I'm gonna go ahead and call to order tonight's meeting of uh planning commission for July 8th, 2026.

Can we have can we have roll call, please?

Can we have can we have roll call, please?

Hey Laura.

Laura, roll call.

Sorry.

All right, well, Passenger Thomas.

Here.

Vice Chair Wilson.

Here, Mr.

Lakens.

Here, Commissioner Member.

Here.

Here.

Commissioner Schomba?

Here.

Commissioner Walker.

Here.

Thank you.

All right.

Second item on the agenda is public input.

Um, I believe we have some folks who are here to speak on an item that is not on our agenda.

Items that are not on our agenda.

Um anyone who would like to speak, please fill out a speaker request form and come to the podium.

State your name and address for the record.

For members in the audience, please refrain from responding or reacting to comments made during public input.

We would like to maintain an environment where others feel comfortable speaking regardless of what views are expressed.

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

So again, this is public input on items that are not on our agenda.

Uh so not the land use code.

Uh Holly Wilder.

Great.

Thanks.

Um also Ron signed up to speak, but he's gonna cede time to me, so I can speak a little more slowly.

Um Planning Commission, staff, fellow citizens of Lafayette.

First and foremost, I hate public speaking, and I find it completely terrifying, but this is important, so here I am, and it'll be good practice.

I want to speak regarding a recent application for annexation and rezoning submitted by developer Jack Bestall for the property located at 8600 baseline road.

I understand that he applied for annexation on June 16th and announced this at the June twenty-fourth planning commission meeting.

Please note that I'm not positive that I understand this process completely, so if it's premature to be expressing my input at this time, please forgive me.

This process is a little confusing.

I reside at 3542 Nyland Way, my home of 18 years in the Nyland Co-housing community, located directly west of 8600 baseline.

I do not speak on behalf of Nyland.

I only speak for myself.

But I can tell you that you will be hearing from many area residents as this process unfolds.

I caught wind of this several months ago and have been tracking this along with many concerned area residents and not just the good people who live at Nyland.

We've recently learned that this application's been submitted and want to state in no uncertain terms that I feel this property should not be annexed for development.

For all the same reasons that were stated in the staff report from 2018, when a different developer attempted to annex and build a much smaller project.

Area residents turned out in droves to write in and speak at public meetings, and it got shot down seven to zero vote.

Droves will turn up again.

My main reasons for opposing this annexation are as follows.

One, impact on traffic flow.

It's near the railroad tracks, it's on the skinny part of baseline road, it's next to the water plant, and if I understand this correctly, that part of baseline road cannot be widened.

We were up against that last time.

Two, the impact on evacuation routes, fire safety.

We are in a higher risk area in this section of baseline, per the fire chief's report, which I believe you had at a recent meeting.

Three, the cost to Lafayette in providing utilities, especially sewer, a huge infrastructure investment of our tax dollars.

Four, limited potential sales tax revenue.

People on our section of baseline tend to shop in Lewisville and Boulder.

They're not actually spending their money in Lafayette.

Five, the incongruous nature of higher density housing in this rural zone.

I believe you call it cherry stem annexation.

Six, impact on wildlife.

This lot abuts open space on two sides.

And seven, the impact on our quality of life, obviously.

Then I want to cite a couple of quotes from the staff report from 2018.

There were so many to choose from, I just picked a couple.

On page 14 of that report, due to the design of this project, staff believes a good number of existing habitat areas will be negatively impacted.

This sentiment is also echoed by the City of Lafayette Open Space Advisory Committee, LOSAC, Louisville Open Space Advising Advisory Committee, and Boulder County Open Space Staff.

On pages 17 and 18 of that report, this project will not enhance the quality of life for current or future residents, does not compile sorry, does not provide a compatible transition to existing neighborhoods.

End quote.

I know there are many other applications for annexation at this time.

Surely many of them are in better locations with wider roads for increased traffic, more feasible sewer options, less impact on open space, etc.

And here's a small history piece that you may not be aware of.

When property owner Stephen Zapp purchased 8600 baseline two years ago, he was in conversation with a few people from the IDD community, that's intellectual and developmental disabilities community, about building a small residential community surrounded by lots of land in a nice rural setting, maybe a little farming, some equestrian therapy because it is a horse property.

A few of those IDD community parents came to take a tour of Nyland at that time to see what we've created on our land, which is how I know about this history.

I gave them the tour.

I thought it was great, and so did many of my neighbors.

We would have welcomed that with open arms.

But somewhere along the line, the plan seems to have morphed into a much larger and undoubtedly more lucrative residential development with a little IDD housing lucrative for the developer and the owner.

With a little IDD housing thrown in to help get a proposal to pass.

The IDD community parents at that time were devastated when they learned of this change.

And I know this part because a couple of those individuals reached out to us to see if they could build on our land, because they hate what they saw in Drive Bestall's preliminary proposal.

They are clear that this larger development will not meet their needs at all and are now looking for land to purchase where they can build what they need.

Just thought you should know that part.

It is our hope that the planning commission will stop this in its tracks, as hopened in twenty happened in 2018.

When we heard about this possible development a few months ago, one of my friends started a petition on change.org.

That petition now has over 2,000 signatures of individuals who oppose this annexation and development.

So I know we are not alone in opposing this.

If annexation is approved, we will definitely challenge it.

Getting the needed 3% to send it to the voters of Lafayette will not be hard for us.

I deeply hope that staff, commission, and council can see that this particular property is the wrong place to build.

Please decline this annexation.

And then I have a little invitation for you guys.

If the process allows, and I'm not at all sure that it does, but if it's allowed, I cordially invite you to visit an island for a tour, either as a group or as individuals.

I'm the person who does our community tours, and I would be delighted to show you around.

Come see what we have done on a similar size lot that maintains a rural feel, preserves wildlife corridors, abutting open space, and creates true community that benefits individuals and the wider world.

Thank you.

And thank you for the work you do for Lafayette.

Sounds like Ron Morgan.

You have you both combined your time there.

Great.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to make the public input?

An item not on our agenda.

All right.

So we'll move on to the next item, which is approval of minutes for June 24th, 2026.

Do we have a motion?

I found one little typo.

I'll email it to Lauren, but it's a date difference.

Okay.

Does anyone like to make a motion to approve?

With amendment with corrections.

I'll move.

Move to approve of corrections.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for resolution number PC 2026-15 recommending approval of the new Lafayette Land Use Code, new zoning map, and the rezoning of properties within the city.

This is a continuation of the meeting held on June 24, 2026.

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

And we'll consider the record, including city planning staff's report, presentations by city planning cities planning staff, and any public comment received during the hearing.

Again, this is a continuation of that public hearing.

It's important that each commissioner remain objective and capable of considering information offered into the record.

Does any commission member believe he or she isn't capable of evaluating, reviewing, and commenting on the proposal consistent with due process requirements?

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

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

All right, we will now hear from staff.

Good evening, planning commission.

Steven Williams, uh city staff.

I'm here with uh Jake Mitchell's our current planning manager as well as our um consultants from Clarion Associates.

Uh Elizabeth Garvin will also be speaking tonight.

So tonight's presentation is a continued public hearing on the land use code adoption and relates to resolution 26 or PC 2026 15.

Um it involves uh both the land use code adoption, a new zoning map, and the rezoning of properties within the city.

Um I want to thank planning commission for their time and for their additional time tonight, uh, as well as the public for the continued discussion and consideration of uh this work and everything that's gone into the process so far.

Also want to clarify uh to both planning commission and the public, and hopefully I'm speaking loud enough.

Yeah, no?

Okay, I'll try to speak louder.

No one here?

Okay.

Okay.

I will try to speak louder.

Maybe bring this closer to me.

Um but I also wanted to clarify to both planning commission and the public that staff has not made any changes to the draft code since PC's last meeting.

We've received a few inquiries about whether or not this change or that change has been made.

The draft code is effectively static currently.

So uh at this stage of the review, we're waiting for direction from planning commission and city council uh before we make any changes.

Um we're kind of in agreement on those changes before things happen.

Um also wanted to I just reiterate our uh objective and then our agenda hasn't changed.

The staff presentation has, and I'll get into that a little bit.

Um, but we are here to review any outstanding questions and policy considerations, and then hopefully finalize a recommendation for city council's consideration.

Uh the agenda is the same.

We'll have a staff presentation and then planning commission opportunity for planning commission questions.

Uh we have another public testimony, which is what you guys directed us to do so that we can have a public hearing, uh, and then it'll get back to the point that you guys reached last time, which is effectively uh planning commission deliberation and vote.

Um so we're not representing the presentation that we had last time.

We have a new presentation for you, um, and we've set it up to have kind of clarion go over our project goals and steps and just kind of uh remind everybody kind of where we are, uh, and then I'll go over um some what I understood were some questions from last uh meeting um about our path implementation and the code approval process that will happen between um August and October.

And then we also have some questions about uh how amendments are done post adoption, so we'll go over that as well.

And then what we prepared as part of the staff memo for you tonight was a preliminary kind of conditions table.

And that is based off of no formal direction.

It's based off what we heard in discussion.

So kind of want to get that out there too.

It's not intended to necessarily be comprehensive, and we certainly didn't get any votes or a straw poll.

So it was just what we heard you guys speaking about, like uh in discussion, you know, potential conditions, but we did turn that into draft conditions just to help hopefully with the conversation.

You guys want to do something different when you get to discussion, you don't have to follow that at all, or you can add to it, subtract from it.

That's all up to you.

Um with that, I will turn it over to Limbo.

All right.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Elizabeth Garvin with Clarion Associates.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

And I have new hearing aids tonight, so I can hear too.

Very excited about this.

Um, just to ground everybody in where we are, and we may have some people who haven't heard this before.

The goal of the land use code update project is to implement legacy lafayette.

So that's the comprehensive plan, and that the city adopted a few years ago.

The comprehensive plan gives us our roadmap for the code.

It policy has been set by the city, by city council, planning commission work through it, and the project, the land use code update was intended to implement that plan.

So make the changes that the city wants to see.

Some other things that we wanted to accomplish with this project were to make the land use code more user-friendly and easier to understand.

It is a legal document, but that doesn't mean it has to be a completely inaccessible legal document.

Um so we have gone in and changed up some of the writing and some of the instructions and the graphics to make it easier to understand.

Um, one of the important goals of the project was to create more predictable development outcomes.

So that's not necessarily to tell applicants what they need to develop, but once somebody enters the process of working through a development application here in Lafayette, we want to make sure that there are some set expectations about when will they be working with planning commission, when will they be working with city council, what will happen in terms of development?

Does it implement the comprehensive plan?

Um so that's all part of what we've baked into the new regulations or the updated um existing regulations.

And then finally, um, and importantly, uh, we wanted to write size the development review process, which um tonight sounds a little jargony.

Um so, in in simpler terms and plainer terms, we wanted to make sure that development um applications can go through at the level that's appropriate for what the applicant's asking for.

And so if they're asking for something that's straightforward that um works within the city that implements the plan, um and that all they have to do is comply with the code, that should be reviewed and approved by staff.

That's an administrative review.

That is the fastest way to get something through to development.

I know that people will argue that fast isn't always what we're looking for, but if somebody's doing something that the city has decided as a community that they want to see, fast is typically what we're looking for.

Um, when we get to projects that have more impacts and that have impacts on the neighbors that have impacts on wildlife, that have broader impacts outside of what that development is, traffic, pedestrians, and that's when we want to engage in more community conversation.

Those projects come to the planning commission for discussion and they go to the city council for discussion.

That level of review is appropriate for more discretionary, so more there are more moving pieces on those projects, and that's where planning commission's role is to really dive deep and talk about what's going on and how that could impact the community and make a solid recommendation to city council and so they can also dive in.

So write sizing the development review process means making the things the city wants to see, go through a more simplified process and still being able to tap the brakes on those projects that have big impacts and where that community discussion is super important.

So we've uh together as a group gone through a fun couple years.

Um, and I know some of you were with the project a little before that.

Um, just to let everybody know how this worked.

Um so we restarted the project uh probably October of 24 and um got into drafting, um, did uh code assessment, so that was our roadmap for updates.

So I believe that was probably uh late 24, early 25.

Um, we published that, we reviewed it with staff, we reviewed it with our working group, um, so we set out where we were going to go with this code and got some buy-in on that.

We drafted the regulations in three modules.

Um so we drafted updated districts and uses, updated development standards, and updated administration.

Each one of those was posted for complete public review when it was drafted.

Um so all parts of this project have been available for review on the city website or through staff discussion over the last year and a half.

Umly, as we worked through getting thoughts and input from the working group, um, which also included many or most members of the planning commission, um thoughts and input from the community and guidance from city council.

Um we made revisions and pulled it all together into a consolidated draft.

Um we uh posted the consolidated draft for review.

This was the um the first time the whole code was um woven together, we received a lot of comments on that, and um staff opted to keep the door open for comments for an extended period of time, which we did have some come in.

Um, and so there have been multiple opportunities for people to review and comment on the regulations.

Um we finally kind of closed the door on those comments to get the draft posted that Stephen was talking about.

We've kept it static because we've learned that it gets confusing if we start making changes at this point in time.

Um so if everyone will be patient as we talk through changes this evening that planning commission might want to recommend, those are not in the draft for anyone behind me who's wondering where they are, they'll be verbal and then there'll be instructions and they'll come through in the form of your recommendation to city council when that's ready.

Um in the midst of that, there were um community outreach opportunities, and including a full mailing, um, full of mailing to residents, property owners, and um residents within the community to let them know the project was going on.

Um so that is that is start to finish, and we've gotten ourselves to this place where we're sitting with an adoption draft.

So here was our here was our schedule.

Um, just to remind everybody as we went through this, we did um we did we did drafting, we did staff review, we did um working group meeting, which was input and comment on some issues.

We did a couple working group meetings on the topic.

Um we leaned on working group to uh flag important issues and bring them kind of up to the top for us to think about.

Um they certainly flagged some things that resonated with the public, um, and those were some of the issues that we've since gotten instructions from council that they wanted to table.

Um so working group worked.

Um they they told us the stuff they were concerned about, community echoed those concerns, and those issues will get further discussion.

Um we also um revised the drafts, um, we did updates to council.

So across this, we are moving and continuing to move the project forward.

So this is we are we are in adoption.

Um you can see we first intended to be in adoption probably in March.

Um a little later than that.

Um that was from adding some uh working group meetings, it was from spending a little more time polishing, um, getting some more feedback from council.

Um so if we were to adjust that, there would be a few more working group dots on there, and then there would be kind of an extension of the timeline to reflect where we are today.

So on this incredibly wordy slide, um, I wanted to kind of build from this schedule to where we are and just talk about the kind of the import and the um the process that we've gone through.

So back at the beginning when we first start working on the land use code, um that starts with drafting.

Um, and drafting comes from a lot of different sources.

It comes from things we've learned about the current regulations, it comes from best practices, um, things we know work in other communities.

And it also comes from things that we've tested.

We've looked at peer communities to see, hey, does this idea work here?

And so you know, we're where we are this evening is it's a it's a pinch point as we I talked about internally earlier today.

And one of the things I want everyone to remember is going into this draft, the work that came to you was professional.

So it was it was tested, it was things that your peer communities are doing, it's things that's worked in other communities.

I say this because I know at this point in a code adoption process, there's just this level of I'm uncomfortable.

Um there are a lot of words here, and there are a lot of regulations here and kind of what is going on.

Um so we um we drew from excellent sources to put this together.

We reviewed it, we discussed it, we revised it, and by we I mean that's across the series of working with staff, working with planning commission, working with the community, and we you know, we've had people who have um stayed with us this whole time, and this isn't something they're being paid to do.

They're here because they care deeply about Lafayette, um, and we've had um elected and appointed officials with us, and we've had professional staff.

Um, and one of the things about your staff, and I would say you know, staff in Boulder County generally, um, is that there are good things going on in the communities here, um and there's a lot of experience and wisdom to draw from.

That's all woven into this draft.

So we work on it, we do that, and then we get ourselves to the consolidated draft.

This is where we're connecting all of the pieces and we're reviewing and smoothing it out.

So the changes you've seen over the last draft or two, um, that is when we have it all pieced together and we're looking at it like, okay, hey, if I am allowing everyone to have ADUs, what does that mean in terms of um, you know, we worked with public works, how are we getting uh utility easements in, right?

So we did that level of detail with this.

There is still a little smoothing out to be done for sure.

Um it's still there.

But we get to a point in a project where we hit adoption process, and it feels a little stressful for an adoption process.

We've we have put um time and effort into this project, and we want it to be ready to go.

It sometimes helps if you think about adoption process is that point in time when we switch from the old code, which I think most of you would agree isn't serving the community to the new code, um, which is which is still rough around the edges in some places, um, but we're making that 40-year lead and providing some certainty in terms of where the city is going to be going forward.

We have built in this period of time for internal testing and refining and polishing.

Um this will be a continuation of some of the conversations about some of those outstanding issues that still need to be resolved.

Um, when I say they need to be resolved, it's entirely possible.

They're going to be resolved in a way that someone's unhappy.

That's the nature of doing regulations like this.

Um, that's you know, that's kind of how it works.

It's a community full of people with opinions.

Um, so uh staff will work to come up with the resolution that is best for implementing the plan.

That is kind of the north star of this project.

Um, so this will include planning commission updates during this period through October, um, and then necessary refinements as staff goes through and looks at different projects that have been adopted by the city to figure out how those would have turned out under these regulations.

Um, and then finally, kind of post that second, second adoption, second being the bigger amendment that's in there.

Um, then there's land use code, upkeep, and housekeeping.

And I think this might be the new frontier for Lafayette.

You should be amending that thing down the road manually or every other year.

You should be picking up changes and making them, um, especially here in Colorado, housing is gonna change, communities gonna change, how we see things will change.

Um, and so the goal is to give you a code that you know, okay, we're gonna do our you know, annual or bi-annual amendments, and what we really want to take up is this new use that we're seeing now.

You know, now is the time that we want to deal with battery energy storage or whatever it is that issue that comes up and it will come up.

Um, so kind of where we are at this pinch point is are are you ready to say it's okay to generally move from the old code to the new code?

Um, and then how does that signal out to the community?

Other people are watching, some are with us this evening, um, some aren't.

But moving into adoption um sends a signal that there are applicants who are waiting to design projects.

And this this we know this happens in every community where do we do this.

They would rather go under the new code than the old code.

Um so when we get them to a place where it's worth their time to start making sense of what's in these regulations, they'll start doing it.

You'll get more comments from the development community after adoption.

That is usually how it works.

Um planning and economic development staff can start updating processes and administration.

That's gonna need to change the way applications are processed.

That behind-the-scenes stuff has to change with the new code because we're moving away from the PUD into the new processes, and so staff needs some lead time to get that information in place.

Um last two community members will have greater certainty about what's included in the land use code and once it goes through adoption.

It's not a document set in stone.

It can certainly change over time, and but there are some people who are on pins and needles wondering if an issue is gonna come back, or if we resolve something or something new is gonna come up that's relevant to them.

If we can let them off the hook, that's great.

Um, and then finally, for this internal testing period, and then as we dive deeper, um, you all can set your agenda for where you want to be in year one.

Um there there will be stuff to shake out.

You could decide as a group that you want to do, you know, a uh use table retreat, um, and you want to go through and sit down with staff who has spent they've done their own retreat on the use table and ask them, you know, why here and not here?

What was the thought process on that?

Um, or you know, why not call out this use?

It's problematic.

We want to see it differently.

Um so that's all stuff that you can do, and then bring around of housekeeping edits through.

I have a small pep talk, pep talk or perspective.

Um code update is for many people once in a lifetime, once in a career project.

If you sit on planning commission long enough that you may do it twice, um, or an elected official, but it's not something you do with great regularity.

Um it feels like this, it has this uncertainty to it.

Gabby and I do about one to three of these a year, just depending on how the schedule shakes out.

We have another one tomorrow night.

Um so if you guys are looking for something else to do, just let us know we'll let you win on the call.

Um, and and so we you get to this place of I don't know if I'm ready to cross that line, and what does it mean to cross that line?

Um it's it's more of a line in the sand um than a line scratched and marble.

We're making a change, there will be more changes after that.

The Lafayette adoption process is has been pretty much like the adoptions that we do.

Not that you're not unique and very special, but in this one category.

Um we've got the uncertainty feeling.

We've got last minute issues coming up.

It's okay, that happens.

Um there are passionate advocates.

That adds to it.

We we need people passionate about their community.

Um, and then there are last-minute comments coming in.

Um so there is kind of the swirl of uncertainty going on here.

Um it is not staff's intention to cut off that conversation.

Um, moving forward to adoption simply is going to move you forward um to a different point in time.

Phil and I reached out to a few uh former Clarion clients who've been through this recently, and we asked, you know, what was the biggest deal, and did a lot of people come in afterwards to change the map or to complain about the code.

And um, the feedback we got was that it everybody kind of settled down, and um there were a few map changes, and there were a few complaints um about the regulations that they were able to sort out.

Um, the insight that we got was that it was really important to give staff that time um to dig in and start learning the code.

Um, so for what it's worth, that was um Billings, Montana, and Lawrence, Kansas.

So in the last few years they went through adoption.

