now, folded it into a public process, that might be useful.

But there was a lot of I know concern from the staff level who were reviews the applications about having two separate measurements for height.

But that said, um, that's still completely, you know, that that we were sharing where where the policy conversation kind of happened, and um planning commission can certainly weigh in on that and and provide a recommendation that that goes in a different direction.

Okay.

Yeah.

Curious where that got stuck.

Yeah.

All right.

Um at this point I'd like to uh move on to public comment.

I've got several folks I know who are waiting to speak patiently.

Um so if you would like to speak, please fill out a speaker form if you have not already.

I'm gonna start with uh Karen Norbeck.

Karen Norbeck 800 East Gen SEO, good evening.

This is a condensed version of what I sent earlier.

I served on the advisory committees for the 2003 and 2021 comp plan updates, and I've sat in the cheap seats for many working group meetings.

Open space is cherished by this community, and we see that woven throughout the latest comp plan.

I have some concerns to share about the way it is handled in this LUC.

The comp plan shows separate land uses for parks and open space.

They're so different that they should not be grouped together.

However, in the special context districts, they are shown as one land use public.

The code says the parks and open space district is applied to existing and planned publicly owned recreational properties and publicly owned land that is preserved for parks and open spaces as defined in this LUC.

It also functions as a buffer from surrounding communities and preserves agricultural activities in and around Lafayette.

But parks do not function as a buffer or preserve agricultural activities, and open space doesn't need detailed building specs that works for parks.

What is needed are two districts with more detailed and accurate descriptions.

Public land dedication, page 225.

This was written in 1986 when Lafayette was a very different place and is in need of updating.

Although there are some minor text changes to this section, open space and trail connections are considered as public land dedication as well as recreational land, so they should be included.

However, the section that says PLD should be generally flat and designed for public use needs to go.

Open space might not be flat all for public use.

Think wildlife habitat.

Two other sections need to be removed.

Playfields, tennis courts, and picnic sites are not on the city's radar these days and can be very costly to build.

The city can determine what land and what use might be appropriate for dedication.

So let's axe this.

A minimum of 80% of land dedicated should lend itself to utilization for public recreation purposes, which include but are not limited to the following play fields, tennis courts, and picnic sites.

Also, please put on the chopping block the section that says a city may give the developer credit for private recreational facilities in the development.

In 2021, Metronic Unsuccessfully attempted to use this language to get credit for private recreational facilities, sidewalks, and indoor bike racks.

I checked into it at the time, and that's when I discovered the ordinance was written in 1986, and the Bob Berger recenter was not built until 1990.

So perhaps it made sense then, but it does not now.

Kensington also attempted to use it in the recent plans for the range.

Let's just get rid of it.

Cash and loo will often be the best PLD for the city, and we don't need to give developers a loophole to try and pay less.

Next is page 123, the use table.

I thought I was going to scream when I read this table.

Not only does it show a huge lack of understanding about what open space is in Lafayette, but clearly illustrates the need to create separate districts for parks and open space.

I was astounded to see some of the allowed uses that totally change what our open space program is.

I've attended the majority of LOSAP's meetings for over 10 years now, and there's been no discussion about changing the use, nor has there been a discussion with them about these proposed changes.

The list is long, but a few of the more outrageous uses included are a private recreational club or facility and private recreation and entertainment on publicly owned open space, solar energy systems, food truck court, wireless communications facilities, weirdly, a home-based business and real estate office, and with a special use review, a recreational vehicle park or campground.

I am counting on you to protect our open spaces by rejecting this use table for our beloved open space and parks.

And finally, any changes to the code that remove opportunities for public input by giving anyone in the planning department more leeway to make decisions should be struck.

This feels especially important after reading that proposed use table.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Vicky Eulas.

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

I sent in um comments to you earlier that are at the end of your one billion page packets.

So I have some addendums to that and some thoughts based on what was said tonight.

First of all, there's a change to my comments on OTX building types based on a response Phil gave me a few hours ago to a question I had about what appeared to be a difference between the OTAX building types table on page 71 versus the use code table for OTX on page 122.

He said that page 71 table is the right one.

So what that table says is that residential, completely residential, triplexes and quadruplexes can be allowed in every OTX district.

Townhouse rows are allowed everywhere except public between baseline and Emma.

I this literally kept me up Monday night.

I mean, I was envisioning things being scraped in the smaller buildings that provide reasonable rents for commercial space for small local businesses, which we encourage being scraped to be building townhouse roads or triplex rows that are completely residential.

This can change the character and use of our downtown districts, not to mention taking away sales tax revenue that we need.

Also, I along those lines, I mean, I I heard a little bit tonight about how many lots can be combined in the OTX district.

And Elizabeth said the goal isn't to not make big merged lots, but how is that defined?

How much is 30,000 square feet in terms of lots?

For instance, is it half a block?

What does the lot width definition mean?

And I realize this is hard to do because lot sizes vary in old town.

So what if we have some examples?

For instance, a 700 block of Kim Bark and Spaulding.

I think there are five lots, the four buildings in the park.

So how much is 30,000 square feet there?

What about the lot with with lot the block with Lafayette Florist?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Lafayette Florist lot is 30,000 square feet.

So can it be combined with the Senor Gomez building or the Senor Gomez building plus the gas station next to it and make a large lot that could be rows of townhomes?

The comments about the point system, I really appreciate appreciate Davi's comments about what the different housing type percentage maximums are for each acreage zone.

I think we need to know that before you make your recommendation to make sure there truly is the diversity of housing that is called for in the comp plan.

Also, Jake said the points are incentivizing housing types, we don't have, but we have plenty of apartments, and yet they have the highest point total at two.

I don't understand what Jake said about how this would encourage apartments without a lot of amenities.

So can that be clarified?

I thought our new planning commissioner had a good question about the amendment process, and I didn't understand Elizabeth's answer.

Can we please hear exactly how the amendment process would work?

For instance, is it an ordinance that goes before council?

Is there a public hearing?

How long does it take?

And what Mary Lynn said about neighborhood meetings for annexation.

We have had neighborhood meetings prior to both the Kensington and Cairo annexation application being submitted, and we're told by the developer they were required by the city.

I know because I've been to them.

So can I get can we get some clarification on your comment?

Thank you.

Next we have Jack Bestal.

Hello, good evening.

My name is Jack Bestall, my company's best all collaborative planning and advisory development uh.

I'm the owner's rep for uh Boulder Ranch, which you may have seen is the 8600 baseline property, and we've submitted uh to be considered for annexation uh just recently.

I've been monitoring your work on this, and I do have to say having in a formal lifetime being the public planner.

Uh what you're doing is remarkable.

And it's a ton of work.

I've only been involved monitoring it since August.

So maybe just 10 months.

And some of you I understand have been at this two and a half years or so I appreciate that, as well as the staff giving me access for communication and to understand what's going on.

At this point, I have a couple of suggestions and preferences.

I think just by the very fact of your questions and comments tonight, you need a little more time.

And I think it's great to push it on to the council.

We all want that to get this thing locked in.

But I think the amendment process or the change after that could be a very difficult thing to manage and keep track of, as well as having more discussions like this.

So my thought would be to give yourselves 45, 60 days just to clean it up.

There's a lot of good work in here, but from my perspective, it's not, and I do this for a living, it's not that easy to follow.

And so if you wanted clarity, and if you wanted some streamlining, some of you may not want streamlining, but some streamlining.

I don't know that I understand it well enough out after having read it several times over the last three months to really get it.

And it looks like there might be, for example, five to six public meetings for a project, and I don't know that it's necessary if you do the work now on this, you will know what's in the standards as well as staff.

So you don't have to necessarily be monitoring what's already in the code.

And it may streamline the process for you and for a developer, for example.

That may not be the prime goal, but that will drive down costs.

At Boulder Ranch, what we're our intent is to develop a mixed residential project, and we're focusing on middle on missing middle, IDD, intellectual development, disabled, uh, aging in place, and market, so a mixed residential project on the 34 acres.

Um I'm monitoring very closely what the lot standards are, and now just recently the percentage points.

I think the percentage points is fine.

I think that the way they're uh measured could be changed, so it's just a lot a lot simpler to understand.

I think the lots, the lot standards for the most part, don't sync with what's being built in the current marketplace.

And I'm not suggesting we should just go out and get any product and put it in there, but I I work with a diverse group of developers.

I have my own development projects and work with a lot of builders.

These could just be tweaked and refined so they really can work and we understand what you know what is the product, what is a four plex, what and some of the dimensions just aren't really in sync with that.

Uh and in and so forth.

We were very concerned about the commercial requiring neighborhood commercial parcels.

At one point, it was over 30 acres, I think.

Right now, I've I've misread this from what I heard tonight.

It sounded like it was still required of something of a parcel under 40, and it sounds like what we saw on the board was it was it was required for parcels over 40.

So if we could just take a breath here and understand it, because it's going to have big implications on protecting the character of your community, uh, conserving and getting the kind of development you want in the old town area, for example, and encouraging people like me to invest in the community the right way, the way you want it.

So we just need to understand it better.

Um I think those are my main points.

Uh the standards also, by the way, tend to force density, they tend to force attached product.

The 50% requirement for is uh as a limit to detached residential is not necessary.

You know, if we do compact development, which I think we all think is important, um, we can really have uh it doesn't necessarily have to be all detached.

So I appreciate what you're doing.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.

Thank you.

Uh Grant Swift.

Good evening, members of the planning commission.

Um I am here tonight as the chair of the Latvia Open Space Advisory Board, asking that you not approve the land use code before you.

As you recall at our last land use code group meeting, as the consultants were wrapping up.

I interrupted and asked when we were going to discuss open space in this code update.

They asked me to for some input, and my first edit was to insert a comma in a sentence, a crucial comma, that in that sentence separated active recreation from passive.

It never made it into this draft.

Yes, I'm in the weeds, but punctuation matters.

As you know the sentence, let's eat grammar has different connotations depending upon punctuation.

As it was late, I decided I agreed to email my other edits.

I did so and heard nothing in reply.

So I did it again, this time to staff.

Still nothing.

Finally, I reached out to Low SAB's council liaison for some help.

Our current open space system is supported by two sales taxes, both citizen initiated.

A clear majority of voters continue to support and approve open space endeavors.

Here's the definition of open space from our code.

It's legalese, I'll do my best.

Open space means privately owned property protected by real covenant or publicly owned property protected by real covenant, and or designated by ordinance or resolution of the city council, which real or covenant or designation designates the property for use as one or more of the following.

A community buffer.

Sorry, a wildlife corridor, a habitat area, wetland, a view corridor, agricultural land, an area of archaeological, historical, geological, or topographic significance, an area containing significant renewable or non-renewable natural resources, and or other undesignated, typically non-errigated, undeveloped land uses.

Open space shall not include parks or developed active recreation areas.

End quote.

So there's a lot there.

It means that ag land, like our Thomas Open Space, with currently leased by the Red Barn.

Historical.

We've got the Wanaka Centennial Farm, the Wanaka Stage Stop, and Boat Pray Barn, all on Open Space.

Archaeological.

The town site of Irvington lies on the two crease site.

Wildlife habitat and corridors and buffaloers, they are throughout the city.

The view corridor, a Wanaka Landing Open Space, and Two Creeks Open Space.

All non-irrigated, all non-active recreation areas.

This land use code changes our open space definition.

Throughout this document, the term open space is used when referring to public areas, civic spaces, and park-like settings.

Open space is none of those.

On page 45, we're asked to accept the common zoning of P to include both parks and open space.

Then in the use table, beginning on page 121, this land use code would permit the following uses on public lands, including open space, a government facility, a public safety facility, a private recreation club, a public recreation club, a fruit truck court, a golf course, outdoor private recreation club, backyard chickens, beekeeping, home-based businesses, horses and livestock, solar energy systems, mobile food trucks, a real estate office, a construction office, and a storage building.

All allowed on public land on open space.

That's what the table says, but none of those match the current definition of open space.

Please stop this attack on our city's open space system.

Instead, after 34 years, it's time to have a separate category for open space in our code.

Moving forward, a capital O, separate from other public spaces, should be in our zoning as open space.

