City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Good evening. It is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026. This is the regular meeting of the city council of Lewisville, Colorado. May I have a roll call, please? Mayor Pro Tim Hamilton here. Council member Coopermanman here. Council member Fehee here. Council member Dickinson here. Council member Hefner here. Council member Kern. Mayor Lee

here. Okay. If you join me as you're able uh to say the pledge of allegiance with us things. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor?

Any opposed? All right. Um, the next item is public comments on items not on the agenda and items on the consent agenda. Do we have any folks who've signed up for public comment? Not yet. It looks like don't know that we have one. No. All right. Um, let us seeing no one signed up for public comment. Let's move on. Um, can I get a motion for approval of the consent agenda? So, moved. Second. Um, all in favor? I I.

All opposed. Right. Next is councilformational comments and committee reports. Do we have any of those from our council? Yes. Council member Fehee. I'd just like to report quickly that I went to the consortium of cities meeting and got a wonderful presentation from uh the state uh demographer uh explaining partly the the need for affordable housing for seniors because the senior population is increasing and the lack of need for student uh education in the K8 grades in particular because the birth rate is rapidly declining almost faster than the senior population is increasing and so there aren't enough students to fill the schools. Uh also had a report uh um from the disaster management group um saying that they are under control. They're they were glad that we will soon have a member of the board and they're moving along planning for whatever disasters may come our way. So, thank you.

Thanks, other council members. Um, I have one item. Um, I'm a member of the Northwest Mayors and Commissioners Coalition and it's a group of mayors and commissioners um along the 36 corridor primarily uh though not just in Boulder County uh but in Broomfield and Westminster as well. Uh that group is taking a trip beginning tomorrow to visit uh most of the members of the Colorado Congressional delegation. Um I think we're visiting with Senator Hickinlooper and somebody from Senator Bennett's staff as well as uh some congressional committees and um the FAA. I'll get to that in a second. um about transportation funding issues. Um this is an annual trip. It's been going on for probably 20 years and a good chance to connect with legislators, let them know um some of the items that we care an awful lot about here and hope that um can keep our communications channels open to be able to work with them. And that's been very successful in the past. It's quite something, I think, for um any member of Congress, much less folks from your own um neck of the woods, uh to show up in a large group of staff and um uh mayors and sometimes council members if they if the mayors can't go. Um, I think it's surprising because people

don't expect um folks who are neighboring communities to have things so much in common, but transportation is one of those kind of issues. That really is important for all levels of government to be working pretty closely together and we've had that for a long time. So, that's going to happen. Um, one new visit this year is we've broadened out the group to uh to take on some uh limited aviation transportation issues, particularly the issue of um RMMA and neighboring airports um noise levels and safety primarily. Um, as many people know, there was yet another um incident of a plane that had to do an emergency landing recently um that was out of RMMA. Um, these are issues that concern our citizens a great deal. And uh one of the things we're going to be talking to the FAA about is uh the possibility of um uh taking action around um training flights over heavily populated areas and what they can do to uh help with that because it's a ongoing um challenge and RMMA is expanding and they um subsidize their leases over there with uh the county does pretty substantially. And there's a lot of things that play into the um the problems that we have. But the real big issue is the training flights and the need to I mean have training flights fine but to be very careful about those as they fly over heavily populated areas in Superior, Lewisville,

Lafayette um and in Longmont Eerie um Broomfield and um uh Westminster. So anyway, there's that. Um, and I'll report on that when we get back um as well. Um, but wanted people to know if there's anything um on council or in the community that you'd like to know or or would love to for us to ask about transportation to the folks I just mentioned, please let me know. Be heading out tomorrow morning. Um, do we have a city manager's report?

Yes, thank you. Um, I would like to thank Kurt and Corey for providing a drought update. In summary, uh, the city has approximately one year of average demand in water supply and storage. Snowpack conditions are significantly below average and will translate to poor spring runoff projections and severely limit the ability to replenish storage levels. Current conditions align with early stage drought monitoring. Voluntary measures remain appropriate in the near term. of the water supply index which is the city's primary drought indicator is currently at 1.03 with projections declining to approximately 085 in the coming months. This future projection approaches the threshold between when voluntary and mandatory watering restrictions would be recommended. Transitioning to mandatory watering restrictions for 2026 at sometime this summer would be a conservative approach to protect against prolonged drought and preserve water supply flexibility for 2027. and regional coordination is ongoing and will be critical if drought conditions intensify. So Kurt and Corey continue to monitor this. Um in terms of surrounding agencies, there are variety that are still in voluntary mode while some have transitioned to mandatory. My intent is to continue to provide council um updates and we will update the public as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, first item of regular business is ordinance number 1920 series 2026, an ordinance removing lot 3, Jefferson Place subdivision from the Oldtown Overlay and adding to the boundaries of downtown Lewisville. This is on for second reading. It's a public hearing. Um, and um, I'm going to introduce or the open the public hearing. Do we have any disclosures? Okay. If not, I'll ask for a staff presentation.

Good evening, mayor and city council. This is Emily Klein Gibson with the staff presentation. Uh this is the second reading for ordinance 1920 series 2026, uh which is to remove 811 Walnut from the Oldtown Overlay and include it in the boundaries of downtown Lewisville. As a reminder, this property located at 811 Walnut Street was constructed in the 1950s and was historically located in residential zones despite its historical commercial use. That changed in October of last year when a reszone to the commercial community zone district was approved. The reszone request was only for the underlining zoning and did not modify any changes uh to the overlays on the property. The property has been located in the Oldtown Overlay since its establishment and is currently not located within the boundaries of downtown Lewisville. This means that it's currently not subject to the standards of the design handbook for downtown Lewisville. So, the proposal tonight is to amend the definitions of downtown Lewisville and the westerly portion of downtown Lewisville to include 811 Walnut Street within the boundaries of both. The proposed language is in bold on the screen here for both definitions. And again, it's just to simply include that that single property. Also proposed is to remove the property from the old town overlay. The language for that can be found in the ordinance. There are also a few maps that are proposed to be updated. The two maps on the left side of the screen can be found in the design handbook and are proposed to just include 811 Walnut Street within the boundaries of both the transition area as well as downtown as a whole. And then the image on the far right is a map of our oldtown overlay and the arrow just points to the bumpout where uh that 811 Walnut property would be removed. Staff find the proposal to be consistent with all adopted policies and allows the commercial building in the commercial downtown area to follow the same commercial design standards as all other

buildings in the commercial downtown area. Staff also find that incorporating the property into the westernly portion of downtown does not have a significant impact on the total maximum floor areas that are established for that area. Planning Commission recommended approval as presented at a public hearing in March and staff recommend approval of ordinance 1920 series 2026. This concludes staff presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Does council council have any questions about this? All right. Um this is an ordinance. So we have two rounds of public comment if people wish to say something around this. Do we have any people signed up for public comment? No. All right. Uh then we come back to council. Any comments or questions from council? We'll go to a second round of public comment. See if anybody had any thing they wanted to raise. Anybody? No. City clerk, any raised hands? Okay. All right. Um, any final comments or motion?

I'd move we approve ordinance number 1920 series 2026. Second. Okay. Uh, discussion. Um, the only thing I would say is adopt the findings in the staff report to support this. And are we ready to vote? Take a roll call, please. Mayor Pro Tim Hemington, yes. Council member Dickinson, yes. Council member Cooperman, yes. Council member Fehee, yes. Mayor Lei, yes. Council member Kurt, yes. Council member Hefner, yes. Okay. Uh motion passes. Thank you very much.

Move on to the next item, which is ordinance number 1922, series 2026, an ordinance amending title three of the Lewisville Municipal Code to establish business assistance program for small businesses and to change approval thresholds for uh business assistant program agreements. It's a first reading. Uh and we'll set a public hearing tonight just for those who who may not be familiar with first and second reading. The first reading is not a time when we're going to be doing any um public hearing. So the public is not going to be asked for comment tonight. It's really a time to hear presentation from staff um uh in this case, manager Sarate in just a moment and to offer up any amendments, questions, um requests for additional information when we come back to the public hearing. So with that, um

mayor, city council, thanks for having me today. Uh again, Vanessa Sante, economic vitality manager, and I'm here today to talk about a proposed two proposed amendments to our overall business assistance program, which is the city's um citywide business incentive program. As just some background, uh it's called the business assistance program. We very regularly refer to it as as backs. Um, and the city has an existing incentive policy that qualifies to any new or expanding businesses into the city of Lewisville. And the program, should someone be eligible, allows for sales tax rebates, use tax rebates, building permit remates, and sign fee rebates. Uh, I believe it was in 2022 you added a vacancy bonus. So that if someone is going in to a building that's been vacant for at least a year, they can get this additional bonus that's a dollar per square foot up to $100,000. And then last year we adopted a portion of this back program that we've labeled the enhanced assistance program. So for those businesses that have a very specialized and expensive upfront cost that they can get enhanced assistance for that very specialized software systems or what have you. All of our um all of the components of the VA are rebate based um with the exception of the vacancy bonus but they are all

I think you I had you on my mic. You're good. um they are rebate based and so the business has to perform and then should they perform they get a whatever the agreed upon portion of the components back. The vacancy bonus is um performance-based as well and so it is paid out to the business at time of co on the building once the business actually opens for opens for business but we work super closely within all of our components but across other programs at the city as well. So the BAT program I administer through my economic development hat, but we work closely with that with our urban with our urban renewal programs as well as historic preservation to make sure that all of the programs that are available at the city level are working together and in alignment. In addition, we work super closely with counterparts across the region, state, and the in our and nationally to make sure that whatever programs we are offering can complement other programs that businesses can take advantage of and that all of these programs are regularly evaluated to make sure they're still meeting goals and um business needs. What we are proposing today um has had a few previous discussions before. Um there was conversations in the March and the May 2025 EVC meetings surrounding some of the parameters of the small business um the small business portion of what we're talking about today. And on their December 2025 meeting, that is when EVC formally recommended that we take this these amendments to the formal to the full city council for uh for approval hopefully. The first of the two amendments we are proposing today is a small business addition. So a small business amendment to the BAP program. And so it would be

still be for any new or expanding businesses within the city of Lewisville. That the total square footage of the business is less than 3,000 square feet. And that the operator or the business has no more than five locations. And this intent is to help fill some of these spaces with sales tax generating uses. So retail, restaurants, food and beverage. But as part of this addition, we are proposing that their incentive can be administratively approved by the city manager, but the incentive provided would be a tiered rebate. So in year one, they would get a 90% rebate. Year two 70 and then 50, 30, and 10 for the first five years. At the end of the five years, the effective rebate would still have been 50%, which is our most common kind of system for our BABs, but it helps frontload that rebate in years where the operating costs and the startup costs are typically much higher than they are in year four or five. And so, it's helping make sure that we can provide the support when they probably most need it. And then the second part of our amendments today are administrative approvals. The BAP program as it states now currently allows for administrative approval. Administrative approval is done by the city manager. The proposal we have today is to increase that administrative approval from $50,000 to $100,000 across our BAP program and aligning and giving the city manager approval up to $100,000 will align our BAP program with the city's current purchasing policy. And those are the two amendments we are proposing today. Any questions?

Council. Yes. Prot. Thank you. Um, thank you Vanessa for the presentation. I have a question about the first amendment proposal with the front loading of the rebates. So, as it stands right now, can you please remind me what the current setup is? Is it um the current setup does not dictate um something like this, but most commonly it's a 50% rebate for 5 years.

For 5 years. Okay. And so this ends up being in the end the same. It's just distributed differently. And so there's in a sense kind of more risk to the city to frontload it unless is there something where if the business closes they have to give back some of their rebate or what's so we have in the policy and we put in all of their agreements that should they relocate they have to pay us back a portion of what we provided depending on how many years we gave it to them when they relocated. If the business shuts down and just goes out of business, um we don't currently have a mechanism to get anything back. Um everything that we are proposing is a rebate based on newly generated income. And so while in year one we might be rebating 90%, we get to retain 10% of that new income. And then at the term of the agreement, the city will retain all of the generated sales tax from that business. Um, so it is all based off new new money. We also put in this agreement there's both a year in all of our agreements there's a year cap as well as a financial cap. So you can get a $100 over five years. As just an easy example, if you get a hund if you reach your $100 rebate in year two, the agreement terms and from then on the city retains all of the generated sales tax. And similarly, if at year five you've only gotten $80, the agreement still terms. Okay?

And then we will keep everything after that. Okay? So there's in in in a sense if the business closes down, that's that. But if somebody comes in and opens up a business and takes like year one and tier year two of this sweetheart deal and then moves, they're going to have to there's some safety net for us to get re some money back from that. Correct. Um I will say in my time here, we've only had to do that once. Um but yes, if they choose to relocate out of city limits, then they there is a mechanism to get a portion of what we've paid them back.

Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, Council Member Cooperman. There was just a couple clarif clarifications. Um, so the the proposed $100,000 maximum for administrative approval. The $100,000 is the amount that they would get rebated over the five years or the maximum amount

the maximum. Well, if the maximum amount that they would be be rebaited is $100,000 or lower, then it would go to the city manager for approval. If the maximum amount that they would receive is $100,01, it would come in front of city council for approval. Okay, that helps. Um, and that amendment is not just for businesses that would qualify for the the tiering system, but all businesses. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Um, and then another clarifying question. In the packet, it it talks especially about retail and restaurant, but the slide suggests that it's open to any small business with under that amount of square footage. Um, in theory, it could be open to other businesses, but as what we are proposing is a sales tax rebate, it will 99% of the time apply to like retail and food and beverage. Right. Okay. Um, and could you say a word about how we landed on 3,000 square feet?

Um, we started to take a look at some of the some of our retail spaces that are performing super well and some of the vacancies we see around town and what that square footage is. And through a couple conversations at EVC, we threw we threw out a few different potential options. 3,000 square feet is where we landed just in terms of a lot of the vacancies we we have that we're looking to fill with these types of users and where we end up seeing kind of a sweet spot in the size for operators.

Okay. Um one more question. So a business is going to generate different amounts of sales tax over the different first f the first five years, right? So, um, you know, so I don't know if businesses typically generate less sales tax in their first year or more sales tax in their whichever year. So, um, just kind of wondering like how does that play into the the calculation to do this tiering structure? Um, so at they at in February of every year, we take a look at the full year prior and so it will just be a rebid on whatever they generated that year. And so, um, I hear you that like first years, second years tend to maybe generate less than year five. Um, but it would just be based on whatever they actually generated.