Um and then finally, one of the things I want to remind you of that we kind of haven't talked about is the new code is is really sort of self-healing.

Um it has processes in it for adjustments.

It has a major adjustment process that comes to you, and it has variance process and it can be amended.

Um, so I I had a boss, I had a um boss who used to be an attorney for startups, and he was fond of saying there's very little that can't be fixed.

That's kind of where we are at this point.

We want it to be really good, um, but something new is gonna come up on the other side of adoption, and that's okay.

It's a land use code.

So there's my pep talk or my perspective.

I didn't bring my chair stuff mostly because I didn't share it.

So that didn't work.

Okay, so there's that.

That's where that's where we are, and that's kind of just putting it in kind of moment in time.

Um so I'm gonna switch to Steven for a second here.

I think I'm gonna switch to you completely on fine.

Till questions come up.

All right, so this is we've got a few slides that are carry over from last meeting, and that's mostly to just provide some context about what's changing and what we heard from your discussion.

So CC readings were or city council readings, I should probably spell that out, sorry.

Um, were originally targeted for um July, and we're shifting those to a first reading date of August 4th, and then a tentative August 18th second reading date.

Um, and then there was this, you know, well, effectively we have a draft code still, and we know we have some changes to make.

So we're suggesting this effective date, and I think we didn't fly that in uh as well as we could have at the last meeting in terms of what that means and uh provide you with that roadmap.

So, you know, the implementation tasks, Elizabeth hit on some of them.

Uh, we have you know some clarifications to give out to our community about hey, you're gonna get rezoned from this to this.

We didn't have AMX2 zoning to share with you know uh a certain uh subdivision.

Um they're getting changed from M1 to AMX2, but there's also changes from internally and M zoning is industrial zoning.

So we're gonna have you know, our old town go from B zoning to three different versions of uh old town zoning, and we're having our industrial areas go from one version to three versions.

So those are the kind of outreach efforts that we're gonna make in order for folks to understand what changes are coming to their area.

Uh not that they haven't been aware of it, but they haven't had the concrete information as to what that actually means.

Uh we also have a software update that we're coordinating at the same time.

Uh so when we get process of our code changes, we have to tie that into how that software works as well.

Um some fee changes are coming, uh, and then obviously we have technical corrections.

But what we wanted to clarify here and why it's in red is that uh this period between tonight's reading and um the suggested effective date in October uh will also allow for any conditions that PC applies to the uh their recommendation and city council approves or adds to uh as part of their steps in the process.

But effectively what we showed you the last meeting was kind of like this two-step process where we have this um we get it to council in August and then we ask for a deferred effective date, and some of the uncertainty here is that until council agrees to uh that deferral, it's not in play, right?

So it's a request at this point.

Um, but we also want to uh you know kind of clarify that um we have certain things, and that's what the memo has done, like that we're gonna try to clean up prior to those August meetings, and then the follow-up amendments that are gonna be able to occur uh and be accomplished uh before October 31st.

And then what I heard from planning commission at the last meeting uh was some just concern because you guys are basically at this point where you're releasing your review of the code and it's not as polished as you expected it to be, or you don't necessarily know like if you give direction on a condition how that's gonna you know translate to the code.

Um so what we talked about, I think at a high level, but which what can be done is for you to request a joint planning commission and city council work session prior to that uh effective date in October.

Um you can also, I mean, we've also offered as a staff that we'll continue to review, like you can continue to review and provide comments.

I think we're kind of at the place that we are, partly because we've been so open-ended on the comments, and that's why the draft is a little rough, rough.

Like every time we get a comment, we're trying to incorporate how that goes, there could be a ripple effect that needs like three other changes within the code in order to be coordinated.

So we're trying to set like a four-week time frame to get comments from you.

Um, but then we're also willing to come back every month up until um that work session or the effective date to kind of provide you updates.

And we've heard some comments and requests for like red lines as to like how did the code get changed, and that's where at this level, I think if we gave you a document now, the whole thing would be redlined because that's how many changes we've had in the code, it wouldn't be terribly effective.

And really, staff's direction wasn't for us to borrow from our existing code because we've heard so much criticism about it, it was to try to create new as much as possible.

So those red lines like exist in the sense that we had a module and then we had revisions to each module.

Um, and we can post those and share those if you want, but like it's kind of the same conversation as like why it's static now is that once we get into a public hearing process and we create a public record, folding more information into that kind of complicates things.

And so if you give us that direction, you want to see more stuff on the website, we can put that in there and give you that time in the next four weeks plus to review and provide comment or you know, we're not trying to hide anything.

All right, and then the other piece that I think that wasn't as clear as it could be is like, and Elizabeth touched on this a bit, right?

Like, I think there is a lot of pressure because we haven't updated our code in 40 years.

And so like I like to get it perfect as well.

I don't I know that that's not possible.

Um we are making a lot of progress, and I hope everyone's clear on the progress and the changes that we're making.

Um, but you know, we're also expecting imperfection and that certain refinements should be expected in the first handful of years.

Um and I do want to remind folks, I mean most of you up here have had some exposure to code modifications.

Uh I should have thought about these uh last uh last month, but we had a spar amendment, you know, um to create a 10% administrative allowance.

We had a uh change to C1 zoning to eliminate a special use review allowance for self-storage, and we had an expiration of um applications uh which we didn't have codified, so those were all folded into uh the code through minor code amendments, and each one of those took about they're pretty light lifts.

They took about three or four months to for staff to do, prepare and get through planning commission and city council.

So depending upon the scale of an amendment that happens afterwards, that's as quick or maybe a slightly quicker we could move.

Um we haven't talked about emergency changes if there was like a gap in the code that we want to make.

I think we could probably move a little quicker if such a thing exists, but I'm not suggesting it does.

I don't have any concerns in that regard.

Um then, you know, and for we've also parked some things.

So city council has also suggested that we come back and look at and use this code amendment process to explore building heights further.

That was one of the things that you know we didn't want to delay our adoption in like working to refine or or you know get right, so we're gonna do that after the fact.

And then Elizabeth touched on this a bit too, but the code is very explicit in terms of minor and major modification allowances, and that typically, like right now in an existing code, that would be like, oh, we need to modify something that was uh you know, like some like regulation that was set through a PUD come back and you can get like a 10% allowance administratively, or if it was anything greater than that, up to 25% can would have to go to planning commission of city council.

That same process basically allows us to make amendments to like so we've had some concerns that like lot sizes setbacks aren't as precise as they could be, or like I can't build the town home and in that area, or the lot coverage is too small.

Like we have a cushion up to 25%, right?

And um, if over time, if we're finding that you know our applicants are coming in and meeting those major amendments, that's when we come back with a code change to adjust it.

But it's not the structure that we're trying to provide to the code isn't so prescriptive that it's inflexible.

So that's what I'm trying to get across with that.

And then as Elizabeth already said, is that like the major land use code updates are expected in the future.

Um best practices, you know, roughly every 10 years, not every 40 years, and we're committed to being more prompt with those as well.

Um two more slides, and then I'll turn it over to you guys.

Um, this is just a quick kind of overview of what we attempted to provide in that table.

So I think we took 21, you know, kind of subjects that um you guys had touched on at the last meeting, and we provided the comments in the in the column on the left.

We gave you some initial staff response and context.

We did a very high-level comprehensive plan kind of assessment as to whether or not the change was in line neutral or um against the comprehensive plan, and then we did a quick assessment as to like we'd like this code to be as polished as it could be before it gets to city council.

So we're gonna try to make some changes between now and after we take.

So the other piece of this is that we still have a like a um update to provide to council in July.

So at that update, we're gonna try to clarify those changes that you guys have suggested that we've identified that we feel like we can make prior to August, and if they're in agreement, we'll go ahead and make those changes so that we have as polished of a code as possible.

But then we're gonna have this other bucket of uh changes that won't be able to be made until October 31st, either because of the scale of them or because they require more conversation, more research in order for us to find uh the best path forward.

Doesn't mean the change isn't possible, it just means it takes more time.

So that's what that table was intended to do.

Hopefully that was clear.

And then we also provided as the second attachment to your memo uh draft conditions.

So we took those and and again, like this is not to presume that all of those end up as conditions, but if they do, you have something to work with, and it should make the conversation tonight.

It's intended to make the conversation tonight easier and uh more efficient.

So uh but now is the time if you guys have any questions for us, or you can turn it back over to public comment and you have the ability to ask us questions through your discussion and deliberation as well.

So however you want to structure this.

Um do we wanna do just a few minutes of questions of staff and then we can since we've got a lot of folks I think ready to to comment, um if you'd like to ask any questions of staff, we can have maybe 10 minutes.

I just have a couple of procedural questions.

So based on what we and and again, thank you by the way for all the work you put into summarizing this and laying this out.

I think this is very helpful for us.

Great.

Thank you.

Um as we go through this and then decide our recommendations, whatever.

Then when you get to city council, how is that going to be presented?

You're gonna say, okay, you're obviously gonna send them the draft code, which has not been changed.

Correct.

And then you're gonna go through and say discuss each of the individual recommendations that we are making and whether city councils agree or not.

How is that gonna be done?

Yeah, so the table is in order to give you guys the context is like help your help your discussion, and then the conditions, and you can modify those, those are just draft versions, but that's what we take to council effectively, and and we'll provide a summary in our presentation about what your discussion was and all of that stuff.

So we could clarify, and I haven't I haven't fully thought about that because all the focus is good on tonight.

But like effectively what we're trying to get is just draft conditions, and that's what they considered.

They get the same presentation they got you guys got two weeks ago, and then a summary of what your discussion was and what your concerns and all that stuff and how we got from that presentation effectively to the draft conditions.

Does that answer your question?

And those draft conditions should address what's in that table there.

And I tried my best to make sure the numbers aligned and everything so that it was you could see um that everything was well, there's two that aren't that didn't carry over, but that's because there wasn't a comprehensive plan support for the change and or there wasn't a need for a change because there's some there's some things, and I think that honestly it was one of your suggestions about or like concerns.

So we have like and it was about um uh is it about open space or PLD.

Uh I'm I'm blanking.

But um effectively, like we have that whole section.

I think it was clarifying like whether or not like the same constraints, and and the answer is yes.

The if a property is acquired with open space dollars, or if it's dedicated as open space, it still is subject to um our open space ordinance.

Okay, and so we don't typically, and I'm just gonna finish because I started, uh we don't typically put that kind of language in the code because then somebody reads the code and says, well, if it says it applies there and it doesn't say it applies elsewhere, then I read this as it only applies here.

And so it's better to just leave it open-ended because the whole code applies kind of regardless.

So and the second question was we just received uh some public comment from uh Mike Cooper who was on the land use code working group um that were actually fairly detailed in terms of setbacks and various other things, which I think I don't I mean there's a lot there, and I don't think we're gonna be able to digest that tonight and suggest changes to you.

So how are you?

That one I would I mean, that's something that's on our radar.

I mean, we got the same draft that you did at the same time, so um, and again, that's why I kind of stress the minor and major modifications.

If there's something that we need to adjust in that, you know, like that the lot coverage isn't right, or that we've you know said that we want this building frontage and a closer setback, but then we you know the it doesn't align with uh the lot coverage, like when when you do it, then we're gonna look at all that and we'll make some some changes if they make sense.

If you know other ones that uh about the point system, I think we're a little bit more tied to.

I think we've we've dialed that in like uh fairly well.

We we haven't got to the test of all of this, and so we're we're we've tested some, but not like we know that every application is unique, and so we'll test that, and we're open to I mean, we're greatly appreciative of the fact that everyone's gone through and made these comments, and we're gonna take them seriously, and but we also have to weigh them, like there's other ones where we've gotten like competing, you know, comments on uh the amount of commercial floor area that goes into a neighborhood um uh uh form-based neighborhood district.

So um those ones we also have to wait.

And yeah, we fell someone in the middle and fallen somewhere in the middle might be where you're supposed to fall.

So those changes we may not make.

But um but we will give all of those things further consideration, and I haven't seen anything yet, and again, it's kind of coming in like you said, today.

Um so uh I haven't got my head around all that yet, but um there's nothing I I've seen so far that we can't accomplish or that I don't think we can accomplish prior to that October 31st deadline.

So may I may I add on that to Commissioner Phillips' question?

Can you hear me okay?

Um so for the for those items that um you as planning commission send up as recommendation and that city council says yes, we agree the code should include this.

I believe um Mary Lynn, I'm gonna put you on the spot that we make those edits and they require no further amendment because that was done as part of the adoption process.

So um depending on what you recommend and what they pick up, um we will do uh track changes version that reflects that um that will be in place while the rest of the effective period is going on.

Can I so that my question just to drill in?

So looking at the suggested conditions, thanks for all that work to put that together.

Um if I'm understanding we might, if we were to just say do exactly what is here, we would say we recommend approval of the code to the city council with the following conditions.

These amendments must be made by the dates noted.

Um or the land use code is not effective.

Is that right?

Tell me the last part of your question again.

I mean, followed up to including those conditions, but um if these if I think that would mean, I just want to confirm if these were voted upon by city council and and voted approved as written here, it suggests that certain amendments will you know changes to the code, these very specific changes to the code would be made by very specific dates.

And I'm my question is my assumption is that if that were if they were not made by those dates, the code would not be effective on the effective date.

So to ensure that that we don't have a code that's adopted and then automatically repealed, I I can't tell you that I would be drafting um the ordinance for council in a way where we would avoid that happening, but we could still incorporate those conditions or at least I think the answer to that is that I mean part of that is why we want to have that meeting, right?

So it's we want to make sure it's complete.

But that um so it's a joint work session, but it's gonna have a staff update that kind of clarifies how we've incorporated how we've addressed your question.

So I don't expect this to just be that you told us to go do it and you're happy with how it's done, right?

Like you want to see how it's done, and that's what that uh work session like in September, October would do.

And it would also be like, yeah, we said, I mean, if it's 20 or if it's 25 at the end of the day, whatever it is, we should be able to get through that punch list and show you in the code where it's done.

So I don't want it to be a I don't think it'll get to that point.

Yeah, yeah.

And worst case scenario, like we find that like, oh, that wasn't done as we said, we have to understand it because this is new territory, we'd have to have a different ordinance that basically changed the effective date.

So which again we would put in to council prior to that October 31st deadline, so that that time that you had this whatever a code goes through that isn't what the planning commission is to be council won't.

Because these because like other conditions that are put on approval, these conditions would mean that you are required to meet these deadlines.

Right, you're basically putting those conditions on staff.

And if they are not met, it is not it is not approved because it's only approved if these are met.

Correct.

We're gonna we're gonna be able to do that.

I'm not saying that that's the intention of the code.

Of course, but like you're committing to I just want to know how much you've committed to doing a lot of things by October 31st.

And if we were to approve this as exactly as written, when one of these things were not finished, I want to understand what that would mean.

I'm I'm shaking my head because I would not want to draft an ordinance that would um not still go into effect on October 31st.

Um I think it's a bad legal question and a fine administrative question.

Because we could we could we're we've put in place measures to make sure that doesn't happen.

But again, we can extend it out, right?

Like what we wouldn't want to, so effectively, like we wouldn't get to that point where it's nuclear.

We get to like where we just have to continue with our new code until the effective date, like till we've addressed the issues.

So you have to do that.

It's a difficult question for Mary Lynn as a legal thing, but it's like that's what that uh work session is built in in order to avoid.

So we can extend it out.

And so that record, like so if we were approaching October 31st and it was becoming clear that we weren't going to get all this done, we would then consider an ordinary.

Yeah.

And so that would be it would never get to that point.

That's my goal, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other quick questions first?

Or else we're gonna open the.

Yeah, I don't think it's quick, so I'll wait too much.

Okay.

I just have a quick question.

Uh you did say that whatever next version of this would have the track changes so that we could.

Did I hear that right?

So yeah, what this next iteration has.

I don't want it to be completely open-ended.

Like, no, we're gonna show you like if you have 20 seven changes, we we can get in there and clarify how those changes were made.

Yeah, obviously at this point we're not rewriting the whole thing.

So it might, it might we may have like, hey, we made this change, and then it resulted in these other section changes of the code because that's how code works.

Sure.

But um, but if you want it to be as simple as, hey, this is in this section we wanted it to change.

We can keep it that simple.

But um we won't try to make it you don't want to hear from me too much.

Um we will we can yeah, the red line track changes.

I just didn't want to be like, oh yeah, the whole thing's going back to you.

Yeah, just red line version.

Yeah.

I think it's great to just establish that we could do it now before changes start to happen.

So if there's something that needs to happen so that it is from the get go tracking the change ahead of time.

There's typos in there, there's some things.

I mean, and we can clarify that all that got made too.

So however you want to do it.

Okay, just trying to call it.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and uh then we'll get all of our um comments from the public, which is deeply appreciated.

We'll hear from any interested members of the public who wish to address the commission about this application.

The letter speaker form if you have not already.

Um start with Grant Swift.

Good evening, members of the planning commission.

Um I am here tonight as the chair of Lafayette Open Space Advisory Board again, this time asking that you approve the open space portions of the land use code document before you.

First, there is only one form of open space, whether it is from a purchase like the kneebone open space, from a public land dedication like the McStain or Rothman open space that includes the trail along connecting the rec center to the neighborhood north and the outdoor classroom, or from a gift, like the rest of the Rothman Open Space.

It is all considered open space after the city council passes an ordinance stating such.

In the recommended amendments portion, I'd like to point out that the public land dedication has always been a task for the open space advisory board.

As there is no parks board.

As an example of how this process works.

Kensington's the range proposed development project came before LOSAF recently to discuss the public land dedication.

As this land is not identified in the PROS plan as an area of open space importance, LOSAB asked for a park on the southwest corner.

Kensington developers declined, and LowSAP then asked for cash and loo for the fair market value of the public land dedication acreage.

That money would then go into the joint parks and open space fund, the post fund, to be used by parks in this case.

That's the process.

As a footnote, in my opinion, not as the chair of the open space.

If public land dedications happen early in the development process, we would not find ourselves in the multiple plans drafted bottleneck that we are with Kenzy.

We would be pretty clear from the outset what is to happen.

Okay, back is chair.

Next, by separating parks from open space in the land use code, confusion would will be avoided about the uses and regulations of both areas.

They are listed in separate chapters in the municipal code.

So this is just the logical next step to further educate our citizens on the value of each to the city.

Finally, I want to address the land use code overview Article 26-4, natural resources.

It looks really, really good.

A lot of Lafayette's wildlife plan has been incorporated into what you have before you.

Kudos to staff.

One other thing to consider is that in the past, Wall F quarters were about a hundred feet wide or more.

The Rothman Trail north from the Rec Center was set up like that to allow wildlife to travel from the Rothman Open Space to the Nebone Open Space.

I would suggest that using this with again to connect two open space parcels in the future.

Lastly, I especially want to commend planning staff for listening.

In my 30 plus years of being involved with Lafayette's open space, this is one of the rare times when I feel like I've really been hurt.

That's it.

Thank you for your time.

Oh, one other thing.

My next comments are my own.

Not those of any more.

Lafayette already has a canyon in its open space system formed by the Davidson Ditch running through the Nyland open space.

It's gorgeous.

It's about 30, 40 feet deep.

One canyon in Lafayette is enough.

Please don't create another by lining public road with three story buildings.

Thank you.

Karen Norvack.

I'd like to offer my thanks for the work you did at your last meeting and for making it clear that the code was not ready for your recommendation.

I've seen some rather iffy planning commissions over the years, and it's great to see one that really digs on in on the details.

I too shared Chair Thomas's concern that there could be unintended consequences in some areas that needed to be explored.

I think that is especially true for Old Town.

But first, I want to say thank you to staff, you and the consultants for hearing what the chair of Low Sav and I said about open space.

Some of us have been quite vocal about the way open space has been handled in the code so far.

I am pleased to see the creation of the two districts and the other changes to elevate open space to its rightful place and acknowledging the role it plays in public land dedications.

Two sections I spoke about at your last meeting are not mentioned of changes.

Adjusting the line that PLD land should be flat and removing the language that 80% of the dedication should lend itself to play fields, tennis courts, and picnic sites.

Maybe that could be addressed.

Perhaps there should be consideration of language that addresses the side of size of land dedicated for parks.

For years now, the city has not accepted smaller pocket parks.

Developers can try to foist a variety of not useful land on the city as their PLD, and maybe a future discussion about parks for staff in Low SAP could be planned.

Point 14 in your chart speech to neighborhood meetings for annexation.

I have attended neighborhood meetings for two recent annexations, so I'm confused by this.

They are happening or extremely valuable to the public, and I think to the developer as well.

They are very different from a public hearing, allowing for discussion directly with the developer's team.

The chart says three public hearings are required.

This needs clarification.

Only two of the three steps before council are public hearings.

Is there one before the planning commission that makes a total three?

If so, could this be specified for the public's benefit?

And neighborhood meetings are a good thing in general, so the more the better.

While the developers are going about their daily work day, residents have to juggle their lives to attend meetings.

Now on to the confusion that is old town and these new zones.

The comp plan says the vision for the L Town mixed use category is to preserve the eclectic, funky and small town nature of the old town commercial areas along public road, East Simpson and Baseline.

I'm not getting that vibe from the code.

One of the many things that makes Old Town special is the different size, though still small buildings.