It is separate, and it is funded separately, separate from the general fund, separate from parks.

Please honor its independence.

Secondly, I'd like to address you about the public land dedication process.

These comments are my own, not those of LOSAP.

I've been involved with Lafayette's Open Space Advisory Committee since 1994.

I'm on my third tour of duty right now.

During that time, by far the smoothest path that the city used when dealing with public land dedication of a proposed development was the public land dedication was decided prior to the sketch plans.

Rothman Open Space is a wonderful example of this.

We got we asked for a hundred-foot-wide trail corridor and the outdoor classroom.

And then the developer said, fine, I'm going to go ahead and now I know what to do with the rest of it.

At the outset, the city, oh at the outset, the city knew what was getting, whether it be land dedication or cash and loop, as did that developer.

That process was forgotten and did not happen on Kensington, the range, nor with the silo developments.

But it has worked wonderfully in the past.

Public land dedication came before sketch plans.

You could codify the process before staff change again, and it's forgotten again.

And I'm not getting any younger.

Thank you for your time.

Mike Cooper.

Good evening, Planning Commission Mike Cooper at Boulder Creek Neighborhood, 712 Main Street, Lewisville.

I've been part of the working group for what three years.

I looked back at the first time we got our first meeting, and I think we've done 12, but anyways, I'm really a little disappointed that I'm having to come up here and have five minutes when I think we could spend a whole working session on probably each one of the topics I want to talk about.

But anyways, I'm really a little disappointed that I'm having to come up here and have five minutes when I think we could spend a whole working session on probably each one of the topics I want to talk about.

But I never thought I would say we should slow down, but perhaps maybe we should put a pause on this.

But you know, I we're a housing developer, so I'm mainly looking at the port piece of code that's regarding new development, mainly the form-based code.

And over the past two or three months, we've gotten full versions of the form-based code.

Um as soon as I was looking at one and reviewing one, a new version was kind of coming out with a new system.

So it's been kind of fast and furious over the past few months to kind of digest it all and see how this kind of relates to current construction practices, et cetera.

So the five main areas are the neighborhood commercial, uh the housing mix and point system, lot standards, building height measurement, and then the overall review process and timing.

Um related to the neighborhood center requiring commercial on developments that are greater than 40, 40 acres.

That's great that they added that caveat.

The language is unclear as if it's all developments or if it's just 40 acres or more.

I think that's been clarified tonight that it's only 40 acres more.

I would recommend that that's optional and not mandated.

Um we have several projects in Lewisville and Lafayette that we are trying to move away from commercial.

There's not a great demand for commercial and and particularly new spec commercial.

Um there's lots of reasons for that.

And to mandate that on every parcel, 40 acres and greater, I don't think that makes makes any sense, but um nonetheless, that's my two cents on that.

Um also the concurrence requirements is a little bit challenging with residential development in that sense.

Um, the housing mix and point system, I think that's fine.

Um you guys mentioned Boulder, Boulder uses a similar system to that.

Um I think it just hasn't been calibrated.

I think it needs to be lowered a little bit, and I've given some examples to staff about hey, if we lowered it by one point, you would still get a diverse array of housing.

And I just there hasn't been time that hasn't been really tested at all, in my opinion.

So I think that needs to be looked at.

Um it also forces multifamily and attached housing, and I just don't think that's been really considered in light of construction defect litigation issues in Colorado.

And the unintended consequence of that is it's gonna lead to more rental housing, which is probably fine.

Like we need homeownership and rental.

But I guarantee you 90% of multifamily and attached townhomes and the thriplexes and fourplexes will be for Ren.

And I just don't know if this city understands that.

And so that would be basically to meet the housing mix and points system, you're going to be forced to build um townhomes, triplexes and fourplexes, and multifamily, and that's just not required and necessary on every single development to meet those at that point system.

The lot standards is really concerning, and there's a lot of technical details.

I sent you a memo today to the working group with my edits on there.

Um we build detached houses, townhouses, we build cottage homes, which would kind of fall in the small detached house category.

We build courtyard developments, and we build multifamily.

Currently, with the code, all of our building products would not fit on with the current standards as written.

I could not recommend approval of this draft document unless my comments were addressed.

Um there's, for example, why would you restrict a townhome to be 40 foot deep that really wouldn't even meet an alley loaded townhome dimension?

There's a dozen examples of that through the lot standards, um, which just doesn't match up and jive with current building practices and building types.

And I'm happy to work through that with staff, but I feel like those are probably considered substantive uh changes and not non-substantive changes.

And if they are substantive, I would suggest a pause.

If they're non-substantive, I would suggest um we can work through that and continue on this timeline and process.

Um building height measurement.

I don't know if this is a change over current code, but they want the current way of doing it is to measure from existing grade and not finished grade.

And I think that might be stemming from old town and propping up houses and trying to play games with building height.

For new construction, that's very challenging.

Um, if you have a large site, oftentimes there's five or six feet of cut and fill.

And if you're measuring from existing grade and you have a 35-foot building height, it's now you're down to 29 feet.

Can you fit a two-story home in there?

It's confusing as to what what you can actually build and what you can't build.

Um I would recommend measuring from finished grade for new construction and from existing grade in old town and clarifying that.

Um it also with 35 feet in that measured method of building height, it gets can you build two or three stories?

It's not clear in the code what can you build a three-story house?

35 feet is kind of this in-between height, um, and it's very confusing as to whether whether the intent is to allow for three-story homes or not.

Um, if you want to have it at two stories, I think it should be should be stated explicitly.

It's a two-story we're a two-story town, and we want to keep it that way.

So it's just ambiguous and not clear.

And then finally, the review process and timing.

I don't see anything in there about review timelines, and currently we're experiencing about five to six month review times on each each submittal.

Um, I think there should be some something in the code that says staff has a certain time period to review to each submittal to have it be a one-year review process as opposed to a multi-year review process from the development project.

So I really wish the working group group could have had more time to work through some of these things.

Um happy to work with staff to wrap this up.

And those are my comments.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um at this time I'd like to call a recess.

I know that we've been one more.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

Um, Kristen Dean.

Hi, thank you.

Um I'm Kristen Dean.

I'm with Touchstone Planning and Development.

I'm a local um land use and entitlement consultant here, and I recognize many of you, you may recognize me from when I represented Boulder County Housing Authority on Willoughby Corner.

So just put the pieces together.

Um but tonight I am here on behalf of a property owner in the Aspen Ridge area.

And I'm just getting up to speed on the code changes and how they impact that area.

And I have a couple of questions.

Um I don't expect them to be answered tonight, and I'll be reaching out to Steven and team to talk to them further.

But a couple of things just to point out.

And when I look at all of the businesses that are in this area now, they are they many of them seem to be light industrial.

And my understanding is that when you um change the zoning and then change the types of uses that are allowed, then that would make those existing uses become non-conforming uses.

And then there are restrictions on how those non-conforming uses can make any improvements or expansions, and my understanding is that typically a non-conforming use cannot expand.

Um, and so I'm not sure about the outreach to the other property owners in this area, but it concerns me to think about existing businesses not being able to allow being able to grow and to expand.

And so you have a successful business in Lafayette, and then they're all of a sudden told no, you can't grow, you can't add more employees because your use is no longer allowed in this zoning district.

It then concerns me about compatibility going forward because most of this area is already built out.

There are some vacant areas, but you know, I understand from a long-term visioning perspective that this mix of commercial and residential might be really nice there, but the reality is is that that kind of redevelopment comprehensively may not ever happen.

Um, and so what happens with compatibility of uses as well.

And so if you have a manufacturer on one site, and then he's got vacant land, and then but housing and residential or housing and commercial can go there, but it's right next to a manufacturing business that is industrial.

And so now we're kind of crossing into some compatibility thresholds that I think are worthy of consideration.

And so um, I just wanted to bring that up.

I'm I'm curious about considering how significant of a change, because this isn't a one-to-one change.

This is not taking a light industrial zoning district and changing it to something that's very similar.

This is vastly different, and I think it can have significant impacts on your existing businesses in Lafayette.

And I would recommend more outreach to these property owners before this code is adopted because I I'm concerned about the impacts on these existing businesses.

Um, and so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

All right, I would like to um adjourn for 10 minutes for a recess.

Um, since we've all been here for two hours and 45 minutes, we will reconvene at eight.

Um 855.

I believe uh we don't have any other members of the public, so I would like to offer staff the ability to respond to public comments.

Staff and consultant.

And then the process test.

Okay.

Amendment process.

So if Planning Commission recommends and council adopts the code, um, the full code, the amendments that are possible according to the terms of the draft minutes are uh typographic changes, um, which is a category of amendments that would allow us to do um grammar corrections or um punctuation corrections, um cross-reference cleanup, that sort of last round of proof reading.

Um in the process of getting there, and I'm gonna look to Marilyn to correct me if I've got this wrong.

If you all recommend changes as part of your recommendations, um, and those go to city council and they approve them, um that can go straight through right now.

That's part of how you do a hearing on a code.

Um so if you have language changes or and this is what I'm looking at you, if they um if the planning commission gives us specific instructions about a change they want made in enough detail that we're able to enact it the way you want it made.

We can go back to the zoning map.

If the instruction is please create an open space district, and then change the map to show all of the open space areas in that district, that's absolutely specific enough enough for us to go at that district and change the map, and it can go through um to city council that way.

Same way council can um make their changes through their process and tell us how they want to see their changes.

So those are things that can come through in this round based on your recommendations and their approval.

Um if the code gets adopted and um you all decide on that later effective date, and there are substantive changes that don't qualify as typographical in in that period of time, but it will need to come back through planning commission and go through city council because that is a code amendment.

Um so it there's no wiggle room about that.

That's just how the law works.

So it may be that there would be if there are non um typographical changes, it may be um before the effective date, there would be a round of cleanup edits that would come back to planning commission and go to city council.

I think I've done all the what ifs.

Is anyone picturing any other permutation in there?

Sorry.

Not that we would necessarily do that, but what suggestion perhaps we need to slow down a little bit and look at this a little more some of the other considerations on some of the language changes.

Um so that we do this right and not have a period where we're constantly having to recommend come up with code changes.

Which I think we really want to avoid doing that.

So if we were to agree to an extension of this process or perhaps doing this again at a future.

Then other than setting the time frame back, in other words, that obviously would set the time frame back that the city council then would get it for first and second reading.

But first and second reading.

I mean, first reading in essence is an approval where they could potentially at that time make some changes.

And then that would then however extend.

You'd still have to have another first and second reading, would you not?

It depends on the on the extent of the changes, if they're um if they're minor or you know, a few changes that we can summarize in a red line uh or put in a red line.

Again, we're dealing with 412 page code here.

Um you could potentially move to second reading and still move forward if those were clearly articulated on our first reading.

Um there are times when uh the city attorney would recommend council bring an ordinance back for a second for another first reading is if the changes are substantial.

Um in this case, because we are dealing with a specific process that is different than the usual ordinance enactment process because it's a text mandatory land use code, we probably have to have another public hearing.

Also not a problem.

Um it's not unusual to have to do another for code adoption this big.

If there need to be another reading in another public hearing, that would be up to council.

Okay.

I was curious, like with the the public comments earlier, uh especially from the construction guy.

Uh some of his points now.

Have you fully have you written them down, the comments?

Are you gonna be able to make actually he said he submitted it on I don't know if I've ever seen them?

Yeah, yeah, we're all on the on the committee.

So we got an email.

Yeah, so we've been in contact with the um speakers tonight.

Um the the what we haven't I haven't looked at the ones that were sent um most recently this week.

Um but the sense that we're kind of getting is that the code overall, like it's a good foundational, and now we're a lot of the things we're talking about is calibration, so like we hear things around lot sizes um for different housing types, separating out zoning districts and things like that that would just be probably some working sessions, which is certainly we think solvable over that effective date and period, and that's why we've we we've uh uh recommended that.

Um if it was something that this just doesn't work at all and we need to redesign the whole way we're approaching the code, that's a whole nother that's a whole other conversation.

But we think right now it seems like we're in a calibration phase more than like we have the right tools, but there's some recommendations about how to tune the tools.