Okay. But there I guess I was wondering like there's not, you know, there's not some reason to like adjust the structure so that somehow they're I don't know like you could imagine that having a larger percentage later could actually maybe be beneficial in some way because they're generating more tax revenue or I don't know I'm just curious about that. Um yeah, in our conversations with businesses, um they understood some of what you're talking about too, that there might be lower generation in earlier years, but they would have valued a greater um a greater funding amount earlier on just because you you do have so many startup costs

that that extra money up front helps get you to year two and year three. Right. Okay. Thank you very much, Council Member Dickens. Yeah, that question kind of helped um with some some of the things I was thinking. Do they have So, previously they would come and they would ask for a 50% rebate. They could ask for more, right? I think we've seen that you could recommend more. I guess you could recommend less. I can't think of a time where anyone's asked for or you've recommended less. But in the same vein, could could someone request, oh, just 50% all five years? I don't want this 907030. You know what I'm saying? Yes, they could.

They Okay. So, that could fix that is what I'm understanding. If if a business was not interested, they could ask for something different. Um, so I think that's helpful. And I I do think it is a nice option to have like first year's tough. It'd be great to have a bigger rebate. So, I like this and and just clarification, apologize for my ignorance here, but we already have a program. This is an addition and it's basically allowing this breakdown automatically for a small business less than 3,000 square feet. It's approved administratively, but businesses that are 5,000 ft, 8,000 ft can still come for a BAP. This is an addition to our current program. Correct. Yeah. Great. Thank you.

Any other questions from council? Okay. any suggested amendments or information that you'd like to bring back the next time? All right. Uh do we have a motion? So move. I move to approve ordinance number 1922 series 2026 uh pass on first reading and the public hearing to be set for Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 at 6 pm. Second.

All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, our next item is discussion, direction, and action on the purchase of 101 South Taylor Avenue. Um, it's a financial analysis piece. Um, going to ask for staff report, which is going to come from our city manager.

Sure. Good evening. Diana Langley, city manager. Um, we're here to present a financial analysis related to the purchase of 101 South Taylor Avenue. Um just in summary, um you know, we received direction from council in March related to the purchase of 101 South Taylor Avenue. Was originally listed in January for about $14 million. In March, council authorized a purchase price of $13.25 million. And there were some time frames in there related to um the inspections, appraisal, public process period, the financing period. And with that, those key deadlines are we have an inspection termination deadline of April 24th. Um so we can notify the seller prior to this Friday if we want to terminate the contract based upon the inspection information. We also have a public process deadline of June 3rd in which we may notify the seller that we do not feel like it's in the best um interest of the public to proceed at which point we can terminate the contract at the city sole discretion. We also have a certificate of participation financing deadline of July 3rd. So for the analysis and appraisal was prepared a property condition report and a phase one environmental site assessment. Those are privileged documents that cannot be shared with the public. But what we can say is through the property condition report, um there were some maintenance items that were identified um that have costs associated with them. And so we reviewed those estimates and provided council with a financial analysis. Um the the financing mechanism for this project is certificates of particip participation, which is a form of lease purchase financing. This would not go before the voters. This is a council decision. Uh the finance amount that we looked at was a range of $16 million to

$19 million with a 20-year term. Um just to note, this amount could be reduced by proceeds anticipated through the potential sale of two city-owned properties. That would be the former city services on Empire Road and then also the 101 West Cherry, which we anticipate selling. Um the 1501 Empire Road. uh if we sold that the proceeds would be split between 50% for the um utility fund, 25% for the capital fund, 25% for parks and open space. So it wouldn't all necessarily be available for um bringing down the the financed amount and then the 101 was cherry was paid through general fund reserves and so it could be utilized for this um with the capital fund. The COP lease payment and annual capital maintenance costs would be estimated to be between 1.7 million 1.75 million to $2 million annually that would come out of the capital fund and the annual payment amounts to roughly 20% of the capital fund's annual revenues. Um the next two slides are models that were prepared by finance director Bailey. This is the capital fund as it stands today with the um current programmed projects. You can see that overall we maintain a positive fund balance. He also modeled the capital fund taking into account the um payment for 101 South Taylor Avenue and he also added a 15% contingency for those projects that are currently programmed into the capital fund. as council has seen um over the last few months as we have taken uh contracts to bid and then we receive the bids oftentimes those are coming in higher than what's budgeted and so he added a contingency in there. What this shows is that over time um our capital fund goes into a deficit position. This would require that approximately $2 and a half million

dollars in capital projects would need to be removed in future years to keep the capital fund from being in a deficit position and no new projects could be added unless additional projects were removed. Um after the next slide, uh Kurt is going to do um take over this presentation and talk about the option of reducing the annual paving program budget and what that could look like. Um but I want to focus for a minute on the operating fund. So, we talked about the capital fund with a potential $2.25 to $2.5 million. On the operating side, we're estimating about half a million dollars. This would cover things such as insurance, utilities, custodial services. It does not add any programming at the site or any staff to um to provide those programs. There could be some corresponding revenues that come with that. Um but we would be initially starting with a half a million dollar um impact to the operating fund that can be counterbalanced to somewhat with the current lease space and storage rental space in which we're paying approximately $100,000 annually. Um the current operating budget does not have the capacity to absorb these costs. And so if council wanted to proceed forward with this purchase, we would need to make cuts and adjustments elsewhere within the operating budget to be able to afford this. So at this point in time I would um ask that Kurt take over the presentation to discuss what a reduction in the pavement um yeah wherever you would like her.

Thank you.

Good evening Mayor and council. Kirk Cohar, director of public works and utilities. Um there's a few slides here. This slide just tries to summarize all the things we're trying to think about in this decision. Each conversation's had different pieces of information. Each open meeting we've had has different pieces of information or feedback. Uh every inspection report or report we get on the property has pieces of information. And so, uh, as we talk about this, there's a lot of little, uh, things that drive whether this is a low risk, high risk type of, um, decision. Um, and no action is is low risk, obviously. And as you get into buying a property, your risk is going to go up if you don't have new revenue sources, which we're trying to do with this property. So everything has to go well with this type of purchase without new revenues for all of our cash flows to work and any surprises. There's a high sensitivity to surprises or just different outside factors. And this tries to encapsulate that. There's a lot of thought going into uh what we're trying to present you and then your own decision- making process to get to decisions on continuing forward or terminating the process. Um I'm not going to go into all these. This is here for you for your information. I can come back to it. Uh, historically, the city has grown into its investment in its streets. It was a a city that had gone through a lot of growth in the '9s. A lot of bu roads were built. Roads typically last 20 or 30 years. So, you get in that 20 to 30 year lifespan. And so, you get into the 2010 range and roads are starting to deteriorate at that 20 plus year mark. And so the city was really funding streets at low levels because it had newer streets. And as those streets aged and the conditions of those streets uh went down, the citizens

and the community started to feel that. And therefore over time the council um took that input. And then also at the same time in partnership with the engineering department we started doing assessments every three years uh where we have the roads scanned and then we get like an independent audit of a pavement condition index. So in 2015 we started that independent audit every three years and uh our first official independent audit was a score of 64. Most communities are going to shoot for uh a 70 or higher. The council at that time chose to target a 75 for our network score. So that averages out the score of all the streets and then also have a policy that no street would go below 35. Uh that would be called backlog. And so we keep like no backlog. So I'd say back in 2015 we had a backlog of maybe 10 to 15% of poor streets. Right now it's more like 1 to 3%. A lot of these roads that are in poor condition are are timed with when development is going to impact them or when utility pro replacement is going to impact them. We're not there's really no road left behind was kind of the phrase about 10 years ago. So over time uh that investment paid off through our PCI score coming up to about a 74. Uh now we're in this I would say we're in this uh elite range of pavement um condition index scores for municipalities and we're roughly around we're spending probably on average $5 million a year looking forward. And if you look at that, like you could continue to gradually go up, but the price difference to keep the network going up or where it's at versus be around between, let's let's say you're looking at 74 plus, there's a very high price to do that, but it maybe if you're thinking about 70 to 73, there's a much lower price to do that with still a similar

product. So, we're kind of getting into a diminishing return zone. But you can see in this slide our historical investment and how we've come up and how we've kind of leveled off on our ability to move that number up even though we're putting a lot of money into it. Uh and even though we had a Marshall fire happen and that had significant damage to many neighborhoods, our condition index is still staying high and we're able to get into these neighborhoods and renew these roads where where they need them. I think that's a key term. I think some of the fire impacted roads are still in good shape and some are uh severely damaged. So, we're balancing that. So, that's our historical look and we did a lot of projects along the way. Um when we had I would say when we're investing less in the pavement fund, we were doing a lot of bigger projects. So, we did the underpass at Burlington Northern Santa Fe. We did an underpass on Davidson Mesa. We built a city services facility. We put in a diverging diamond interchange. We did a lot of big projects and as we've moved into higher pavement investment, we're still doing several projects, but they're at much much lesser order of magnitude costwise and we're also relying on grant money, other people's funding to make some of our big projects happen. So that's kind of historically with paving and the CIP financial models over time. Um, this is some forecasting that we did back in 2022 and 2023. And so the the point I want to make with this is it's a little old. The numbers have changed a little bit, not order of magnitude wise, but we said in 2029, if we continued at our forecasting, that we'd be at a 73 or a 74 at 2029. Our last independent evaluation was in 2024. and with fire damaged roads in our current network uh we scored a 74. So

like our forecast this is shows that our forecasting has some conservatism in it and so when we're forecasting we're beating the estimates um and that gives you room to make decisions with your current funding scenario. So, I think sensitivitywise when we went into the consideration of South Taylor Road, uh maybe there was a uber optimistic thing of uh it could potentially replace a city hall that's aging and needs a significant amount of investment like $3 to5 million or it could not. But if it did and all inspections came back great on that building, then there was a good opportunity there where we carried one building as a city that serviced a lot of space for a lot of people and solved a lot of problems really efficiently at a lower cost. Uh, as we've gone through the inspection process, we've learned it it has more investment needed than we anticipated. Um, and that also strong feedback has been that the city should keep some presence on Main Street. So that suggests then your operational load is to carry not one building but two buildings and so there's there's a load there and so then you need to start thinking about that as you look at your sensitivity on your decision. So in the general fund can we so what we overall challenge question tonight is you know the feedback we received desires additional planning to take place before the city does any major moves. Uh some portion of the city should stay downtown. So two buildings right now, two burdens. Uh pavement budget can provide savings up to $2 million per year. Uh staff recommends a network PCI greater than 70. Right now we're at a 74. So that's going into the general fund. That's not the project cost. That's the operational cost of carrying two buildings. So to carry two buildings without a new revenue source or just to carry this building and then do anything in the future, there's a real challenge there. Can we do any of those things in

the future without additional revenue sources? The answer truly is no if we're going to look at our constituents and our staff and say uh that we're healthy in our operational funds. So from an operational standpoint is very challenging to say yes. From a capital fund standpoint and even if you start to split up this purchase into other funds. So that the general fund or the utility fund or the open space fund like everyone has a little slice of this pie if you were to purchase this building. That could be achievable. Uh it's also achievable if you start uh cutting your uh paving budget. And so that generated a question of if you do take a $5 million paving budget and you start to reduce that budget, what does that look like? Now I think that question applies to everything. South Taylor conversation initiated that question and it made that like a reality of like what number could we cut from that program budget but then if you think about it and we've heard from some of you that we have a lot of priorities in the city and so it's not like paving versus South Taylor it's really paving versus everything and then where is South Taylor in the priority list of everything for the city council or the community so if we just look at your paving number if you say as is at 5 million a year uh your current PCI being 74 5-year forecast will be a 74 to 76. If weather stays like San Diego every winter, we're going to perform much better. If weather goes back to arctic conditions, we might perform less. It just there are huge seasonal impacts here, but on average, but as I said, we're trying to be conservative with forecasts and we show that we're conservative with data. You'll be at 7476. If you want some moderate savings on that, say a million dollars a year. So now we spend four million a year on paving. Uh looks like the fiveyear forecast. Let's just say that keeps your score kind of I would say status quo 72 to 74. So you could easily shave a million dollars in your capital uh fund investment and paving and apply that to some other everything. Uh and then if

you want to go for significant savings, you could save $2 million a year. So you bring your paving budget down to $3 million per year. So again, our right now our PCI is 74 and maybe in five years we'd be a 70 or 72. Because that number goes backwards does not say we're doing bad things. It just says we're trying to acknowledge where the sweet spot is to invest in paving. We're trying to be do we're trying to do other things in the city. So that's kind of the um I think that's my last slide here. Yep, that's my last slide. I'll turn it over to city manager Lang. Thank you.

Thank you. while she's getting set up. I I forgot to mention that Director Coher is also going to be going to Washington tomorrow to help us with the transportation discussion. So, I'm looking forward to that.