We have examples of businesses starting in a small space and moving to a larger building as they grow.

Do south started as a booth in the flea market.

The little herbal apothecary moved into a larger space when the cannon mine closed.

I fear we might lose this as an unintended consequence of these code changes.

One of the most iconic buildings on public is Lafayette Florest.

In the same location, it was owned by the same family for 75 years.

Then Yoshiharas came to Lafayette in 1949 after being released from a Japanese relocation camp in southern Colorado and save for decades so they could buy that land and set up a fruit and vegetable stand.

The worst thing that could happen there is to zone it so that it can be replaced with rows of condos.

That would be heartbreaking to many people who love Old Town.

I know the code is the nuts and bolts and the comp plan is about vision, but the comp plan says preserve properties of historical significance and adaptive reuse of existing buildings should be prioritized over new construction and new development in the Old Town area.

Public road is the heart of this town and a part of the economic driver we need.

The focus should be on commercial retail, not residential.

We don't need housing on public.

We need to preserve the retail spaces that bring us sales taxes.

It feels like something is off here.

Changes were made to the zoning after the last working group meeting, so there was no decision, no discussion.

At your last meeting, the point was raised that something seemed wonky.

My word, not yours.

One of my ongoing worries about public road is gentrification and the loss of its quirky and funky character.

During a CAC meeting for the complan update, we were shown a graphic of what Emma and public could look like, which included a side view to the south with towering buildings just past Senior Gomez.

I think the word I used to describe it was horrific.

And there was agreement from other members of the group, and it was discarded.

I feel like we are on the ledge to that here.

Please, please dig in on this, pull us back and protect the heart of our town.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jack Bestel.

Good evening, uh Jack Bestall.

You may have heard my name taken in, I won't say vain, but mentioned earlier.

I do represent uh Boulder Ranch, and uh we are in an annexation process.

As a part of that, we have made every effort and reached out to the island community for a neighborhood meeting, and they've declined to meet.

So we really believe, as the past speaker just said, that neighborhood meetings are an integral part of everything we do.

And that's that's my really my track record on this.

Uh I I try to reach out to them again.

But tonight, land use code.

Um I think that there have been a lot of a lot of access by staff, and I really do appreciate that.

I've been monitoring since basically last July.

So I've only been in this a year.

I can't measure up to all of your commitments on that.

And I think that there are things that have that have evolved, but my interest really was to see if if this really matched up to what I've learned about your community so far in terms of the character, the rural, the the old town, and how does this really comply?

And I think that a lot of it, in in, for example, in lot standards or in percentages, is pushing this to a more a little more of an urban development character.

And that's something that I I think that uh we would like to meet with staff on and talk about lot sizes and talk about percentages.

For example, the maximum 50% for uh for detached housing.

I think there's room for more detached housing.

It's this it's a compact issue, it's size.

And that's part of our interest is to go horizontal with Boulder Ranch, so I'm watching that in particular as it relates to IDD and affordable housing capability at that property.

Um I I have issued this was issued to you all, and you can read it, and it's similar to what I talked about at the last hearing.

The percentages could be just slightly refined.

I think the point system is a great idea.

Revise the loting of building standards.

I touched on that.

Clarify the commercial and mixed use.

Um I don't think that it's feasible to do mixed use development on any parcel or some of the parcels that are identified in this in this code.

Um that comes from a long history of doing downtown and village work and trying to make that work restore front with residential above.

Um former lifetime, I was actually a principal planner for jurisdiction that had a very active downtown, and I've and I've talked to staff about that a little bit.

The main thing though I would suggest, and this is kind of maybe maybe a difficult area.

For us to deliver inclusionary housing and a mixed residential affordable attainable project, we need to shorten time frames because costs are already up and time is another cost.

And so when we see six or seven reviews or or public hearings on a in a process like for an annexation to get us to the to the building stage, it starts to become a concern.

We need to be under two years or year and a half just because of carrying costs.

And some of these, based on what I've heard or what I've learned about other projects were stretching over three and four years.

That's an area that I think could be refined and still give plenty of public scrutiny.

And but more, maybe more.

What I'm thinking is you're spending all this time to review development standards.

At some point you have to trust them.

You have to say, okay, we did all the work on standards.

Staff can carry out some of these things without our hands-on need without a need for hands-on.

So that's just a thought.

I appreciate.

Sorry to bring Darth Vader into your room tonight.

Um hope to get to know you a little better.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Eric Ellis.

Good evening.

My name is Eric Ellis.

I'm an architect.

I live in Lafayette and I have current projects in Lafayette.

I have used the older code for a decade, and I can tell you that the new code is amazingly better.

Amazingly better.

So I commend the staff and for Claren as well for amazing job that you've done in these code revisions.

There are a few things I think I kind of want to suggest as as additions to this as well.

Some of these items I think I've expressed to staff, but I kind of want to make it up here, you know, to the planning commission's attention as well.

One of the primary items that I see in this code is the change to the PUDs.

And you know, as an architect, we use these PUDs to bring really creative interesting projects that don't necessarily fit into every piece of code or every zoning.

And going to 10 acres is the minimum size for any new PUD is extremely restrictive.

And really, there's no way to really assume we know all the answers or can come up with every solution that we'd have for every piece of property.

And you know, the planning staff and uh the planning commission, city council, you're always going to get a chance to vote on these things.

And so the idea of having that really high bar for PUDs, I think is pretty restrictive.

Um I mean, I think even earlier tonight I heard talk about trying to create some flexibility within the code.

And I know there's the idea of creating you know up to a 25% of flexibility with any particular code section, but that does not talk about use, for instance.

And so the PUD can be a really good vehicle, a good tool to really bring some creative solutions to our community that you simply can't anticipate.

Umbody can anticipate.

It might be some great building or site design or structure that we can conceive of, but you really wouldn't get that opportunity without having that PUD.

So I know that's just one line item, but it's a huge effect in the tools that an architect has.

And I know I know we all know that we have a housing crisis, cost of housing is going up everywhere, but certainly in Lafayette, and uh we all know that we need better housing options, and uh whether it's attainable housing, affordable housing.

Um just a few ways that you can change uh the code to really emphasize and and provide more opportunities for housing.

And one is loosen the requirements for ADUs.

Um, you know, this is such a simple one because you're utilizing existing infrastructure that we already have, but allowing uh a 500 square foot ADU on every property, regardless of floor area ratio or lot coverage, or uh would be huge for uh bringing additional density and additional housing options within our existing community.

I think that the uh the there is provisions in here for ADUs, but I think that you'd have such a small amount of ADUs that fit within this criteria that you're not gonna really see anything pushing forward.

I think you get maybe five or six new ADUs a year because of that.

And I'm what I'm suggesting is to do something that's really gonna have an impact.

And I think that's what we need here.

We need something that's gonna create a positive impact in our housing in Lafayette.

Um might strike a nerve with the second one here, and that is related to uh transit-oriented development.

I know that there is uh I'll tell you that the house bill 241313, I believe is good legislation, and the reason it comes through and reason it was created is for so many communities that refuse to change in any way, shape, or form, and push uh not allow this type of density in our transit uh or uh transit corridors.

Um I feel it's kind of a waste of our taxpayer money to be fighting this in the state, and I really think it's a losing battle.

Uh I think it's gonna happen anyway.

Um, I run, I work with uh developers and I run the numbers and the performers on new development.

Oh, my time's up.

Thank you.

Kristen Dean.

Good evening.

I'm Kristen Dean.

Um I spoke before you guys uh last week, and I am representing Tebow properties.

I submitted a formal letter to you all, and I believe you all have it.

Okay, great.

So I do want to thank you all and thank staff.

Um, as a 26-year planner, I certainly appreciate the time, effort, energy, and collaboration, and uh the discussions that go into a massive code update.

So um it's exciting to be on the cusp of this big change.

And um there's a lot of work that's gone into that.

So um, but you know, from uh a developer's perspective in the Aspen Ridge area, you know, we can appreciate the city's vision for future redevelopment of that area.

And our concern isn't the vision, is with how we get there.

And so this area has functioned as Lafayette's primary light industrial employment district for more than 40 years.

Businesses located here because the zoning supported their uses, and collectively, property owners have invested millions of dollars in this area, and that's what land use law refers to as reasonable investment backed expectations.

So businesses should be able to rely on the zoning that has governed their properties for decades when making long-term investment decisions.

So at this point, um we as the code is drafted, the proposed AMX2 district expands opportunities for residential commercial office use, but it does so by eliminating or restricting many of the employment generating uses there that have successfully operated there for decades.

And we don't think that it has to be either or.

So what we're proposing is that you consider again opening up AMX2 to the permanented uses under M1, including Flex Industrial, and let the market determine when redevelopment happens there.

If it is a viable area for this type of use, the market will respond.

Um that then protects the property owners there, protects the businesses there.

They are not being um having a negative impact under this code.

You know, if we look at some of the comprehensive plan policies around economic development and supporting businesses, it says, you know, the city will actively pursue business retention and expansion efforts for existing businesses in Lafayette, especially those that are better able to withstand economic cycles, and that um the city will explore potential incentives to attract and retain companies that will provide employment for a diverse range of residents in Lafayette.

So it does seem that um in this area, these businesses are being hindered under this new code, and there's an opportunity to do both to continue to support these businesses, not create an onerous and burdensome process of a special re use review for any kind of expansion or even some minor um modifications.

But if you've got you know existing flux industrial and someone else wants to go in that space and they have to go through that special use review, then you guys are having to go through a public hearing process for something that is fully compatible and has always been envisioned for that area.

So at this point, you know, Tebow is objecting to the AMX2 as written, but really would like for you guys to be open to some modifications to the AMX2 to allow the M1 businesses and to support those existing businesses and investments there.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And um I sent you guys uh um comments yesterday, so I'm not gonna expand on those, but I did want to address some of the comments that I just heard from Elizabeth and Steven.

Um regarding public input on the proposed consolidated code, from when the working group was notified the draft proposed code was up until the comments closed was approximately two weeks.

I don't see that as the extended period of comment that that was referred to.

Also, we heard from people who had signed up for LUC updates on Lafayette listens that they weren't notified of the opportunity to comment on the new code.

Um as you know, there were a lot of holes in the form-based code the working group reviewed in late March, and there have been no working group meetings since then, despite some city counselors asking for them.

I feel like as in the last meeting, the consultant staff are I don't know how to say this nicely, but they're trying to push through your recommendation on this code.

And that makes me wonder if the code doesn't go into effect until October 31st, why would do we need to rush approval through and then hope that code amendments will be made in September and October?

To illustrate that, I'd like to bring up the Old Town residential overlay district in our current code.

This was approved by council in 2017 with the same promises from staff and the consultants to make changes as issues arose.

Literally nothing happened.

Even though people talked to council and staff about specific changes they shot thought should be made, the only changes are that are being made now, nine years after the overlay was adopted.

So as one of those people Elizabeth referred to who have worked on two planning codes, and I know that includes some of you guys too, I don't want to be twice burned.

That's why I would like to see PC make all of the recommendations you think should be made before you vote to move this on to council.

And if you have questions that are still not addressed by staff in their memo or during this meeting, I would really appreciate it if uh you guys made sure every one of those were hammered out.

And if that takes another two-week delay, so what?

We have till October 31st.

Finally, I highly support Commissioner Wilson's comments about the code not being approved without PC's conditions met.

I don't want to be patted on the head and told, don't worry, everything will work out.

I feel that after this three-year process, that train has sailed, as Austin Powers would say.

You have the leverage now, and you've used it admirably so far.

I could not be prouder of how much thought and consideration and time you put into this code, not only in the last meeting, but over the last three years.

Um finally, I also support uh uh Commissioner Lehman's requests at both this meeting and the previous meeting for redlining the code changes.

It is really hard, as you guys know, to wade through those 400 pages and try and figure out what is different.

So please help us out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, is there anyone else from the public who would like to address the commission?

Seeing none.

Um public comment period is now closed.

Um staff or uh our um consultant wish to respond to the question.

Um I don't know what you want me to respond to.

I guess the most recent um comment about our trying to push through the code.

Uh we are up against we had a schedule to begin with.

We're kind of in you know, in between pressures to get something adopted and uh to get it right, right?

And so uh this is fairly natural, that's all we're trying to say.

We get to these pinch points where public comment um you know has to kind of close planning commission's decision has to be made, you know, and then council also goes through the same type of thing.

Um and we're apologetic in terms of like not having more time and not, you know, but we've done our best to try to get as much public comment into this as possible.

And I as I mentioned earlier, that's kind of why we're here, right?

Like, you know, if I were to, you know, to be transparent, I wouldn't think that we'd have a code that needed as many amendments.

But the reason we're here is because we try to incorporate all of the comments up until the last minute.

So that you know, hindsight 2020, we could have done this differently, but I don't think we're getting a bad product.

The more comments we get, the more we're able to incorporate, the more we're able to refine.

And then in terms of the OTX um kind of concerns, um, I'm happy to sit down and have a conversation with anybody about that.

But like right now, where that stands is it's a B1 zone district.

Um, and so we are trying to address the uniqueness of Old Town by giving it three different zone districts and the complexity of our code in terms of like um form like housing types.

And so one of the examples of what we're you know, what we're able to do with, you know, and and it is a complexity, right?

But it and we're trying to make things simple, but for old town, we need to make it unique.

It doesn't deserve, I mean, the B zone district is not adequate for uh for downtown.

It needs its own zone district.

We have OTX1, OTX2, because uh our traditional core main street is different than baseline.

I think anybody would agree with that.

Um the separation between uh OTX one and OTX3 on South Public is reinforced by the um Old Town Tomorrow plan, but I think it also is reinforced by the form of that area and the size of those lots.

So I think uh Commissioner Laman pointed out that we should be looking at the west side of South Public, South AMA differently, and I I don't disagree.

So we should probably fold that into OTX one, and we should look at OTX three as the larger lots, but there's also some like just like those properties are accessed off a public road, they don't have alley access.

They're bigger lots, so like even uh there's the there's a concern that like the 21,000 square foot lot size combination that we're introducing is not restrictive enough.

We have nothing right now that prevents somebody from merging lots.

There's there's there's no that's all an administrative process.

So if you subdivide land and you create more than four lots, it has to go to like through planning commission and city council.

We're not suggesting any changes there.

We're introducing a change for old town that allows us to say, well, if you're gonna combine lots, and generally the lots in old town are 7,000 square feet each.

So if you're going to combine up to three lots or three lots or more now, that means planning commission city council's consideration, not just an administrative, like you can do that because we have no regulations in place to control you from not doing it.

So these are just clarifications and nuances to the code in terms of changes that I know we didn't discuss through the working plan, but it is something that I feel like is informed by the goals of the comp plan and staff's experience with what how downtown is unique.

So I'm apologetic of the misunderstanding.

I'm apologetic that we didn't get to those level of the conversations, but I do think there's more misunderstanding there than um than understanding, I guess is the best way to put it.

I'm happy to have that conversation and walk anybody through the code that has time.

Since we're on the topic, I just in case I was unclear because I was gonna ask the question about this.

Uh if I gave the indication that I thought this continued gerrymander of we should fold the west side of 700 blocks South Public into OTX1 and then leave OTX three as its own zone.

No, I know you didn't think that.

You were more concerned about OTX3 being OTX new at all, right?

I don't think there should be no type OTX3 personally.

So I just wanted to clarify.

It's always something that we've discussed with the consultants, and I and maybe it hasn't been as reflective in the code changes.

And I know it's new, and that that's a I just wanted to be very clear.

The idea of putting this left side of 700 South Public.

You had us look at it again, and when I looked at it again, I do see a difference there.

But I do think that like as you move down South Public, you have a lot of uh only access off of public, and then you have a lot of bigger lots and other uses, like uh, and it's it's kind of a wrinkle, you know, for like because all of the uh the language in the comp plan talks about you know preserving our unique downtown and like if certain uses that are in that part of South, like the we separated out those zone districts so that we can treat that area differently.

And and what I didn't get to say, like we have our didn't finish saying I had plenty of latitude, I guess loose train of thought.

Um like one of the things that we're getting in the in the um form versus just uses is that we can say that single family detached form is the structure is a is a type that we want to preserve for OTX one, OTX2, it doesn't really exist, I don't think an OTX3, but we'll look like but the the housing form has been converted into restaurants and other uses, right?

So you want to preserve that form and allow for different uses.

You need to separate out form from use, and we've done that in this new version of the code.

I know I'm sorry I didn't mean to misspeak for you.

But you did make us look at that differently and I'm happy to have a conversation about why I mean more with you and look at a map and all that stuff too about why we're looking at OTX3 as something that should be different than OTX2 and OTX one.

We can come back to it but I think this may be a forum that everybody wants to talk about it.

Okay.

Yep.

And I'm happy to respond to anything else that got said if you guys have specific things you want me to respond to.

I don't have that good of a memory.

Can you speak to the um the comment about 10 acres um is the minimum for a PUD if I mean one of the goals and that is in there that's something we can revisit if we if we want to but and really like the threshold for a PUD is that it's kind of the same like if you don't fit into a minor modification you don't put into a major modification then once you get to the elevated PUD application you're supposed to be providing something that's you know unique and uh and and maybe but our our code is like for the smaller project our code is also intended to uh allow for that flexibility so it's hard to do this without trying to think of an example but like that's that's my my next question is we look at a piece of property that like for instance I don't lack of a better like a circle motel property I don't know how big it is but like say that's three or four acres I don't have no idea how big it is but like what if you didn't want to do what if if you no longer can do a PUD on that property the 25% major adjustment that that could be that I think that's the one which is right is does that apply to every single dimensional like how does that so if somebody came in with something comparable to a a PUD right now for something smaller than 10 acres and it had multiple uses on it or whatever which is I assume what we're getting at here it would need a regulating plan.

And then the regulating plan would look at like how it's meeting like the certain forms of meeting setbacks we'd have to consider whether or not we're creating separate lots or it's all one you know property development but the regulating plan is a substitute for the PUD the PUD but it it is also like it works in conjunction with all of our other standards that say like hey we want civic space we want um you know these properties to front certain streets we want access to be taken from certain areas so like all of that structure is built into that and I don't so like that 25% allowance is like is that lot coverage is what what are we concerned about?

We'll test those things and if we see that there's there's an issue to it yeah having a test of it and like okay 25% can I does that mean that I can have a 25% swing from my front setback and I could push back you know is it 25% of the lot or is it of the um like those kinds of you know we can't get into every single one of those details of just trying to figure out how to um I how how this is going to improve on the PD process because you'll have more certainty because of the form based and I right now everything's open ended right so everything's a negotiation there's no so we've provided some structure to that conversation right and a lot of that is and it's housing types right like but for a commercial property it's almost the opposite it's that you get to have some allow uh allowance for residential so that you we create like more mixed use more vibrant more complete developments so it kind of depends on the zone we'd start with what the zoning is right like but and if you look at if you step back and look at like what our code's going to change in the next 15 to 20 years like the comp plan shows housing designations for most of it.

So I think we started as a staff looking at like how do you get this mix mix of housing types and how do we in an and we saw planning commission and city council struggle with certain applications right is that what does that mean but that's also like an area where completely open ended right what does that mean we want multiple housing types how many now we're actually like yeah so that's what we're getting with all of these updates.

So so with the so you could have you could choose to go through the regulating plan process on a one acre lot is that what you're saying or is there anything you may need to depending upon what you're doing.

Yeah.

Depending on what you want to do but that would be the option and then within that you follow the the standards for that zone district whether it's frontage types whether it's uses I guess that would be one thing and you know that's a whole other topic because it's table heights and and setbacks and all of that business.

Regulating plan assumes you're following the uh underlying zoning allowances, including setback and lot coverage and all of those regulations.

And but it will allow for a major minor and major modifications.

But if you need a I mean like the other clarification, I don't know if it matters to you or not, but like if you're gonna get a regulating plan in and you and you need a 10% allowance, it's that's an administrative, like, but that's really not gonna be something that if it's gonna come from a regulating plan, it's just gonna get considered all in by planning commission and and city council.

We'll fold everything up into the more major application type.

Like, but I think it'll provide the context, especially in the first few years that like for us, we're gonna be looking at it as like, oh, that needed a 10% change.

That probably means we hit the mark.

If we're getting a bunch of requests for 25% change and planning commission and city council are supportive of them, then we're gonna need to make an adjustment, right?

And if we get some that are over that that are pushed to PUDs for whatever reason, then we need a bigger adjustment.

But that's what the post-adoption period will tell us.

So regulating plan has the same thing as the PUD does, and it transfers with the property, or is it gone if the property is redeveloped?

Um it would it becomes yeah, it transfers or runs with the property.

I think that's your question is if the property redevelops, they may need an adjustment for the or an amendment to the regulating plan in order to unless it's all within what was approved.

So you have to do the same thing with the PUD.

It's similar.

So like, yeah, there's there are refinements to what we'll require for a regulating plan versus a PUD.

And part of the sketch plan conversation about like lowSAB needing it sooner.

Part of that fix really is not having so much go into the sketch plan because it's supposed to be more conceptual.

So I I met with Grant, like my understanding was the frustration is it feels baked.

It feels baked to you guys at certain applications as well.

Um when you know it gets to you and you have like the sketch plan has like 12 plan sheets to it, right?