But I thought I understood that based on how this is working legally, if we tonight, whatever we assuming we do it tonight, we say okay, we approve with whatever recommendations, then later on, if we see some more stuff in this calibration, that has to be handled separately as a code revision.

Yep.

Yeah, we would come back through planning commissioning council.

Okay, so versus us taking a step back and saying, well, let's clean it up now so we're not doing a bunch of code revisions.

Yeah, I mean, I think first for staff's um point of view, we've been really focused on the whole the whole picture right now, and so every topic in the 400 pages are a spare game that we've been getting comments on.

And so the idea being that if through this adoption process we were able to whittle it down to like the few dozen things that we need to really work on, then we're it takes some of the um I don't know the word how to it it takes some of the the heat off of the project level that allows us to focus in on those specific topics um and workshop them a little bit, probably more efficiently.

Yeah, I think we're just having trouble because I'm having the same difficulty understanding what does it look like to workshop something after we approve it or after we recommend approval.

Um, you know, because if it's like well, there's this whole, you know, uh on the use code on the use chart, you know, if there's a bunch of of permitted and we think that some should be S's, every single one of those has to be evaluated then.

So um it seems like it seems like we we just need a little bit more time to make that make that work, and I don't um because the the working group didn't really get the whole complete document as a working group, and like okay, now let's look at this and um tear it apart a little bit here and there and see what the major the the fatal flaws are the same that we do with the sketch plan.

I think since we didn't have that time, it's a little um things things are bubbling up now, which I think are are great, but um, I don't want to push something forward that then feels like we've just popped all the bubbles before they're even allowed.

Um so trying to figure out what that mechanism has to look like.

Um I think is part of our um I'd like to allow for more questions, more specific questions about some of these um things that have come up, um, and then we can get back to our bring it back to our discussion after that.

So could I so we do this frequently?

Um I do want to say this is you're in the same position as most communities at this point on time.

There are a few issues that you're still trying to shake out, but most of the code is in pretty good shape.

I mean, I think the the difference between do we send it through for adoption now, and I am not trying to tell you what to do.

I'm trying to tell you what our experience has been with other communities.

Do we send it through for adoption now?

Um, or do we um take the time to work through these um issues is um everyone is familiar with it now?

Um this is um it's you know it's been kind of top of mind.

Um if we kind of let the air out of the balloon, we all have to come back and we familiarize ourselves with it as we go forward.

Um additionally, one of the reasons that we see communities work with that later effective date is because they know they want to be able to test out things in the regulations.

Um, some of the comments that are coming in are um comments that are easily actionable.

Some of the comments that are coming in um are comments that um you know it may be after testing um that you know you decide and staff decides the the code as it's written, which has had quite a bit of input, is okay.

Um and so the you know the the balance that you're trying to make is you know, do we go ahead and move it forward?

Um knowing that it's it's an imperfect document, which it will always be.

It's a living document and you want to amend it over time.

Um are these issues sufficient to recommend that delay?

Um so that that is the consideration that we see other communities go through.

Um you know, kind of what do you what do you feel like your involvement in this should be and the timeline should be um and then make your choice from there?

So that there's not a wrong, I think is what I'm trying to say in this situation.

It it's unique to every community what they think they're comfortable with.

And as you said, or you were Philip said, or in the documentation as such is based on when this is passed.

Okay, applications that are coming in in this time frame.

Okay.

Yeah.

If we then while we're looking at, oh, do we need to fix something?

At that point, it doesn't matter because their clock started at this point in time.

So I think I think that I think that that's open for discussion.

Um I I think the way that staff is presenting it is applicants can opt in to the new code um during this period of time.

Um, but I think that um that you know, again, that's something we've seen go multiple ways.

Um, you know, you could say, okay, we're adopting, but nothing comes through until the effective date when we've taken up whatever cleanup remains.

That's open for discussion also.

So the difference then being is basically this either we push this back a little bit.

I'm not talking about like another five months, no, maybe a couple more weeks and review this one more time and get our fixes comfortable with our fixes versus sending it up the road now and then having to spend two, three, four months workshopping it and coming up with code changes and whatever.

That to me seems planning commission prerogative, but that to me seems the two decisions here, basically.

Right.

And I um you know, I I think that that conversation um has been taking place um among staff members with city leadership, trying to figure out the best way to move it through.

So it's on your plate right now, so I think it is um is privately of the planning commission to decide what they want to recommend next.

Okay.

I think a clarifying question for the attorney too.

It's it's not that we would formally continue this.

Would we be just recommending denial or what would that look like to determine that we need a pause?

So the uh process to amend the code in our current development and zoning code provides that the planning commission in front of me, I want to make sure I say it the same way the code does.

So you have the ability, you have the choice to uh recommend approval as is, recommend approval with modifications, or to deny.

Um so those are the three options.

Now if you need more time, um you do not have to make a decision tonight if you to decide that you needed to continue or have another meeting to continue to discuss it, that would be different than not voting on it.

So um did you say deny or recommending?

Deny.

So this is unique to the text amendment process where you amend the text of the land use code, or as here where you're um recommending an entirely new land use code, uh this is unique.

So usually you have recommendation authority or final decision authority.

Here you have recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, or deny.

So any text amendments to the land use code do need to get approval of the planning commission to move forward to city council.

Um now I do want to let planning commission know that if you did deny the code, um the applicant, which would be staff in this case, does have the ability to appeal that denial and and bring it to city council.

Um and I believe council can also initiate its own call-up of a planning commission.

We don't have the option to table it to a further date.

Continue.

We could continue.

Oh, yeah, I guess.

And have further could we continu if we were to continue, could we also re request workshopping happening between these sessions, like workshopping with the land use code committee or a working group or council or loose or that's that's more complicated.

Um if you need more time to consider what's put in front of you and you wanted to have another, say set a special meeting later this week or next week to continue this discussion and continue your review and have that additional time to make a final decision recommending approval or approval with modifications or denial, um, that would be a continuance if uh I don't know, and if staff wants to jump into, I don't know that that workshopping it between two planning commission meetings would work um in terms of I don't think that would be a continuation of what you're doing now.

So what we're what it seems like is happening, we've got we've got a relatively new document that's complete now.

We know it's complete.

We've got a lot of people uh with a lot of input, a lot of things that are bubbling up.

It seems like we need to have a little just a little more time to and to digest it.

Um and so if we did a continuation, I'm just thinking out loud, then that would give us a little more time and we could come up with it all of the conditions, all the potential um, you know, gives um would we be able to have additional public comment between now and a continuation?

So you could order it, yes.

Okay.

We could um we could could we have a continuation, could we reopen the public hearing at that continuation meeting if first because you've already closed the public testimony portion of this meeting?

I would recommend that if you do want more public testimony that you notice it and we don't publish that notice and and make that explicit.

Otherwise you could uh continue your discussion without reopening the public.

What's the notice and what's the time frame?

So under our code for land use code amendments, we uh we are required to publish notice in the newspaper of a public hearing.

In what how many days in advance?

Uh 10 days.

Okay.

Alternatively though, if we actually wanted to consider a new draft that incorporated some of the revisions that we are talking about here, I think I think that would not be a continuation, correct?

Like if we were able to at this meeting say, based on everything we've heard, we would like to see the following changes.

And we want to review that draft recommendation.

There's a cross between a continuation and an approval.

That that presents some potential uh legal issues.

I'm I'm wanting to um consider my response for that or whether we would need to go into an executive session, so I'd give legal advice on what that would mean candidly, and of course you could come out and talk about it afterwards.

I'm just I'm I'm trying to um if we were to deny that could be that is your other option.

And then come back, they would come back with any done.

Yes, now remember council or staff could still move it forward to council and they could decide to move forward with the code.

Um but yes, you you absolutely have the authority to deny.

I'll give you a minute to if you want to.

Yeah, I'm director um so I'm curious here.

Well to add something.

Well, I guess a couple of things.

First, I felt like you asked for us to respond to some public comment, and I don't have a response to every comment, but I have uh some I guess clarifications that might be helpful.

Um so we in what I heard was you know two different sides of the mix of housing, right?

That we're either not going far enough to require a mix of housing, and then from developers were maybe being too onerous.

And so we've tried to strike a balance uh there, and I don't.

I mean, if you guys have more direction as to like if we walk away from this meeting and we heard two different sides of something, we don't necessarily know where you guys stand on.

Does it need to be more clear this way or that way?

So part of our response to you on what our what your next steps could be also is based off of the specificity of direction you guys can provide us.

If it's if it's that you need more time to digest the code and to then give us more feedback, then that's one thing.

But if you actually have direction to give us now, then that may change our answer.

So but the other thing I want to kind of clarify on the the F in zoning is if you look at our comp plan, it has housing designation.

So F in zoning is for net new residential development that was designated housing.

So we also have a neighborhood commercial zone designation in that comp plan, and you don't have to get to the 40-acre threshold to require neighborhood commercial in that zone district.

That the way that this is structured is just to try to work in uh a complete neighborhood and have some element of commercial uses and what would otherwise have been a housing designation.

So there was seemingly some concern.

Just want to make sure we're kind of all understanding that I'm not under the same way.

So we have so the way that the whole land use code is structured is that there's a like you see mixed use development kind of on both sides.

So we have AMX zoning for what was going to be commercial uses, and for those, we've changed the code so that we're allowing residential with controls so nothing ever tips the scale from going to mostly residential in what was supposed to be a commercial area.

So AMX allows resident okay.

Yeah, so I think in the way I look at it is you know, you have like predominantly commercial development, predominantly residential development, and then you have old town, and there was concerns raised about old town allowing for strictly residential development, and that's not the intent of the code either.

So if there's something that we need to like clarify or beef up, we'll do that too.

But I certainly heard that there was concern on certain portions of public turning over and being entirely like multi-family or um town home development or something like that.

And the way that it's the use that's allowed now is res like some form of residential as part of a multi-field multi uh multi-building uh like development, and that really is intended to be a mixed use development, and we're carrying over the same thing.

So there will be some residential allowance, but only if commercial is coming with it in old town.

So those are some clarifications that I also wanted to make.

There was one about lot mergers.

Um so there's this concern that you can merge you know three lots.

Right now you can merge any amount of lots administratively.

So typically what control is in place for a subdivision is when you split out lots.

And so administratively you can create three lots in Lafayette.

There's no control for how many lots you can couple together.

Um so if for old town, we put a measure in place so that we keep some of that form and we have a uh clear discretion where you can do this up to administer like administratively, and then beyond that, if you're gonna cobble lots together beyond 30,000 square feet.

And typically lots are platted at you know, 50 feet wide, 140 feet deep, 70,000 7,000 square feet.

So that would be anything over about four lots being merged together, would all of a sudden like normally be administrative, now have to go to planning commission and city council to consider the impact on old town.

So wanted to make sure that was clear.

Um and then I guess we had a question, the only note that I have, and I'm sure there's a hundred more, and I'll sit down and think of them.

Um but uh there was a question about non-conforming uses.

So for um the Aspen Ridge development that's in one.

Um and this kind of goes back to like we're fought like the North Star for the code update is our comp plan.

Our comp plan has designated those areas that you know have the churches as commercial.

So we have applied on AMX zoning to those areas.

It doesn't mean that the church use isn't allowed in that zone district, it just means it's shifting from what was predominantly a residential zone to a commercial zone, probably because it sits on 287.

But in that case, so where the where it's a special or it's a special use permit has to be special use review for that use in that zone for that church.

So if they wanted to expand, they would still be able to.

Correct.

Potentially.

Any specific questions on public comment that you guys have concerns about or that we don't have to do.

And you just say again, you just you said residential in the old town district districts.

Residential is allowed if it comes with commercial.

It can be allowed as part of a mixed use development.

Yeah.

It would not.

But it wouldn't stand alone.

It's not intended to stand alone.

And if there's something in our code that's suggesting otherwise, I know that the other thing about our code that's different, where it's uh a change in how you it's more nuanced.

So you have uh zone district, you have uses allowed, and then you have uh what is it called?

Use specific development standards.

So you can further refine what's allowed, like if that use is allowed in two different zone districts, we have use to specific development standards that says, and that's how we address uh neighborhood serving commercial commercial in the existing neighborhoods.