Yeah. So, the decision point that we have for council tonight is do you want to uh prior to this Friday uh submit an inspection termination to the seller and terminate the contract or would you like to continue with the public engagement process? We are currently doing polling. We have a community survey out there. Um the deadline, I believe, is this week for that. And then we would present those results on May 19th and request that council make a decision at that point in time related to public engagement and whether or not we're going to proceed with the um purchase process at that point in time. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Council questions. Okay. Uh seeing none, um why don't we get some public comment if we have any? Anybody would like Do we have anybody signed up for public comment? Nope. All right. Then um so we can bring it back to council for further discussion. Um, I'll sort of start it off. Uh, first just a a kind of reminder. Um, this was a property that, uh, staff located uh, which is part of their job to be locating properties that might be of interest uh, for a whole bunch of different reasons. Um, and bring them to council for an initial evaluation. um council because it's a property issue. That's one of those items that often almost always will go to executive session first for uh discussion about strategy um relating to uh how to treat that property. Um I think for good reasons that were supported by the unanimous council um we entered into a buyell agreement. I think a lot of people thought, whoa, do we just buy that piece of property? And the answer is not quite. It's uh a way to kind of um be able to look at that piece of property a bit more carefully. It certainly resolved or could resolve a certain number of problems or challenges we were facing. One of those challenges is space. And we still, no matter what we do, we've got to account for space is

space issues. Uh we have staff that are particularly in this building uh just jammed up uh tightly and in an old building and we need to think about um making sure that we've got enough room for our staff. um we're a growing community and there's going to be need for um trying to make sure we have space for people and also um you know space is one of those things that people look for when they want to consider working for us and we want to continue to attract the top staff that we can and this is part of that. Um there's also synergies that come with having a new building. At any rate, we had some very preliminary analysis and we came back and decided to to enter into the buy cell with a fairly long period of um due diligence so we could look into the finances of the city a bit more deeply so that we could get some feedback from the public so that we could be sure that this is a solution to a problem that you know fit um for the community. Um and city managers already described kind of where we are tonight and a decision point. Um there's great things about the property. Um and other people can speak to this. Um it's beautiful building. We all know that it's if you have been out there joined one of the tours um it would put everybody together in one place or a lot of people uh from city staff that could really be able to work nicely together

in one place. Um it could be used for other services that we either have now uh or might want in the future. Um, one of those things is an arts and cultural center. Although I think there's a pretty it's pretty unlikely that in its current form it would serve that, but it might partially serve that and with some additional building. Um, it might be a good thing. But at any rate, there's and there's an awful lot of other good things about it. from my standpoint um we certainly thought um or we've gotten the additional financial information since then and even since the last time we talked about this and um gives me some pause um we can again talk about this on council bit certainly gives me more pause uh about proceeding um also I think there are other possibilities um But um I'll quit with that right now and see if there are other comments of council members to about this. Yeah, Council Member Dickinson.

Thanks. Um yeah, I think generally speaking, I think it's a really amazing opportunity. It's a really cool building. Everyone drives by it. They know the building. It's it's it's an amazing building and it's and it's very prominent, not like buried inside the CTC, but but right there. And I I think it's really exciting to think about all the things that could happen in that space. And it's a lot of like question. It's a lot of we don't really know what we're going to do with it, which is I think unnerving for a lot of people cuz like there's not a clear decision. I think people get concerned that we're going to move city hall there and we we've heard that. And so to Kurt's comments of like, oh, if people are really not excited, including myself, about moving this meeting up to the CTC, was it a non-starter then? like gosh, can we really invest that much money and and and and time and energy into a building that isn't going to serve this need? So, we're going to keep this building. It gets complicated, right? Um, but I think there's a lot of opportunity there. I think there is a way to pay for it. I think the paving can do the lion share of of it, but but we do talk about but if we keep both buildings, it's it's not just that building. It's maintaining the two and we get no benefit from saying sell this or rent this or what have you. I think there's an ability to rent. It's more space than we probably need right off the bat. So, yeah, you can maybe get some revenue by renting. There's so many uh possibilities. And I get really excited. I'm not very riskaverse. I I like risk. I like creativity. I like the cool things we could potentially do with it. And I think the positive feedback we've gotten are all around that. Like, oo, all these fun things that could possibly happen. Um, but it's big. It's a lot of money and it's a big risk and it may not serve exactly what we want or may not save the money we want to save in other places and it's a lot. I get it. It's a lot. Um and so I've been excited about the public process. I've heard from a lot of people but it's still ongoing. I'm happy to keep going. I think there are another more offramps um for us to to terminate without losing our earnest money and other

opportunities to to say this just isn't going to work. But I also understand that I'm maybe the most risky of the seven or certainly more risky than staff. Staff is not uh risktakers. Thank you for not being risktakers. Um that's kind of your your your role is to be really smart about it. And I think what I've noticed over this last month is a waning of enthusiasm from our staff. Like this is really exciting. This could be really cool to more like oh boy this could be really difficult to manage. Uh, and one of the one of the things to talk about is is um, you know, opportunity cost and hey, if we put all our eggs in this basket, you know, it's going to be really difficult to say yes to other things. It's going to be really difficult to say yes to, you know, raising staff wages. It's going to really be hard to say yes to a soccer field, to a a golf uh, facility, to, you know, just say say goodbye to all those things unless we find another revenue source like a bond. So, I get it. It's like really scary. I still think that ultimately we have a problem that's not being addressed if we say no to this. We have a problem with putting our staff places. We have a problem with this building uh falling under disrepair. We have problems that need to be fixed. And we're going to have to solve those sometime. And I think we're going to come back to the residents be like, "We didn't buy the $15 million building, but what do you think about a $40 million building that's half the size?" and people are going to look at us and go what like what that we don't know that right the solution could be something else and it could be five years down the road I'm concerned that this is a good solution to a pending problem but it's a big risk and so if that's not a risk we're willing to take or if we want to continue the conversation I can respect that if that's not if that's not where we're headed I'm concerned that maybe it's after my time I got I got 18 more months here it's probably after my time that we're solving this building.

But I I'm afraid we're going to look back at tonight and be like, "Oh man, I wish we had that building." I would much rather spend 15 million on a gorgeous building than 40 million on half the size building somewhere we don't want it. But that's all we don't know. We don't know what's going to happen. And so, um, I appreciate the feedback I've gotten from staff. I appreciate the details that they brought. I think there's a way to do it. I think we should still keep moving forward with the possibility, but I don't like I wouldn't sign the paper right now and say, "Yeah, it's ours." I think there's still more process. Even if we were to move forward, it still may not work. Uh, but I think we have more off-road, so any offramps, whatever. So, um, curious to hear other people's opinions. I'll probably if we're if we're if there's going to be a vote tonight, I probably vote to continue the conversation. But if if that's not the if that's not the vibe of the other six of you, then um I can understand that and and move forward in a different direction.

Thanks. Others. Yeah.

Well, I think I'm going to reach a different result, but I just want to agree with Council Member Dickinson about the need and that it is a real need to have more space for our staff and better space for our staff and that's not going to go away regardless of what we do on this. I I I am persuaded at this point that we've done enough diligence to know that this this isn't the the right solution to our problem, especially given that the sort of added complexity of moving things off Main Street. I think the high price plus that complexity to me put it over the line into into something I would I'm going to vote to take the off-ramp tonight. Um, but it's really important that we be eyes open that this need exists and, you know, start taking action to to formulate a plan to meet the need. And the other thing I'll say is, you know, I think we've we've done an admirable job of moving about as quickly as we can move as a city government on this, which is still slow by most standards, but fast for us, you know, and I think if if we were in a different position as sort of a private party, maybe there would have been more opportunity for back and forth with the seller and negotiation over the price and so on. And I mean it just given that we meet only every so often and we have to do executive session, it is difficult to move as fast as a private party would move. And I just want to throw that out there as an observation. Um and then I guess finally I'll say it's important for me to acknowledge that we've done all of this correctly. Like we we were fortunate to have uh our staff, our city manager and others bring to us a great opportunity. We took a hard look at the opportunity. We've done our research. We've done our diligence. We've done the financial analysis. And I think that's to to all of our credit, even if the answer is no.

Others. Yes. Council member Kurt.

Thank you. Um I think I think that Council Member Hefner stated it really well. Um and and both uh he and Council Member Dickinson made a good point that there is we we do have a need. Um there's there's quite a different there are a lot of ways that we can solve it, right? We're hearing from community members now. Um I just wanted to say as a note to doing it the right way. I think the public process that we have given that we've got new information today before us and we're presenting to the community. It it it changes things. But I think that we did it correctly. We asked everybody or started the process of asking people. I appreciated having the opportunity to come out um was that two weeks ago, Saturday. uh meet with a lot of residents, talked to people, heard a variety of opinions actually. So ran the gamut from you agreeing with you risk is great, do it today to I can't believe we you would move city hall. I we heard all of it. And I think given the the mixed feelings on the location of the building, the fact that it's probably double the size of what we even could possibly uh realistically use and most concernably though the additional cost of what the building is going to need for us and where our budget is. Um I am like staff, thank God, actually I am risk averse. Um, so I am a total fiscal conservative and I think that uh for me I think that is um an attribute uh that uh a lot of the the constituents who have voted for me appreciate is that um that I'm a little bit more spendthrift uh with their money and I feel that this puts the community at too high of a risk on future projects that a lot of community members want from you know decarbonization programs to uh library expansions to rec center to very

much needed senior service expansions um ball fields which are actually Caleb Dickinson's thing or mixed use fields. Uh I I just it would be a shame for us to not be able to provide a lot of what the community asks for on a regular basis because we did this and um I think we live in some very concerning times when we look at the cost of construction, repairs, maintenance for things. Um inflation continuing to be brutal for all of us and that will include the city. Um, I I just don't see a fiscal a smart fiscal way forward with this particular project. And I agree. I think keeping in mind what our needs are. Let's like really dig in. What are we looking for? Do we all want to be in one new building? Do we want to make this one bigger? I think the com we can staff council. we can continue to explore that and and have some concrete plans for we need x number of square feet definitively. Extra would be lovely. Let's get rid of the rent the ongoing rentals that we do. Um but my my vote would be let's let's steady the court, steady the ship, write it up and um look for a new opportunity. I think the new information uh makes this too risky for the city. Thanks, Council Member Fee.

Thank you. Uh, yes, I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made on both sides of this issue. Um the the thing that that I come up against is the financial risk that it would put the city at and uh especially in the time that's happening right now and the potential for future financial issues. Um, I think it's a risky adventure to do right now, but I would like to continue a conversation about how we could in the future come up with a plan and then make it come true. Either like was suggested, either expanding this building or buying a different building, maybe another building downtown. um that would keep us here, provide the resources that we need at a lower cost, but do it in a more um tempered manner. So, thank you.

Other council members? Yes. Uh Mayor Pump,

thank you. I'll be brief in my comments as council member um Hefner and Kern have nicely summarized the majority of my thoughts on this matter. I will add, you know, from my perspective, I voted no previously on moving forward uh based on financial concerns. Um I stand by that tonight as well. While there are future offramps, this is the last financial offramp and other offramps would have to be in good faith based on other uh variables. And so I don't see a path forward financially. So I will again uh be voting to take this off ramp tonight.

Others? Yes, council member group.

Thank you. Um um I guess I wanted to just put forth sort of a different way to think about this decision. Um, not not that it isn't necessarily about risk, but I think it's I think it's a little bit more about just priorities rather than risk. Um, so, you know, if we, as others have said, you know, this building could serve a lot of purposes uh for the city. Um, we don't know what those are just yet, but that's okay. Um, and but I think, you know, the way I've been thinking about it is, you know, you know, is it is it a priority for us to try to solve some problems that we know about and maybe provide opportunities for things that we maybe don't know about yet? um and you know, do we want to yeah, do we want to make that a priority and then look hard at our budgets um and figure out how we could make that work? Um, so I I guess um I largely agree with council member Dickinson that you know on the uh on the sort of capital improvement uh part of the budget question um I think we could probably make things work um by reducing the payment program. Um you know we we might have to do a little bit more than that. Um but again like you know if if we really think that this is a priority for the city and now is a good time to to make that investment. I think we could find things that we would want to cut or reduce. And you know we would we would have to probably find a little bit more to cut or reduced. And so the question is you know what is our priority there?

Um I think a little bit more concerning is on the operational side of the budget. Um, right. We're basically just trying to add a half a million dollars to our operating budget. And so then the question is, you know, how can we how can we deal with that? Um, and at the moment, uh, you know, the only way I can really, well, I I think one way to deal with that, which maybe has a little bit of risk, um, is to lease part of the building if we went forward. Um, right, you know, right now if we if we did buy the building, uh, we would not certainly not use all that space, uh, right away. And so we could lease part of it. Um, and use that revenue to try to fill that operational gap. Um, and you know, in particular, since we would, you know, I think we would have some kind of process around figuring out how to use uh the rest of the building over time, you know, there would certainly be an opportunity to lease uh parts of the building. Um, you know, the only other, uh, I think idea along those lines, um, is to sort of shift the balance between how much of our tax revenue goes into the the general fund and how much goes into the capital improvement projects. Um, and so, you know, so then that would give us a little bit more operating room, operating budget room. Uh, but again, we'd then have to cut even a little bit more from our capital projects. So I think for me the question is really yeah you know do we think this is a high enough priority uh at the moment to go ahead with it and um make those adjustments that we would need in other parts of the budget uh or do we not think it's a a priority um and so I feel like you know the the public engagement

process a a large part of that is to figure out you know How does the public feel? Is it is this a priority for them or not? Um and I I feel like we don't lose too much by continuing with that process. You know, we're already the polling is already going on. We've already had one open house. Um I I don't I'm not too uncomfortable with continuing that process. Uh since we have another decision point coming up. Um yeah. So, um I don't know that that's that's mostly how I feel about it at the moment. Um you know, I for me personally at the moment, I'm not sure that I'm willing to make uh this building the a priority above some of those other programs and things that we might do in the future. Um but, you know, getting the input from the public would help me to make that decision. Um so, that's where I stand right now. I'd like to make just a couple of observations and then a motion. Um the process and you've kind of heard from um everybody and really good points all the way around. Um uh and I'm not going to repeat what folks have said. I think this has opened up a discussion uh in a way with the public that we haven't had in a while, which is what's the state of our facilities in Lewisville? What's the state of our staff needs now going forward? Um there and there's some pretty big dreams out there and those are good things and things that we're not going to deal with for the last time tonight. Um

I think it's uh also one of the observations just hearing a lot about this is that we've we have learned a lot more about ch sort of uncertainties around uh oper operations ongoing operations after we you know if we were to buy this what what's that going to look like? One of the things that we said at the very outset is that one piece of the public engagement was going to be just to see what people thought of this building. Just some general thinking about it. The only way we were going to get to the part of the public engagement that really went into operations was going to be after we had to make the decision about whether to buy or not. And to me that that was always kind of a a difficult thing to get my mind around because there's as I said a lot of dreams and a lot of thoughts about what this building could be used for and and we're not going to be able to get to that point. So um the financial piece I think others have discussed that um and so I'm not going to go further into that. Um I do And I'm happy to know that the council is really interested in attacking the problem short term of space, which as council member Dickinson said is there even if we don't proceed. And um so um we're going to probably do a staffing evaluation. That's something city managers already talked about doing. We're going to do a facilities plan, taking an inventory of all the

facilities we have, what their condition is, what the opportunities and challenges there are, some of the um things that we might want to do and whether um you know what are the options for uh for dealing with those. And that those are going to make a future decision on another building perhaps or another opportunity a lot easier for this council to make because we can have that framework and then attack the problem. this was an opportunity that we got um and council member Hefner said it well about what the staff did uh which was exactly what they should do and I think um we're doing what we need to do to make sure that the public understands what we're facing. So, with that, I'm going to move to um sub to authorize the city manager to submit an inspection termination to the seller and terminate the contract prior to April 14th,

24th. I just want to note that the mayor is the one that signs the documents associated with this. So, you would be signing the inspection termination. Okay. Second. I would I'd be authorizing myself. I guess that's the that's what we're doing. Do we have a second? Okay. Any further discussion? Um, one moment. All in favor? I I Any opposed?