It's got design like preliminary design for utilities, landscaping, all these things, and that's not what LOSAB wants to see it.

They want to see it as early.

So like we can talk about acreage and and where areas would want to be preserved where parks would be appropriate, not after a design.

So that's an adjustment to the regulating plan.

It's more conceptual as well, so that'll allow them to be a part of that conversation when they want to, without us necessarily like uh I mean, and then the regul the sketch plan is also intended to like we're gonna have a path for it to be voluntary.

So somebody wants to come in that doesn't qualify for something that might need a regulating plan, but has a concept that they want to get initial feedback on, there's a path for that too.

So but each of these things I only tell you because it's like we don't want to have a fix that requires LOSAB to see every sketch plan when some sketch plans may be voluntary or may not fall into the so what we talked about was that and this is what's happening already, and I think that the trust from pros is already in place, right?

So our parks and recreation open space department um always gets these referrals, so they'll make the decision as to whether or not it needs to elevate and just be discussed at low sound.

So just a tie-bow and all of that.

And I so I think what you just said is that for lots under 10 acres where somebody shows up and wants to do something super creative and wacky and crazy, they theoretically could do it with the new code.

Well, I mean, even though the PUD is not allowed.

I wrote that down.

We're gonna go back and look and see if they're if it if if for some reason that 10 acre thresholds not necessary or too restrictive, we'll reconsider it.

Okay, but okay, so but I was I thought you were also saying that there's enough flexibility in this new concept that that maybe you don't need the PUD because if it was creative, there's still a way to maybe do it under the Yes.

It's not a I mean we're trying to kind of solve two problems, right?

Like there is this perception that we don't want PUDs, right?

But the architect Eric is not wrong that like we can't anticipate everything through the code either, right?

So there is a time and a place for those, but we're hoping the structure that we're trying to build into the code gets you to where you need to be through a regulating plan or through a regulating plan plus a minor or major modification that you need to do.

He's not wrong either in saying that we don't necessarily contemplate uses, but we have a different use section too that you know allows for folks to come in and say this use isn't allowed in this district or this use isn't contemplated by your code, right?

Like there's a there's means to change those things.

And then for those ones that are coming because of technology, right?

Um one of the suggestions, and I think it's in your staff memo is that we'll add something that clear like provides more clarity that like if a use comes in that doesn't have a comparable use, it's not that it gets to pair with that use, it's that it needs to go through a code amendment in order to have that use be a uh like folded into our code, and that goes through a planning commission and city council process.

So we're getting giving good feedback, and that's I think the hard thing for you know our public and even for us, right?

Like but it doesn't mean that the conversation needs to stop.

Like we'll take that feedback when we have the opportunity to make subsequent code amendments where we'll make them.

Uh we're just trying to meet the schedule as well as meet expectations.

So I would like to know like with the AMX two that used to be M1.

How will the city deal with a request uh an actual M1 request like we want to provide industry or something like there's a that will that still be able to happen?

Um there are some uses that are consistent in the current M1 zone district that are also allowed in uh AMX two.

But there are some that are not.

But there's some that are not, and that was driven by the comp plan.

The comp plan has already designated that area as commercial.

So the the zoning change was intentional, and we understand non-conforming situations like will occur.

It doesn't mean those uses have to go away.

It just controls them from expanding any further.

Um and um it sets a limit typically on you know, if they do go away, like or if they are vacant for a certain period of time, they can't restart either after a period of six months.

So when we have things like the Lafayette Florist where that use isn't allowed in OTX, and it's again this is another reason why OTX like separating that, like the more we parse this out, the more we can control those things.

But the avenue for that fix may be to allow for my my suggestion in our discussion today was allow a special use review to extend that um expiration or to allow for expansions to those things.

So we just so that we have that flexibility, but that would require that it somebody comes in and makes an argument that there is uh comprehensive plan support for that type of either extension.

So Lafayette Forest has been vacant for well over six months.

So thought this through all the way, but once the code changes, I think they're gonna have an additional six months because right now they're not non-conforming.

Um, but they will be time limited in order to like restart that use.

But if we feel like there's a historic benefit, a community benefit to that happening, it just goes through funding commission and city council, and we have a special use review allowance in order to extend it.

Or expand it.

We're interested in like the Aspen Ridge industriality up there.

What about it?

Uh well, it it was way in bed and one and now it's going to AMX two.

And I believe some of the uses that are going on out there now would not be able to be approved for AMX two.

That's correct.

Okay.

But they would but they would continue until grandfather did the letter from from the commenter seemed to indicate that if that was a tenant situation and that tenant left that a new tenant could with the same use as the old tenant could not come in, or is there is that does that six-month grace period mean if the new tenant comes in quicker than six months, they are allowed to do that use that the previous tenant did.

I don't recall any restriction on tenancy.

It's it's more about the use of the tenant.

If say I have a spec uh spec light industrial building, and it's been having one particular kind of industrial use, um, you know, small fabrication of widgets.

Can someone else come in and do you know that it doesn't seem like they would be able to come in and do a vehicle repair in that space?

Like that would have to be a use review, but now under this new zoning, it would not be allowed at all.

Right.

Okay.

So the in reading through that letter, and again, haven't had much time to think about it or to digest it, but I did I triage as much as I could today, and one of our staff members looked at it and you know, we have uh I think we have a light industrial allowance currently in there, and we have the flux use that they have mentioning is going away.

So we need to look at those two and see whether or not there's enough of a difference to distinguish flex not by continuing on, and that's where we're gonna be as reasonable as we can and see whether or not I mean it could be an adjustment on either side, you know, in order to make sure we're in a line with what the comp plan says.

But the comp plan is talking about making that area more walkable, more mixed use uh and that AMX2 zoning is what does that, not the end of the year.

And it's and it's a benefit to an uh a building owner as well to have the opportunity to have zone.

Even if you look at the table that was provided, there's positive, you know, and I think the positives outweigh the negatives, and again what we're relying on is the comp plan.

Does require investment and improvement of property.

Yep.

So um but that is our north arrow on all of this is the comp plan, and that's what the companies suggest.

If we if we get direction from planning commission and city council to reconsider something, we'll reconsider it.

But that's been that's been the map so far.

I just wanted sorry, just to make sure I intend.

So if the use if a tenant is uh inside of a building that's has a certain use that is no longer allowed in the zone, they're allowed to continue doing that until they need to expand or uh or they move out and a new tenant comes in, and that would be the time that that that kind of use is no longer allowed.

It's that's enough, that's a trigger to to shr to shift.

They become not a non-conforming anymore when that tends to be.

They've become not a legal uh a legal non-conforming use anymore.

Yeah.

Can I elaborate or can I jump on something?

It's one year.

Okay.

It's a one year vacancy.

And you can change.

You can you can come in with a with a the same use can come in, but you know, if you're a warehouse and you want to go to a different industrial use that I can't think of off the top of my head right now, that kind of change isn't allowed.

But you but a a warehouse operator could come in continuously as long as they come in within a year of the previous one closing.

A new tenant that's also a warehouse.

Okay.

So you okay.

Something you just said cute something that I'm gonna ask based on something you said a little bit ago, which you wrote down.

Um you said if we or council guides you on making changes that you will do that.

But then you said you said earlier that you were getting some feedback from uh other folks in the community that had uh changes that they would like to see made in terms of um covered ratios or setbacks or whatever have you.

Yep.

Um I'm I'm probably not gonna get this exactly right.

So if we don't characterize it correct correctly, please do correct me.

Um what was it?

It was um something about that you might take feedback from those parties and then make a change.

And I just wanted to make sure that if you do get feedback from outside parties in terms of what they might like to see changed in the code that that's coming back to it'll be product for suggestion, right?

It's not like it'll be brought up to a suggestion for you guys or back to us.

I just want to make sure if things are coming to you that they are also then coming back to the parties.

Yes.

Um we will daylight all the changes that we make, and again, it'll be like through that uh what we're suggesting as a joint PC city council discussion.

So through that update, it'll be not just what we've done to address your but any other suggested changes that we've considered and think makes sense.

So yeah, or I mean in red line corrections or you know, it'll probably be more involved than um Did you want to speak so yeah?

All right, yes, I realize there's many interested voices that just want to make sure that I mean that's the trick, right?

Like if I we're kinda stuck one way or the other, right?

We're not trying to close the door to additional public comment, but at the same time we can't keep making adjustments without and then not have the code be ready, right?

The code has to get to a point where we've heard and and that's why your your voices and city council voices are the ones so you're gonna hear from the public, and what we need to hear from you is what resonates, what you've heard from the public, you know, back to us to give us that direction.

But we're also taking a look at it from this code has to work and has to make sense, and I don't want us coming back a year later and asking for a change that I knew might need to be made, right?

So I'll be making those suggestions as well.

But you'll be aware of them.

Well, what I had written down is that and I this is the second time I've used this analogy this week, which is we have the known knowns and we have the known unknowns.

And I think that those things are things that we can and should cover before we get to the point of voting on this, and of course there's the unknown unknowns, which is something that is obviously impossible to anticipate and unreasonable to do.

But as much as we can cover the first two, I think it is.

But I think that's what we can do, and I feel like that's what we should do, which I really sucks at its time consuming and all of those things.

Yeah, but figure out how to structure this discussion.

And then still um I'm in at some point, maybe not right now, but for structure ticket to go through this each of the questions.

I have a couple minor questions based off of public comment for clarity.

Um towards the end, one of the comments around this October date.

Can staff clarify my understanding is this October effective date.

That's based off of the schedule of when the ordinance is approved by council.

So if this not that I'm wanting to continue this again, but if if this gets delayed, push whatever that effective date would also change.

That's not like locked in.

But that that date is because of the ordinance schedule.

That that is not the case.

So um it it would be a specific effective date set forth in the ordinance.

So our normal, our charter says that an ordinance, unless there's a specific effective date.

We'll go we'll go into effect ten days after final publication.

Or do we set a specific effective date?

So this is a date that staff has discussed and is recommending.

So even if if council, for example, um adopted the this initial land use code ordinance in August.

Um the right now are proposals for that ordinance to say that this shall go into effect on October 31st.

So we're giving we're giving it breathing room.

We're like adding a month and a half to the effective date.

Because otherwise it would become effective at like end of August.

Yeah, become effective 10 days after um adoption and publication rate.

Okay.

Um great.

And then the second clarifying question, the discussion around time of how long projects take in multiple hearings.

Can staff speak a little bit to the times where we often are pairing simultaneous or running certain projects projects concurrently or the times that we're separating them.

Are annexations always on their own, or do we ever pair those with other cases?

I'm just I know every jurisdiction does it differently, and I'm relatively new here, so I'm just curious on how we're gonna do it.

Um but uh I'll do my best.

So uh for an annexation, it's like and for most applications, it's dependent upon what the applicant chooses to do.

So an applicant could come in and process an annexation like exclusively.

The annexation is always gonna have to have a rezoning application with it.

Um but they could choose to zone to developing resource, in which case they don't trigger all of the development like uh but most people who, or at least most people recently who want INXN want to know what their entitlement is to.

So they pair that with what is now a PUD application, and we go through the sketch for then final process, subdivision process as well.

Um, and that's what extends the time.

Time's extended based off of review times, and it's also changes and feedback that they get along the way and adjustments that they've made and how long it takes them to make those changes.

So the two, two and a half year, three-year thing, it's not all us sitting on it or taking time uh or even in our court reviewing it is a key motive time frame.

So and for other applications, right?

Like the only uh example I can think that's easy to kind of clarify is that um you know we typically have a SPAR application that runs with a special use review, like and now one of the main changes, and I think this was a question uh Chair Thomas asked last time, like one of the main real pivots to becoming more administrative is that the spar, uh minor spar application versus a major spar application would be administrative.

And the 10,000 square foot uh commercial or industrial application outside of old town would fall in that lane.

Anything under 5,000 square feet in old town would also fall on that lane.

But that's other than that, we're changing application types from sketch P like Sketch PUD to sketch regulating plan or whatever.

Um so but those applications still go to uh planning commission and city council.

The other little nuance there is that kind of would allow for somebody to come in that needs a special use review, and it might be more incentive to ask for the special use review ahead of uh a spar, like as a drive-through makes sense here, and would it get support of planning commission and city council?

And then they wouldn't have to go and make their design uh for it until they knew that they could do it.

Okay, great things.

But some, you know.

Um, I um I'm I get to ask the dumb questions, but I'm moving back.

But I maybe we could do a use case to put the major modification to the test, and then what that implications would be if if we did allow for a change.

So maybe take a simple one.

The point system has been has been raised how how people appreciate that it's a good structure, and that seems to be the theme of the entire land use code, is that the logic is really good.

That the critique seem to be at the parameters.

Um let's say that we got an application for a 30-acre lot that came up with three points.

It came out, the housing mix came out to three points, and right now it says four.

Okay, so that's 25% less.

Is that how where do we go from there?

Like, let's say we get it, we like it, it's three points.

Um walk me through like what that would entail to get that approved, or would we be biased towards not approving that because hey, the code says you need four points.

Um it's supposed to give you some structure that you don't have now, like so it would give you the context that it's not hitting the mark that we set for it, but it would give you the 25% allowance to make that adjustment through a regulating plan.

And then to kind of get back to Commissioner Mettler's question, it would allow them to do that at a regulating plan stage before they design all the product types that they're asking for.

So it gives them the flexibility to get some very initial feedback as to whether or not planning commission and city council would support a development of that type without getting into all of the design details about how they would provide the infrastructure and meet landscaping requirements and do all of those things.

So and that's kind of where our code is now.

It's like you don't get that until you get you know more or less full design details.

So if it if it did get approved, would would that be precedent to change the code to three points, or then it's still it's still four points, everything just has to be reviewed if somebody else comes back with a three-point.

It's a great question.

I'm not sure I'm there yet with my head, but um I would think that just from my reaction, right?

Like, and again, this was gonna come more just as much from planning commission and city council as to whether or not we need to make a code change, but I wouldn't take one application needing that to you know drive a code change.

I would see whether or not we need multiple ones.

And and these development applications are so site-specific that that three-point thing may be more supportable in a certain area that feels more rural and you know lives more rural, but what our comp plan is pushing us to is to create this housing diversity and to create the housing diversity for the goal of actually providing more affordable housing, not just having single family detached houses that generally are not attainable for most people.

So there's a lot, there's there's a lot loaded into that question, but site-specific development reasons may justify that point exception, but it wouldn't all I'm trying to clarify is it may not justify a change to our code.

Okay.

So just broadening it just a little bit, and then I'll I'll be done.

Is because all these parameters seem like um they came from some model, right?

Like there was some model that said we wanted so much housing, therefore these points were appropriate to get that, to get to that end goal.

Um, you know, likewise for some of these other parameters like the 15% has been brought up for the small detached house.

Um is there a community or something we can point to to look at to say this has worked?

Like where like for me, I don't know where those numbers came from, like the three versus the four, the 50% versus the 60%.

I have no I have nowhere to stand on on those.

Is there some precedence, some other community that we could look at to say these are good parameters?

I I mean Jake did a lot of work on this, I'll let him respond.

Um my understanding is Boulder has a similar, but we've also tried to dial that in for what Lafayette is trying to achieve.

So we looked at our housing mix and you know, looked at the goals and the comprehensive plan, and then we we kind of were just trying different things, and we were applying it to different developments that we've had recently.

For example, like we applied to like uh silo phase two, just the phase two, even though if you were doing this, you would apply it to the whole thing at one time, but we don't want to make the too hard on ourselves.

And I think that one just came like a little under.

And we applied it to Willoughby phase two, and that was within like 0.75 points of it.

And we applied it to some things like that, and and we kind of tweaked it and and and got it to a point that it seemed to work or it was or it was close to working on some developments that in my observation maybe weren't quite there, but we're getting close in planning commission city council's uh view.

And and we did it to encourage things that we currently do not have a lot of in the community.

So single family, I think in the last demographics was like 54 to 56 percent single family detached.

We kind of lumped that as in like all like larger home single family traditional.

Uh triplex and well, duplex, triplex, and fourplexes are all grouped together in the in the data, and those were like by far the lowest.

I think like two percent or something, three percent.

Uh so that's one of the reasons we kind of gave that one the two points and a little higher.

And we heard from some people, including some uh other planners that they like to they like to live in the smaller multifamily homes and they don't want to live in the larger multifamily where you're paying for all the amenities and the pool and the gym that they don't use.

So originally we had that one a little lower.

Uh and then you know, we we added the small detached home, and we and we increased that a little bit because the idea was that hopefully that'll become more of an attainable, it's not gonna it's still gonna be market rate, but maybe it's more attainable.

So that's why we gave it a little bit higher point value than a standard single family detach, which it seems like is what a lot of communities want to get, I mean that's what we built for so long everywhere, and you know, it's the most common housing product type in any non you know major city.

So we kind of just it was definitely an art and not a science.

Okay.

And we definitely kind of worked with it and and tweaked it and tested it to other products and tried to incentivize things.

We don't have density bonuses in our code, and oftentimes density or height bonuses are a common incentive to get kind of products you want.

We don't have that option.

So we also found this countless point system gives us a way to incentivize some housing product that we don't have and to uh disincentivize the proliferation of larger lot single family detached developments.

Okay.

I'm happy to dig in on any of those points, but that's kind of like the overarching uh story of how we came to that.

And we think it's as we said last time, it it's another nice thing about it is we can tweak it really easy, and it's a framework that we can modify.

Obviously, it has to have planning commission city council's approval, but it is something that can be modified.

Yeah, and I appreciate the be the being able to tweak it.

It's just this matter of fairness, right?

Like if you give somebody the they they come with the three and you approve it, it's like okay, like that's little.

Yeah, I mean that would be that would be through that major modification process, and that would be for council to decide in planning commission to make a recommendation, and and in my mind that would have to have something unique that we really had a as a community had a strong appetite for and that we desired, not just uh you know, we're handing handing approvals out for no reason.

Uh you know, the other thing we we talked a little bit about is do we put condos in there and treat them different than multifamily uh so that you know we could have another for sale attainable type of housing uh because obviously everybody knows what the construction defects law and nobody's really building condos in the state of Colorado.

Speak to that a little bit because I don't think everybody does know that.

I think I think we need either a primer on it or a refresher.

Well, so it's something that they so I know there's some changes.

Yeah, there's been lots of changes.

It's essentially uh uh construction defects attorneys go around to usually large condos and they try to talk to the individual residents and they say, hey, you have any problems?

You know, and they'll get their own independent building inspector out there, and you know, some people say it's predatory, some people say it's protecting buyers.

I don't want to get into the politics behind it, but essentially they would do a big lawsuit that they didn't build the building correctly and seek money uh to to pay to give to the residents and take whatever for themselves.

And then so what that happened what happened is it had a chilling effect, and then uh also the insurance company started demanding what they call like full wrap insurance policy, so like every subcontractor, everybody that walked in that building had to have like this extra insurance and policy.

So it was either pay that extra insurance policy, drive up your construction costs a ton, or just stop building them.

And so a lot of people quit building them over the years.

The legislature has done things like mandatory mediation before you can sue uh and some other things like that.

And I've heard from some people at conferences that they think it's been buttoned up, but nobody wants to be the test case.

It's kind of what I get.

And I'm not a legal professional, but that's kind of what I can put together from conferences and talking to architects and developers.

Uh so that's kind of it in a nutshell.

I don't know if you want to add anything, or you two want to add anything to that?

Construction defects?

Okay.

So I I've in my whole career in Colorado, I've done one 14-unit condo with ground floor retail in old town Arvada, and that developer was just like, we're too small, they're not gonna come after us.

That was his that was his thinking.

Uh, is that there wasn't enough money in a 14 dwelling unit condo, of which half of them half the units were going to friends and family.

So uh it was a it was a different scenario.

But other than that, I've never I've never worked on a condo.

But there was talk of that too.

Did we try to incentivize condos with a higher point system, maybe three?

So that's that's kind of how we came up with those.

And like I said, we tr we tested them on a handful of communities, and they either met it or really close to meeting it.

But what what those communities are?

You're saying that it would it came close to the standard.

Is that the standard that we want?

Yeah.

Um that's so.

That is a question.

That's that's for a discussion.

Discussion.

Um other questions.

Are we now at the point where we're asking questions about we are asking at the point of asking questions of staff, and then we'll circle around.

I feel like we have like a thousand land use cases in front of us right now.

That's kind of how this feels.

Um I think we should have some further questions of staff, especially things that bubbled up during public comment uh during the public hearing.

Um definitely talk about that verbal spot.

Um so I just want to throw that out there, and then I think after that we might take a break and then come back for discussion.

Actually, I have a question because it's not elaborated on in this nice um numbered spreadsheet thing.

Uh one of the public comments, it's nothing because I'm not even sure it requires a debate, so I'm gonna bring it up.

Uh, one of the public comments um mentioned that even though it was mentioned before that there was a line, and I'm not gonna get it exactly right for this.

I apologize, uh, that required that parks in open space, sorry, parks.

I think also the line was that open space um should be flat and have picnic areas and tennis courts and all of those things in that that line is still in the proposed code that we might remove that.

I think we could consider I want to make sure that that's being considered in the next draft.

I don't know if it's a question or just a question.