And it actually says it, like I was reading through the comp plan today, it's very specific about like uh I can't remember how the language is, but it kind of suggests that if it works, right?

And what we decided through talking to city council is if it works, is if it has on-street parking, it has a sidewalk, you know, it actually has the amenities that would you know you typically associate with more intensity within a residential drone, but not just located on a collector street or a corner lot.

Yeah, more ad with the old town just one level deeper too um with that comment, there is a provision in the proposed code that requires ground floor commercial for a certain amount along that baseline sub-district, but not in that south, south of Emma OTX3, which is something that we also recognize um uh and could add into the code as a pretty quick addition.

And that would that would be can you speak a little more to why we have why the OTX3 is I don't like the OTX3 used to be extreme.

Like that is a residential corridor.

There's some big lines.

It's not intended to be a residential corridor.

Well, if we've got a if we have the overlay that that doesn't need to be commercial on the ground floor there's a floor residential.

OTX3 is really because I mean it as Phil mentioned, it's the what is the name of that document that comes from the action plan the DDA.

Yeah, DDA action plan broke this up like more like specific, like recognize that public is a different, like it has different areas, and East Simpson is different.

So right now it's B zoning throughout, right?

So we wanted to look at it more nuanced.

So we have OTX because baseline is way different than public, but we even think that north and south public is different, and the break at Emma argue what you want, that's where they made that break.

Um I do think that's a lower holdover.

We we look at more as a like uh like in looking at it as more like the form starts to change.

Those lots south of IMLA like become or at some point south of EMA, maybe I should say that so that we're not an argument.

Like become a little bit you see like Cooper's automotive, you see things kind of like you know, changing and they're bigger lots, like north of that area, you have smaller properties and like think about a little bit more consistent fabric in terms of lot sizes, bowling orientation and stuff like that.

So but I think you were getting uh and I would too if you if it was construed or you thought it was supposed to be construed as a residential corridor.

So I think you just said it's not in there that it has to be commercial now.

It doesn't have that same capture is as what we have for baseline, like that same kind of fail-safe or whatever that you'd have ground floor um commercial.

Well, this is what I'm saying is very strange about that OTX3 because you've got Coopers, and then you've got okay, we don't have ground floor retail requirement for this OTX3, and then you so you've got residential on the floor, floor ground floor, and then you go back to commercial on the ground floor.

Very weird.

Do some very weird transition.

Yeah.

So I don't know.

If if we have if we need to beef up some regulations and coincidentally, those lots along 700 south public there that are those undedicated houses add up to 30,000 square feet.

And very interesting.

Well, if you want to remember, we can think about a different number.

But it also has some provisions about balancing, like I don't know, have an in front of me, but about balancing or looking at the lot sizes like within the adjacent blocks.

Yeah.

So you again and averaging those.

So all of a sudden, if you they were all 7,000 square feet, the intent isn't for you to be able to.

And then there's uh so the there's also a linked provision, and I think it's 150 for two of the three.

Um for one.

OTX one is 150 or uh TX2.

OTX3 is this the 300.

300, yeah.

So which is the that's the same dimension as a lot of florist and as BANX, um, those two properties.

So just um it does it seems incongruous.

Um I can't.

But yeah, but this is if you guys have look at it more, or you have I don't think three 30,000 is the right number.

I would be more comfortable with something half that size.

That's what we're looking to get from you guys, so that we can I think you need to kind of step back and go, okay, what is our intent?

Yeah.

Because we've kind of jumped into okay, well, this looks like this, this looks like that, this looks like this, so they're different zoning, whatever.

And it's like what is our over intent for public road?

And that would be that we're trying to preserve small commercial, but at the same time, perhaps reap the benefit of commercial with residential and public.

Yeah.

Behind it, and like however, not versus some developer comes in, buys a whole block and makes it all residential.

No, that not really our intent.

So I think, yeah, in OTX2 is lots of butting baseline, shall be designed with mixed use of ground floor commercial.

I think the the point that we're coming to is why don't we why aren't we doing the same thing in OTX one and three?

Um there's just a I just don't feel like we've had time to digest some of these very specific things that could result in a big kablooey where we didn't realize.

So um, all right.

More specific questions.

And I got a photo.

Yeah, same.

Um what is the current public land dedication process?

Would someone answer that?

The the public land dedication process, it sounds like there's some I have some confusion about it.

Um I certainly had confusion and frankly lack of knowledge about the charter for um open space and and I think clarifying that, but I think the public land dedication, how I know there was some issue from the public comment about what that looks like the public land dedication.

Like the way it used there, there was a process that happened before, and then it has changed in the last few years, and I realize you weren't here for that, but uh yeah, I don't know if I'm understanding the question exactly, Gene.

What I'm hearing is the general process.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm trying to get an answer to um Grant Swift's questions that he had about the and and whether there's something that we've missed with public land dedication and what that looks like and if it's gonna change in this.

Yeah, and it's stepping away like from the mechanics that an applicant would go through.

I think the primary changes that we've talked about that um unintentionally just didn't get into the code was it's focused on parks and recreation right now.

Whereas there's a desire to open that up and also allow for public land dedication to be open space.

So that's something that we workshopped with Los Ab um uh earlier this year or last year.

Um the second change was concern around um uh credit for private facilities.

So there that was noted a couple times in public comment where you could have a private facility and that would count as that public land dedication part of it.

Um and in those discussions, there was continued concern about that whether or not we should wipe that, red line that out of the code, um, and then some discussion around um maybe dialing it back and making sure that it it's the exception and there's really high quality private facilities that you know might come into play.

And then some discussion around maybe dialing it back and making sure that it's the exception, and there's really high quality private facilities that you know might come into play.

And then there was um questions around what is accepted as open space, and so we won't accept things like mediums, strips of land and things like that.

Um the last one was um just ensuring whether or not that's codified or to a process that LOSAB has is reviewing these applications when they come, which I believe is happening right now.

But um, I think there was a little bit on the timing of it.

Yeah, that's what should be done before the sketch plan is.

Yeah, earlier in the process, and that's kind of a theme we've heard for most applications now.

But that's that's not in there now, but could be in there?

That's what as our team that we've we wanted to get into the code, I think um uh as just in the kind of pulling up the curtain it we had probably out two to two thousand roughly comments in this last kind of round from staff and others, and so I think just um everyone tried to do their best to get everything in and a couple things, a few things did not get in is one thing.

It just part of process.

A little more time might be helpful for you.

We know what we want in that case, but yeah, the code language would be drafted.

So public back to your public land dedication.

Um if it's dedicated and it's dedicated as open space, not park.

They can do that, right?

I mean, we can do the city and say, oh public land is just a percentage of whatever, but what is actually designated as based on what?

I don't know if we're gonna do it.

Open space or park.

How how does that right now in either way?

It seems to it's it's it's it's definitely focused on parks, right?

And some of that comments around hill hills and things like that.

And so the language we were looking at having edit it to also be equally weighted towards it can be open space as well.

Um so that would be dedicated to the city, it would be zoned, this new zoning district, and those restrictions would be in place and we'd be managed.

So yeah, the only issue I'm trying to get to with this is that the differences between that and open space that we purchase is open space that we purchase has restrictions because it comes from tax money.

Okay.

Whereas hope whatever you want to call it, open space we get is public land dedication does not have that restriction on it, even though you may call it open space.

I don't know if we would treat it any way.

Which in theory, the theory then allows us some there down the road, and the city gets a bright idea.

It's like, well, wait a minute.

Yeah, we can actually build something on this, even though we call it open space.

So that to me is sort of an issue that needs to be nailed down, so it's clear.

Yeah.

So yeah, what we're hearing, I guess, is that the PLD dedication is intended to be expanded or want to there's a desire to expand it so that it includes open space and not just develop recreation or develop park line.

And then I understand your point too about you buy it with certain money, you kind of have those provisions.

I think the you know, from staff's perspective, and we didn't mean to you know shorthand open space by any means.

It's just once the city owns property, we have control over it, right?

So if we're not gonna go do something like put a like a structure on it necessarily, or I don't know what else, or allow for uh farmers market or mobile food truck or whatever.

But I've been to Thomas Farm.

It's dedicated as open space.

They've brought a mobile food truck over there and had like this has been years, but like had music and like events and stuff.

So like and it was more of a temporary event, but like the you know, do the city gets to make that decision at a certain point in time, it's their property.

Like sometimes when we introduce things that are restrictive, it become it could be a problem down the road.

We're like, oh, that sounds like a great idea.

However, when we updated the zoning code, we kind of tied our hands or like set the expectation of the case.

Here's the issue you need to understand that you're facing, which is that when you say, oh, trust us, we're not gonna do this, that ain't happening.

We don't trust because 10, 15, 20 years ago, you may not be here, maybe somebody totally different.

And they may go, well, hey, special use review says we can have this on here, you know.

So that's what we're gonna do.

No.

Well, especially use review would come back to funding commission and clear crystal clear.

So if if you have direction on what you want and don't want on those areas, or and and the lift of us designating what we've acquired, but I think there's two different things, right?

I think what you're saying is we have open space that we've acquired with certain funds, but that would be a very easy exercise to go through and just zone those things open space and have it be different than parks.

But then there's the next wrinkle as if we change our PLD dedication and open it up to have open space, then we probably need some language that actually clarifies we also want that land that's acquired in that fashion.

Again, dedicated to the case.

So let's make sure we address the ambiguities and remove them as much as we possibly can.

Okay.

Well, I guess this also kind of dovetails on something else that just should be on the radar, right?

Like what your decision is tonight in terms of moving it forward, not moving it forward, moving it forward with recommendations, like from a staff's perspective, like and from uh sense of urgency that I've felt like throughout this whole process in terms of getting the code right, like be I I guess I would ask you to be cognizant of if you take if we get your information and it doesn't get to council, we could be in this.

Well, we've dealt with, you know, we've addressed 12 things the climate commission has, we get it to council.

We haven't heard maybe what their other eight things are, right?

But it could just we'd get a more comprehensive uh understanding of the changes that we need to make if we hear from both you and city council.

But if it's not ready and you guys aren't comfortable moving that forward, that's sort of prerogative as well.

I I guess what might make us comfortable moving forward is sort of the same denying, which is like a nuclear option, guys.

Uh is how long does it take for this to happen?

Like, okay, we move our open space.

How long does it take to create that language?

Uh we know we have concerns about uh you know building lot sizes, the other concerns how long does that take to be addressed?

We'd be done in the week.

They need three wanting is specific language.

And what we're doing is saying here is we're not quite there yet in giving you specific language.

Okay.

Well, if you if you have specific language in specific direction, that turnaround is much shorter, right?

If you have something that you're saying we're not certain about this, or we would like to look at these calibrations on the the point system or how lots, you know, the lot sizes that we're suggesting.

If you guys need more time, that's a different answer, right?

That's that's a different set of time.

That's what I'm trying to hone in on.

Well, we've been added almost three years.

Another month is not gonna you know.

Okay, I think I wanted to add um Commissioner Phillips, I'm sorry.

I'm not sure that the zoning code, the land use code, is actually the right tool for the outcome that you're trying to achieve.

To guarantee that that property stays unused in the city should possibly be something that goes back through how the dedication takes place.

Um the code can only go so far, and the best it can do is require public hearing.

It cannot guarantee that that land stays that way over time.

Um so I I think that if that's the path you're going down, this might not be the place to fix it.

I I'm sorry, what you said based on how we how open space is required and the money that it's acquired with, what you just said makes no sense.

Is this PLD land?

So the land that's acquired, it it comes from certain sources, it's kept that way.

PLD land is is dedicated, and through through the zoning code or the land use code, we can say it's zoned this.

It has these uses, which we can clean up as we go, but the code can't guarantee that it's preservation over time.

That isn't something that zoning does.

It it is up to council to decide how that land is used once it accepts the dedication.

Am I correct?

You are correct, and there's more in the city's charter, which trumps everything we're talking about, um, including this new code.

If you pass it the charter, I'm going to read it directly.

Um everything Elizabeth said is correct.

And and I think um maybe what we all need to be reminded is that the charter, this is in section 12.1, says the following regarding open space.