Nay. Thanks. Um, the next item is the grain elevator, 540 County Road, uh, resolution number 38, series 2026, a resolution approving the first amendment to the Lville mil site redevelopment plan, unit development, and special review use for an outdoor eating establishment and food court. Do we have any disclosures? Yes, council member.

Uh, yeah, I'll need to recuse myself from this uh conversation and the next one on short-term rentals. I have a conflict of interest on both. So, if you just want to I I won't come back to recuse myself on the next one. So, if you want to enter it into the record if if you so choose that I've also recused myself from the next item. Um, but I will uh I'll be gone for the rest of the night. Um, is that is that Yes, that's sufficient. Okay, great. Good. Thank you.

Great. Wait for council member Dickinson to excuse himself and leave the room. Right. Um, why do we get going? Um, I'll leave it to director of community development, Rob.

Yes. Good evening, Mayor Lelay, members of city council. Rob Zucero, community development director for the city. Um, so with the grain elevator, as you saw in the packet, there there's two connected items, but they're separate. So staff is making two separate presentations um and uh having two discussions around that. So while they're connected, they're very different items as well. Um, so this first item is resolution number 38, which is consideration of an amendment to the Lewisville Mills site redevelopment site, planned unit development, and a special review use to allow outdoor um outdoor eating and drinking establishments and a food truck court. Sorry, you would cover both of those. So, um, I'm going to spend a little time on the background of the property. As I think most of you are aware, the city's been involved um on this property for around 15 years um along with members of the community um to preserve this. This is a very unique property and you'll hear more about that in the historic preservation grant which is the next item. Um but the you know the city has taken some pretty extraordinary measures and and tried to partner and has partnered with community members on preserving this property. So, what we're talking about now is how to activate the property. Um, it is under private ownership now, as you all know, but um, you know, dating back to 2012 when the city first got involved in trying to preserve the property. Um, the city did enter into an agreement with an original developer for the property. Um, that did include a $2.1 million historic preservation fund grant to help fund that project. Um, that's how this this all started. that deal was not completed. So th those monies were not spent that $2.1 million and the project continued to evolve. Um the city purchased the grain elevator. We ended up purchasing it for $950,000 as well as

the property to to the north. That was part of the deal in order to um obtain the property. So and it was really to avoid demolition of the property. Um the city then issued an RFP to developers to enter into a public private partnership to see who we could partner with on um uh rehabilitating and activating the grain elevator property. The city was working on um a deal with a different development group, not the first one that I mentioned, but a different one. Um there were complications that arose around that um uh that other public private partnership. There was a conflict with the property to the south and an encroachment onto the property. Um those complications led to the the next deal um which is where we're at today. Um where the city entered into a new agreement with Lewisville Millsite LLC which is also one of the current applicants on the PUD. And so the that agreement was to sell the grain elevator property to Lewisville Mills Site LLC for a discounted price from the $950,000 that we purchased it for. Um and then provided a $500,000 grant to stabilize the grain elevator. So again, those original agreements we were working on kind of took the project through activation. So, this agreement that we've been working on um you know since 2014 2015 um included selling it to this private group. Um they did complete the stabilization. They utilized those $500,000 of historic preservation funds. Um definitely saved the grain elevator and I know Mr. Hart trough will probably get into some of the details of the pretty extraordinary work that was done um to save the grain elevator and you know get it to where it is today where it's it's not going to fall down and it's in pretty good shape just as far as

being weatherproof and so forth. Um, so following that, those initial approvals and the initial deals with Lewisville Milside LLC, the city did approve a subdivision plat, a planned unit development, and an SRU in 2015. So that was the initial vision and plan for redevelopment of the grain elevator. It incorporated the property to the north where um, which was part of the original acquisition and it also included the property to the south. So it all got encompassed into these development plans and that solved that encroachment issue that I was talking about that um complicated the um original public private partnership. So those plans were approved. The subdivision plat um still stands. So all the lots are subdivided. That doesn't expire. The PUD and the SRU have expired. So now we're here with the new version of the plans. Um the subdivision plat did establish a a no build area or conservation easement which is the blue area on the map here. So the intent of that is to um maintain view corridors to the historic building. So that's part of this consideration as well and I'll get into more detail on that but that is established through the subdivision plat. Um, it's called a no build area, but city council can allow some development as long as it's still meeting the original intent of the the view corridor conservation easement. Um, those original approvals did allow an outdoor um dining area activation of that front part of the property. Um, and then the historic preservation commission approved all of the work back then. the they've also approved the current plans as well that's been through the HPC process um for their approval of an alteration certificate. So they have re review all of the historic preservation and rehabilitation work and they've signed off on that. That also includes the building edition

that I'll talk about and they have signed off on that as well. Um so through all of these years the city has invested um and the urban renewal authority have invested quite a bit in this project. Uh it's about $1.485 million of public funding um to date to support the project. So these are the original plans. Again, those are those are expired. So it dealt with all three properties um grain elevator and the properties to the north and the south. Um the proposal before you this evening is more limited. It really it touches all of the properties, but it's really limited to the grain elevator property and the parcel in front of the grain elevator property. The properties to the north and south um include some improvements for parking and drive aisles. This project also in um encroaches back into the BNSF rideway. There is a a lease that allows that to happen. So that's all incorporated into this as well. Um so the the pro so you can see the proposal again is to complete the rehab rehabilitation and activate the grain elevator property um with a drinking establishment, a bar and then um add a food truck court and a an outdoor gathering space in the front parcel. And then you can see where there's additional parking um that would be developed on the north and south sides that also uh include some parking on the east side of the property which is adjacent to the railroad. Um the food truck court would have designated food truck pads which is part of our food truck court ordinance. So, we allow food trucks around the city, but we have a special provision. We've actually never utilized it where you can establish a food truck court. And I'll go into some of the details about that SRU. Um, so here's the development plans

um with the layout of the activity area in the front. Um the building, the building addition. Uh the building elevations on the top are on the top left and the top right. And the bottom left you can see that building addition off the back. So with historic properties um you do want building additions to be subordinate and not very noticeable. So um they've done a good job designing around that. So the grain elevator still stands on its own here. So um more information on the special review use. So again, within this zone district, um anytime you have outdoor dining, um we require what's called a special review use or a conditional use. So that is that's a discretionary consideration for city council. Um there are additional criteria. Uh and the idea is is that there could be some externalities with those uses. So we can have additional regulations through that SRU, which we can talk about in more detail. But those often because this is outdoor use of a property, they often relate to lighting or noise or hours of operations to try to mitigate any potential external impacts. So the SRU as proposed um for you this evening would limit um use of the outdoor area from 8:00 a.m. to midnight. Um it would limit any outdoor amplified music to 900 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. So you can see in the bottom right hand corner of that outdoor u use area there is a proposed a small stage. Um there are a lot of outdoor decorative lights. So within your plan set there's a very detailed lighting plan with all of the light fixture types and illumination. Um so the proposal is the decorative lights and stage lights would be turned off after business hours. they would be able to maintain safety lights, pedestrian lights that would be needed for safety, but those other lights would

have to be turned off. Um, there's a a request to allow temporary structures such as tents up to 60 days a year for different events. Um, and then within the the food truck portion of it, um, they would be required to have dedicated electrical service. So those food trucks aren't running generators, for example, and there's more food truck provisions in the proposal. So the the analysis, there's a pretty extensive analysis in the staff memo. Um we this is zoned commercial business. It's located within the commercial core transition area of downtown. So I have a list here of all of the applicable applicable regulations that we reviewed it against. The design handbook for downtown is one of the major ones, parking as well, the zoning district. Um, of course, the conservation easement, the special reviews criteria, and then we have the PUB criteria, um, which we have an uh, an appendix to the staff report that outlines each of those. Um, I won't go into the detail. There's a lot of detail in the staff report. We did pull out what we thought were the most relevant design handbook um, gu uh, standards and guidelines. we do find it's in compliance with the applicable standards within those regulations. Um namely it's going to it's going to activate the area um of this area of downtown with pedestrian focus and amenities. There's a lot of discussion in the handbook um that promotes this type of outdoor activity. Um there the the handbook is also broken out into general guidelines and guidelines for historic properties. So we reviewed it against that. This does uh staff finds treat the historic structure um in an appropriate way meeting the handbook standards. Um and as I mentioned the historic preservation commission has reviewed and approved this. Um so so parking standards for

downtown. You're probably aware we have very different standards for downtown than the rest of the city. The intent is to have a pedestrianoriented um type of environment where we don't have the suburban commercial areas with large parking lots. Um, so the it's a very different calculation and we also exempt the first 500 square feet uh I'm sorry the first 999 square feet of new building area. Really when you apply those standards to this development they wouldn't have to add additional parking per the base standards. Uh but they are proposing um to add 23 new spaces throughout the site as part of the development. Now, the downtown parking standards don't require additional parking, but through the SRU approval process, um we often look at parking that could be an external impact, but we don't have a calculation for it. So, um based on staff's review of this, we do think this is a good balance of additional parking um for the downtown area. Um there is also bicycle parking provided, EV parking to meet our standards um within our code. It's also adjacent to quite a bit of public parking. Um the the Lucky Pie Sweet Cow public parking lot is um just Kitty Corner to this property and there's on street parking as well to help support the development. There are some um commercial business zoning waivers that are requested as part of this development. There are some setback waivers. Um the the side I've highlighted them in yellow here. So the side and rear set So the side setback waivers is for the existing building. So it's an existing condition. Um the rear setback waiver is on the railroad side and there is again that lease back there. And so there is some buffer but that would accommodate the proposed addition off the rear of the grain elevator building. And then they are proposing to bring an additional structure um to serve as a tap house out

in the food truck court. and they're requesting a front setback waiver for that additional structure within the food court area. There's also a lot coverage um waiver. It's a 40% maximum within that zone district. Um that's just the grain elevator lot if you so they have to technically request a waiver, but if you combine it with the front lot and the back lot, they would meet the standard. Um, so we are finding that the waivers are warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the development which is one of the primary criteria for waiver consideration. So to get to the no build area that's on the subdivision plat that conservation easement um the applicant did provide some street view rendering so that um you could see um you know how the development of the food truck court in the front um you know would have minimal impact on public view corridors. So you can allow that even with the conservation easement through this PUD approval um to allow some development within that area. Um so staff does find that this limited development does still meet the intent of the initial view corridor conservation easement. Um and it will help facilitate again activation of the property um and and kind of fulfilling the vision of of activating the bar and the food truck court and what the applicant's trying to present with the um the commercial use of the property. Um just a little bit more on the SRU. Um so within the criteria some of the criteria we're looking that is included for SRUs is is it promoting economic activity and stability for the area. So we are finding that this does meet that standard. Um they they have put

limitations that are very similar to other SRUs that we see for outdoor dining throughout downtown. um including limitations on hours of operation, amplified music, lighting and so forth. The food truck court again has its own set of restrictions. The purpose of the food truck court is to uh one of the purposes I should say um is to you you know establish an area where that's an ongoing operation. So, the way our food truck court ordinance works right now is you can't be within 150 ft of another restaurant without getting their permission. This allows a permanent use without having to constantly get that permission um with all restaurants within that radius. They are not within that a radius uh of 150 ft of any restaurants currently, but if another restaurant were to move in, this allows them to continue operations for the food court part of the proposal. Again, there would be designated vendor pads with electrical connections. Um, food trucks typically aren't allowed to have amplified music. So, again, joining this as a food truck court does allow that opportunity. Um there are some minimum setbacks in our ordinance for from residential areas. This these does meet those standards for the vendor paths. Um and there are landscaping standards as well which this meets for food truck courts. Um again the PUD uh analysis is in an appendix to the staff report. We do find it meets the applicable PUD criteria. The planning commission reviewed this on November 13th of last year. They recommended approval with a couple of conditions which have been met uh before the city city council hearing. So those are taken care of before this evening. And so we are recommending approval of resolution 38 um to approve

the new um site development plan for the grain elevator property and the SRU requests. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. It's an incredibly complicated um effort can from staff standpoint and from the applicant. Um is there an applicant presentation too? Yes, I believe so. Yes. Okay. Why don't we take we can take questions for for staff initially if there are any questions. Yes. Council member Fee and then council member Coopermanman.

Thank you. Yes. I just have a question on the outdoor music. So, I know it's right in between the street fair and the community park concerts and has the sweet cow music across the street. So, how is that all regulated? I mean, who can have the volume, how high?

Yeah. So, we, you know, we don't have any regulations in this proposal for um the volume of the music or when they could have music other than the proposed hours of operation. So I think you know oftentimes when there is a street fair I do I do believe that you know some of the businesses even after street fair may have music and so forth and so they kind of build off of that as well member Cerman and then May

um just one slight follow-up question. So my impression from the information that staff provided earlier is that for this kind of application we we kind of don't have a set of regulations around noise and light. We kind of I guess negotiate with the applicant and then it's up to city council's discretion to decide if we're okay with what's in the application.

Yeah. I think on noise we really don't have any standard regulations. it does get negotiated through the SRU process which you know some properties are closer to residential areas than others and so maybe they would have more restrictions than others when you look at the commercial core downtown so um it may be appropriate to have custom and that's kind of the purpose of an SRU one of the purposes of an SRU is to find custom standards best based on the context of where they're located um lighting we can have additional lighting standards through the SRU but we do have core basic lighting standards within our other regulations. So, at a minimum, they have to meet those.

Um, and then additional lighting requirements could be um brought forward through the SRU. Okay. Um the the the locations for the food trucks, are they within the no build zone? Yes, some of them are. Some of them are. And so, of course, the food trucks would only be there temporarily, but is there an Does that sort of negate any issues with the food trucks blocking views?