You guys can discuss in this directional.

Yeah, I want to just flag it for discussion if somebody is keeping notes.

Um that seems like an uh just antiquated language.

Yep.

That was all I just want to make sure it doesn't get forgotten in the pile of things that we have to talk about.

Um, so it's is this where you want us to ask questions?

Yeah, just any any questions of staff.

And we'll keep asking questions.

I just want to get some of these things out, especially things that came up during the public hearing.

Um the raised questions.

Uh uh one I I'd love to hear just you you made the point that this is this has been informed by a lot of experience and a lot of best practices.

And I'm curious about specifically these comments about the um the what did they call it, the loting.

Like the how how the the dimensions are being included in these plans where we have several builders saying that those are infeasible.

And I'm I'm just curious, like what what how do you respond to that?

Is that based on how how did you come up with these and what about the experiences you've had because you think they're not so um we have we have uh put these together um based on successful codes and other communities who have form-based regulations?

Um there's not uniformity across this, so we've informed it also with bot sizes and structure sizes in Lafayette right now.

Um the construction market changes and different developers have different products that they like to do.

Um they know what they like to do.

So we tried to be inclusive enough that we would leave enough space on each lot for people to do what they want to do.

Um, but we think that's probably part of the testing period to say, you know, what what is it that you're what is it that you're looking at doing?

Um, you know, we think that what we put together is gonna accommodate a whole lot of different types of um versions of development.

Um but if you know if someone comes in and says, I want to do this, you know, uh really wide um unit instead of you've given me standards for a really deep unit, um, you know, then that's a conversation with um planning staff and public works about um about how we do utilities for that and how we do public services for that.

And um if it is something where we want to say, okay, the code is definitely more aligned towards narrow and deep, which is kind of that more urban setting.

And you know, somebody might want to bring something in that's wider and shallower that would feel more suburban to people, and there should be room for that.

Um, then you know, through the discussion, that would be a set of amendments we bring back.

Um, you know, whether or not um as I think as Steven was saying, uh that's something that can be accommodated through that 10% adjustment, site specific adjustment would be the first question.

Um, and so it it's kind of we want to get to some more specific applications or discussions about what the application would look like to see where there may be something out there that someone wants to try building in Lafayette that just really isn't what we contemplated coming in and figure out does the process allow that?

Does the code need to change?

Does it need to go to major adjustment?

Because it's gonna create something that the city might not want to see um for reasons that are in the plan.

Um, and so that is kind of our our one area of unknown.

Bring us a little bit more about you know what you want to see that's different here.

Um, and then that stuff we would filter back for you guys to consider and talk about is this outcome something the city wants to see?

And I know that the the extensive comments um from the gentleman who was in the land use committee haven't probably not haven't had time to fully review those yet.

Did you see anything in there that makes you think there would be revisions now?

Like did he make some points in that document that look really.

Are you able to review some of that, Jake?

Or I it sounds like I did kind of a deep dive in.

I personally haven't been able to, but one of our planners, Jeremy Glein has been uh uh mapping those out in SketchUp, and there's definitely some tweaks we plan on making some of it like corner lots and stuff, but yes, there's there's definitely some some test fits and some changes coming uh in that direction.

Now I will say also that every community of every I've ever worked in, there's a developer who would tell you you don't have the right dimensional standards and and uh to fit usually their specific product.

Uh but yes, we do think that well, there will be changes and there will be tweaks, so we'll definitely bring those all to you as we continue to test it.

Is that what you just said?

Is that currently reflected in the conditions you provided?

Like is that is there a spot for that in these draft conditions?

No, we're trying to focus on commission city council's feedback.

Uh we have our own list that we will daylight because we will incorporate into the code and show and show you.

So uh there's the work we're working on it in the background too.

We're just not gonna muddy the code up right now and keep it as it is, and we'll make all of these changes in one go and bring it and bring it back.

It's I kind of think I is our thought.

And if I'm speaking out of turn, hopefully Stephen will jump up and push me away from the podium.

No, I thank you, Jake.

It's been very helpful.

But uh, I mean, we have and I'm just looking at it now, and you know, there's some things where you know we're gonna make a correction or a clarification to I can get back up to the podium quite have it in front of my computer, but we had a restriction on a 50% requirement, and it was intended for traditional detached homes.

So when we have the small detached homes, we want to have that be more relaxed.

Um, but then on the other side of things, there's comments about changing heights, right?

And we had very specific conversations about that, and we know that there's no support or latitude for that right now.

So there are there's gonna be some where we give credence to and give more um attention to see if it's right.

But we again it's also like if we see something and it's like, oh, that changes within eight percent.

I don't know that we're gonna make an adjustment right now because we have paths for that kind of latitude already built into the code.

So if it's you know if there's something incongruous where it's like saying your minimum lot coverage is too low, if you want like your like this town home to be within 10 feet of the property line and it's attached product, and you want them out of the voted and it's only five feet in the back, those are the kind of things where it's like, oh, that didn't add up, right?

We need to make a change to it.

So but we are test fitting as much as we can and trying to prove this out as well.

So I think that's one thing I've been asking for from very early on.

I feel like it's just seeing some examples of how this will play out in this zone district.

I know that it's hard sometimes to get it to presentation level and to get it to be explanatory, and there I do appreciate all the graphics that are in here that are in the code as it stands, but seeing how that actually plays out is just so informative.

And and so having Mike go through and and do the work that he's done.

Obviously, he's got a certain perspective, and he's you know, he's coming at this from a developer's perspective, but it's very interesting to just see that analysis from that perspective.

So I think having it having it a visual, having that visibility is just really um would be really really helpful.

Well, and I mean, so I think you're gonna get, I mean, I hope you get to a point tonight where you have specific you know, conditions, and you make it to some where it's more general, right?

Like you're asking staff to revisit certain, you know, like more broad things um to come back to you with what our analysis is on it and what or not a change needs to be made.

So and we'll help you with that if that's where you guys land on something that seems more vague or more broad, I guess maybe a better word for it.

I think I've seen a multiple public comment, not only in this round, but previously about uh what is it, the um clarify commercial and mixed use requirements if the neighborhood commercial is required on parcels for less than 40 acres and mixed use requiring commercial and mixed use communities and all of those things.

Clarification on that.

The question is do we have we not clarified that?

Were people not understanding what the clarification is on that?

Like is do we need to further elaborate on that, or is it just not clear?

I think from what I've read through those comments that are coming from developers is they well the the first argument was it's not feasible.

Yeah, right.

Um and now they're asking for more clarity.

And our again, we're following the comp plan.

The comp line is basically saying we need a mix of uses.

So what we landed on is if you're gonna develop at a certain scale of development of 40 acres, and then there are some outs in there, right?

Like if you're 40 acres and you're already adjacent to commercial, like within I think it's like quarter mile, quarter mile.

Um half mile, that's too generous.

Um radius um you uh you know you that you're not subject to those regulations.

So but like otherwise would we're intended to be in the comp plan is very specific in like our complete neighborhoods.

So they're not confused.

They just there may be some confusion.

I'm not gonna like if there's there's wordsmithing that can be done in a lot of places where things could be more clear, right?

Um but and we'll look at that as well.

But um I don't know that a wholesale.

From um from Mr.

Cooper was the where did the 30,000 square foot number come from?

Because it is a substantial amount and it's it does seem very dependent on you know the size of the lot, the adjacent shopping areas maybe.

I'm wondering if there's a way to finesse that to be a percentage or some some rather than just having that number to have it be.

Um, and I guess that's something we could discuss.

But do you have any input on where that number came from?

Yeah, so we actually um we looked at some of the standard calculation numbers um that exist in the planning world about how much um residential development do you need to support how much commercial development and um like we like we were talking about earlier, like Jake was saying, that's more of an art than a science.

Um but um in looking at what uh the city wants to see through legacy lafayette um in terms of commercial um and what development could take place on a 40-acre lot if it is mixed, um if it's not all single family detached, um our preliminary calculations were that you could support something in about the 30,000 square foot range.

Um we didn't we didn't want to make it so open-ended that you all were chasing it all over the place to see where it was gonna happen.

Um we did look at you know options to provide um some smaller um types of economic development.

Um it got complicated very fast.

And so we thought it it would be most straightforward to set a standard and then allow an applicant to come in with a market study to support what they thought they could do on the property.

Um so they they have here's here's what the city wants to see.

If you know if this is something you can do, please do it.

If it is something you can't do, um we'd like to see what you think you can do on the property so we can make a reason determination about it.

I guess would would um could live work units be part of that square footage, like the butt the work portion of a live work unit.

Could that be part of that?

Yeah, so that's what we talked about earlier.

Um we did have an internal conversation about the smaller commercial and what would that look like and could it be like the neighborhood commercial thing that we've kind of sidelined, or could it be live work units?

Um I think this is probably something that's right for further conversation about what that range would be and how you know it how do we want to interpret that policy of the city wants to see mixed use development?

Is it you know, like we have um in my neighborhood down in Denver along Cheesman Park, there's a coffee shop.

Does that count?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Um, you know, is it okay that it's dispersed?

It does it all need to be in one place.

What are we looking for?

And if if you all want to give us um some more clarity about the multiple ways that could be, then that's something that we can reflect in the regulations.

Yeah, I think the last thing that anybody would want is okay, 30,000 square feet.

I need a 30,000 square foot tenant to plop down in I I don't think anybody would want that.

We it would be okay, you've got you know, and for this total, how do you think you can do that?

Um which I think is from a development standpoint more attractive both in terms of attracting tenants and having more walkable and more appealing for people who live in the neighborhoods.

Like, hey, we don't have one retailer, we've got our little restaurant we go to and we've got a photo shop in the morning.

Yeah, so we wanted to make sure we anchored the idea in the code.

If we want to add on to that, that'd be great.

I think adding flexibility into that is an appealing option from a code standpoint.

So thank you, people for the feedback.

Any other um clarifying questions before I think maybe our next step is to go ahead and say something else?

Maybe Ellen Curse.

Um mention was brought up about transit-oriented development.

And putting aside for a second, the total violation of home rule that the state new regulations represent.

Since bus uh whatever little bus traffic we have comes down, some of it comes down public road to get to our bus major bus stop down here.

Can the state come in and say, well, that's really nice that you have all of these nice little zones, but it's on a transit route, so somebody can build a four-story apartment building on public road if they feel like it.

Or is that a question for the city term?

I guess happy to try to tackle that one.

Um so the state legislation is mandating that cities and towns that are designated as being on transit map identified by the state, have that higher density zoning.

Um the state cannot come in and rezone property for the city.

But uh, and this is one of the issues we're we're addressing or trying to address in the litigation that the city is a plaintiff and um challenging those laws.

Um the state has put in some non-compliance uh consequences for cities that don't comply um with that zoning.

So I guess to directly answer your question is not my understanding the state could come in and force development.

Um I don't have an answer here on whether a developer could somehow force a rezoning or uh you know, perhaps uh try to take legal action based on the state legislation or what the outcome of that would be.

But um and these consequences you mentioned would be uh what nature?

Uh the ones we're aware of right now are related to the city's eligibility for various uh grants that we could get to support things like development, um housing studies, strategic housing studies, um staff uh uh Phil Kleisler especially has a much better understanding of those, but there's a whole um I think it's a few dozen types of state grants that our eligibility could potentially be affected for that's that Lafayette and other cities and Lafayette definitely has relied on and continues to rely on to support work like you're all doing tonight, actually.

So yeah.

And this is questions for Steven.

Memory doesn't fail me.

Didn't we go through a big process looking at ADUs and passing some legislation on ADUs?

Probably less than a year ago, I thought.

It was a couple, I think it was in 2023 now.

I think so.

It goes fast.

But anyway, we did take a very comprehensive look at ADUs and where they could be placed in the city and side lot sizes and all that stuff.

Yeah, I know I mean, the effect of that is I recall.

Um Jake, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we allow them like originally we want them just an old town and none that are allowed anywhere or a single family houses permitted.

Um, without getting into conversations about governments and other restrictions.

Right.

So yeah, the the more recent ADU discussion was just bringing our regulations uh into compliance with the state law uh regarding not treating ADUs is essentially the same as you treat any accessory building, which that happened since I've been here.

Oh right.

Yeah, there's that too.

Where and that was like more about not having what I think I don't know if they use the term onerous, but like you know, requirements for ADUs that didn't apply to single family detached housing otherwise.

So thanks.

I have a couple questions.

So going through just various parts of the code, looking at lot coverage, maximum percentages, and looking at our definition for lock coverage.

Kind of like clarifying questions.

Um let me find my comment.

So in the measurement section, when we have the definition of lock coverage, I think clarity.

Not including but not limited to enclosed porches, patios, and decks in the in this, not limited to does this also include things like driveways?

So this isn't looking at drainage, this is looking at the feel of property.

It's I mean it's conditions based and developed um yeah, so I think that's why that like Porsche area, so yeah, it's traditional structure.

Okay.

And that's why we have like so yeah, like we don't, and most jurisdictions don't have a ability to control like uh imperviousness.

Um because you can you don't need a permit to go put concrete out on your property, right?

So like if you affect drainage at a certain point, then there is an impact, but that's kind of the that's not a clean way to explain it.

But uh that's a whole it's the structures, it's not like the structure impermeable surfaces.

So is it covered patios or enclosed patios?

Covered, I mean like a structure would count towards that um covered requirement, but I believe.

It's yes, we have it already flagged for a clarification that it covered patios too.

Oh yeah, not just not just conditioned and closed spaces.

You can't cover your entire yard.

Those are different things.

Um question on process when it comes to the land use code interpretations and you as the planning director making a determination on a new and emerging use, all that sort of language.

Clarification on this section.

When the planning director makes a determination on interpreting the code, will will planning commission and council receive like a a notice or uh a letter in the next regular meeting packet of what a determination is just so we're informed of things.

Is that codified or it's not codified if you want uh update or we can we can do that either by policy uh or you know, I don't and then again like that was the clarification.

Like my reaction to that was I don't want to just have this ability to make this decision.

I want to have the ability to like if it's a it's a tricky one, right?

I want to be able to ref continue to refer it up to planning commission for context, and I also want uh the ability to say that use.

I mean, these happen all the time for very small things, right?

Like if it's a clear and light like kind of impact, then that's a determination that staff has a lot of make now, and there's no provision for us to let you know about the more mundane uh you know aspects about our job.

If you want to hear about it, I'm happy to tell you about it.

And I I would think it would probably be through, or I mean, or Jake would do it through an update um at a meeting.

But if you want to an email or whatever saying that this was done, we can do that too.

Um but most of those things are on the very low end if it becomes something that is more controversial.

Certainly tell you about it and probably have you weigh in on it versus just make the decision and tell you what was done.

Well, we'll need it, yeah, even just the informed, not even free to be good conversation.

It's interesting to know.

And for the bigger things, not like the minor stuff like is this use like this use, yeah.

Yeah.

Um I know part of the larger workflow is talking about updating the fee schedules, and they noticed there were some references of like in the tree preservation section, there's the tree mitigation fee.

Is that something that's gonna be part of this fee update?

Do we already have a tree mitigation fee?

We already have one that it is in line for updating as part of uh the fee updates.

I have a bunch of weird look just a little flag questions, so this is cool.

Um list, and I'm gonna avoid some of the more this is not this is not technically even a plant that I'm gonna ask about.

So page one seventy-six of the code in the non-living ground cover section of 26-5.

Um the recycled rubber for landscape use is discouraged.

However, maybe considered for playground use.

Not in a landscape area or uh so this is like the the the ground material to play on.

This isn't the shredded tires for faux mulch.

Then we're gonna be more specific about that.

Yep, got it.

On the ground.

So I kind of want to figure out how we're gonna have purchase this because we could we could get real granular or we can stay high level.

And I know there's a lot of these things that each of us have either direct experience with or knowledge of, or um, so trying to figure out how we can keep at a at a level.

Um I think have we covered a lot of the questions that everybody has like and I'm sure there will be more the bubble up as we discuss one.

Um I'd like to talk a little bit about kind of a format for approaching all of these amendments.

Right now, staff has given us um a great starting list of those these conditions.

Um what I'd love to do is is go through each one.

Um after I'd like to take a break.

And I'd like to um maybe take a little time, go through each one afterward after we break, and just do a quick straw poll.

Um, whether we are kind of for or against.

And then at that after after we do kind of quick straw polls, we can go back and discuss the ones.

Tell me if tell me with your thoughts on this, because this is just a lot to kind of process and discuss.

Um we also wanted to add more.

So I'm sure we want to add more.

So I'd like to go through and and do quick straw poll on ones that we would, you know, if if we want to keep it, then we'll keep it and come back to it.

And then if we don't, we'll strike it and move on to the next one.

The only addition would be there are several of these that they stab requested direction specifically where the discussion.

Yeah, definitely.

Yeah, this job hole.

So I think if we if we if there is something to discuss, maybe we just skip that one and come back and we discuss it if the if that's what they're asking for.

Does that sound like a lookable?

Yeah, we can pull up uh I know if I wait too long to everyone's gonna start.

I will see where it's at what I have in here for us to pull up.

Uh no, I think you're right.

Uh we can take a break.

Yes.

So if we can just have this up on a screen.

Before we take a break, one really important request.

Yes.

Anyone wanting to take food to go, could they pack it up at the break and throw it in the refrigerator so we can get the food in there so it's not sitting out for multiple hours.

How long do you think we're gonna be here?

I just want to have nobody's complained of uh Drake wants to have lunch tomorrow and not.

No, and we'll be worried about how he feels after that.

There is that.

I'm surprised nobody else has gotten sick.

For 10 minutes, we'll reconvene at 845.

Staff supports.

We've got a yes for the comp plan.

Um, any issue with this?

Does everyone agree that this would be um, I guess maybe the only other part of it, would this be where we wouldn't change that language about open space, the the kind of antiquated language?

Or would that be a different sub comment here?

I don't remember which section she's saying.

I remember looking at it, but I don't remember now which section.

This is more well, they've I imagine they're gonna have they're gonna have um motions, but like basically I just want to go through each of these and are we in agreement with it?

Um I think now that I'm saying that out loud, we can do the we can add um some of that language to change to change that antiquated language as a as another it would be F under this.

Yeah, under public land dedication twenty six six ten.

The picnic sites is in the public land dedication.

Okay, okay.

So I'm just gonna write F down B three.

Okay.

Um scores tennis courts, picking sites.

Can we just do a quick straw on that first one?

Does everyone support that first?

Yes.

Yes, okay.

Second one, credit for private facilities will no longer be considered until such time as more analysis and considerations can take place.

Um thoughts on this one, or do we need further discussion?

Okay.

They look they're looking for some direction on this one.

Um direction on the appropriate reduced credit percentage and whether the reduced credit should apply uniformly or vary by development type.

That feels like a discussion, you know.

This feels like a discussion point.

Yeah, I agree.

Okay.

Okay.

City will not ex uh accept detention ponds or medians as parks or open space.

We all agree on that.

Yeah, we are.

No question.

Oh, time.

Okay.

Low sab may review applications containing a PLD at the development sketch plan process.

Um there was some discussion about this one.

Um they are the staff recommends maintaining them as a discretionary determination made through pro-staff review rather than a mandatory requirement.

Um do we agree with this one or do we need to discuss it somewhere?

I guess I have a question for the attorney.

Because I know the timelines for annexations are really tight and hard to manage.

If we add a requirement that they meet Low SAP, does that get tricky with meeting the statutory requirements of the annexation hearing?

I think I am having trouble hearing you, I'm sorry.

Me too.

If you the for the comment D about the LowSAB reviewing PLDs and sketch plans.

Uh huh.

My question, they have a comment in here asking about planning commission.

Basically saying that low sab should have a mandatory review for larger projects and the annexations.

If we made that a requirement, do we think that that gets too difficult to meet the annexation statutory schedule?

No less than 30, no more than 60.

I mean it would depend on whether there is a development application going along with the annexation.

Um if there's an annexation that's going to be zoned, developing a resource, we would memorialize their the developer the owner's obligation or developer's obligation to dedicate um land in accordance with our code when they rezone.

But I I think I see what you're asking, though.

I mean, it just it I think we could still comply with state law.

Um if there was mandatory review, like I don't think it would affect the the mandatory timelines under the annexation act.

But but good question.

And yeah, I'll keep thinking about it, but I don't I don't see an issue if that is something the council puts in the code.

I know that staff recommends leaving it as a discussionary determination and that that would require no change.

Yeah, because they're saying that this will make sketch plans more conceptual, helping ensure that low sab review occurs before development details are fixed and allowing for more meaningful early feedback.

And we had Grant share of that come and say that he liked it as it was.

We were towards adding this one, is that what we're saying?

No, that that's saying that the Oh they may review applications.

But but I think it's saying that no change is needed, right?

Yeah, they're saying that they're saying that um they maintain it as a discretionary termination rather than a mandatory requirement.

Right.

So we would not need to.

So we would not need to amend.

Yeah, yeah.

That's correct.

Yeah, and conversations are always, you know, you're not I didn't go back to that.

I think I heard this, and this is what I understood in my conversation with Grant.

Um he indicated that he wasn't clear that they were always being referred to pros, and then as long as pros has the opportunity to refer them to LOSAP, which is how the process works.