It says um there shall be no sale of any real property used or held for open space or park purposes.

Now that's more about disposal.

We can't we can't dispose of open space that we own without an election.

And then it goes on to say that uh nothing in this paragraph prohibits the city from putting utilities on open space or and and that real property used or held for open space, maybe leased for agricultural uses without approval of electors.

That's one thing that's there.

So we can't get rid of it.

So if we own it right now and it's being used to prefer opening, getting rid of it, yeah.

That that's pretty clear.

But then um in addition, what is not going to be in the land use code but is covered in our code is in chapter 80, we have a whole uh section on open space use regulations that's very clear about what cannot be done on open space.

So any land that is designated as open space, um, whether we receive it through uh public land dedication or we purchase it with legacy open space tax funds, which I know you're referring to, um, would also be subject to those um use regulations that are about management of open space as opposed to land use regulation and development review, which is what we're trying to do.

So the correction there would probably be to if we created an open space district, just to cross-reference back to that section.

Sure, those are all the rules.

Exactly, because we don't want to create an inconsistency by having special use of the case.

No, just take it as the use table.

And refer back to the other section.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Very specific instruction.

We can do that.

And there's one more one more piece.

And then in the new land use code that's before you tonight, um, in 26-3-1, there is a provision that might also um address this for planning commission and hopefully the council uh does say that compliance, uh so it's called compliance with additional requirements.

This has to do with use standards in our new code.

It says any use approved within a zoning district shall also comply with all applicable standards in this code.

So in the new land use code, any requirements of local, state, or federal law, which would include the rest of our code in our charter, um, as well as state and federal laws if those apply and any conditions placed on the approval.

So we have this other general provision that says um, regardless of what's in the use table, if there are specific requirements that apply to a parcel of property elsewhere, those still need to be followed.

But we we don't want to consciously create a contradiction.

No, no, and I think that's why this is here as well.

I I hear you, but that I think this is also uh trying to avoid or does avoid that contradiction.

Um but I also understand what what the public and and planning commission is trying to address as well.

And we could have a cross-reference.

I think that is one way of maybe efficiently making sure that everyone is on the same page, um, meaning the public and others reading the code, uh developers and and plan commission and council.

Um so that's one potential solution there.

So if we were to start thinking about ways that we can put some of these in as formal recommendations to staff and the consultants, this would be a condition to strike references within the code to open space as a use and reference Article 80 or whatever you're referencing in the charter.

Is that I don't speak to that.

I'll let speak to that.

There's there's I you could come up with uh proposed modification, and if it's specific, we can I've been trying to type down the different things I'm hearing that I think um would would be a motion included in a motion if you did make one.

What I just wrote down for this conversation was to separate the parks and open space district into one park and one open space district, replacing the allowable uses in the new open space district with the applicable charter provisions.

So linking back to those.

So that's fine, but again, you still have the problem for you to work yet.

If there is public land dedication that is labeled as open space.

Yep.

And in the PLD section, I have a few bullets, but one of those was to additional language added to differentiate between open space purchase with and without dedicated tax funds with language noting the same restrictions apply to each or something.

So not necessarily.

I just said we need to just make sure that it's clear.

Yeah.

I don't know if that's the resolution.

Yeah.

So we can work on language if there's a law.

I feel like there's a lot of other things we're gonna get into, but I'm gonna touch on a fun one.

Uh data centers.

I guess the starting question is data center in our current understanding of them in our code, or would that be something where if somebody came in under current code, we'd have to do like an interpretation of where that fits.

Yeah, we have to interpret it.

Okay.

So we don't currently have a definition.

To similar conversation around some of the OTX and other things.

The question of like what's the intent?

I feel like this is a use we're not really excited about.

We don't want to promote in the city.

And I just saying that a maximum size of 150,000 square feet.

When we're saying a data center, are we saying each of these buildings within a potential data center campus is a data center?

Or are we saying that if there's one lot that has multiple buildings on it, is that one data center?

I think we should say the total data center square footage, not to exceed 5,000 square feet.

And this is only this is only in the M3 district.

Yeah.

Which is also next to the some of the mobile home zones or districts.

Data centers are very hot topic right now.

There's a lot of conversation about how they should be regulated and what can be regulated.

There's some new innovative regulations coming out in different places.

This needs a little more time.

I mean, we're not going to come up, I don't think, to do with the right.

I mean, I recognize there's nothing now, and having something is maybe better than having nothing, but it does feel like there would be a well.

I think it seems like an opportunity to proactively again workshop something a little more.

Or council could pass a moratorium.

They could data centers for limited time, but for six months or a year.

Yeah, you yeah.

Okay.

Can that be one of our sorry I could not see through one side of my glasses?

Can you say that again?

I'm sorry, Commissioner Phillips, please moving up.

My suggestion perhaps was that since this is basically just stopgap language that instead of trying to resolve this now, particularly since a lot of other municipalities are wrestling with this, that we have counts suggest council pass a moratorium on data centers for six months to a year until we can hash the language out.

And I know we've done this for other things in the Planning Commission can make that recommendation.

Is another option for the city attorney having the use in there so there's no ambiguity about what we mean by a data center, but just not having it in any location or having a standard where the city needs to own the property as the property owner.

It could be a two-tier approach.

So I think it's staff explained earlier.

I I would definitely recommend based on the concerns we're seeing.

Again, you you and then ultimately council makes these decisions, but um, based on the concerns that we're seeing in neighboring communities and other states with data centers, at the very least, I think the current planning guidance and recommendation across the country, even is that you at least get in front of it by defining the use and putting it putting the use in the code so that it's not being um so that that we're not dealing with the proposed development should there ever be one where we'd have to put it in a warehouse.

I mean if staff talked about this earlier where they'd have to find the most similar use.

So at the very least getting that in the code.

Um if planning commission wanted to also recommend that more review is needed before um any applications for a data center were accepted.

Um you could make that recommendation.

I assume that would be amendment to the land use code.

Exactly.

I guess then part of that clarifying question originally when we're what I read our definition of data center in here.

Is that each building within a campus, or is that the whole property?

When we're thinking of a data center.

I would make a suggestion that we amend that data center definition.

I can't just talk on my feet.

That's a genuine question.

That's not like a gosh.

But that could be clarified.

Yeah, that's I'm just I'm just noticing I but I need to where I'm at, and I yeah, the ambiguity is something that somebody will play with.

Yeah.

And I just think if we if we are to leave it in here, so we're putting a stop gap.

I think that might be something I want to work on is is is us recommending a language tweak code.

Yeah, and then obviously hoping that there's an ordinance about moratorium or something that council works on broader.

Our definition could be clearer, it's an establishment engaging in so on and so forth.

So still not perfectly clear.

So I think we could amend that to address a question.

It says an establishment engaging in storage management processing, blah blah blah.

We could say an establishment comma located in one or more structures, comma.

So we capture it all by ownership instead of by structure.

So I can't see two data centers sharing a site.

I guess it's a possibility, but then we're gonna kick into the um site max.

Yeah, we'll and are we technically in we've kind of been in discussion this whole time.

Yeah, we're all of you.

I guess we're more questions.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have some of the thoughts later, but I'll keep them for now.

Can I just toss something onto this if we're on the topic and then I'll just hop off it?

But can if we're placeholdering, can we put the advanced air mobility hub air taxi hub in the same placeholder thing?

Because if we're not gonna do this again for 40 years, we're gonna want to have it in there.

Everybody keeps ignoring me, but I'm telling you we're gonna want to have that in there.

I just don't want to think of it.

I'm sorry, we're gonna want to have it in there.

Yeah.

But there are just plenty of cities that have uh something of language for you guys to crib off of, which I'm happy to send you if you want something to go off of.

And that will be the extent of it.

So sometimes when we're dealing with technology, we do add some flexibility into the standards and the regulations.

So if you think about we've switched from you know TVs with antennas to cable to whatever we're doing now.

So we can say, you know, we can do it with data centers, we could do with any tech in here.

So the it is now, you know, storage and transmission.

Um and we can put something in there that says or whatever um, you know, mode or method is used um as of the time of application of these regulations.

Um so as they change over time, which they will and they are changing right now.

Um we'll try to capture all of it as it goes.

This may be something you guys want to keep an eye on for the next few years and actually do some updates to it as other communities update theirs.

Um more strangers come through.

Okay, I'm gonna stand up here and keep fielding questions until someone tags me out.

So we touched on it earlier, and I we've talked about it with previous projects.

But the big box component of I I forget what what that was called in here.

But the you know, there I understand the vision of okay, you're gonna submit this big box project, but part of that is that there's a future plan, probably so utilities and future roadways can fit in easily.

Yeah.

But I feel like from the future land use map and the comprehensive plan, there's already a goal that these things devolve into more dense uses.

So I I don't get why we're uh again promoting this type of use when the vision and the goal is for it to change.

I get that there's an economic sort of incentive for this, but I'm curious.

You know, could you guys speak to why why are we still gonna be promoting this type of use when we're actively discussing and planning for them to go away, and that's the hope.

I can answer that.

Yeah.

Well, like I I know the obvious economic political answer.

No, no, no, it's not that.

It's in the past.

Okay.

We had big boxes.

And then they left.

Yeah.

And it was like you can go to Westminster.

Yeah.

I mean, now what?

Okay.

Versus going, all right.

But why don't we at the time that we're getting the big box also look ahead and say, okay, let's look 20 years down the road when they move out.

Yeah, but what we do some things now, maybe to position it better for that point to then transition to something else.

Yes, but we heard a proposal not long ago that proposed some more big box stores that none of us were all that excited about because it wasn't laid out in a way we thought was consistent with the comp plan.

Right.

This would be an opportunity to say those aren't a use we allow in that district.

You have to start with that phase two.

It has it has to be that.

I mean, it's an opportunity to do that.

I the point was made that we need to bring that to council for a policy discussion about whether they want to prohibit that kind of use or kind of a structure.

Well, and I also feel like it implies that they're going to let you buy the building.

Which we don't which I feel like we found doesn't happen.

So it's such a great idea in theory, only they don't, you know, if the big box retailer retains control over their real estate, it's a nice idea, but then they sit on it.

So it's such a great idea in theory, only they don't, you know, if the big box retailer retains control over their real estate, it's a nice idea, but then they sit on it and sit on the sit on it.

We've seen examples in this area and around the country of that sort of redevelopment.

I mean, it started more with demuling.

Yeah.

And so those we're all in uniform ownership.

Yeah.

And have turned over time.

I do love the demos.

My high school mall turned into a nice neighborhood.

But I've also, you know, seen uh a lot of parking lots that remain parking lots around here.

Well, it and so you know, we've seen Kmart sit empty forever, and we've seen some get redeveloped.

I think, you know, in the in the category of let's look forward, yeah.

Why not go through the process of thinking about it?

I mean, if you know, it if a developer can pick it up and um reimagine it, then that's one less empty asset that the um corporate needs to hold on to.

Yeah, but isn't the first question what it happened at all?

Yes, this is my point.

I mean, if if the answer to that question is yes, we do want to allow that because there's a great reason for that.

Then I agree, then why not do this as a second?

Yeah, so I think at the staff level, the internal discussion was that there are still big boxes going in.

And I don't know that the city has instructed us in policy to forego that opportunity.

And I don't know that much development wants to forego that opportunity.

Um so we we would need a more specific instruction that's not doing this anymore.

Yes, exactly.

That's but that would be the question that I mean the reason why they're building going in now is because they're allowed to.

Yep.

Well, I mean, we have an economic like you know, sustainability kind of lens to that too that we'd have to consider, and we haven't gotten that direction.

So like there's no Costco one to locate this area or uh Kia or one of the other like super popular and you know revenue revenue generators.

Big boxes, would we want to be trader jobs?

Have it in our field that says you can't do it.

Well, yeah, that's the question.

That's what I'm saying.

It sounds like this is a good idea.

We haven't gotten direction that it says no, so we've made uh we've tried to align that with the component as much as we can.

So that's why it's not a non-starter.

I think we're gonna have to do that.

I understand, but I do think if we're making recommendations to council that moratory on various things, we might as well also recommend that they consider whether this is a policy direction that they want to.