Uh I mean they would have some impact on the views. So the the food truck c the food truck pads you see. So they would be they they would be lined up here and then over here. So I believe there's three. There'd be one, two, and three. So from this view corridor there could be some impact from you know from the northwest. from the west and the southwest they wouldn't have as much impact. Right. But the the fact that they're sort of temporary, does that does that mean they don't really really apply or maybe the the

Yeah, I I think that's you know subjective to interpretation. Um you know whether they're you know them coming in and out um has a substantial impact, right? Okay. Um, and just one little question, the the setback to the railroad side, um, is that just kind of a a fairly standard setback or is there anything different because it abuts the railway? No, this would just be the standard zoning setback. There's no special railroad setback.

Okay. Thank you. So I have a a few questions specifically focused on the special review use proposal. The first of which is um some clarification about the lighting specifically the proposed stage lighting. I I see the pictures of it the actual lighting unit in our packet. Um, is that also subject to being downcast and all the other things in our code or does it have some sort of exception because it's stage?

Yeah. So, I think that as as stage lighting, I think they're proposing to have some more flexibility on that. I'd have to it's been a while since I've looked at that actual fixture. So, I think we could ask the applicant when they do their presentation or give me time to pull up the fixture and I could comment more clearly on that fixture and its orientation.

Okay. And I mean, I use that fixture as an example, but just in general, the lighting associated with this stage, I'm curious um what that will look like. My other question on the special review use is um regarding the amplified music. So I'm thinking to myself, what are other businesses in the area and the special review use that they had for their outdoor dining? Um it's can you uh the closest thing I can think of is Crystal Springs, which is right next to some neighborhoods. So, can you please remind us um if they're allowed to have amplified music?

Yes, I have some notes on that if you can give me a minute to pull. Yes, please. Yeah. So, so you know, again, we have quite a few outdoor dining SRUs around downtown. The Crystal Springs one specifically, um, does prohibit outdoor amplified music.

Okay, thank you. Um, two more questions. One is, um, the temporary structures and tents that would be permitted 60 days within any six-month period. Um, do we have we have special event permits? Um, correct. And would special event permits or some other sort of temporary permit um that currently exists allow for tents and also allow for amplified music through the special process rather than an SRU?

Um, yeah. So, our special event permits are primarily in public spaces, the ones that you you're probably thinking of. Um, we have a couple of different types of special event permits. Within the zoning code, we do have temporary use permits that can also include special events on private property of certain types. Um, so there is the potential that um, you know, if there was a larger event held in the space that was outside of um, what was allowed through the SRU, there could be a process for them to come and ask for uh, additional temporary use permits. Um, those do often include um, temporary structures associated with those when those happen.

And do those typically include the option for amplified music? Um, they can. Yes. Okay. And then my last question um at the moment is from staff and city perspective. Can you tell us what public engagement has been um completed? Yeah. And let me go back to the amplified music question. I I do think if the for example if the SRU prohibited so temp um temporary use permits are often administrative

and so I think if the SRU prohibited amplified music I don't know that there's a way for staff to administratively go against the SRU and allow amplified music without having to come to council to consider that temporary use permit that provide so it's more complicated than just if you get an administrative tempor temporary use permit for an event that there might be uh amplified music allowed if it violates the underlying SRU. Okay. Is there any staff administrative process through which they could obtain amplified music if it were explicitly not allowed in an SRU?

Um I'm not sure. I would like to open up the temporary use code and see. I don't believe there's specific provisions around that. So again, I think if somebody was doing a special event on private property and they were having amplified music, we would probably allow it if again there wasn't some underlying zoning or SRU restriction. Okay. So if it wasn't restricted in the SRU, it was just not in there. I think that's complicated just because we Well, yes. if it was not I think if we didn't if we didn't have a requirement for not allowing amplified music then you could um then you would be allowed to have amplified music is another way to think about it.

Um and then my last question about public engagement from a from a city perspective what's been completed in relation to this. Yeah. So um you know we don't have a public meeting requirement within any of our review processes. So, we didn't hold any public meetings as part of this process. So, it was publicly noticed, of course, you know, through all of our public notice requirements, including signage and mailings and so forth. Okay. And is in your experience with I I know we've had a few developments recently where there's been some really great public engagement. Is that something that you're seeing more and more often with developments in our community or

um Oh, not so much. Yeah, we see it from time to time. We often encourage applicants to engage the public outside of our of our process when we believe that there's going to be some particular neighborhood or community interest. Okay. Thank you. That's all really helpful. That's all, Mr. Mayor. Any other questions? If not, um, does the applicant have a presentation? Might be able to ask a little bit about public engagement on that, too. the computer later.

Hello. Um, I'm Jennifer Fox and I have a local business on Front Street and I'm one of the members of the new privatelyowned partnership that took the risk to buy this building that we so are so excited about. And it's been really a fun process to be a part of going through this process of both taking on this this incredible building, talking a lot about it, and then presenting it multiple times. So, this is my third time to get to get in front of people who make decisions in this city about this project. So, just very excited about the opportunity that it brings and the, you know, taking this building and creating something where people can actually enjoy the building as a community is so inspiring. I work on Front Street. I walk past this all the time, this building, and anytime I tell anybody about this project that I'm involved in, they're like, "Oh my gosh, I know that building. I've been wondering what they're going to do with that building." And so, it's just been really fun to be a part of a project that is truly truly about bringing community together using a building that, you know, someone had to take a risk, right? Someone had to grab this building and do something with it. And so, we're excited to be a part of that. And so I'm, you know, really up here to just basically say thank you for the opportunity to present in front of you. I really appreciate everything that staff has done to bring this project to light. I'm just so impressed with our partners and everything they've done to bring it to life on paper and in presentation to really show people what's possible with this building and just I'm super excited to be a part of it. And we have this wonderful, you know, concept of what this building can be for Lewisville. this area that's been not activated, that hasn't been exciting, that's actually been a question mark for so many years. I was been here since I was nine months old. You don't have to know my age to guess it's been a long time. And uh that building's been there for all that time, not not taking action. And so I'm just really excited to be a part of that. And so my opportunity is just get to stand

up in front of you and let you know how excited we are as a group to make this a community space to have this building used in a way that it's never it hasn't been used before since when it was first brought to be a place of gathering. This was a community of mining and agriculture. And this is where people gathered. And so our vision for this is this will be a place that where people gather, where they'll have an opportunity to come together, where we're a great neighbor, where we care about the other businesses around us, where we're activating an area that benefits everyone. And so thank you for your time. And um one of my partners, um Ross Bowy will get up and share some more information. And I appreciate you. Thank you.

Thanks a lot. Good evening, council members, mayor, city staff, and everyone joining us here and online as I know many people are interested in what's happening with the grain elevator. Um, my name is Ross Bowy if I haven't met you, and I represent part of the new ownership group with with Jen and coming alongside Eric, who you'll hear from in a second, who's been a part of this project for quite some time. Um, I've been a Lewisville resident for 22 years and uh proud to own two other downtown businesses uh as a family and um so this just feels right in line with with what we want our community to be. Um I just want to start by saying how excited and grateful we've been uh to go on this journey. Um I think some of us didn't quite know how long this was going to take. um from when we started and and finding ourselves here uh multiple meetings behind us. Um it's been fun to be able to present this to the planning commission, to the HPC, to the LRC. Um and to have all of those meetings be uh approved with unanimous selection. Um that's felt really uh uh I don't know, it's it's really helped us feel like this is what our community wants. And so, um, what's been especially encouraging along the way is how many people have showed up, taken time out of their day to say, "This is what we support." Um, a lot of those people are not here tonight, uh, just cuz life is busy, but, uh, people like Eric Reed of Acme Find Goods and, uh, Travis Ramos and former mayor Bob Muckle have all come and spoken about this project alongside us at some of these different public meetings. um to say this is this is what our community wants. And so um

as a local ownership and development group um we really feel like we aren't just a random group of people from California. Nothing wrong with California. Sorry, California. That decided, hey, let's do this development here. We are your neighbors. We are a group of people who saw an opportunity to bring something back to life. And that's really what motivates us. Some of the things that I want to point out tonight, we feel like the city and the council did a phase one move with this property and spending money to make sure it didn't get demolished. And that was a hefty lift. It ended up being about $750,000 that they spent. And then in phase two, there was another investment of 500 for stability and some other things that got us to about 1.5 million in total to make sure it didn't fall down. And we feel like we find ourselves at phase three where we can take what you've given and turn it into something special. Um, with an additional 2 million that has been committed between HPC and LRC in previous meetings and being discussed tonight, we really feel like this $5 million project that we have from here forward in making this happen is possible. Um, we feel like this is not just doing a project. It's preserving a historic landmark and making it a vibrant part of our community. A place where people can gather. A place that creates energy and a place that adds vibrancy to our city. This impact extends well beyond just the building existing and a place for people to be. But this will also generate increased property taxes for the city.

It will also create new sales taxes for the city. Um, and taking advantage of this food court park thing that the city worked so hard to create and be the first one to not just have food truck park, but also have food trucks be paying sales tax to the city um when they're at our place. um the business that is uh the tenant uh of this project, you know, they are very motivated to not just have food trucks, but work closely with other neighboring local food vendors. Um they know the community, they want to do what's right and what's good for neighboring businesses. Um and many of the business owners in the surrounding area are part are fans of it. Tom Horse to Crystal Springs, Mark Orberholser who runs Louisville Underground and Tilt uh amongst others. I know uh we've been making uh all the all the relationships we feel like we need to to make sure that they see that this is not just about us in the grain elevator, it's about our community. Um, we're incredibly grateful for the partnership that has brought us this far, but at the same time, we do have one remaining challenge. Uh, approximately $600,000 uh was not approved uh in the previous commission uh meetings that we've been to. Um 300,000 of that uh we've been assured that the the tenant could probably come back to one of those commissions to talk about um help there. Um, but one of the things that we want to bring to to light to the council is that uh we were asking for a 10% contingency on this uh uh cost of construction. Um, which is about three

$360,000 as a 10% contingency for this build. Um, and we really feel that that is something that if we can be considered to include it now as opposed to coming back later, which staff has told us is a possibility, um, it will really help us maintain momentum as we do this build. As you may know, with construction like this, delays of funding and different things can really, really make a project uh, take a lot of steps back. And so we're really trying to make sure that the investment that we've already made, you know, continues on the right path in the right timeline. Um, in closing, I think we're very close to making this happen. And with your continued support and with tonight, taking this final step together, we get to transform something that once was at risk of being lost in our community uh, to be something that will serve this community for generations. Thank you so much again for your leadership and your vision and your commitment to considering projects like the grain elevator. I'm going to now turn it over to our partner Eric Hartoft to talk a little bit more about some of the details because he's the one who's making sure it's pretty.

Oh, it's going to be pretty. Uh we'll see if this works. I've got the click thing already hooked up. So, we'll see. So, I think Jess and I tried it out and it worked. Oh, but it's not. You got to get your computer. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Does anybody need a break right now? Just a minute or two here.

So, you So, you might need to reload the file. Oh, maybe. Yeah, I I think it was just a login thing last time. Yeah. Yeah, there it's up. At least the Try hitting the button there.

Yeah. So, open the um So, open the file. Open your file your finder. Oh, there it is. There it is. Yep. Perfect. Thank you. Oh, I'm the best IT guy. Let me ask you a question, Eric. Um, we usually take a break around 8. Yeah. Um, and we can do the break after you finish your presentation, provided it's not a half an hour. It won't be a half an hour. I can guarantee you that.

If it uh or we can, you know, we can take a break right now and you can come back and however you'd like. At the council's pleasure, whatever you guys want to do. I'm I'm here all night. We're not. But um uh one do you have a sense of how long your presentation? Oh, I I think I'll be done before 15 minutes passes. So I think it's more like 10, maybe eight. Why don't we Why don't we take a break right now? Okay. For about uh 10 minutes. We'll be back five. Sounds good. Just didn't want to I didn't want to upset your flow. I think it's a good idea.

It's all yours. Green light. All right. Uh Eric Hartro, uh 950 Spruce Street office and uh Lincoln Avenue is my home. So, right here in the middle. That's great. Um, so I think you guys all know, you know, I've been doing this as long as the city has. And, um, you know, I've I've been involved in a couple of, um, of the, uh, proposals, I guess, developer proposals, including the first one. And um it is hard to make this deal work. And we've tried different formulas with different investors and um you know when uh when Randy and I uh decided to do this uh we knew that it it wasn't going to be easy and it wasn't going to be laid out uh really neat and clean and we couldn't guarantee that we'd have it done by a certain date and it was going to cost this much because nobody had even been in the building you know for you know decades. And so, you know, we all walked through it, but you know, there was, you know, animal guano 2 ft deep. And so, you couldn't really tell what you were dealing with there. And there's still grain in the grain bins, as a matter of fact. And so, um, so our task was to like get it all in a position where we could move forward. And that's that's really it's taken a lot longer than I thought to get to here. But I can't tell you how happy I am to be here tonight and what we've been through over the last year and a half now uh with my new partners are great and we're just so tickled that we've come this far and absolutely couldn't have done it without the city of Lewisville and without the citizens without a historic preservation

tax and without urban renewal. So, you know, this is this is a team effort and um I just I can't thank Lewisville enough and you guys are Lewisville. So, um you all know the the site very well. Um you know, being the southern gateway to Lewisville, I think is kind of a special position um to to hold. And so, we knew that something had to happen there that was really going to honor this location. And um you know the bones of the site were good. Uh the grain elevator set back. It gave us this great um green space in front that we can take advantage of. And we knew that was going to be a real calling card for this for this site. And the buildings to the north and south of the grain elevator, they're not much to look at right now, but you know, we got plans for those too. So, um, when we started this PUB, the whole idea was to bring life into this what is now a subdivision, this group of these three buildings. And so, um, the, uh, we didn't know which part was really going to pop first and but we knew that we had to get the grand elevator to a point where we could interest some user in the building. And so the stabilization was paramount to get that done as quickly as possible. Um even then it took a couple years to really get finished with that. But it was pretty sad shape when we when we started and um uh lots of fond memories of that process. But um you know if you think back about that site and what it meant, I mean Jen's right, this has always been a gathering place.