He was comfortable with not making the change.

I hate speaking for anybody, especially when he's not here, but that was my understanding of that conversation.

Um but we're happy to revisit it, or if planning commission wants to parse this out, that last bullet is intended to clarify that you know instead of it making it like tied to a sketch plan, you tie it to the bigger development applications type.

So we still have that flexibility with sketch plans.

So I think it sounds like this one can be struck then.

We don't need to make um any um any condition based on uh uh around this topic.

Right?

So we're what we're saying is um we've there's a little bit more understanding from from the person who gave the feedback tonight.

He's comfortable with it, and we think that we still that we will get LowSAB um review early on in the process.

So in that case, we can this is no longer an app, this is no longer something we need to make a condition so we can strike it.

Does that make sense to everyone?

Okay.

Straw poll says, Well, we which letter are you on?

I'm on D.

Oh, you're already on D.

Yeah, because I thought back on that way, I guess we blew right through B there.

Well, we said we're gonna discuss that one.

Oh, we're gonna discuss that.

We're gonna discuss it.

Yeah, we'll come back to the week.

We tabled it.

Sorry.

So I'm trying to do that.

The next one, yeah.

The next one item E, the additional language to differentiate between the the purchases of open space.

We struck that one early in in this conversation tonight because we got that clarified.

So that one but what staff is saying here, because that was the one that I brought up.

Um I think there was some confusion on what I was trying to say.

Um I think it basically comes down to is that if land at the time of dedication is dedicated as open space and it's treated as open space.

Yes.

Yep.

So Nay said no, no code provisions identified, et cetera, et cetera.

So I think that was done.

Awesome.

All right.

All right.

Uh item number two.

This is on the back page, the back of the first page.

Separate parts in open space district into one parts and open space district.

I think probably everyone is agreed.

Yeah.

Um one parks and one open space district.

Um I don't know if there's anything there we need to discuss more at this time.

Again, kind of I hate saying we're at state high level, but maybe maybe there are other things that are.

I was just gonna recommend to have low sec involved.

Okay, to have LowSec involved in this in this district.

Okay.

Just on this one, wasn't there one that was non-c it was mentioned last time Thomas open space has a commercial thing on it that would have to change or something.

Is that right?

There was one if we separate parks from open space, there's one spot in the mafia that's non-congruent that we'd have to address.

And I think that's something that staff, I don't know if you could speak to that.

Like and can I speak to that first just to maybe it's in the charter says um so great question.

Our charter um does specifically allow agricultural use of open space um without needing voter approval or any other type of but excellent question because that is important to clarify.

So if we had it in my view, um if we did create a separate uh open space district, agricultural use would still be uh would be allowed in that district.

Um in connection with the open space.

Yep, good proof of that.

Another component of that that came up was well, obviously there's the the commercial use of the property is part in terms of the uh uh community supported agriculture, but I think we can clearly say that's incidental to the primary agricultural use.

But there have been food trucks there, and that came up, so we'd have to get comfortable with uh saying that was incidental, or we could have maybe through a temporary use permit or uh or a special event permit or something, we'll have to we'll just have to keep that in mind to allow that flexibility.

Does food trucks event based, or is it just come up to you and say we want to hang out here for a period of time?

How does that work?

Yeah, they probably try that, knowing uh what I've what I've seen over the years, but no, they should be associated with like they should be uh you know, not the old like roach coach where there's driving around selling stuff out of the back.

They should be associated with uh an event or invited for some certain uh type of yeah, type of event being held there.

Right.

It wouldn't be a permanent installation, I think is what the concern is, and we make sure we we have that set up somehow.

All right.

So that's a big lift though.

I mean, that's a pretty big lift to rewrite all that.

There's a lot of spots in the code that'll have to change.

They noted they can get it done by October.

Yes.

If you stop right now, we should be good.

Oh, we're almost done.

Yeah, yeah.

Um three regarding data centers.

Um so we've got several comments that were made.

Um let's start with A.

Do not allow in any district.

Um staff recommends retaining the current approach, um, use specific standards.

Um do we want to discuss this one some more, I assume.

Yeah.

And probably the same with B and C.

No, we don't need to discuss C.

No need to cut to codify fire department reviews.

Already occurs.

Yep.

Okay.

So we'll strike.

And B is related to A, it says.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So it's just the discussion.

Okay.

So it's really just uh the A.

Um, okay.

Moving on to item four, add a use and if necessary, use specific standards for sites relating to advanced air mobility.

Um I'm gonna say the extent of my discussion on this, and I'm glad it's in here.

I think safely can happen in an amendment after October 31st.

I think so.

Make sure it happens, put a deadline on it, but this I think is the fact that it is there is no other use that it could really fall under that's existing.

But I don't think it's like this is not need to happen by October.

Okay.

I think it could as long as it has an end date, it can easily happen after October.

Okay.

Okay.

Are we comfortable striking it from this particular from these conditions then?

Yeah.

I think no I think as long as it's in the condition in that will be considered at a future date within within a future date within year one or something.

Within 18 months after the initial I I don't think we have that much time.

And I don't feel that it's a good idea to put this off because remember that until there's code there for it, if somebody applies to do one.

Is that the case?

So Mary.

Whatever the current code is.

And if we have nothing in place for it.

Yeah, I guess we guess there's way we can have a placeholder for special use review or it's our initial analysis on both of these uh data.

I mean, it's and it's not a huge lift to add a definition, codify it as a special use review in a limited zone district.

Yeah.

That puts us in a better position.

Even if you want to wait and like revisit like how we do use specific standards to for either, like that part of that lift, we can get done by October without much concern.

So I perfectly just don't I don't want to I guess I don't think it needs to get into the meetings.

Okay.

Of the specifics.

So we'll still respond to the document, you know, maybe clearly a lot of work to do on parks and open space you're trying to make parking.

Just wait, we haven't gotten to junipers yet.

I want to elaborate every genus.

So we're so we're agreeing that they'll move forward on a special use review for this.

So define use and require category for it.

So instead of so we'll have to.

And do we maybe do we have to discuss data center or can we just do it same way?

We had already passed that, but can we just review definition and consider additional use specific standards to mitigate impacts?

That they think that they can get done by October 31st.

I'm cool with the data center stuff as it is right now because it's there's at least language, it's in there.

The definition could get worked, but council maybe looking at putting a moratorium on the other part of this.

And we could also recommend council, which we also could just recommend.

Yep, yeah, put a moratorium on this for however long you think you can.

At least so four is okay.

All right.

Um, amend the old town mixed use regulations to require that residential uses be allowed only as a part of mixed use project and on public roadie Simpson baseline.

Um this is OTX one, two, and three.

This is the discussion.

This is a discussion project.

Yeah.

This is just a discussion.

Okay.

Decline diff define.

Define eclectic flex.

I I think we should just strike this word entirely.

It's the best.

Define eclectiflex based on the comprehensive plan definition.

Um at a definition consists of comprehensive plan.

That's seems easy.

Pretty straightforward.

No.

Let's say it.

Um paper is fun, Steve.

Oh, yeah, thanks for the big paper.

This is this is good.

Um, number seven, for administrative decisions, create a notice of decision that allows planning commission to call up and consider.

Um I think this is a discussion point.

Yes, I agree.

Yeah.

I do like the um majority vote of reviewing body to initiate a call-up.

I bet that's still going to have time.

Okay.

Allow the director, number eight, to require neighborhood meetings.

Um recommends including criteria for determining when a neighborhood meeting is required.

Is there um about that?

This came from, I think what I remember is that this came from when we were asking questions about um but where neighborhood meetings should happen.

And we it was noted to us that currently the director does not have the discretion to require a meeting when that wasn't otherwise required.

Okay, this is actually more authority.

Okay, okay.

All in favor?

I straw.

Yeah, okay.

Um a record of neighborhood meetings shall be included in planning commission and city council meeting packets.

That makes sense.

Um is everyone in favor of that one.

Um recommends the following qualifiers.

Yes.

I think they're qualifiers made a lot of sense.

Yep.

Okay.

Item number 10.

Conduct additional analysis considering public input for building height measurement.

Lot size and other dimensional standards for housing building type.

I think this should be further discussion.

Yes, but I think this is not only this is more about the definition of building height.

Oh, okay.

And so it's it's right now in the code and um correction required to maintain built height might being measured to midpoint for pitched roofs, which is what it kind of is now.

So okay, we'll discuss that item.

Um number 11.

Reconsider the use of the term lawn throughout the code, including building types.

So this is an odd I mean this was this is sort of an odd condition, no?

We just say like this is like a technical take a look, consider revisions is that a condition?

Yeah, I this seems more like a technical fix, but I don't know what the house was wondering.

Do we want to purge the word or something?

Yeah, what was the context of that discussion?

I don't remember this one.

Where did the lawn conversation?

I I think I might have brought it up, but maybe we'd bring this through discussion and I'll live back around.

Do you recall?

Do you have a text?

We use lawn seven times.

Four of those times are tree long, shouldn't that?

So that's like a planting space where you can put trees in.

We can rename that to tree planting area.

I I think we read it as the concern was not requiring turf grass or um something that would violate the state's non-functional turf requirement.

Um the other place we use lawn is for like a public area that could be civic space.

We can rename it there.

The goal is not to require someone to put turf in at any point.

So those are all easy cleanups.

In the like the common yard or something in terms of weight travel or something like that.

Yeah, we can change it to something that doesn't make people think of Kentucky blue grass.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

So is everyone everyone approve of that one moving forward?

Okay.

Um item 12.

This is regarding some of the use table items.

Um consider allowing courtyard developments in those listed districts.

Add cottage courtyard development with unit size limits in those districts.

Everyone in favor of that.

Okay.

I'm saying most of head shaking.

Sorry, I'm sorry to do this again.

That's okay.

Nope.

On the lawn one.

Um I just wonder, do we need to if we're gonna turn I don't know how it's worded in the condition draft, but i I think there was better language that was just verbally stated about what is going to happen with lawn.

Like look for look for instances of the word lawn and ensure it just not implying conducting blue grass.

Yeah, like what's in here now is not very clear, and I know that we were encouraged to give us here of the question.

I think I think they have a better understanding of of this change than we do.

Do we need to make it a condition or can we just say it's a good idea?

I'd remember.

I think with the stuff that you're more comfortable, you know, like that is tracking changes now.

Right.

Well, you're gonna get a you'll be able to see what the change was.

That is good clarification.

But also just like if it's something you just need us to fix and you don't want to words with it, just tell us to fix it, we'll fix it, we'll online it and we'll see it if it's something that's very specific and important to you and you want to work smith the language, you can do that too.

So you can take either approach, but if you're not as do you think you we understand the direction or if it doesn't need to be spelled out, then I think you can Maryland disagree with me if you okay.

Yeah, sorry, thank you.

Um item 12B.

Um school private public in M1 and MHC districts.

This um after it was clarified, it made a little more sense to me.

This is regarding like um allowing schools in the M1 and MHC uh mobile home districts.

How do we feel about this one?

Is it understand what this is regarding?

We want to discuss it more.

I think this might be a little bit of a discussion just because staff requested as clarification.

Oh, they did okay.

Yeah.

Okay, nursery or greenhouse in OTX 3 district.

I think that is part of the OTX 3 disc or just allow it.

Do we want to discuss this further?

Well, I I thought that their second bullet um where they said that clarity was needed.

Yes was worth this though.

Okay.

Um D short-term rentals in manufactured or mobile home district.

Um back to the greenhouse thing.

Um we have a distinction between a greenhouse and a marijuana grow house.

Because we're zoned.

They can only be in specific areas.

But are they defined as greenhouses or are they separate something different?

I think that'd fall under the municipal code parts, uh, the where we have the spacing requirements and the the limited number of of uh uh of cannabis related uh businesses and including grow rooms.

We can check that out.

There's a check that out a little bit more.

Use section uh well, yeah, medical marijuana.

Uh there's there's about eight uses under that retail marijuana cultivate cultivation manufacturing optional premises cultivation facilities.

There we go.

Um I think that's it is separate from greenhouses.

Okay.

Cool.

Um short-term rentals in MHC districts.

Um so they're asking for some direction.

I think this is one we should discuss short-term rentals.

Um provision clarifying that legally non-conforming housing units may be replaced without triggering requirement.

Um adding language clarifying please.

Do we need to discuss this one further?

Are we happy with the language that they have proposed here?

I think it looks good.

Comfortable.

You want to discuss it for them?

Um I mean I just more to conceptual level.

So the whole idea was that if somebody wants to take a very old mobile home, probably smaller than what they can actually buy today and replace it with something new, the problems that may potentially cause based on setbacks and all of that.

And that that was the issue we're trying to resolve with this language.

Yeah, no, I think um if I wasn't clear or we weren't clear in our uh staff response and context.

I think the other thing I'm realizing as we're trying to get to conditions, um, is that when we say something that may require coordination with the city attorney pros and lo SAM, we may not get to language in that condition tonight because we haven't been able to have those discussions and like uh um flush that out.

So we have that situation with the mobile home thing too, because I get what and I totally agree with you.

That's the intent of uh the comp plan is to preserve these, right?

And we don't want to have a restriction where a non-conforming use, like we just need to figure out how we do that.

And need fire and building code.

Okay.

So because that's the part of that intent.

So um we'll work on I think we know what your intention is if I'm echoing it back from correctly.

Um but I don't know what the fix is without knowing what the other regulations that we have to juggle um are.

So can we make that a condition of the street?

I think you just I mean it's gonna be a more general versus a specific condition saying that staff needs to work with building and fire to ensure that these are as protected as possible, right?

So I mean one area of direction that we could maybe get would be kind of what is that increase in size look like?

Is it 20%?

Uh you know, I looked at the accessor um for the smaller one that I think you referenced at the time, the one on the corner there of Emma and I don't know, the North South Street.

You know, those ranged in square footage going off memory from like 700 and something up to 1100, 1200 ish.

So if they pull off a 700 square foot one and you know w what how large can they go?

Is it 20 percent additional 140 square feet, or is it something more than that?

A little direction in terms of the are we fine with I don't know if this is what you know, a single 12 foot wide one becoming a 24-foot wide one, or is it there's a smaller increase in size?

Well, no, the intent is more than you know, height I mean you know, I haven't done a lot of research on mobile homes, but in today's mobile home market, can you even buy something as small as they used to make?

Is that even possible?

Yeah.

Or are you forced to buy something larger, in which case if you if you're so if you want us to do the kind of that research to see the here's the smaller, the smaller size scale we're seeing, here's uh existing on the ground today.

Here's kind of the smaller uh units you can buy and then figure out that delta, we can calculate that and come back with something based on that.

Yeah.

Well, it might be, I mean, there is uh super simple fix, which may not be comprehensive enough is to, you know, but we probably want to set some expectation as to what that means, right?

Like is that they need to be replaced with something of like size wherever possible, we may have them like demonstrate that you know they didn't go from an 800 square foot building to a 2400 square foot building and have the option to do it in a thousand square foot building, you know, like um if you know if they're encroaching into other standards that we typically have in place.

So we'll work on that language.

I think I understand the intent that just um didn't get there yet.

But also didn't get to have conversations.

So um so a little more discussion on that one.

Or do we need to come do we need to come back to that item or does staff feel like they have direction?

I think the only thing we hearing consent of, so they just need to draw a vote or whatever is whether or not experimenting all condition for that at the end of the day.

Okay, we can just try that.

Do we want to do that?

The condition would be more general so that the court's making later.

Staff shall like should analyze, like it's not dictating.

Okay.

I'm cool with that, probably for a lot of these.

Yeah.

Okay.

We're cool with that.

Okay.

That's that one is okay.

We'll just explore ways to require neighborhood meetings associated with an annexation application.

Um discussion.

That's discussion.

I'd like a little more clarity from staff on whether or not we do feel like there's going to be five individual applications and like whether it is getting too onerous.

And yeah.

Okay.

Moving on.

Evaluate the zoning boundary between OTX one and three.

Let's go.

Discuss.

We consider lock combinations standards, discuss.

Um require big box developments to incorporate site design standards that promote walkability and connectivity.

Um you'd like to discuss it.

I feel it has implications that we should discuss.

I don't know that they can get it done in time anyway.

I will just one of the things that's why I mean like it has implications.

That's a great idea.

It might be a year one thing.

Number 18.

Remove juniper trees from prohibitive planning.

I feel like this is going to work more than um.

Is it yes, no, computing goals?

I mean, we could discuss it.

Could could we do a uh straw poll on this one?

What do we think?

I'm okay with removing it from the prohibited plant list.

So it like it does it need a discussion?

Like if everyone feels that way or not.

Yeah, I don't know.

That's what I'm asking.

Yeah, I think that's I do this.

I did Google search.

Oh, yeah, that's what they're doing.

It's another code.

Yeah.

But you know, well, I I think that the discussion for you would be about um are there any conditions around that?

Yeah, like you even said I'm fine with the woo-y versus here but not here.

Yeah, like here are three, but not any more than three.

I think we'd need maybe some discussion.

I think a little discussion.

Well, that could even be absolutely not nowhere.

Yeah.

Movable gravel within non-living ground cover um direction needed.

So we're gonna discuss that.

I didn't quite understand that.

Was that the share of the that's a me with the sticky nuts thing, maybe it's the um item number 20.

Planning commission recommends that city council consider a moratorium on new data centations?

We kind of covered that in the previous.

That would be a separate action, as they said code of taste.

So I'm gonna strike that one.

Um, following adoption, city council considering schedule scheduling workshops with planning commission to discuss amendments prior to an October 29th effective date.

Fantastic, yes.

Okay.

Can I um propose one that I haven't heard today?

Which was um this idea of allowing for special use review to extend uses in non-conforming things.

Yeah.

Um I think that might be covered under a conversation about the the use table and like like talking about I think that M1 AX.

Um like having a conversation about that specifically.

Oh, I think it's this is relevant for the greenhouse on public too.

Oh, okay.

This would be a way to say if you know a year passes and nobody's been in there, and then the next day somebody comes in wanting to use it for a greenhouse, not in the allowed use, but there is a process for like ex I mean it's ending an existing use that has expired.

Yep.

I think that's a great thing to be able to do.

I think there's a lot of infection jobs going on here.

And what they want according to closed we want to put boos news and walkability and so it wouldn't be a given, but there would be a process that can be a good idea.

I think you have an appeal period.

And then I guess the only other one I noted was do you do we want to make it a condition that they give us a red line in the next version or whatever?

Yes, and we have a red line between folks in the and just to really clarify it's a red line between this version and the next.

It has nothing to do with the starts now.

That's that's has NLs will be trash.

Yeah.

So I don't know if we need to make that a condition or not.

It's just come up a lot and then maybe it'll give people some comfort.

Yeah.

Um is council receiving a red line version for their packet.

I guess if that's already if any changes happen from now in the council meeting, actually.

We're not gonna make changes.

Okay.

Um well, let me finish.

Um we're gonna go to council for their like update in July.

And if we're hoping that we have uh, you know, whatever agreement you guys have are getting to tonight on what we feel like we can do more immediately.

And then we would have a version that we can take for them, and if they agree with that, then like more or less like these are the changes we can make by August.

And then we'd like to get this as clean as possible.

So by August, right?

It's a step, it's not going to get us to uh uh enactment or whatever, but just to start cleaning things up.

So that's why we have the two columns reflect some level of progress, and it'll start.

I mean, I think it's actually good in the sense that we'll be able to redline those changes too, and it'll be more clear for everybody.

So yeah, that's the goal, but we're waiting for council direction.

So would it mess you up if we made a condition that said there will be a red line generated?

We're making recommendations right now, so council also has to agree to all those recommendations.

Sure, but I just want to make sure like is that does that.

Okay, I don't think you're gonna mess with it.

That's gonna push things out to 2027.

Ah well, and I guess what are we conditioning the red lines for when we have our joint meeting with council?

I think it's for the public.

I mean, there was just a lot of requests to be able to see what changes were being made moving forward.

I think we're gonna use, I mean, I won't all, I guess look over to Clarion to tell me that can't do it if we can't do it, but we could do a red line version between now and council and then do another one.

Yeah, I I think the the nuance there would be if if we do we can do the red line version between now and city council, some of these items that we think we can get done by then.

Um that will exist as a red line, so then the question, the kind of follow-up question would be any of the extra changes.

Do you still want what went to council as a red line and they said yes to as still a red line?

Or does it need to be a different yeah, like doing it?

Is it a copy and then a new red line?

Right.

And we've like we've done many variations of it, but uh that would be more of the nuance is the next definitely this next red line for city councils more uh straightforward.

It would be the red line that you all would see at like the joint meeting after that, where we would need to know do you want to see what was initially red line for them and that they accepted or do you want just what has changed since they adopted.

I think ideally it'd be great to see both.

And it'd be great for different colors.

This one's fine.

It shouldn't be.

Well, actually, not red and green because that's difficult for colorblind people.

Yep.

So red and um serious.

We can or bolt nitalism.

Yeah, yeah.

Um tech textures?

No.

Yeah, that's exactly.

Yeah, I don't know what other color it should be if it's if it's a light blue.

I'm comfortable with staff figures.

Yeah, figure that out.

And we want to see can I add one more thing to this?

I've got a lot of things.

It's another tree.

So this one's a good line.