Can we recommend like a reversion clause?

Is that something that we can change our mind?

No, I don't know.

Like if they if they vacate the property, then it we have like a right of first refusal instead of them just setting on it.

Is that something that we can recommend?

Yeah, is there are there?

Is there any way to constrain that?

If you yes, we'll let you build a big box, but when you vacate it, this is what you have to do.

Is that any is there any legal recourse there or anything stopping us from you know like you're if you leave, we get it.

And we get to do what we want with it at the fair market value.

Yeah, that would all have to be there's there's a fair market value, you know.

That's what I mean by reversion clause.

I mean it don't know.

Well, it's like it's like the pension funds after mining, you do a first writer refusal agreement.

Yeah, let's see, you know, we should have.

So that is different than or in addition to land use regulations.

Um land use.

Yes, okay.

We should probably remember due process and property rights.

So we're dealing with the net framework.

There could be a um a condition recommended condition or edit that we go back to that particular portion of the code and require big box developments to incorporate like specific walkable layout site components and things like that.

And so that the framework is kind of in place initially.

Yeah, site design standards that are conducive to um when the building gets broken down or or pieced apart in some way.

Um that's gonna be hard to give or specific direction of right now, though.

Not a that's what the the review, you know, and the review process is process, but yeah.

I have a question because you're standing up right there.

Um I'm gonna admit that at some point my brain fried out.

So if the answer is in here and I just didn't see it in all the pages of the oil and gas development um things, then please direct me in that direction.

I saw a lot of stuff about oil and gas development.

Um existing oil and gas development proposed future oil and gas development, what happens if you cap it, blah blah blah.

What I did not see.

I think I did not see.

Maybe I did.

Um preexisting facilities that have been capped or abandoned.

We have not made any updates to the oil and gas standards.

Okay.

We have a number of sites in town that contained abandoned and capped things.

Which I guess is a question for our legal council.

Is that something that we want to address in our land use code update?

Because I feel like given what we have learned recently about the persistent dangers of unmonitored wells still leaking.

Do we want to address before we have sites that are potentially developed?

How we deal with these wells because of what I imagine could be liability for the city if we're developing on sites that we haven't adequately addressed.

Wells that have been tapped but are no longer being tested or something like that.

Let me say a couple of things and I'm going to make a recommendation.

Yes.

So first of all, the city went through a very comprehensive oil and gas code update.

We essentially drafted an entirely new oil and gas code with the assistance of special counsel, special legal counsel who specializes in oil and gas uh land use regulations and oil and gas regulations generally, but assisted us with the with the area that we have authority to regulate, which is the surface level impacts of oil and gas operations and development.

We do not have jurisdiction under state law to regulate what happens below the surface.

Now we do have processes in place to require a permit for plugging and abandoning.

Otherwise, operators are required to follow state law and state regulations on that plugging and abandoning process.

Beyond so it that might be outside of our jurisdiction, is what I'm saying right now.

In terms of subsurface issues that might be in place, there is state, there's the um forgive me, I can never remember what ECMC stands for.

I'm used to the C O G C C But there are uh state regulations and there are ongoing, almost constant, I would say, rule making it rule makings that happen at the state level to continue address these types of issues.

There's also um with the specific issue you've mentioned, there may or may not be ongoing legislation or some other issues that have been um presented to council recently, for example, where there may be legislation coming.

But my my um uh what I what I would what I am trying to say here is we're limited as to what the city can do below the surface.

Charlie, I'm wondering if from a land use and zoning perspective, do we need to make sure that there is access to like the capped well heads?

Do we need to have some kind of do we need to preserve the ability to come back later and have access to or deal with abandoned well heads?

Which again, this is I'm talking surface here, but I feel like I would recommend over something or putting the building over an abandoned.

Uh, those would be the responsibility of the developer, not the city.

So we uh it's my understanding that the city if somebody purchases private property and there are facilities that were previously plugged in abandoned, um capped, removed, whatever uh the operator's choice was at the time that that already had to be done in compliance with state regulations with whatever inspections and other processes are requires required for that under state regulations at the time the work was done.

Um so it would be really on the landowner to uh deal with any issues that might be present on the site, and it would not the city, as far as I know, would not have liability.

We don't want to like have any thought about letting future Lafayette citizens maybe be exposed to whatever those issues are I guess the moral hazard question which I really zoning thing, but it's right.

Not a land use zoning thing.

Um that is something uh if you have a concern, I would say it is beyond the scope of the land use code, it is something that you could um or even stamped.

Tonight we could pass along to council to see if it's something they wanted to look at and to potentially have our um I would recommend because I am not an oil and gas attorney that if council chooses to, they could have our uh oil and gas special counsel um to see uh advise if there's an issue there.

I would like to provide advice.

I'd like to make that recommendation for that consideration for councils to consider.

And I would clarify that would not be related to the land use code tonight.

Um I guess we do have a council member here, and um you are also welcome.

Everyone on Planning Mission is welcome to contact council about legislative and policy issues that you are interested in.

We have done is said what is the minimum distance from an oil well that you can build a building.

That we have done.

That's what I mean.

Like there's these things as there's a lot of different things.

But that's land use.

That's not is there a step back from the well head, I guess.

Is this kind of I have to look and see specifically?

Um but again, our regulations were just updated less than five years ago.

Okay.

Um after the mission change that the state legislature did for the uh ECMC, and we have far more stringent regulations than the state in terms of what is allowed to happen at the state.

Yeah.

Yes.

But if you have to do that, does any of that go from our land use perspective from on the surface level development from like an abandoned wellhead?

Yeah, I got let me uh say one more.

I have one more recommendation, and um I would say I would have recommend the planning commission not, and this is up to you, you can ignore my advice, but I would recommend the planning commission not recommend changes to the oil and gas code as part of the land use code adoption because it is going in unchanged.

And if there are concerns that need to be addressed, that that be part of an entirely separate uh process and ordinance in the future.

Um totally hear you as well.

So thank you.

Can I change our topic?

Yep.

Greenhouses.

Um I'm just curious about the folks that brought up the greenhouse, the greenhouses that are existing uses on public in that zone that doesn't allow it in the new zone.

You know, we've got to be non-conforming uses, I assume.

But the I'm I was just hoping somebody could talk us through the again, like this if it's a non-conforming use, what does that imply about its future?

Like do we need to actually make it a use in there, or is it okay that there's we're not planning on building more greenhouses on public.

So I what would be the recommendation?

We we've had some we had a conversation um this afternoon actually with our um economic development director and DDA executive director about that.

Um there's no harm in adding that back into the code, um, certainly.

Um there's a question, you know, um, would the planning commission want to see that in in old town if it wasn't in there right now?

So that's one question.

Um the I think the building's been vacated long enough to where it's it's kind of past its like non-conforming status.

And so adding it back in there would allow if there was an opportunity that happened to come up for that to be reused again as a greenhouse, it would allow that to occur.

Got it.

And if it wasn't in there, they'd have to tear it down something.

I guess yeah.

Fantastic sales tax generator.

Well, there's some kind of dance party happening there after our council meetings now.

I don't know what that is.

But every time I go by it, it's like a light.

So um just some small things.

Um the term I thought was gone, appeared in the document somewhere and did not appear in the definitions at the end.

And that word is a collect deflex.

So either take it out of the document or add it to the definitions.

There was a plan a working group meeting where uh the term was suggested to be added to the old town intent statement.

And I think as a team we talked about it, it's it's um right now there's a different word for that in there, but we can change that.

No, no, I'm just saying you actually have the words in the document.

Oh collective flex.

Okay.

So if you're gonna keep it, oh that put in the definitions.

That's not a hard fix.

I think my preference would be to define it by cross-referencing the plan.

Because that's really where it comes from.

Legacy laffeat.

I I see um Commissioner Phillips um in the in the code where it does appear is a comprehensive plan implementation matrix.

Right.

And so I think it's actually appropriate in that setting because it lists all the land uses of the comp plan.

Right, and to make sure it's in the definition.

And we have this.

Yeah, and we have a note about how it is with the future land use plan, but we could add a definition because it's defined in the comp plan too.

So yeah.

And I guess the other thing I I don't know the back to the back to the data center.

Um, you mentioned the fact that it uh must have some sufficient municipal water capacity on the site to meet all anticipated operational and fire suppression needs.

If a data center is using water for fire suppression, somebody's incompetent because they will use halon or something else to remove the oxygen so the equipment doesn't get you and you're well beyond me.

Do they need water to any water pressure to make the system go or anything like that?

That is something we're seeing fairly commonly in data center regulations.

We can just post on our website.

You don't know what you're talking about, if that helps.

But I just don't want I just don't want them to go, oh well, you know, we need more water for cooling, but we'll call it for fire suppression, and that way we'll we can justify the walk.

I think the thing that you would um perhaps want us to add to that is um um there will be uh fire department review of um any fire suppression system.

Okay.

There you go.

Yeah, not me reviewing it.

We don't want that.

Oh, yeah.

Fire me either.

Okay, good.

We can do that.

So I am can I a process question?

I feel like I I and several others have been taking notes on the various amendments we're suggesting.

Do we want to is there a point where we just want to start getting a list of those together?

Yeah, and I'm curious.

This is why a continuation makes a lot of sense to me because if we could possibly get this list out and then maybe have staff respond back with what the list is so far, so that we could reference that for the next for the continuation, and then we kind of know what we've already discussed and and noodle on it a little bit.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but um because yeah, I know I know you've already taken a lot of notes.

I know there's already been a lot of um, I just want to we're kind of popcorning, and I know I'm probably not helping with that, but it feels like a lot to try to ask all the questions and then come up with all of the recommendations and the specific language in the next hour and a half.

Oh no, there's yeah, no, I think that's why I it would be great to if we could distill it or have the have that list and then know what we're starting with and then continue it at the next meeting.

Um that makes a lot of sense to me.

Is that okay?

I have a set of things I would like to put on the list.

Okay.

Gotcha.

And and I guess um part of the problem with with this is we've got all this information, we haven't really discussed whether we all agree on it, whether we all like yes, this is what this is what I want to do, it's not what you want to do.

Um, like for instance, the height thing, you you had the impression that everyone agrees on the height.

I would I would disagree with that.

Well, that's fair.

Well, so and only because the definition of it, we haven't even gotten to, you know, I've printed out some things from other places on how to think about that.

So um I yeah, I'm really having a hard time with how to manage this process of all this this what will be a long list of revisions and changes.

Maybe could I post them in my help?

I don't know.

So they have been listening to us and they've been writing things down, and perhaps if they could create a big summary list for us of all the things they heard that we brought up, and that way then they can do that and then send that out to us, and then we can have them have a an additional meeting.

And that way we'll review everything.

Exactly.

That's yep.

Etc.

Instead of trying to hammer through the language again tonight.

Yeah, I I think I think we there's I mean, like I've I've got a whole bunch of things from the the use table that I'd like to talk through, like mobile home community why why this, that, and the other are not allowed or are allowed.

So there's just lots of small things that I'd like to not only capture and and but also discuss and see where everybody else lands on it.

Um you send that to them and they can add that to their list and then we can discuss it the next time.

That's just it.

I think um I think if we can bring some of these things to the fore, so you know it sounds like you've got some things I've tried to mark off things I've already brought up.

Um I think we just need to proceed and then maybe make a a decision to to continue to make a motion to continue at a point when we're all feeling completely done for tonight, which may be approaching quickly.

I don't know.

It's already 10:30.

So um, if at any point somebody would like to make a motion to do that, I understand.

Um I think can I just do a quick straw poll?

Is everyone in agreement that we would like to continue this meeting to another?

Okay, so we kind of all agreed on that.

Go ahead.

Um I should say before uh any motion is made.

Um I wanted to just based on other discussion tonight about procedure, um, clarify that you're not also thinking of proceeding with a workshop in the interim.

Um, and I have advice on that now.

Um I would recommend against it because you are currently in uh process of reviewing what's been presented to you tonight.

You've already started deliberating.

It does make sense if that's what the commission wants to do to continue deliberating at a at a future meeting and having a motion to that effect with the purpose of that next meeting being to continue deliberations and if possible make your decision.