Um, and you know, people would bring their grain, they'd sit out on the on the boardwalk there and chew the fat and talk about life. And so it was a it was a great place. Um, uh, you know, you think about the coal mines, you don't think that much about the agrarian part of Lewisville. You know, there's lots of farms out around. You know, we still have sort of the Warrenburgg farm as a good example of, you know, kind of what surrounded Lewisville. And uh so so this was really uh a heart of of social life and and community life. And um you know, Lewisville was a little more grumbly back then with our industrial base uh for a lot of the employment and uh and then the agrarian base and uh then you had the shopkeepers and the everybody else that kept Lewisville um humming along back in the turn of the century. And um I think that just sort of taking back to where we started um if you look at that image on the left upper left corner um that's the head house. So that's where all the machinery was and that is before we did the mitigation work. And the one on the right just beautiful clean wood and it looks like it was built yesterday. And um so it was really rewarding to take this building from what it was um you know which was uh hotel for raccoons and others um and really get back down to the bones that that were really really good. And um so it the stabilization literally we lifted the building up and we put new foundations under it. And then all of the wood that had been buried for years, uh we unburied it and found how bad it was then cuz you

couldn't even tell cuz the dirt was covering up the bo the base of this building. And so, uh, we had to go in and kind of surgically take out the bottom of the building once we had it up in the air, put a new bottom of the building on, and then drop it back down on the new foundation. So, you say, "Oh, stabilization." But when you realize what actually went into it, it was quite a heavy lift literally um to get it uh to the position that we've got it in today. There you can see the the grain bins. Really cool construction, that stack plank uh construction. And so now we have uh a lot of new 2 by sixes um which they were literally 2 by sixes that they used to build the you know 45 foot tall walls just stacked one on top of the other and that's that was the way they always did it. There's lots of these around the country. Uh not so many anymore but that was the way they did it. Um so this was the end of the stabilization process and um you know new roof, new roof structure, uh new foundation, new uh structural elements throughout the building and then um a fairly weathertight exterior. You know, replaced a lot of sighting and uh repainted it. But, you know, it sits there today with no fire sprinklers and uh an outdated electric system. And, you know, it's uh it's still a little precarious the way it sits today. Um it's kind of back to the future. Uh so, what we want to do is restore that Port Crocher that was on the front. You can see the wagon ramp and uh the the boardwalk in this picture. And it really kind of shows you how the building, you know, used to work. Obviously, we with the help of the LRC, we've got that sign repainted on there and uh so it starts to look a little more like it did. Uh

this project will take it back to that look basically. So this was our original PUD and uh again it encompassed the three properties uh the one to the south and the one to the north. left is north on that drawing and um and the grain elevator. And so once we got the PUD approved then it was really a matter of trying to find a user which we've been trying to do for 10 12 years. And so but there were things that were really important about this site and it all centered around the grain elevator. That's the the centerpiece. And so in addition to the no build uh conservation easement um and the landmarked structure and site then we have these yellow areas which are also no build uh easements. So when you when you really look at it we tried to uh preserve a view quarter no matter what came after us. You know if somebody built a different kind of building on the north or the south we wanted to make sure that that view corridor you know was was protected. And so we put that in the PUB. Um the one little thing that we found along the way. Um, so Randy Crany, my uh previous partner on on the property um knew the Warrenbergs and was talking to him one day, one of the uh kids one day found the scale, the actual scale platform with all the mechanism uh you know that goes underground where you bring a wagon up and it it is down at the Warberg farm and um they've donated that back to the property and while we were there we noticed this little greenery across the creek. And if you've ever drove up or down um uh I can't remember the name of the hill now. Um but the uh just right north or south of

the creek, you can see the little building sitting there. So that was a private grainery. So, if you look at the site plan, we've placed it at the south or at the excuse me, the northwest corner of the grainyard um as sort of a point counterpoint to the large grain elevator and the small grain elevator. And this is that cool little building. So, these private graineries were just awesome. Uh they're inside out. The siding's on the inside to hold the grain and the studs are on the outside. So, they all look like this. And this one needs a little love, but um that's part of uh what the upcoming HPC grant is to do is to help with things like this to bring back some some history. Even though this wasn't on that site, there were lots of little sheds on the site where this grain uh grainery is going to go. So, sort of the uh the urban fabric of what was there is going to be kind of recreated with this. But that'll be a little tap house out in the out in the yard. So it'll serve a a really important function. So this is our site plan. Talked about a stage and I really want to kind of we've got a little platform that's raised like less than a foot off the ground and it's just a place to focus on where somebody might uh you know have an acoustic guitar or something. there might be some amplification, but the the the intent is not to have concerts and things like that there. So, I I think I'm gonna um let Ross talk a little bit more from an operator standpoint, but um the intent of that has always just been to have some ambient music uh in the in the yard area when people are out there. So, so that's in the that lower right hand corner, which is a southwest corner. And then of course the food trucks are up there on the on the north part of the site. Um

this was our original PUD. Um there was planned a uh three-story building on the north side of the of the green and we call that the millsite building. Um again we have been we still would be looking for uh a tenant or or a use for that building. Um, and uh, originally it was envisioned as office. We actually had an office user that was going to partner with us. COVID hit, that went away. So, there's been a few things along the way that haven't really panned out, but we still have hope that that can happen someday. And Randy and I still own that property, so it's it's um, hopefully going to be part of it. So, so really we ended up with the Grain Elevator itself as being the catalyst. um in talking with uh who would end up being my new partners, um this idea of a tap house that they had for Lewisville and an outdoor area similar to some of the areas that you know if you've been to Raybeck or um the one up on the hill in Lafayette, I can't remember the name of it. Uh

yes, right. Um, those are great places for families and and people to just gather and, you know, whether you like beer or don't like beer, if you like kombucha, whatever, there's going to be something offered for you and your family in in here. And it's really just I think it's a great idea and this site works great for their concept. So, so I'm happy the grainyard is going to be the tenant and it fits really well for what we're talking about here. we will have some night life. Um, but again, it's not rockus concerts. Uh, it's more like where you're, uh, sitting in your backyard, uh, having a a drink with your friends. Um, so we talked a little bit about the additions to the building, uh, which are pretty minor. The one on the east side by the railroad track looks like a box car uh because it's sitting right where a box car would have sat. Um there was a railroad sighting right in that location. Uh and they used to fill that box car both through the door and then from above there's this elephant trunk thing that comes out where they could feed an open uh car. We have it. We're going to put it back. It's really cool. Um so that's the addition on the on the east. And then on the west, of course, the addition is reconstructing the the porc, the boardwalk, and and the wagon ramp. So, um, if you look at the areas that are shaded on this drawing, those are the occupiable areas of the building. Um, there's about 12,000 square feet of space in the building. Um, we're going to have rentable area of a little over 5,000 square ft. So, it kind of shows you there's a lot of volume, but it's not that use. You look at that big building and it's like, oh my gosh. but there's just not that much that's that usable.

There's the inspiration for our east edition. And um the other piece of this is the idea that we can create uh an interpretive historic site with this building where we can actually recreate some of the machinery and the spaces to show people how this worked. And where we can't actually do that, we're going to have displays and and you know, some educational things in there that that can really uh tell the story of the building and and the machine that the building actually was. Uh this is a little drawing I did a 100 years ago and it shows the grain bins filling up with grain and all the machinery going up through the middle of the tower there up to the head house. And uh it'd be great to show everybody all of that great stuff. Um and someday we hope to be able to do that. Um, I've got a a source where we can get some old equipment that's warehoused from uh decommissioned grain elevators that have been torn down and um this is an international company that has an affinity for Lewisville. And um they've offered to donate some of this equipment back even though it didn't come from here. He goes, I know exactly what kind of augur was here. And so it's really cool to talk to these guys that used to uh deal with this. So instead of filling up with grain, this kind of shows you the areas that we're going to be using, the areas that are kind of lit up there. And so it's all really on the main level. And there's a little tiny second floor um there up towards the north end of the building just past the tower. Um eventually I'd love to get people up into the rest of that, but we'll be we'll have little peekaboos uh into the stuff from that second floor, but we won't be able to get people in there. Um and as well in the basement some of the really cool

stuff. We're going to be able to get people down to the basement and and see some of the stuff that we have down there. So um there are some artifacts laying around um in there that we'll put back in place. And um there's a there's that is the actual scale um the beam scale um that they used to use to weigh the the wagons. And so that'll be sitting inside right where it used to be. And so that's really cool. And we're going to make it operational so that you know if a uh grade school class wants to know how much they weigh, we'll bring them down, put them on the scale for the big grain events that are going to be happening down there. So, um this is the the vision of of that main area where the bar would be and um where we should all be celebrating uh soon. And uh I just wanted to say thanks to all you and the city of Lewisville to get us this far. Um I'm you I think you got my correspondence um that talks about the hill we have to climb. Um I'm just going to point it out briefly. I don't want to dwell on it, but the uh this third party gap analysis um is what everybody's hanging their hat on. And um it says that we only need x amount of dollars, which didn't match what we had in our proforma. It's short by $765,000. Um, so, okay, some of that we'll figure out a way to absorb, put more investment in, but $765,000 is a lot. So, if you look at the main components of that, it ends up to be a little over $600,000. And the two components in that are uh work that the tenant is going to be

providing. It's not tenant finish. It's actual floorboards and um building the bar and uh things that uh actually landscaping the entire yard out front. Um these are things that a a landlord would typically be doing, but our tenant has the ability to do it cheaper than us putting it under the general contractor. So, we pulled that out and said tenant provided work. I think there was a misunderstanding as to what that was. So the uh consultant said, "Well, well, we shouldn't be paying for TI, you know, TI typically, you know, the TVs and the, you know, u booths and things like that." And it's not that at all. So I think that was a misunderstanding. So, they took that $273,000 out of our development budget and staff has advised us that that is a number that could probably be funded through a separate ask through the LRC or maybe HBC, but probably LRC. That's kind of what they do is, you know, someone's going into a building, they need some money, go to the LRC, see if you can get that funded. It's a new business. Um, so, so that's the plan. We pushed that off onto the tenant. Sorry. Um, but that was, you know, that took that part out. But the thing that we have left now is a $360,000 $362,9797 contingency that we had in there, which was a 10% contingency on the construction cost. And I was a little offended when the um consultant said that we padded the number with a contingency. If you've ever looked at a at a construction budget, it has a contingency and so but the consultant decided that we didn't need a contingency in part of our development costs, so took that out. So,

we don't have a way to fund that right now. You know, basically, if you think about it, we're we're going to be building a over $5 million facility here. And it's cool, but you wouldn't do that, right? Um because it's only going to be worth 2.8. 8 consultants actually said that that you know and so we're putting in 2.8 but at the end of the day to keep adding on to that I mean it just doesn't pencil. So we're going to have to figure out a way to bridge that gap. So I know you can't do that tonight. I'm not asking you to do that tonight but I want you to be aware of it because it's been very frustrating to try to get the information out. we weren't allowed to make a presentation at uh LRC. Uh we were part of the public um comments. So it was very strange for me to be, you know, not able to talk about this. Um I'd like to have the ability to come back, work with staff, figure out a way to get the contingency somehow back into our funding package. And so if you don't think that that's a good idea, then tell me now and I'll stop beating my head against the wall. But if you think it's a good idea that we can, you know, try to figure this out. I'd like to hear a little discussion about that. That's just my request to you tonight. Um there was a similar uh discussion at the HPC uh where the contingency had been pulled out of eligible costs. We had a similar discussion. HBC put it back into eligible costs, but we didn't increase our ask because we thought get the 1.5 from HBC, get the nine from uh LRC, and we're on our way. But we didn't get the nine. So, so we've got to go back to somebody or uh figure out a way to to finance this in a way that makes any kind of financial sense. And

so I just want you to be aware that, you know, we can't really start the bulldozers tomorrow. We're going to have to figure we got another problem to solve. And this was supposed to kind of be our celebration um with you guys tonight. Uh so, but I'm I'm convinced we're going to figure it out. None of us have come this far to not figure it out. None of you have come this far to not figure it out. So, we'll figure it out, but it'll be a team effort like it always has. So, that's what I got to say tonight, right? Um, thank you, Eric. Yeah. And answer any questions, obviously.

Um, yeah. Um, if there are any, I think we're going to probably go to public comment. Yeah. Um, um, I mean, I asked the city about this and I'd like to hear from you all. You know, there's been a number of references of engaging local businesses. has helped me to understand how you engaged the residents who are in close proximity to this exciting development. I'm going to ask Ross because that was actually a a really good effort that happened.

Yeah, we we went around uh I I forget the exact number, but the city gave it to us of the the residences that are around the the site and delivered uh did knocking campaign, delivered brochures, kind of said, "This is what we're doing. We'd love to hear from you if you have any things. And uh really have not received much of any negative comments. And I think one of the things that's been interesting at the public hearings so far, we have only had positive public comments, not negative. And so, um, I I I know there are concerns of changing a space from dormant to having music and other potential things, but we have not seen a large concern uh brought to our attention in our efforts so far.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Why don't uh do we have public comment?

All right. First up is Richard Fox, followed by Tracy Hansen. U before we get going on this for just a second, I'll just sort of say this that um when we had public comment um folks can get up and talk about the matter or whatever they want to say in three minutes. There's a timer and you don't have to talk for the full three minutes. you can talk for part of it. If you have somebody you want to pull time with, as long as they're here or online, you can pull time with them uh and get a total of six minutes. Again, you don't have to use uh all of that. Um so that everybody can get a chance to feel comfortable making public comment. We ask for people to refrain from disruptive behavior, cheering or or booing or whatnot. Um the other thing is that a number of people uh have submitted public comment or uh through email and so forth and we consider those uh just as strongly as we do um the comments tonight. So if you've submitted written comments, don't worry. We've read them and taking those to heart as well. So, uh, if you come up, uh, please state your name and whether you're from Lewisville.

Welcome.