This one's a big picture.

Um just based on our discussion.

I actually think that this is, and I realize this is gonna freak council out because they did kick the can on this one.

But I do think that uh a consideration of the um neighborhood serving commercial being made of more than a single 30,000 square foot unit, but a distributed series of commercial properties that add up potentially to that 30,000 square foot, just an exploration of well, and I I think it's in my mind I'd like this to be a discussion point.

Maybe that 30,000 is not the right number.

Um maybe it's a different, it's maybe it's calculated in a different way.

I don't know if it's by percentage.

Um, because if I've got a three-acre lot versus an eight-acre lot, it's a lot easier to get to to that 30,000 on an eight-acre lot or whatever.

Yeah.

So I feel like it should be a percentage of and um I don't know if that's if that's reasonable, you know, to make it some kind of a percentage of the amount of units or percentage of the square footage of the residential.

Yeah, I know it sounds like you did some research on what that magic number is.

I'm wondering if there's any qual um quantification of how it relates.

But I think the diversity of spaces of commercial spaces within that requirement would be much more palatable.

Yeah.

Both for the community and for the developer in meeting that minimum.

Yeah.

I would just like to open the talked about that.

Earlier what yeah.

Yeah, we didn't add to this condition.

It's condition, our conditions of recommendations to be passed to council is that that is developed a little bit more thoughtfully.

Yeah, that's good.

Pretty well I will just quickly clarify that that 30,000 square feet doesn't kick in until it's over 40 acres in size.

Oh, I thought it was it's not all.

I mean, so in the context there is that again, this is a requirement for form-based neighborhoods, so residentially designated areas.

So once they get up to a certain size, the expectation is they deliver their own walkable commercial component to it.

Uh so that it's a more of a complete neighborhood.

And then the exemption of the half mile exists.

So if it already is in proximity walking distance to commercial, then they don't have it.

So again, my thousand square feet only kicks in at 40 acres.

Yeah.

Correct.

Okay.

There's no neighborhood center required for smaller 20 acres.

So the the I mean again, this is currently zoned just for housing.

Partly residential top plan suggests that we make these things more complete neighborhoods.

And so really the focus has been you know, on anything under that 40-acre threshold getting the mix of housing types, right?

So that's the focus up to a threshold, and then at a certain point you have to fold in commercial as well.

So that's the logic or at least the process there.

And it's yeah.

And it would be helpful, I'm sure if I could tell you how many of those are potentially.

I ask this every time, and I've never gotten an answer to this.

How many how many parcels are there?

I'm busy.

It's been three years.

It's been three years.

It's been three years of this.

In three years, nobody's ever.

Well, it's also like GIS and just seeing how many 40-acre parcels there are.

We don't have, I mean, it would be like that people cobble them together.

We do have some 40-acre parcels, but so that's why they answer hard.

How many some?

I can think of one.

Is there one?

Those are more than one.

There's more than one.

And then there's areas that have uh that when we have had contact, it's been like it's this parcel plus this parcel plus this parcel that we're interested in.

And we don't want to disincentive or like incentivize them doing a parcel by parcel because we want complete development.

So there's like a push and a pull there that we're trying to figure out.

So it sounds like maybe you do know how many of these potential.

I mean not exactly, right?

Because if we I don't get the control bracket.

Um three to six, maybe.

Okay.

Yeah.

What number?

Okay.

I'm excited about that.

Well, I'm probably wrong.

So I'm not holding you to it.

Uh remember you're wrong.

But it also totally depends on like what they come in with, right?

If they're able to cobble those together.

So that's what's going to just is it, you know, 50 or 10.

Three to six possible.

Okay.

This is very helpful information.

Thank you for that.

Sounds like I'm aware of.

Affordability, but just with the realization that as soon as you're creating any type of space that must be min maintained within a development, you're automatically saying there will have to be an HOA.

And an HOA will charge a fee.

Okay.

So, you know, this thing about, well, yeah, we want affordable housing.

But at the same time, they have to have a community center, and they have to have a swimming pool, and they have to have this and that.

Well, this is more commercial.

And there's going to be like neighborhood centers.

Some costs associated.

Commissioner Philosophy is talking about one Belly.

One Brian Providing credits to communities.

Provides substantial for private facilities we were going to discuss, and I wonder if that's what Commissioner Phillips is talking about.

I don't know.

I don't think so.

Um have we things?

Yes.

Um, so neighborhood center, um definition, let's see.

There were some, I think.

All right, we've got the joint planning commission city council meeting.

Um we want to make it a few months after the code has gone into effect because my thought is a couple months later, then all of a sudden we're gonna have all these little changes that we're I think we want to have it as soon as we can get this initial round of improvements and then after city council has a chance to do it, and and then okay, now we're doing a meeting line.

Yeah, I think we could definitely do it again.

Yeah, as many as possible.

Let's just keep doing often.

I mean, yeah, exactly.

Frequent code updates are nice because then they're discrete.

So let's just get it right.

Yeah.

We'll find out all the unknown uncomfortable.

Are there any other are there any other items that anybody wanted to add as um additional?

I'm sure there will be.

Um I'm trying to figure out, like, for instance, I noticed some things about window well encroachment and how that might drive lot size on the things that that Mr.

Cooper was pointing out.

Um that's definitely I'm trying to figure out how far to get into the weeds with these, and I don't know if we want to kind of popcorn that.

Are there other people that have some of these small items or there's a part of me that feels like perfection becoming the enemy of good where I am comfortable letting some of my niche comments and stuff kind of just wait until we have the council meeting or we have for future discussions?

I'm personally okay keeping those and focusing on these big things.

Okay.

That's my have we covered all of the big the big bucket items.

Um, you know, we haven't really talked that much about the public feedback process and timing.

Um, like it do we feel like there's there's enough public feedback?

Is it too much?

Is that is it we haven't talked about that length of the process yet?

So I guess that's another thing that maybe we that I like to discuss a little more.

Um I feel like we've talked some about the point system, but it's not no, we really haven't.

There's not any particular comments about this.

Um I do just before we lose track of this.

Um I wonder if there's a mechanism for the for the nitpicky things, the window well encroachments and the things about the gravel to be go directly to staff, which will then, in theory at this point, be redlined, so it will be information that becomes accessible to the public, so it's not like we're trying to hide anything, but probably doesn't merit a public discussion.

Yeah, because like she's got that kind of stuff.

I've got stuff in the city.

Building height and detached home size and like that's just a thousand land use.

And in early one of the early slides, you know, Steven mentioned maybe we have another four to six weeks, you know, before it's absolute pens down for planning commission.

And what I've been advocating for is to get you guys a unique email that you can send stuff to, and then all the planners will be able to get access to it, we'll be able to uh incorporate it.

Uh, you know, and it's not it, and it's not that we're gonna be able to, you know, some of the stuff might be conflicting.

It's not in we might disagree for some reason, but we'll we'll at least have it on record, we'll incorporate it what we can.

We can try to give you individual feedback.

Hey, here's what we're thinking for this, what do you think?

And we can kind of go that route, and then that can save on some time and nitpicky stuff tonight.

And then if you you know think uh we we were completely off base and and how we addressed your comment, then that can be daylighted at the next uh you know, time we have a have a conversation about this.

So would we would we need to forgive me for saying this with any when we need a condition that just describes that picky process?

Yeah, a condition that they may need to be.

Do we need that, Marilyn?

Or can we throw that in the budget of like the more technical?

I mean, like I don't know.

I in my head it's these big things that are maybe not been contemplated yet, but all of like the irony out of small things that all of them, what everyone I think understands we're headed with the code.

That's not like uh I don't know.

I there's just different layers or different bundles of what this is.

And there's there's just that I keep finding small things that I'm like, oh, that could be a big thing.

But that but also that could be a big thing.

That could like the becomes a big thing, and then I think we need elevated.

Well, and I I just want to like some of them are easy to head off.

Like the window well encroachment, yeah, that's window wells are always in in the setback.

Like that's when I look at it, like that's you know, you're always allowed to encroach and that kind of thing.

But maybe I'm you know so having that kind of stuff so that it's just not even worried about, um, or not even maybe it goes into the inbox, and if it's like, okay, this is a bigger thing, then it goes on to the agenda for the planning commission city council meeting.

So anything that's small gets dealt with or reacted to in anything that we feel like needs to get brought up further goes on to the agenda for the next meeting.

That isn't administrative.

I would say I if I'm allowed to have an opinion, I would be much more comfortable with that.

Um so the city council is gonna have two readings in August.

So tonight.

Right?

Yep.

I mean that's the but there will be things based on this schedule that will not be resolved by that point in time.

Correct.

You're making effective date of October 31st.

Anything, however, that has that is not passed in the two readings of the city council meeting in August doesn't mean that oh, we can make a change before October 31st, because that still has to go through the formal approval process.

So in effect, the October 31st date is fairly meaningless unless you're planning on having another council first and second reading of any changes that we come up with before October 31st.

Right.

I'm not sure I'm following on the code.

Well, I would say it's the delayed effective date serves another purpose of giving the development community a heads up that new regulations are coming instead of having them immediately effective.

So it's it's similar to how we adopt building codes too.

So that's one of the original purposes of having a delayed effective date.

But also, but I mean I think it's just missed a little bit misleading in the fact that we're all saying, oh, okay, well, if it's not passed in August, we still have to October 31st to change something.

No, we don't.

We're gonna be another subsequent meetings, a formal meeting.

Okay, I'm following you.

But yeah, the goal for getting through council is to have these can I mean like the substantive conditions um figured out in that direction, and then we're asking for a latitude to make technical corrections, which we typically have, like and we're gonna make as many of those as we can prior to August.

But if there's something and then if it does kind of hit the same threshold that we just talked about, where it is more substantive, we will need another uh we'll need either delay or yeah, we'll need probably a second ordinance, a different ordinance in order to make that fashion to go through ordinance.

So we're but I do want to clarify what one thing I think I heard, which was we won't we basically do need to get to a point, and that's why we're saying emails within the next four weeks getting council direction because when they act like we're trying to have a pure pure direction on our code, right?

And if and if that happens, great, we'll get the effective date, and that's the goal we're shooting shooting for.

But if it doesn't happen and something comes up that we do need to address, then we're gonna have to put it and have more time.

So yeah, there is a pencils down kind of we're just doing the cleanup items and the um type of thing that we need, and at that and we're also we also need that so that we can move towards that work session and give you a red line of what's actually been done so that everyone gets comfortable with uh October 31st date.

So you have to be like 75% comfortable now, 80% comfortable, and then 100% comfortable on September at that work session.

That's the way we basically team that for you.

You're welcome.

Uh sorry.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um other items that we want to add to this list, some of these larger things, discussion points.

Um I'm just curious while we're strong polling, how many, what percentage do you does each of you think that you have absorbed just to any extent this code?

Like I'll start.

I I say I probably have processed maybe 50% of it.

As someone who looks at a code quite a bit.

And I I just want to bring that up because it it is important that we each go through it.

And if it's something that we just don't feel comfortable with, it's you know it's okay to move on, but like finding that niche of whatever it is that you that you do think is important or that you do have feel like you have a real good comfort level with and providing feedback on that.

We really need to get to that point.

But I'm I'm curious how much has anybody read the entire thing, all 400 pages all the way through.

I know Vicky.

I stopped a reading once we got to the oil and gas section.

Okay.

I mean I am I have read through a lot of points and was like read through a lot of it, but not really absorbed in thought through what it really means, you know, maybe like I said, 50%.

Yeah.

I've read I read it all, but not like Santa.

So it's not the oil and gas stuff, but yeah, everything else.

Great.

So I think as we provide this feedback, what I think would also be nice is to preface it with the code section, obviously.

You know, the 26-2-8, whatever it is so that we know so the staff just knows they don't have to go weeding through.

Um so that way maybe you set up a table on ACL spreadsheet, and then you can and maybe if there's a whole bunch of comments about this particular code section, then it's like okay, let's revisit that.

Um look of dread.

I think Stephen's already gotten a couple of those emails lately too.

This is for our nitpicking.

Um yes, it's for nitpicking, I think.

Yeah, and and the things that we aren't gonna touch based on at a high level tonight.

Okay.

Let's go back to the first item of what we need to discuss.

Okay.

So just a process question.

Yeah.

This is an actual list made of actual amendments.

The actual language.

Yeah, I think we modify that language as we go through that conversation.

Okay.

So I don't know.

Can you make or not from there?

No.

I think.

Would you want us to be modifying the uh code language as we go so you can see the changes?

I don't know that.

I mean or modify the modify the amendment language, you mean as soon as you can show it up here too.

Either we can do it from the seat or we can I just don't know that we can save this one.

So if you have word submission, we can try to do it in front of you as much as possible.

But I think I'm gonna need somebody to do it.

Mary Lynn, are you doing agree?

You look like you don't determine that same document.

I don't know that you are.

Okay, this is why I'm we'll need to do it in both.

Like this is the only way we can do it so they can see the change.

We just want to verbally relate it, we can type it up and you wouldn't see it.

We can do it twice or we can do it once.

Add a condition to make sure the attorney writes it the same way that you're writing it.

Yeah.

That has really good eyesight.

All right.

Can we write that condition and blue?

Just saying, for example, here you have one of those recommendations.

Yeah.

Revise PLD credit structure.

Okay.

Okay.

So even if you do that prior to October 31st, that's not going to be effective on October 31st.

There would be 10% effect whenever you have a revision that we approve and council approves subsequent, right?

Or right now, like again, like this is the direction of the train, so to speak.

And it is October 31st.

If we get to a point where October October 31st isn't reasonable, or we have other changes to make, we're gonna have to amend have a different ordinance to amend this one, or somehow delay it.

So the I I mean Marilyn can correct me if she feels differently, but this is the language in order to put us in a place where we could have something effective on October 31st.

And if collectively we decide that that is not feasible, then we're gonna have to.

Are you following me?

I think so.

If we're gonna get into these, I'm just sorry, I'm also thinking logistically, I'm also thinking I might want to move in front of the commission so I can because if I'm gonna be doing this live and maybe I don't know.

Anyway, keep going.

I'm following.

I think you're I think you're asking a different question, which I think is I think what they're saying is these would be approved as theoretically if the city council approves them.

They're approved as a condition, so they they are they do affect the code.

You don't have to do any other thing.

No, that's what I'm saying.

Council has to approve these changes are being made.

Yes.

So they're kind of you're still recommending conditions and council still has to agree.

No, no, I'm not clear.

I'm talking about is what council is going to be doing.

Right.

They're gonna look at this, right?

And unless they actually approve your revision of a PLD credit structure at their meeting, okay?

It's not gonna be effective on October 31st.

Because they actually have to have a first and second reading of any changes.

So you're saying revise the PLD credit structure prior to October 31st is nice, but if you don't actually have that revision in front of council for their two meetings in August, it won't be in effect that change on October 31st.

That is that is correct.

Yep.

Just so we're clear what we're doing here.

Yep.

Now you getting that done, well, that's nice, but we're still gonna have subsequent meeting where those changes that you make will come before the planning commission and before council again and be approved as amendments.

But at least we've gotten the book.

But is there a way, won't there be a way to get those amendments possibly before October 31st?

Or no?

Yes.

I think there's some flexibility in terms of our first and second readings of the council.

But that's something we haven't flushed out yet.

Yeah, because it's we just haven't scheduled because we don't know when that be in the additional first and second readings.

This is what's tricky is because we don't also know what council may ask for.

So the target may move as well.

So we're doing our best with what we got.

What I'm hearing you saying is if you don't have those changes ready to be approved by council, then you're gonna push back the effective date.

No.

Or that would be they're gonna schedule another meeting before October 31st.

We have some cushion before October 31st to have other meetings.

So you have the option that you actually could come back to us at a meeting and then to council twice.

We don't think we'd have to come back to you.

Um necessarily.

That's what the work session is for.

Yeah, we're proposing a workshop.

Yeah, in order to clarify what the changes that you've got you've directed us to make and how we've made them.

So that would serve as I I guess uh I I want to if I can engage with staff for just a moment to make sure I'm on the same page.

Um after the workshop, my understanding was that if if we have a council planning commission joint workshop to talk about additional amendments to the code that would then go into effect for August or October 31st.

Um that workshop will be to talk about what those are.

And then I would be drafting another ordinance that would amend the first ordinance, and that ordinance under code would need to come back to planning commission for a public hearing, just like you're doing here.

And then it would go to council for two readings to be implemented to to be adopted.

So we would follow the exact same process that we're following now for a second ordinance, has been my understanding.

If we need a second ordinance, prior to that was to get ready to draft that second ordinance.

If we need a second ordinance, right?

If we do a second ordinance, yes, and which I think is where it says prior to October 31st, we're essentially staff is essentially and staff correctly if I'm wrong since um staff's the applicant, not the city attorney.

Um but I think what staff is representing here on the table and in this recommended amendments is that if it says prior to October 31st, staff is representing to you that they believe we can make those changes in a second ordinance that would be discussed at that workshop, um, and then would come back to you as an ordinance with specific code amendments uh for your review and recommendation with a public hearing, and then would advance to council for two readings.

Um second ordinance.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

And I would just clarify that like until we get to talk to council about this, like you know, like if October 31st doesn't feel like uh effective, right?

Like we have some flexibility in there to um have more meetings ahead of time, and we also I mean this was a two-week response, you know, I even a week response in order to get the staff memo out in terms of what your reaction was.

Like we can also just not crunch the numbers but see what we can actually get done earlier, and then uh there is some flexibility in like like you're right about the city council hearing dates, like or what they hear, they need to that needs to be in that ordinance, right?

So if we can get more done and get us closer to effective date, there's a little bit of flexibility.

This is just uh this meeting with the planning commission, the city council is happening when before adoption or before the enactment date, right?

But right now it's I mean we it's going to be a good thing.

After the August meeting.

Right now, yes, if that's what it was.

So between the end of August and October 31st.

You would have to have A, this joint meeting.

Yep.

Then B a then a ordinance amendment comes back to the planning commission, assuming at that combined meeting we all agree on what those changes are, and then go back to council for two readings all before October 31st.

And let me throw one more thing in here, um, which I don't think makes it more complicated, but just so you know it's an option.

It let's say that process takes a little longer than than we think, and we can't get the second ordinance passed and effective per our charter.

So it would have to be second reading would have to be at least 10 days before the end of October.

Um so we'd have to have second, I haven't looked at a calendar for October, but second reading for that second ordinance to go into effect by October 31st.

We would need to have the second reading no later than October 21st, which is possible depending on where the Tuesday's fall.

But let's say it's not possible and we need the first meeting in November.

Or we need to push that effective date a little bit further on to November.

So perhaps that second ordinance can actually amend the effective date that we set in the first ordinance.

So that's okay.

That would remove okay.

I love this stuff.

It's not the easiest thing.

All right.

We're gonna go back to our beginning of our list and um talk about the things that we are that we are going to discuss.

Um I'm gonna I'm gonna go through this language and based on our straw poll, we'll say that you know which items were okay.

We decided not to discuss it anymore.

Um rec I'm looking at the recommended amendments.

I've got it like kind of right next to my other things.

Okay.

So public land dedication amendments prior to August City Council meetings include open space dedications in addition to parks and rec.

Um that was we all agreed on that one.

Item B, we were gonna discuss revising PLD credit structure to reduce the credit available for private facilities.

Um I'm curious what other folks would like to discuss about this one.

It's not my area of expertise.

Well, if they ask for guidance, um direction on the appropriate reduced credit percentage, and whether it should apply uniformly or very high development type.

Should we maybe include checking on some of these items like the ones that are prior to October 31st?

You know, those maybe that we would like to resolve at the combined city council planning commission meeting, because it would seem like we're spinning our wheels if we say, well, maybe we want the credits to be this and city council.

Yeah, we could just say that.

Well, let's resolve it at one place at one time.

We could also say um plan, you know, PC would like would like council to make a decision on this.

You know, we if we don't if if we don't have an idea of what that number should be, yeah.

Just say, you know.

I mean, unless someone here has some specifics that they'd like to add to that.

I just from public comment in the last discussion that we had.

Yeah, it's I don't have a super strong feeling about this, but I feel like when we were trying to develop recreational facilities in the city, it made sense to give credits for it.

We've got a YMCA, we've got a bond measure that's vastly expanding.

Uh burger, we've got our water park facilities, I think giving credit for developers to develop facilities that they may otherwise develop as in order to incentivize people to already move into these communities.

Seems like it's doing a lot of good for those developments, and not a lot of good for the community at large.

To me, that doesn't seem like it's worth a credit.

Yeah.

That's my feeling about it.

And I that's my feeling about it.

That's also a lot of the feedback.

I never thought about it.

But from a lot of the public feedback we were getting that put in a different light for me, does not seem like that's something anybody should be getting credit for.

They were gonna build it anyway.

It's not benefiting the city at large.

So you're saying your reduction would be reduction of 100%.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think it's a lot of feedback we got.

Um what from the public was like why there was a time at which it made sense.

Which was four years ago apparently.

I don't know that we're in that position anymore where they should be getting credit for that.

Okay.

Well, it has Lil SAP discussed allowing up to 50% reduction.

Uh-huh.

Yes.

I can't grant said something and something to camera over.