But I think that a workshop, since I was brought up before, I just wanted to clarify you're not also concerning that because I do think that would interrupt this process that's currently underway and could present uh procedural issues or create confusion for everyone on where we're at in the process.

Um if it's just if it's simply to continue, I think that's a clear way to proceed if that's what the commission wants to do.

Is it true that I mean there are things that have been brought up that we are not gonna like we're not gonna come up with the language, more work needs to be done.

Yeah.

Um is it would we be able to say as part of maybe a recommendation or condition in an approval vote that during the window before the before the law becomes effective, the following workshops will take place or something like that.

Is there a way to build some more workshop time into this process?

I think that's consistent with what staff has contemplated and discussed in terms of what would happen after adoption and potentially coming back to you with more changes.

It might I I don't want to speak for staff on that.

Yeah, we that that was our intent was is that there'll there'll still be items, more items that we want to do before it's effective, and some of those relate to some of the comments we heard this this evening around tweaking some of the lot sizes and things like that.

So we want to digest what those comments do, what that would do to the standards um in practice and come up with some refinements if necessary, and that would go through the planning commission and council before that effective date.

Another I know there's this push and pull about um getting it done now versus versus then and then having that opt-in period.

So that's another thing that I don't know if we're required to do an opt-in, but we could also just not do that if there was concern about any premature applications getting in when we're not ready.

Um we've seen that happen in the past.

So that's kind of what I was hoping to avoid by not going to be able to do that.

Yeah, I think going through the the motion of the the readings of the ordinance and still having that window that would completing that process would then allow for like more informal workshops, like if we wanted to get the working group together and stuff like that, we could have the reunion party um after that and and it wouldn't conflict with the um with the public but public process we started tonight.

I do think though, um before we I would be uncomfortable approving without a really clear set of notes on what we need to be visited.

I feel like I don't feel like we're just doing tiny tweaks.

I know it's a huge document and there's a lot that isn't being changed, but it doesn't feel like all of these are tiny tweaks.

It feels like some of these are more substantive.

So I would want to make sure we we have a continuance so that we have time to get at least those down.

And I think I think having a continuance and I still just would like to get I mean, just hearing about some of the conversations that was had with council, I think it would be a really good idea to get everyone around a table to discuss what their perspective is and what ours is because a lot of council members were not but they really weren't part of the working group meetings and getting into some of those weeds with with the things that we're talking about.

Um so they're just coming at it from a different perspective.

I I just really wish there was a way that we could workshop that and that gives the public more chance to talk to their council people and and um get their input after they've again digested this.

Um is that is there a potential is there would there be an opportunity to do that after you know before October 31st or or whenever are you saying that no workshopping is just not going to be a thing even with council?

Is it that we need to conclude this this adoption process before we do the informal workshops from a legal perspective?

And if so, we would go through if the code's adopted and then we have a list of you know 30 things that are being amended, um, and then we're able to have those workshops and bring it through council for adoption in September, October for the I mean if the purpose of the workshops is to create another ordinance that will then amend the ordinance that council has already approved that has a delayed effective date.

So we essentially have an ordinance that that will spring into effect later and in the interim, you'd have workshops to discuss what the other ordinance looks like that fixes what's in the adopted ordinance.

Yeah.

Then that's okay.

And that ordinance would have to be like a day later, or it couldn't be prior to the it could be the same time it would if we did it at on the same date, we would then and we adopt that second ordinance before the effective date.

It would if we did it at on the same date, we would then we adopt that second ordinance before the effective date more than 10 days before the effective date of the first ordinance.

Um we could have a new land use code that incorporates both ordinances come into effect on the upon the effective dates.

I think the overall intent was to not have this be the only bite at the Apple for the planning commission with that process.

So yeah, that that would that makes me feel a little more comfortable.

I just want to make sure that that really happens because like I don't know that we've, you know, this final document.

I know that what there was workshops with LOSAB.

I don't know if there was, I assume maybe there was with other boards and commissions other than just us and the working group and council.

I'm just curious if if okay, here guys, this is the final draft.

You know, dig into your section especially and um get that feedback to the the powers of B.

Because I just don't I don't feel like that has been able to happen.

Yeah.

Um so more uh do we want to point out a few more things and you said you've got to do that.

Yeah, I mean I I would love to just like note things that I think should be on the list that's getting generated, just so it's not lost.

And depending on time and we have this list, I could print it for the commissioners to review as we um verbalize it too, um, and you could have the discussion around concerns um or support or not support for each proceed.

Okay.

Um I think that we noted that we wanted to include look into including the commercial provision in all the OTX districts.

I think we noted that we wanted to address replacement of mobile homes when they're new.

Um I think we noted that we wanted to look at whether there was a way to put in this process the the dedication of these lands, what public lands would happen or dedication would happen before sketch plan.

I think we um let's see.

We noted that we might want to revisit this 30,000 square foot number.

Megawatt lot accommodation, megawat.

I think a lot of a mega lot, yeah.

I deal with megawatts, sorry.

Um I think we talked about I mean we did talk about whether OTX3 should exist.

Have we uh have we put that?

I think we might need to pick that one up later.

But we definitely need to because looking at the use between the the difficulty is okay, you have to almost pick a lot and then consider all the implications and then pick a different lot.

And so it's like we we have to and that gamification hasn't really we just haven't had the chance to do that.

I know this the the consultant and staff have done that to some extent, but until you start picking that apart, it's just impossible to um to think about all the implications because like you know, OTX two and three, no limitations on residential unit location.

Well, sounds like we want to definitely revisit that.

Um what are the other implications that might come from that?

Okay, so that stays on the list.

Yeah.

We had some conversation, at least I was interested in this conversation about what the play director is allowed to do on his own and where her own and uh and what kind of process uh the idea of a notice of decision as a step that could be requested, you know, with a timely uh appeal window or something just so that there's a check on that if needed.

And I think the planning director brought up that that could go both ways, perhaps discretion of the director to add um neighborhood meetings instead of just waive waive them.

There was a note in one of the public comments we really haven't talked about, but I thought it was worth bringing up, which was uh the request that the neighborhood meeting minutes be included in the planning commission packets, just so the public could see what came of those.

That seemed like a good thing to consider.

It was obviously the conversation about the district parks and open space.

We've talked about that a lot.

And all the the dominoes that fall from that.

Um there was a discussion about whether whether you should be allowed to um use private amenities to achieve the public dedication requirements.

Um, those are ones I got, but what what I missed?

I got a couple little ones if I can okay.

Uh I feel like we've covered Oh, this is a big one.

Um council retains the authority to grant a height modification on a case-by-case basis.

Do we have an upper limit to that or is it infinite?

It's up to council.

Okay.

Do we want to put like some guardrails on the top end of what that height limit is?

Just something to think about.

I don't want to just I just wanted to define there's no upper limit to that.

So maybe that's the same thing.

So I'm what I'm confused about though, is it sounded like that was an issue that council was working on.

That wasn't something where they they that was the final thing that they have to scratch it, and that's it, right?

There was some interest in reviewing like a narrow poll like option for building height modifications that would be tied to community benefits.

Right.

Um with a maximum there are there could be like a public safety tower or something like that that doesn't go above a certain number.

500, 499 feet on that.

Like I don't know.

We want to put an upper limit on that.

What I read was the council is pushed that off as far as the heights or still debate 411.

I just wanted to like they want an architect on top of that.

Yeah, exactly.

Who knows who knows if we're gonna put on council next?

We gotta be careful.

I think that's another um really important the workshopping, the the building height um and how it's measured, all the different ways that it can be measured.

You know, this is from Boulder's code, and like there's um it's a it really makes a lot of sense.

Um lowest point of natural grade within 25 feet of the tallest side of the building, and that might be off of your property.

And so what that does is allow the context to help determine what the heights are and um and makes it much more of the opportunity.

And I know Mr.

Cooper might disagree with me, but you can you can't just control it with your own property, it's much more contextual.

Um from a design perspective, I can tell you it's really frustrating, but it's also it's a good way to constrain the the heights and make make it so people can't be uh obnoxiously tall.

But I think again, going through the process of having people understand the myriad ways that you can calculate building height is really important.

So that's that's one recommendation.

Oh, yeah, and I missed the lot, the lot size comments.

The lot sizes need to be.

Oh, yeah, the lots, yeah.

And that again, like what what is this actually look like and why is the 40 feet too shallow and and what is um it's hard to it's hard to illustrate all of these things, but um it's also hard to share.

I wanted to I think an issue that was brought up, and it's come up before developers have used as an excuse for going, no, we we really don't want to build duplexes and townhomes because there's if you want to sell them, all of a sudden all these legal problems as a way of saying, well, you know, that's that's a reason why we should be building single family developments again.

Um I don't know, I don't know if I see that as being a realistic reason for saying, oh yeah, you're right, we can't build those anymore for sale because it sounded like it was a market-driven kind of comment, like like we're not seeing that people are able to really sell them a town home or sell a that's I think that's what I was hearing.

Well, I like to know.

Yeah, but I think I'd like to take that and get a finalize that, and it's like it's in there's always been this reference to oh, there's legal problems, but nobody's ever defined what those legal problems are.

We have a lot of duplexes that are on the other side of Old Town there, also I would think of the city attorney maybe I don't know, it could get you involved in it, but we could just get an understanding of what are these legal problems that we keep being alluded to as a good reason why not to build townhouses and duplexes.

Yeah, I am definitely not um an expert on what developers are doing.

They're the experts on that, but I don't know that it's uh legal problem as well.

I the only one that was mentioned tonight that I heard um was the construction defect uh litigation issue in Colorado.

Um you had someone like public testimony allude to why that might affect what's being done in the market.

So I can't speak to that as your city attorney.

I think it was sounds like there was some comments that were given providing when they might just be able to do that.

But what did you say?

Something about what defects, what so construction defects, litigation, and again, I'm not the right person to speak on this, and not right now either.

I'd have to do some more research, but my very scant um understanding uh, which could be entirely wrong, but if we wanted to look into it more planning commission wanted to look into it more, it's my understanding that the construction litigation climate in Colorado has um let it deters, it's it's been a deterrent uh for certain types of development.

I'm not comfortable saying more than that.

I think you've covered it.

Well, yeah, I I just like to know how valid that is.

That what?

How valid that is because we have in our code, you have to have 20% of this and 30% of that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So it sounds like maybe there was some feedback provided, and we'd love to know a little more explanation on that.

Is that really risk?

Can I do modify spread through last of my couple of landscaping comments?

Okay.

Um couple small things.

The common yard um development type, uh, which is the a laundra lawn or an um another walkable ground cover.

This I like, except for I was just wondering if it was like do we put if we've got stage two draw restrictions or something like that.

I've seen plenty of European context in which if you have a gravel ground cover and have plenty of shade, it's actually plenty nice.

I just think it doesn't necessarily have to be lawn.

It's just something I'd like to consider.

Uh pocket parks, I'd love to see provision that if it's over a thousand square feet, it has to have at least one tree.

We do that for yards the same level standard could be applied there.

Well, starting in a thousand square feet enough, we do the same standard that we do for lawns that they've got the same amount of shade because why not?

Um I'm gonna I'm gonna listen.

I'm gonna go to bat for the junipers here.

We should not ban junipers across the city.

They are okay.

I'm just I'm gonna die on this hill.

We are not in a wooy in most of Lafayette.

If you look at it, we're not in a wooy.

If we're in a wooy, we can create an exclusion zone that we don't plant junipers in wooies, but that's also something that people are gonna have to take a risk on with their insurers and everything.

They are native, low water, drought tolerant evergreen plantings that survive well in our urban environment.

And burn like crazy, baby.

Yeah, but you know what?

If it's it at the gas station, if it's the car wash next to the hospital, it doesn't matter.

You can't find arborvity.

There's like three things that are evergreen screening that grow in Colorado and junipers are one of them.

You get a drinker, you get a pine, get an arborvite which die every three years.

There is no other plant that takes this place in our environment.

They burn.

So do wood houses, you know.

So do gas.

I guess it's just like a lot of things burn.

There is a context in which junipers are an appropriate planting.

If we were at the base of the mountains, fine.