Good evening. Uh, Richard Fox and, uh, we live in unincorporated Boulder County. Looks like my three minutes hasn't started yet, but um, and I'm here in uh, in support of um, both resolution 38 and 39. And um I should mention right off the bat that uh even though I'm not a Lewisville resident um a great me number of my extended family is we think there's three houses in Oldtown here and then my wife who you heard from earlier um has a property management company on Front Street. So I I spend a good deal of my life here even though I don't live here. And so I wanted to come tonight and give you my two cents about this. Um, and in short, um, I think that's it's just it's a win-winwin scenario, Claire, between the the private, um, investment group and the city and the community. And, um, yeah, the private investment group that uh, as you may have heard from Ross earlier, is it's it's not some Wall Street group or Denver development group. It's it's uh basically friends and family and then local people. I don't even know the number. It's like 25 people pulled together the money and um we we'd like to be part of this and and make something like this happen and um I think it'll be a big success and and the community will um I think it'll be popular and and uh people appreciate in the years to come what this space will become. And then the city wins too because uh you basically have put over the years um I know the history goes back but it's been money put into it already and and now there's

this preservation uh resolution which is going to come up next and that money in partnership with the private money is finally making this um vacant building uh become something and um I really look forward to the future. So, um I would urge uh a positive vote on both these and uh appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Next up is Tracy Hansen, followed by Michelle Dickinson. Okay. Hi, I'm Tracy Hansen. Um I live in South Boulder and I'm really excited about the graveyard. From my location, I enjoy Pearl Street and all the b all that Boulder has to offer, as well as Lewisville Street Fair and its many restaurants and businesses. As a public house, the grainyard will add something new to this with opportunities to build community through shared experiences of music, art, sports fans, networking. The sky's the limit, enhancing well-being for all ages. As a retiree, I like to say I'm advanced. I love my home and hope to age in place as long as possible, especially with rising costs of senior communities and care facilities. Many others are also considering this option which relies heavily on community spaces for social gathering and sharing as an intergenerational multi-purpose establishment that the time is right for the grainyard. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Michelle Dickinson followed by Melanie Beard. Hi, I'm Michelle Dickinson. I live in downtown Lewisville. Um, I actually share the alley with the Lewisville Historical Museum. Um, I feel like this area of Lewisville along with the Simon House wedding special event venue um, brings a lot of it provides a gathering space and has introduced many people to downtown Lewisville. I believe that supporting the preservation of another historic building is beneficial to the vital vitality of downtown Lewisville and that the grain elevator building would create a historic book end along with a museum to help drive business to downtown Lewisville. The property would also increase more gathering spaces for indoor and outdoor and downtown. people have a lot of um places to spend their money and I feel like we need to continue to draw people to downtown Lewisville.

Thank you. Thanks a lot. Next up is Melanie Beard followed by Jillian Malar.

Good evening. I'm Melanie Beard. I am a Lewisville resident. Um many years ago, my family and I decided that Colorado was a place for us. Like most, we made the trip out here, toured the greater Front Range area, and it wasn't until we pulled up to the stop sign at Pine and Front Street that I said, "This is the place I could live." My husband took that statement and ran with it. And within a year, we were living here in Lewisville. That was 13 years ago. Making our home near Community Park, we have taken every opportunity to ride our bikes to downtown. During those rides, many of our conversations revolved around the grainyard itself, wondering what's going on with this building. Why hasn't anybody done anything with it? It's such a blight to this area, and why doesn't the downtown area extend to this? How amazing would that be? Now, about 15 months ago, I was given the opportunity, lucky enough, to work with the investors, you know, alongside them and to support them to come in front of you tonight to bring this project to you. I would love nothing more than to be able to have my kids who are now grown and out of the house to come back and visit for us to get on our bikes, ride to downtown, and be able to share that that uh gathering space and celebrate it with what we brought to the community, you know, by bringing that building back to life. So, I support both of these. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up is Jillian Mar followed by Gregory Maring. Hi, can you hear me? Okay. Yes.

Okay, great. Hi, this is Jillian Miller. I'm the executive director um of the Lewisville Chamber of Commerce and local resident on LFAGE. I just want to quickly confirm that we haven't had a board uh discussion on these resolutions, but I did want to share uh my comments as director and resident. I'm really very excited about this um as a historical building. And and the reason one of the reasons is if if you've been around me recently, you'll have heard me talking a lot about destination marketing and hooks to get visitors to Lewisville. And I really think that this will be a destination um venue driving traffic and visitors to Lewisville, not just to the to the grainyard. I also wanted to say that so much has gone into this um project. I've I've over the last year and and beyond there's been multiple meeting LRC historical preservation and what really stood out to me is that I think echoing what someone said earlier that this isn't a large corporation. These are these are local businesses. They're local they're all chamber members. um they're they're involved in this project and then adding in those community investors as well, it makes it um even more of a community project. Um and I believe even a chamber member involved if if this proceeds forward for for the buildout. So um it's it's a full circle piece in that in that regard. Um and then just overall to say that improving economic vitality in L Lewisville is of course one of the keys of the chamber and I'm really looking forward to seeing how this uh project progresses. Um, and then just one final thing on the public comment. I I just wanted to say to to uh Councilman uh comments earlier that there's been so much conversation. Uh the team have been going out and talking about this. My husband's even got a baseball cap that says the grainyard on it and and I feel right through the summer and through this year. Um they've definitely been uh boots in the ground and telling people about what's going on. So um excited to see how this progresses. Thank you.

Thank you, Jillian. Next up is Gregory Maring.

Sorry, can you hear me now? Yes.

I'm Greg Maring, a Lewisville resident and commercial property owner. You know, I really applaud the efforts to both historically preserve and economically develop our city, especially in downtown. There's a ton to like about this project. However, I'm concerned with the food truck aspect of this development. The city has been pressuring businesses towards net zero and decarbonization. There's also a strict sign code in place in addition to other requirements and a malaise of everinccreasing taxes and fees. Having carbon emitting and rolling billboards and no build area seems strange at best. Brick and mortar businesses pay a multitude of taxes and fees and contribute heavily to the city's budget. things such as real estate taxes on the building, sales or use tax on equipment and supplies, fees on the buildout, personal property taxes on equipment and furnishings, bag taxes, permitting, licensing fees, in addition to the all-important sales tax revenue, and I'm sure I've forgotten some. These businesses support a local workforce while investing in the fabric of our downtown. A food truck would likely pay most of those taxes, fees, and other costs in other jurisdictions. While I understand that the food truck ordinance was needed to support things like street fair and other similar events, it seems this project may meet the letter of the law, but it doesn't appear to meet the spirit of it. Having food trucks rolling in and out of downtown on a nearly daily basis will harm the character of downtown and existing brick and mortar locations. Several local businesses and nearby residents I have spoken with don't seem as enthralled as the applicant alleges. It also doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to spot the vacancies around town, yet alone in downtown. While I hope that I'm wrong, and there's certainly a lot of s smart people supporting this project, but unless this project brings in new customers to downtown, it will just

siphon business from existing struggling businesses and make it harder to fill vacant buildings. The city has already invested 1.5 million and might invest more yet again while potentially harming other local businesses and ending up with food trucks. I think more public engagement is warranted. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. I think that's that's the public comment that we have. Um we're doing this in two parts because that's appropriate. The first resolution before us uh just to frame up the discussion a bit um is uh a resolution to approve the first amendment to the Lewisville milite redevelopment plan unit development PUD and a special review use SRU for an outdoor eating establishment and mobile food court. Um, and then the other one, which we'll get to in a little bit, is a resolution approving the preservation and restoration grant for the grain elevator at 540 County Road. Um, a a couple of kind of preliminary comments and then we can move to council discussion. Um, as if you've been with us since the beginning, uh, Council Member Dickinson um, indicated that he had a conflict of interest and that's why he's not here. Um, it's really important for all of us, um, to make sure um, not to create any higher standard um, for this um, project or this these decisions. than we would or ordinarily uh apply to anybody else um nor any lower standard. Um so I wanted to make sure that that is clear for the record. Um and the other thing is that what is not an issue tonight is um anything regarding the cost and the money. That's um a separate thing. So that's not really germanine to our

discussion tonight. Um, with that, uh, council members, let's, uh, let's talk about the PUD and the SRU. We have any comments? Yes, Mayor Prom,

I'll kick it off. Um, I'm really excited about activating this area. I think there's been many comments um to that effect not only here tonight but just in the community as a whole. So the idea of the project I'm very excited about. Um you know in general with this application for this particular part of our agenda um I think the asks are reasonable as it relates to the waiverss and such. Um I I do want to hear a little bit of discussion with council regarding um two specific items on the special review use application. Um the first is the temporary structure component and it being part of special review use application as opposed to you know just an application for events um to have these sorts of temporary structures um on the property. And then the second is, you know, if there's any openness to the idea of as it relates to the amplified music, you know, it's not something that we see in, you know, the immediate surrounding area with um a few other businesses and their SRUs, but is there an openness to consider allowing the amplified music here, but give the city manager the permission to modify the hours and provide sound limitations? ations. If we have repeated um complaints from neighbors in the surrounding area, uh that would allow some flexibility to try out this idea, but also us to respond to our community's needs should this unintentionally, you know, impose on their their residential lives in the surrounding area. So, those are the two things that really I wanted to to float up for discussion. Otherwise, I think

the other parts of the applications um are exciting and reasonable, I think, to accomplish this goal. Yes, Council Member Kern.

Thank you. Um so, again, thanks for the presentation. Uh this does seem like a lot of fun. I want to really give a nod to our staff, though. Uh when I looked at this, I'll have to tell you one of the very first things I thought about was the number of hours that all of you had to have put into this project. It's this is overwhelming for what's going to be basically an outdoor restaurant. Like I would imagine the kind of hours that went into this is more akin to a very large commercial business development with all the areas. I just wanted to give you a big big thank you because that's not part of the cost that the developer needs to spend money on. That's another give of the city of Louisville. So, Eric, I really do appreciate you saying thank you um to the community for supporting this. um given it's a private business that city doesn't own it. It's a huge um commitment from everybody who lives in Lewisville, not just like in the urban renewal authority area. So, I just thank you for acknowledging that. That says an awful lot about the people who are involved in this process and in the development that you care about the community and uh I think it helps reinforce the excitement behind getting like supporting a project like this to be honest. Um, so I wanted to comment on the mayor prompts quench. I and I'd like to follow up with something if you don't mind. Um, if you could just explain a little bit more the the temporary structure that you're talking about the tent the requesting that for the 60 like a 60 days but we don't know when those dates would be that would be fluctuating too.

Yeah, thank you. So, in the special review use application, there's an ask for temporary structures such as tents that would be permitted but not limited to a total of 60 days within a six-month period. It exempts umbrellas, shade features, that sort of thing. Um, my understanding is we have a process by which private property owners can request um consideration of temporary structure such as tents. And I think um you know it I think it's reasonable to just follow that that process especially because the structures such as tents could change over time just to make sure that it's compatible with the intent of the development and the surrounding you know residential area as well.

I agree and I think um it can vary like based on the tenant. I mean this is this is the developer asking for a special use right that's not the tenant. So the use of it could change and fluctuate depending on who's using the space. So I um I actually I think it's a good idea to say and and I think for consistency reasons among other business owners as well to be maybe more consistent and thoughtful of when that would be put up and the reasons why the that it might be something that the city wants to know about making sure that it's not going to be conflicting or engaging with other things and it gives our staff an opportunity to to do that just like they would any other event. Um, and as far as the amplified music, I do think it was interesting the the idea of what is intended. Like I'm I'm picturing like I don't know some like really good chill folk music or something like maybe folks too folky, but just like some really relaxing music that you're going to want to sit and relax to versus as you mentioned like some um like Friday Night Street Fair a little more rock concerty than like relaxing with a drink and having conversation. I'm thinking music that doesn't preclude conversation. Would that be an acceptable kind of des I asking the applicant an acceptable description on what your thought process is?

I I would say 95% of the time that's if you're going to if you're going to respond, you need to come to the uh I would say 95% of the time that's probably the vision. I I think having a space that could accommodate something more I I I don't know. I don't really think that's a huge part of the business plan to to be a concert venue. I think it is more about community space and and conversational uh additions.

Okay, that's great. So I I actually really appreciate the mayor prom's suggestion on how we can mitigate um potential concerns in the field. Like so if we do have some residents with big concerns, how do we address it? You know, we we get complaints now and it's complaint based. I think it's sort of hard to enforce and it's hard for our staff to enforce that and put regulations in place and restrictions. So, I like the idea of the guard rails around the volume of the music giving the proximity to um the neighboring homes. Right now, the the business I can think of that's more most similar is Crystal Springs, and I don't think they're allowed to have amplified music, the lights, you know, the outdoor use. I mean, all of that. And it seems to fit in beautifully with the neighborhood. People like it. There's, you know, I rarely if ever have heard of of somebody not liking it. So, those all are all all things I think are well um well placed for this and and okay with the request, but I would agree that guardrails would be a smart move for music. Um and I think the competing idea against other uh city events where we have live music could be a could be an issue. So, I wouldn't want neighbors to say I'm hearing three times the the music.

Other comments? Yes, Council Member Cooperman. Um, could we get staff to weigh in on both of these um points? I guess on the on the amplified music, I think it'd be good to understand from staff, you know, like what could we feasibly write into this SRU and what what would staff feasibly be able to do administratively or not? Um, and then on the on the temporary structures, um, I think I'd just like to hear staff's recommendation for do you think it's better to write something into the SRU or just have them go ahead with our usual permitting system?

Yeah. So, I I think there's been some discussion that other, you know, other businesses don't have the right to put up tents without going through a temporary use process or special event process. So that would be unique. We've never seen that in an SRU. Um so without hearing more about what the like why that is important to the applicant. Um I think it's from a staff point of view it's reasonable that that could be deleted. Um and then if they they would still have full use of the outdoor area of course they could have umbrellas and other things out there for shade and if they did have an event that they could come to the city. So I think um you know that that would be a reasonable option is just have a condition condition to delete that note. Um you know I I think there's options as far as putting notes on the SRU around the amplified music. Um, you know, one option is to say that if there are issues, um, that the city manager can initiate, um, a public hearing to call the SRU up for an city council to consider um, the amplified music question and then there could be a reconsideration of that allowance if there are ongoing issues. So, that's one option. A potential other option is to put a note on the SRU um that would allow some modifications by the city manager to hours of amplified music. Um we could combine both of those into a note as well. So we could try an administrative option and then um have a backs stop of um you know if there's really ongoing community concern calling it back up for further consideration. Other comments? Yes, council member Afro.

I'll just uh voice my agreement with the ideas uh proposed by the mayor prom and um visav the the sort of menu that we just got from director Zukiro. I I would favor the administrative option rather than recalling it to council. Um, I I think if there's an issue, that's something personally I would entrust to the city manager to make sure is is resolved. And my expectation would be that the, you know, sort of the the spectre of losing your music rights would be more than enough to to ensure that the um, you know, guy with the acoustic guitar doesn't get out of control.