Um they're asking for our direction on appropriate reduced credit percentage and whether the reduced credit should apply uniformly or varied by development type.

So maybe this is a discussion for council to contribute that because we were discussing it and I do remember a lot of the public feedback being that point of this is private.

Correct.

Okay.

So it's commissioner feelings for the affordable housing.

Yeah.

So you could do a little bit.

I agree.

I think it should be zero.

Okay.

So that's the same.

Do other folks think it should be a zero?

Well, if it's a I mean, does it a zero, don't they just have to spend the money on a public land dedication instead?

Like this is about the credit they're getting.

Correct.

So like I don't think this helps with the affordable housing issue.

They're either going to spend it as building a pool inside their place or as giving it a lot of the colours.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And then that that takes away affordability because you've got to pay an HOA.

Yeah.

You gotta pay your HOAD pool that you do.

I see.

So is our recommendation agreed.

I think is is our recommendation um to be of uh 100% reduction or or to have no credit.

This is my recommendation is no retaining so um city council to explore.

Yes.

Okay.

Does everyone agree to add some language basically city council to explore this further can that can we city council explore the with our feeling that we have that this is widely supported by the planning how about yeah planning commission uh understands that um has heard that this the that public does not support this credit um council to consider eliminating it.

Do we have to write these as conditions or they're gonna be they're gonna be modifying this?

She's Mary Lynn is modifying this.

I'm um so I'm thinking this first or that B could say you revise the PLD credit structure to reduce the credit available for private facilities in an amount to be determined by council.

Like you're basically letting them exercise you're telling them you want it reduced, but you want council to exercise their discretion as to what that should be.

And incorporate Low Sab's recommendations.

And and then the rest stay the same, yeah.

Right.

Okay, so um so in an amount to be determined by council.

Just for clarification.

Yeah, clarification.

Should I go up there and tell me?

Uh just for clarification.

Staff's, you know, staff already said you know, you retain the limited credit only for amenities not commonly found, such as gyms, pools, and clubhouses.

So we were saying, yes, you shouldn't get credit for something that's you're benefiting your own residents.

So we were thinking more like a new like different stuff.

Like for example, Sola did a trail around the entire development and tied in, and it's all privately owned and maintained, but it's open to the public.

So maybe something like that that's not necessarily just uh a benefit for their community and it ties into other trails.

Something like that may would maybe be allowable, but you know you don't get credits for things that you were gonna sell to your community anyways.

I I think because the words that are used, like you don't get cred I I realize that the grammar is there, like you're saying the amenities not commonly found in larger developments such as gym pools and clubhouses to me means you get credit for gyms pools and club houses.

If you said amenities like not commonly found in larger developments, such as publicly accessible trails or whatever, then that might feel very different.

Yeah, that was the intent was that you you don't get them for those types of things.

If you're a big if you're metronic and you put in a gym for your employees, yeah, you don't get a credit for that.

Maybe the grammatical change would make that more clear that I totally missed that.

Yeah, I didn't understand what that was saying.

Um we word smith that while we keep talking about what they're just talking about was the this um the things between these two um dashes in the draft are actually confusing because they're the inverse of what they apply.

So you know, the things not commonly found in larger developments are the opposite of gyms, pools, and clubhouses.

It's always just confusing language.

Oh, definitely.

So I just clear that up.

That wasn't the intent of that.

Give you credit for publicly accessible.

Okay.

So I think we were going to strike item D because we determined that LOSAB was happy with with the oversight that they'll have.

Item E on that original matrix, that was essentially struck by staff, which is why it doesn't show up in the amendments.

So there's no item one E.

Item two creates two distinct zone districts, amends data map accordingly, updating references, et cetera, et cetera.

We are all all good with that one.

Park for parks and research would be involved.

What's that?

Oh, and then also, yeah, the um, the properties themselves are already labeled whether for a park, it's labeled as a park, and if it's open space open.

But the difference is is don't have a combined parks of open space designation.

Well, what commissioner Watson is saying is um to have LOSAC or LOSAB um advise on make sure make sure that they have input.

And I don't know if that's something that we could do in this interim period.

But um if it's necessary.

I mean I don't think there's any ambiguity to that requirement.

Okay.

Because of the charter and the only reason not of this is because over the discussions I've heard of all these tools that are used to put land into open space.

And I'm thinking uh Mr.

Stewart, he's been involved for 20 years and he has he has more of a history of the open space.

That's where I was we can have them review.

Recommending that LOLSAC be involved.

We can have them re review the proposed zoning uh the zoning map uh and the schedule.

Yeah.

Although I think it I guess it should be pretty straightforward.

Cool.

All right.

Are we happy with that the language as it is or um have okay have low stab review?

Okay.

Item number three, um revised data center use definition.

Okay, we were going to this one.

Do we want to do we need any more discussion on this, or were we happy with staff's recommendations and then this amendment as it stands?

Because it has the definitions, it had um add corresponding use specific standards to address building size, employment expectations, sustainability considerations, resource use, and separation from residential and open space areas.

So looking at that amendment, does that kind of cover the things that we'd like to see added in this initial expectation or something?

Size of of um number of employees.

Is that the workforce or employees perfectly?

I thought we were just gonna say um that they should revise the definition and sort of state which zones it's limited to at this time.

And I think right now it's a special use in M3, right?

That's the current proposal.

Yeah.

It was just the definition and the size of the building and what the definition doesn't say building.

Because there's a lot like the use specific standards feels like long.

I mean, that feels like something we actually want to spend some time on, an additional ordinance.

I think well they've what the what our professionals are are saying is that they've got language that they can put into the code and and they can add some of that language in addition to what's already there.

Um so they'd like to add use specific standards to address some of these things.

Um we don't have to necessarily talk that all through, and we'll see that update.

Right?

Well, I guess when we're talking about conditions like this, we're this response was more to the impression we had that more was needed.

I think the size of the and if we're giving direction, what I heard tonight was maybe go like look at this these things further and go back.

And I'm not sure if I'm modeling uh air mobility hubs with data centers where you were treating them the same.

But the quickest and easiest fix and something that we can accomplish, we can change that October date to immediately if is if we just do it as a special use review and three zoning and then study it further, right?

So especially when we talked about uh the complexities of that October 30 date, like wherever you see things where a quicker fix is the easiest thing and you're supportive of it, I would be supportive of that too.

I think I think for the data centers, just revising the definition is maybe the most urgent in my mind that that could be if it's just the definition that could be part of the August wrap-up.

We could, yeah.

I mean, if it's the I think it was 150,000 square feet that we put out there if that's if that's the issue and you want a lower number.

I just don't I mean, without further research into like all of the I think that looking at it because I I did a bit more aerial mapping and looking at the idea of data centers with this new re reading through the code, the size, I think for me is less of the concern.

It was more the like the definition of a data center is just it it's not like a building.

It's the the language is kind of weird.

I forget exactly how it's phrased.

We talked about last I'm sorry.

I have a note in my version um that we want to take we want to amend this definition, which right now says an establishment engaged in the storage management.

We want to say an establishment located in one or more structures engaged in the storage management.

Just cleaning up that it's a bill.

Yeah.

I I think that um if you guys will I think we need an instruction to do that, so we'll do that.

I think the use-specific standards I think we we talked about like decibel and noise and vibration, and I know there's there's already state code on noise, and I think we have our own decibel standards, but the use-specific standards I think was more about the air mobility of we have to put some sort of guardrails or it'll just happen.

Yeah.

So I think for the for the commissioner discussion, I think on my end thinking about the data center condition, just that staff shall reassess the definition for clarity.

Yeah, and to me, it's not because we don't think we need clarity around these other things.

It's just that that's a whole I would recommend that's a discussion about a data center ordinance.

Yeah.

I mean, and I think in in tandem with that, it's the citywide moratorium.

Adding some language to this amendment.

Is that a recommendation that we would make to council, or would they just decide to do that on their own as a legislative body?

We can recommend it to them.

But we still technically can recommend.

And we could say recommend they wear red shirts every meeting, you know, whatever you want.

We could say um PC recommends that council um enact a moratorium of whatever time frame while this while this additional use and definition and and while we work through these additional whatever language.

All right, that's cool.

Is that appropriate for the land use code?

Is that where we would make that recommendation that there's a moratorium?

It's I think the Nexus is there, Marilyn can respond, but like we don't need to make a change if we have I mean now if we have a moratorium in place to take six months to make the right like the more comprehensive change.

Well, and I guess to your points earlier, if we make a condition well, council could just strike the language if they don't think they can do it in time.

Yes.

Okay.

It's not it's not catching it in like they're gonna make a recommendation for a moratorium.

Can they do it through these conditions or do we have a so there's two types of conditions you can make.

One the first type is what you're working on now, which are um conditions that will lead to specific changes in the code that you're recommending council adopt.

You can also have conditions outside of that that are as simple as uh recommends council enacting a moratorium in conjunction with the adoption of landers code.

So these should be two separate conditions.

If I I'm gonna mess up the numbering, but it's fine.

Let's let's yeah, you can put it at the end.

Okay, so I'm going to make it a new condition at the end.

You'll see it when we get down.

Okay.

All right, let's keep moving.

Um to IMB is kind of was the advanced mobility one, did that need refinement?

Uh I mean I think if as long as we give it the same treatment broad stroke as data center at this point.

Right.

So are we recommending a moratorium on advanced?

Yes, then yeah.

So that would be a yet another new.

I thought we were gonna just put in review it and make it a special use review in the short term.

I think a moratorium in the short term is also not a bad idea.

So for this for this item four, add a defined, this is what the recommended amendment is, add a defined advanced air mobility use to the land use code and require it to be reviewed as a special use review within appropriate industrial districts and develop these specific standards addressing operational impacts.

And those use specific standards, and this amendment would be part of that year one or during that moratorium.

That wouldn't be something that we would want to do.

I mean, our raise a potential concern.

So the Colorado courts generally do not prefer moratoria that go beyond a year.

Yeah, we could start with a year.

But starting with the year and extending it is also a problem.

So I think the reason I'm raising this for your consideration is that I don't know how prepared the city is or the country is to develop such standards.

And I don't know that uh lockdown I so with data centers we have some uh some code to jump going.

Some regulations that are out there that we've been able to review and work into.

I have no idea.

I I don't know the status of regulations around the country for something like an air mobility hub and whether that is something I just don't know that Lafayette wants to be the pioneer of defining those and how much time that would take.

There are some that I can provide for an example, because we're not we wouldn't be groundbreaking in this regard.

Yeah.

I I'd want to look to staff, because if it's something that would take more than a year, I would I will I would recommend against recommending a moratorium.

Is that because if we do if we recommend a moratorium for a year?

And then that moratorium council does that.

Once that year ends, it's kind of done-ho, or what's the case of the case?

It's just more it's more likely to be subjected to a legal challenge, but that's assuming somebody wants to come in and put an air mobility hub in Lafayette.

So they can be extended.

Lafayette has had moratoria that are longer than a year, for example, when we're doing our oil and gas regulations.

Um the Supreme Court has struck down moratoriums that are five years.

Five years is too long.

One year is totally fine.

We don't know the exact number in between, but um, it's more that once we get past that one year mark, it's not that we can't have a moratorium longer than one year.

We should start to have an end in sight.

I think it'll buy us some time to educate ourselves and put some better guardrails into place during that period of time.

That is the point.

But we could still make these two separate ones, one being the more short-term special use in the land use schedule.

Okay.

Okay, so we're keeping it.

You all do policy.

I don't, I'm just letting you know that if you're not intended to be infinitesous breathing room.

Okay, so item four is defined advanced air mobility, use to the land use code, and it will be reviewed as a special use review within appropriate industrial districts and develop you specific standards addressing operational impacts.

We're happy with that language for Do we want the developed use specific standards, or is that what we're doing when the moratorium is happening through a new ordinance?

I think we can we should we keep that in there or let's see.

This says prior to this was staff.

I would I mean we didn't consider a moratorium so much for this one, so I guess if I were trying to wordsmith this better, um I would want to update to the M3 zone district, we've it limited to one, and then I would if you're gonna recommend a moratorium, you might want to lean on the need to develop those use-specific standards as the reason for the moratorium.

So I would take that out.

Yes, I think that's the same for the data centers.

So these really are they are so we're we're kind of striking the prior to October 31st for those for both data center and for advanced air mobility.

I guess that's what we're doing.

Yeah, it's a timeout.

Right.

Making an assumption that if we're recommending moratorium that the city council will agree, they may not.

So do you want to have at least something in place as a fallback?

They do not.

I mean something like leaving the special use review in.

I mean, that's at least gives us something if they decide not to do that.

I think we're wanting to leave in the special use review in M3.

Yeah, that would be like one position.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, I guess.

Have something as a fallback in case they say no, we're not gonna do a moratorium.

Yeah.

Put a distance from residences.

Yeah, I don't I mean, it's gonna get kind of nuanced if we have like if if this then that, if that then something else, right?

I think that city council knows enough and staff will be there and environmental be there to help facilitate that conversation.

But I think if you come with something stronger and they don't agree with the stronger one, they're gonna know that something at all would be and they can kind of uh flesh that out.

That's my recommendation.

And there'll be a group meeting.

We can discuss as a group.

Well, thanks, Jake.

All right.

I will move on to item number five, because I think that might be this might be another discussion.

So Jake, while you're at it, um I think on number three there, we were gonna eliminate the add corresponding use specific standards from that data center like strike strike after strike after the right definition in number three after the word definition.

You see easy.

It's the first sentence.

And yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

And then I think if if we make those strikes that we've just talked about, both of those dates on three and four could turn to August instead of October.

Would they say prior to August City Council meeting?

Is that the see there's a bunch of different colors on our documents?

I'm not sure whose screen I'm seeing.

Jake, you are your I'm in two places demons me too.

Oh, who's very confusing?

So for three, revise the data center use definition, period.

Whoever, whoever is on three.

I'm not touching.

And then the rest of that can get deleted, is my understanding.

Yep.

The rest of it and the rest the rest of that number, yeah.

And add corresponding, blah, blah, blah.

All that.

And that and all of that will be addressed at a later date.

Is that the intention here?

Yeah.

Well, and then you're also advising that it's uh prior to August City Council meetings.

Yeah, correct.

So it changed the date on three.

Yep.

So that should say prior to the city council meetings.

And then there will be an additional condition added about the moratorium.

That would be a separate condition.

And that's where you would add the language about these specific standards.

And recommend a moratorium and investigate these specific standards to address the same thing.

Two and a moratorium well.

Can the consultant firm to the current data center use standards?

They reference like it can't be within a thousand feet of a residence, right?

There's already something in there around that.

That's my recollection.

Okay.

Yeah, there's already like some little asterisk on it.

Okay, cool.

I think we were directed to look at the SLB uh standards.

And apply those.

So we have noted that we should be applying them, but I don't know that they're in there right now.

Hey, Arc.

It says data sh data centers that share a property line with a residential use or neighborhood zoning district shall locate no structure or equipment within a thousand feet of the shared property line.

So it's not that uh lot within one thousand feet couldn't have one, it's at the actual structure itself has to be thoughtful.

I think that's yeah, for good for now.

And then to use specific standards to the moratorium recommendation.

Did someone add that you added the moratorium recommendations?

Yeah, it's at the end.

Great, yeah.

Multiple.

Oh no, I just did um data center.

You want one on do a separate one for mobility.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Amend uh item number five.

Amend section 262-9 of the draft LUC to also include OTX 3.

Um that's the amendment.

We need to discuss OTX3 in general.

Um I I know you're excited.

I'm curious, straw, who is really sold on OTX3 and that it is necessary.

So I have some reasons.

I don't know if I'd say really sold, but I would like to talk about it.

Okay, all right.

We'll just I'm not entirely.

I was trying to I was trying to like.

My thought on it is their reasoning is if you look at the streetscape today, there is a change.

It feels different South of Emma than it feels north of Emma.

And we're hearing comments from folks that they like that and they want to maintain that difference.

And I think staff is saying this is a way to maintain that difference.

Otherwise, you're gonna make a zone that one zone that applies from the north part of Emma and the south part of Emma.

And theoretically, all your stuff's gonna kind of look the same in that zone, right?

But it but it's we've got an eclectic um we've got a um the the way the comp plan reads and the way that some of the downtown development authority stuff reads, it should be smaller scale and it should be um it's it's OTX3 is gonna allow some things that don't really make sense on some of that property.

Like height like putting residential that building randomly in the middle of old town, and then and then after spaulding, you get back to the building right now.

Oh so a building like that could move on to the the property that is now the the forest, for instance.

So is this about is it that is that about changing what OTX currently allows rather than getting rid of OTX3?

Sorry, changing what OTX3 currently allows rather than getting rid of OTX3.

Because there definitely is a it does feel different when you cross M Street.

Well, the dividing line in my estimation is a little bit about a lack of public investment over the years.

Yeah, like the last 15 years all the money's been spent on that end of public, but this end of the yeah.

And the block of 700 public was oh, we're gonna get this big development, and then that didn't go through.

Well, there's a reason good reasons that it didn't go through.

Like now we've got new, a new small, you know, uh bread bakery that's gonna be built there.

We've got an ice cream shop that just opened, we got a pocket park, we've got this little things, and we're continuing that language, and then you get down to Scalding, and there's due south and and um Ros Casa and and some other small uses, so um, it doesn't make sense.

We don't get the Christmas lights, we don't get all the like nice stuff down there.

Like there's been a lack of public investment by the city in making this part of public nice is why it feels different.

Yeah, like it's a lot of different things.

I mean, I think it feels different because the lots feel more spread out, but I agree that the buildings feel bigger.

I agree that there's like as you're walking down that street, it feels like kind of corridor.

701 South Public as a pit of despair while it was owned by Laura for the last however long it is.

I'm not disagreeing that that's true.

I'm just saying, like, I think there's a question to me.

The reason why I think you'd make that a separate zone is because you're actually trying to preserve a feeling of difference from North Emma South Emma.

And so the question to me is is do we want to preserve a feeling of difference between North Emma and South Emma?

I don't know.

Who wants to preserve a feeling of the I feel like OTX 3 is absolute nonsense and gerrymandered for what appears to be to be one of the things?

Very very specific reason.

A very specific reason.

I think it's a very obvious reason.

It's a gerrymander with a different first name, in my opinion, but very obvious.

Like and also political industry, what's up?

It's a political district.

Sure.

Uh it takes away naturally occurring affordable housing, it takes away a very vibrant business district, takes away a lot of things right here.

There's a story.

A very specific flavor.

Do you want everything between this?

Do we want everything north of Emma, that feeling to be the feeling?

I would love to I think we should bring it encourage it down.

Yes, you're saying yes, ideally, like in our dream world, it's the same.

There it doesn't feel like you're transitioning.

They're calling OTX 3 a transition zone because I think the idea was it is it is different.

And so to me, the question is like, what do we want?

Do we want it to be different or not?

I think we want, I mean, I think comp plan, everybody living down there, all the things is the idea is that it's a transition into old town, and what is proposed for the zoning here is that it's uh this building, this tall uh apartment building that still all these years later has nothing on the ground floor, then we go to basically empty commercial buildings, then we go to some small buildings that are thriving, some small businesses that are driving, then back to residential buildings and then back to old town scale.

Makes zero sense whatsoever.

I don't I don't mind the idea of some residential there.

That makes sense, but not as this yeah, which exists, which exists now because there's an historic hotel.

Not scalable.

I'm struggling to understand there's two issues here to me.

One issue is should there be two distinct feeling zones here or not?

That's one question.

And the second question is what should those zones feel like?

Those are different.

Like I feel like these are getting conflated.

Like the the south of Emma Street, if we said we we think it should feel different, that doesn't mean we have to allow the kind of building that's currently next door.

We could have a separate conversation about what should that feel like and what should those audience be.

So I think it's two different questions.

One yeah, I just I think it feels different just because of a lack of investment.

And I think what's finally happening is that the organic growth where we're re-redapting.

Do we adaptive reuse of buildings, things are getting infilled, like the clearing off of the 700 block that was attempted isn't happening.

The Greek restaurant's gone in.

Like the investment is finally moving its way south, which is how the organic development of the corridor is happening, which has been what's been trying to happen this whole time.

It's happening.

And we want it, yes, yeah.

So that's question one.

And if that's the answer, I'm I'm comfortable with that.

That feels like an important point because the what I saw the staff saying and why they created that district is because there was an impression that that was we wanted that to feel different.

That's not why I don't heard stuff.

Because if you if you think about between Wanaka Parkway up towards Spaulding, um there maybe not Wanna Parkway, but like Tip Marker.

No, I'm I'm down down lower than that.

Oh, there's weird between the city center here, as you start walking north, there are some small scale um buildings.

It might be a little more auto-oriented, but that's the existing.

The draft liquor store is like the only one left.

Yeah, I think.

But if you think about the when I drove down tonight, um Khalida Grill was full.

Like the parking lot was completely full.

It's great.

Yeah.

You know, and across the street from there, you've got due south and all of those places.

And um that's the same scale and the same as what's going on on the north side.

Yeah, but reverse side of it's like rough cycle would be required to build the buildings right up to the site.

That would be the next layer that we need to look at.

If we don't have the OTX.

Yep.

Well, which is that is what we're looking like.

Yeah, that will be part of this OTX one.