That's probably a bad thing.

Fitzer against your foundation, great.

Junipers grow in a juniper pinion woodland, which is a natural ecoscape in Colorado, and we're not cutting them all down.

I think banning junipers across the city is a crazy thing to do, especially in areas of the city which are not in a wildland urban interface.

I this is not we can't I don't think we should be banning junipers.

I think this is a specific context.

I just it's crazy.

It is the only thing if we're trying to do native water-wise drought tolerant planting, juniper occupies a massive, massive place.

I don't want to think about massive amounts of junipers.

I just I know, I know.

But like planting a little leaf mountain mahogany in place of a juniper is not an appropriate answer, and I don't care whatever people are saying in this thing.

Just I would like to revisit this because where do we actually ban juniper?

If you look in the landscaping portion of this.

They did it in the city bowl and it's a good thing.

Oh, just because of the wildfire hospital.

Yeah context both European wildfire a couple months where you're pushing that.

This is what I'm saying.

If if you're in the if you're in the wooy, fine.

If you're in a wooy is a specific zone, but la fate is not part of that.

Yeah, if you're in the woo-y, fine.

If you're in old town, I don't think it's necessary.

Uh and this is a really stupid thing, but for non-living ground covers, we have gravel as an option.

I this is so dumb, but I think it should be something that's not river cobble or peak gravel that should be angular granite that compacts because otherwise you just have pea gravel washing around everywhere.

And it is just like breeze compact.

Yeah.

Breeze angular three-eighths something.

But pea gravel that they put on the mounded medians, and then you just got pea gravel everywhere, like it's ripped and growing, it flows around the bottom house.

Absolute worst possible thing you can be putting on medians.

Um I have one more question and then I will be done.

So the landscaping in the under maintenance, if things die, you're supposed to replace them.

Am I reading that right?

Like if you have a ma if you have a landscape plan and it dies.

You're supposed to replace it.

That's yeah.

Okay.

And yes.

Is there any enforcement of this?

Yeah, that's pretty challenging.

Yeah, I think that we do have enforcement cases where a tree dies, um, and we either know this or we're informed of it.

Cool.

Um, and we'll go out there for that.

Yeah.

I also realize this is another hill I'm dying on, but like I'm just curious.

That's in the code, so it's good.

I'd love to have a rule that we can enforce.

Yeah, and could you repeat the breeze compact gravel?

Uh oh, uh three-eighth inch uh or sorry, no three inch gravels.

Is that crushed granite?

For walkways and walkways freeze is also great.

Uh for any of you what was it?

The um the non-living ground cover option.

No Pobble.

No river rock, no river cobble.

It moves.

It's a maintenance nightmare.

And it's an ankle breaker.

That's it.

There was a suggestion made about kind of setting a clock on review times.

Is that something that you don't have to consider?

But I uh that's that one stresses me out.

That's really hard to do.

I understand the desire.

Like it's it's exhausting to have to wait for um.

But you it although I'm curious for input here.

Yeah, I mean that really that really comes down to like a staffing issue and resources.

We've cut our review times in about half over the last year and three or four months.

We're still really long compared to what we're striving for, but uh I just want to say we are we are doing better.

We are continuing to reduce that time, but I just you know the only the only times I've seen those kind of shot clocks are when the federal government preaps you and you have X number of days to get like a uh you know a wireless facility out or something, and if you don't get to it, it's automatically approved.

So I don't know.

Well, you know, I don't well it's great and what we're doing's is too long, I don't think there's anything we can do with that.

Maybe this will help.

The streamlined language, yeah.

Yeah.

That's the idea, right?

Like streamlining everything.

So it's certain projects for sure, but it's also just working through this large, large backlog that I always like to tell all developers that uh that we're not necessarily the ones that created, but we're the ones dealing with it.

We're trying to do our best to get get through it.

I've had we had been told a number of reasons why we're taking so long.

I just want to make sure those have been resolved.

Are we fully staffed now in the planning department?

I mean, this is a you have to keep in mind uh development reviews interdepartmental.

No, I just that yeah, we got a we are uh we have everybody fully staffed, not everybody is on a full 40-hour work plan for reasons I don't want to discuss, but yes.

Okay.

Um we're gearing up.

So the second thing was the other departments that you have to send things out to aren't getting things back in a timely fashion.

Has that been resolved or is that still ongoing?

Everybody's really committed to development review, and that's what's really helped us.

So there are uh you know individuals with each one who that's kind of one of their primary within each department.

That's kind of their primary focus, and that's one of the things that's really has been helping us out.

Uh and why we've been able to start.

That's no longer an issue.

It's no longer an issue.

Not saying we don't want more resources, okay.

Because it would be great.

Um, you know, the budget cycle's coming up, and I think some other departments maybe are trying to advocate for that.

Uh but uh but we do we are making good progress, and we do have people that are focused mostly on development review in all of the departments we typically work with on normal projects.

Okay.

Um I'd like to just point out a few things on the use chart um as I'm kind of digging into it a little bit.

Um a few things on the mobile home um community district.

I think that's the getting that name.

Yeah, manufactured home community.

Um so I'm curious why we're not doing courtyard development.

I don't know why that wouldn't be permitted in that seems like a logical way to um allow a mobile home community to kind of evolve.

Um see, what are the other the other places for courtyard development not being allowed?

I don't know why they aren't allowed in OTX one, two, and three.

Um and maybe that's um that I guess that's a residential question.

That's that that kind of give and take.

Um I don't know why they're not allowed in old town, like just the typical old town.

I'd I don't know if we can speak to what some of those what the thought process was of where exactly the courtyard development could be could be allowed.

Um why are we not allowing courtyard old town?

Yeah, and old town and like F N3, I guess that's uh okay and then also in in MHC.

Seems like that might be a way to allow those those to evolve and improve their kind of amenity spaces.

Also in MH.

Um it seems like allowing a daycare center, adult or child might make some sense.

I don't know why that's not allowed in the mobile home community district.

At least it's a special use review.

Um let's see.

We know about some of the things that need to be struck from the P zone districts, so I'm not gonna touch on those because they could make lots of X's there, and that needs to be dealt with separately.

Um educational facilities, school, private or public.

Um there's already a school in the M1 district as as you know, the the Thor Nature Center, and I'm just curious why um why that wouldn't also be allowed, you know, in that zone district.

That that seems like it would be an obvious special use in that, and also an MHC.

Um seems like you would be able to allow for a school in those.

Um same question on nursery or greenhouse and in OTX3.

Umce we have that already there.

Um food truck court, um special use that's the that's the craft of open space issue.

Um art studio or workshop and personal services in MHC.

Um I could see a lot of folks who want to open an art studio or personal service business in a mobile home community, but maybe there's a different reason for that to not be allowed.

Seems seems pretty um straightforward.

Um it also exists now, I think.

Was uh it also exists now.

Uh yeah, I'm at I'm sure that there's folks that are that are doing that.

Is the vision that these are uses that would exist as if the mobile home went away, or would this be allowed accessory to the residents?

Yeah, they would be allowed accessory to I think the what's that?

Like an in-home business.

But not in a way to displace Mulums as well.

I see.

So family child care home is under MHC.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um the our our home occupancy or in-home business, whatever that's permitted.

Is that okay referenced in this code or is that referenced in like the clerk's business section?

It is referenced in this code under accessory uses.

So yeah.

Okay.

Um I guess the only other thing for some reason accessory uses, um, short-term rentals are not allowed in MHC, and I don't know why we wouldn't allow them.

Um we have historically treated short-term rentals, is it will displace a long-term.

Okay, displacement.

So we tend to limit those two places.

But don't we have in our don't we have um owner-occupied short-term requirements already in Lafayette?

Yes.

So that I just don't want to preclude folks who have a mobile home and don't want to short-term rent their um in there.

A room in their house to to be able to do it.

So I would imagine though that the the mobile home, the owner of the mobile home development probably has some rules about what can and can't be there.

I would say that.

I'm not saying I'm not saying we should limit about the case.

Yeah, I just don't think we should.

That may be why they don't you don't see more of them.

Yeah, I just don't think we should limit it in our code.

If we don't if we aren't limiting it, owner occupied elsewhere.

Um then um OTX one, two, and three.

Why aren't we allowing real estate offices?

I understand construction or storage building, but like the temporary okay, temporary uses of real estate office.

That's the in OTX one, two, and three.

So it's a temporary use.

I mean, you could put that in a in a building in OTS.

Uh-huh.

It doesn't have to be it would be like any other use, wouldn't that?

Yeah, I'm just wondering if for some reason it's it's not allowed in those.

Typically that use categories where I can use subdivision.

And so you allow for like a construction trailer or just like an office.

Real estate office.

Yeah, so that's like that's why it's temporary.

Like a reality.

In the in the model home type of okay temporary use is the time.

Okay.

Okay.

I think that's all.

Um just want to make sure going again, going through and thinking about the different um reasons for no tiny home on wheels as an ADU.

Uh I didn't even get to that yet.

Um that that might have to be to the continued discussion.

Um does anybody else have any other things that they want to get out there?

Only other thing I'm thinking of currently that I think we can tackle is the annexation neighborhood meeting topic that's come up.

I don't know if we discussed that earlier.

Maybe I might have missed that.

I I agree from a legal standpoint we shouldn't include it.

Because if it's just an annexation, then there's not really a neighborhood notice like need.

But typically if the annexation is running with another land use case, it's that case that's triggering the neighborhood meeting.

That is correct.

I I will um respond to that to the resident about that because I do know that when um I'll respond separately.

There we had two separate petitions for annexation with Kensington, for example.

Um I think there was one in 2023 and then the later one.

So there might have been reasons why we did what we did there, but I am gonna look into that because um I think the resident is correct that there was a neighborhood meeting.

I'm I'm trying to dial down if it was associated with the annexation.

I'm gonna look into that.

I did see some things that indicated that.

So I'll look into that and respond to the resident.

What's what's changed is the path used to be it would annex the just annex the land and have its own developing research.

Right.

Then they'd start working on their development plan, whatever.

Now we're getting everything annexation plus preliminary plan plus whatever.

So that's why I think where the neighborhood meeting comes in because they're doing all that stuff.

And it would because of those other projects.

Yes.

So I just want to see how the other commissioners kind of felt around that.

I'm surprised that there's not a well, there's not a I guess there's a public hearing for the annexation.

It's just not a specific neighborhood.

Yeah, the um and we have a specific annexation development review process in our current development and zoning code.

Um that's in addition to the state process.

So those are some things I'll I'll look at again.

Um it seems like members of the public might have an interest in whether we annex or not, regardless of that's how we design the in the state annexation process incorporates notice in hearings.

It's just that initial hearing is a limited question that's answered at the hearing about whether property is eligible.

But it's something I I we've heard if that is something the commission wants us to look at.

I will I will drill down on that one and see if we can require a neighborhood meeting or if there is another way that the neighborhood meeting occurs anyway because of how our development review process works.

Um I'm sorry, I don't have a clear answer on that tonight because the resident was correct there was a neighborhood meeting, and I I know that that application also came in, then went out and then came back in.

So just happen to have like a town party the same day.

Right.

Yeah, or supervised.

Yes.

Never know that we have an ice cream social coffee.

And then sounds like we're maybe nearing the end of our lists.

Yes.

But I have uh we did raise two items that we were we we that are not part of the land use code, but things we wanted to suggest to council to review for policy.

How should that happen?

I would recommend that planning commission.

Uh you you know, as a body, you could um discuss that in at an upcoming meeting and come up with something you'd want to send to council collectively, or you could assign one of your members to prepare something for the commission to review that you would then transmit to council.

But I would recommend that come back to another public meeting.

Well, then just noting for us for our collective memory that I think we wanted to bring up data centers and big boxes as to policy discussions that were and air mobility hubs.

Oh, yeah.

Air mobility hubs and junipers.

I don't know about the island of Juniper Help.

I don't know about juniper and sending.

Yeah.

I'll file it.

I'm allergic and I'll still go to that.

So we we have a list of most of these that I could give it to the commission if the chair wanted to go through these um tonight or however you would like to handle that.

Can we share can can we have that shared with us in between now and our continuation?

Is that doable?