Other comments? Yeah. Coun Council member Fee. I will uh echo what councelor Nietrich just said. Um I think leaving it up as an administrative decision would be the most effective and speedy uh way to deal with any issues that came up. Um, sounds like there's a lot of um consensus around um some of the noise uh restrictions. I I wanted to push back pretty hard on that, I guess, from my perspective. Um because I really uh worry about kind of nannying this to death. I I think that we have noise ordinances. We have a pretty reasonable way of handling noise without any restriction. Um I realize in some cases we have done that in SRUs and um but I think uh the idea it's it's just maybe not consistent with my my own values and I know other people have talked about this in our community with trying to regulate the type of entertainment and the type of the genre of music that gets played on a stage. I I I recognize that noise can be or amplified music can cause uh issues, but we deal with that in many other instances without uh including I mean we can we can put time uh restrictions on it. That strikes me as an awful lot more reasonable uh than um putting it on our um city administrators

um in the way that it's been suggested. I just, you know, I don't know that I have support for that, but I I just it's just not something I'm particularly interested in um in doing on the temporary building or the temporary shelter. I I don't know. We haven't done that before. Seems like we ought to sort of continue with what we've done in the past. Um that one I think is that's the way I would um would see it. Yeah, Council Member Heftner,

I I would just I I think I hear your point on the amplified music. I guess the to me the counterpoint is we almost always handle that in an SRU. And probably the closest uh comparable business is Crystal Springs, which doesn't that SRU does not allow a amplified music at all. And I I think the solution we're trying to get to is one that accommodates the request from the applicant to allow it, but provides us with some sort of safeguard um such that we have optionality. And I would hate to get to a position where we have to say, well, we're just going to prohibit amplified music altogether because we're uncomfortable with a sort of optionality type safeguard. Um, I also think this this illustrates, I think, a problem that we've known about for a while, which is it's a little difficult doing noise restrictions on a one-off basis through SRUs. And at some point, maybe we want to consider a sort of more clear policy so people know what to expect.

Just a question for staff. what on the suggestion that's been made and I think you know a lot of support on council for it even if I don't particularly support it. Uh what can you describe a little bit more about the administrative option that you were describ? Um, yeah. So, I think, um, you know, I I think if council would like to have this option, we could add we could add a note to the SRU that would say something to the effect that the city manager may modify the hours when amplified music is allowed or implement other requirements to address the noise level of ampli amplified music if there are ongoing neighborhood complaints. So, that's an initial thought of what we could add. That's a a may modify. I I mean, again, here's here's my concern. I'll I'll just sharpen it a little bit. Um I I think one one of the cool things about this I mean I think there's a lot of cool things about this and I think the from my perspective the um as as been said before the waiverss and so forth perfectly in line with the rules and I don't have any disagreements with the staff report and the application of those rules. I think what we're trying to do or what the applicant has been saying is try to activate that area. People, you know, downtown is not a museum piece. It is historic. It is a delightful place. It's a magnetic

place. And we also know that it's it's a tough place to do business. And this is a um this is a project which is uh through public some public money and a lot of public money and um and some terrific new leadership uh going to try to draw people to downtown. And that's a good thing. It's a really good thing. it it creates vibrancy and vibrancy creates um some would say noise. I I don't think that's what's going on and I think but I again I I don't want to harp on that too much. I just I what I'm concerned about is a bunch of neighbors uh um repeatedly um kind of going to the city manager and demanding um a lot of restrictions that are maybe inconsistent with what we're really trying to do here. And that just makes me just makes me nervous. Um but I that's that's my concern. Yeah. May I pretend I I think what I'm proposing will activate the area. I think it achieves what we're all trying to achieve and I'm fairly confident with the group of neighbors and business owners that are doing this. I'm hoping we never have to tap into this. But just having the optionality is really nice because I do get complaints about music at restaurants or public spaces events and there's not really much that can be done about it. You just complain and then you go knock on the door and say, "Hey, turn it down." Like I just think this is a nice given the experience that I've had um given, you know, I appreciate that

you handed out flyers and knocked on doors, but I don't see any like dates of when the community was engaged and the feedback and conversation. Like I don't see that. So what I'm trying to do now is like really support a super awesome exciting business, but also have a safety net for my W three members who live across the street in just the general area. Um, but I'm confident by the people who've stood up here so far that we're not even going to have to use this. That's my hope. But it's there if we do. So that the residents who live nearby who, yes, bought a property or are renting a property in close proximity to a commercial area, but this special review use that we were permitting, it's not a buy, right? It's a special per review use that they could not anticipate when they bought it, right? It's not by right. So, I think it's my responsibility as the W3 council member to say, "Hey, we got your back. There's going to be an awesome business across the street from you and if there's any challenges with noise that you can't resolve with those awesome business owners, come let us know and we'll have a conversation about it." Um, so that's my intent behind this and I I I think it I don't think it's going to hinder the business. I think it's just a safety net for my people in W three across the street.

Sure. So, I would um like to make a motion to approve resolution number 38 series 2026, a resolution approving a first amendment to the Lewisville Mills site redevelopment planned unit development. um and a special review use for an outdoor eating establishment and a mobile food court with the following um amendments. I would like to suggest that we have an amendment where we um delete the note about temporary structures and the special review use. And I would also like us to have some verbiage and I will invite um director Zukaro to you know refine what I'm about to suggest right now. Uh but essentially um optionality here for the city manager can modify the outdoor hours and sound limitations upon finding a repeated neighborhood um complaints through administrative process um with with the back stop of calling an SRU review if needed. Second.

Okay. Discussion. Do do we want to hear from Director Zukero on whether that's the right language? Yes, please. Yeah, I think if the city attorney is okay with us not having the exact language but meeting that intent. Um um Mayor Prom, how do you feel about the language that Director Zuko read into the record previously? um if we add the backs stop of um the city manager being able to put this on the agenda for reconsideration if administrative efforts fail. Um for the purpose of the record before we vote, can you please read that one more time? Yeah.

The city manager may modify the hours when amplified music is allowed or implement other requirements to address the noise level of amplified music if there are ongoing neighborhood complaints. And then the backs stop piece of it. I think the city attorney came up with

Yeah. So, um, so what we what we wrote was that, um, I think I'd modify this a little bit to say the the city manager may call the SRU up to city council for further review and hold a public hearing if there are neighborhood complaints related to amplified music. Upon such review and after notice is given to the applicant, the city council may revoke the allowance for amplified music. That's the backs stop language. There was there was language that the city the city attorney mentioned about if the administrative um

yeah I think if you were to combine those two, you would say, you know, if administrative efforts fail, the city manager is authorized to call up and use the rest of and and I would replace the the first May um in the note that director Zukaro read to say the city manager is author authorized to modify and that way that may address the mayor's concern with the use of the word may. All right. I I accept those that the proposed wording for the um condition that I put on the resolution as it relates to noise. I'll second again.

Okay. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Right. Um I think we just need a voice vote on this. Um all in favor I I any opposed?

Good. So that passes and we are on to resolution number 39 series 2026. A resolution approving the preservation and restoration grant for the great elevator at 540 County Road. And we have a staff presentation from M. Daniels, I believe. Good evening, uh, mayor and council. I'm Jess Daniel, senior planner, and this request is for the Historic Preservation Fund grant request associated with the grain elevator located at 540 County Road. So to summarize, the grant request is to restore and rehabilitate the Lewisville grain elevator for commercial use as part of the previous PUD and SRU item. Staff are recommending approval of grants from the historic preservation fund consisting of an extraordinary circumstances grant for 1,460,789,

a new construction grant up to $75,000 for a total grant cap of 1,535,789. Um, the applicant also submitted a request yesterday for an additional $362,000 in contingency funding that if awarded by council would increase the total grant amount to 1,898,586 for qualifying rehabilitation costs. So, the Lewisville Green Elevator is a unique part of Lewisville's agricultural agricultural history. It's one of the last historic green elevators in Colorado. and it's very significant to the community. It's been identified in a number of reports and surveys listed on this slide and as a high value for local pres preservation. It's been designated a national landmark and a local landmark and also has a conservation easement for an build view corridor. These are just a few images that show the green elevator and its historic use and then a more recent image. So, as Rob discussed in the the past item, the city has been involved in a number of previous efforts to prevent the demolition of the green elevator, um, including purchasing it in 2012 and entering into a public and private partnership. That attempt was unsuccessful due to some property boundary encroachment issues. And in 2016, the green elevator was sold at a discounted price to new entity, the Lewisville Millsite LLC, for $200,000. So, previously the historic preservation fund has provided $500,000 to complete stabilization work and the total funding to date that the city's provided has been $1,470,439 which includes the discounted property sale, the stabilization grant, public land dedication

uh fee waiverss, and the urban renewal public streetscape improvements. So, as mentioned previously, the LRC conducted a third-party gap analysis as part of the tax increment financing review, which identified the project funding gap at $1,950,000. So, funds from the historic preservation fund request, the TIFF and LRC funding would close that gap. So, just as a note, this grant request applies only to lot two of the Millsite subdivision where the green elevator is located. The preservation, rehabilitation and restoration scope of work at a high level for this project includes these items listed here. This is this includes uh site work, so grading um connecting water and sanitary sewer, foundation work, including more stabilization, um restoration of the wagon ramp, port crocher and boardwalk, some envelope work including siding, painting and restoring features, interior rehabilitation, um replacement and restoration of windows and doors, upgrades to and new mechanical systems and fire protection, electrical systems in the building, hazardous material, material mitigation and project management and soft costs. So the total estimated cost for the grain elevator restoration is approximately $3.5 million. So staff analyzed the eligible historic preservation expenses which are detailed in attachment 8 of the staff memo. So half of those eligible historic preservation expenses are $1,460,789. As the property was landmarked in 2015, it is subject to the historic preservation fund resolution at that time and that was resolution number two

series 2012. So that resolution allows up to 181,000 in preservation grants for commercial properties. that this amount may be exceeded through an ex extraordinary circumstances provision which is the basis for this grant request. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a new construction grant to construct a new onestory box car addition that the applicant discussed previously in his presentation. So, this work totals $838,622 and the recommended new construction grant based on the resolution in effect at that time is $75,000. The Historic Preservation Commission considered this request at a public hearing held on February 23rd, 2026, and an alteration certificate was also approved at that time, which is consistent with the development plans. The HPC recommended grants totaling 150 sorry 1,571,789 which included a new construction grant of $111,000 that was part of that was considered as part of the current um historic preservation fund resolution 102 series 2025. So the staff recommendation is approval of resolution 39 series 2026 for a grant totaling 1,535,789 from the HPF fund which includes the extraordinary circumstances grant of up to1,460,789 and the new construction grant of up to $75,000. So, the $36,000 gap between the staff and the HPC recommendation has been addressed by an increased LRC facade improvement agreement or sorry, improvement grant. So, that concludes

the staff presentation. Um, if there are any questions.

Yeah, I've got a question right off the bat. Can you would you mind going up to the the summary the second slide that you had there? Yeah, the um the last bullet there is one I'm confused about. Um as I understand it, that that's a submitt that happened from the applicant uh yesterday and I think it had appeared in the our agenda today or with the public's agenda all of us. Um, and that's not that's not something that got approved by the historical preservation fund or commission, did it?

Right. Yeah, that was not considered by the historic preservation commission. Um, we we added this because it was received and put in the packet. So, we um just wanted to acknowledge that for city council that that letter was received yesterday and there was this specific request outlined in the letter. um for additional funding. Staff hasn't reviewed that against um eligible categories or anything like that, but we wanted to acknowledge that that letter came in. Well, maybe more to the point, the HPC hasn't reviewed it. That's correct. So, it's I mean, this is, you know, it would be an odd thing at the very least for it to come.

Yeah. We're not recommending that this be considered for um staff's recommendation remains um even with consideration of this letter. I understand other questions. Yes, Council Member Kern.

Thank you. Um thanks for the presentation. I'm I was curious if you could um just clarify for us again or remind us um at what point do does the applicant receive these funds? they receive them. It's a reimbursement. So, they would provide expenses to the invoices to us and we would review them with what was approved by the resolution. So, there's a detailed table there. So, they would receive them once the work is complete or parts of the work. They don't have to do it all in one go.

Okay, that that was that was helpful and that was in in part for the public given that this is such a large grant. I wanted everyone to understand it's not that a check is written like tomorrow after we say this. It's as they do the work and move forward with it, then we'll be reimbursing for the the expenses. And I would also say that that we are not going to take up the contingency, but that that would apply to that as well. So if they didn't need to tap into the contingency, then that they might not even need those funds. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Other Yes. Council member Cooperman. Um I was hoping to actually clarify the mayor's question a little bit more. Um so in the packet um where you go through all the different expenses that were evaluated for the grant. Um one of them number 57 is the 10% owners construction contingency and that one is listed as not eligible. Is that is that I don't know part of this 362,000 or is it I mean it seems like it's what the applicant was talking about. Um so I'm just wondering like well first of all um what you know why would that uh line item 57 not be eligible for the grant? And then also is that related to uh the applicant's request or what they've been discussing.

So so within the um within the HPC approved funding there is a it does include the eligible expenses from the 10% contingency. So the way they crafted it was that there's a cost estimate for each eligible line item and then um there's a cap and then the contingency they their recommendation was to include the contingency to provide flexibility so that if one particular eligible item was more expensive and maybe they say you know that they could spend more up to the cap on any eligible item within the list of eligible items. items. So, in a way that contingency is there. It just doesn't increase the cap above the current construction bid.

Okay. Um Okay. Um I'll think about that. Thank you. Other comments? represent.

Um, just a few brief comments on this as it relates to the HPC funds. Um, you know, I went through the line items, reviewed all the documents we have and it seems like the requests are reasonable and in line with our city documentation as it relates to um these funds. It is a massive fund. It's I think the largest that we've given to a commercial property. Yes, I'm seeing nods. Uh but this is a massive project and as I mentioned earlier, I'm very excited to see this not only preserved and restored but rehabilitated, right? Um that I think um it's worth moving forward with this to um see this idea come to life in this area be activated. So, I'm I'm looking forward to it.

Um, are there any other questions because we got to do public comment here in a minute. Yeah, I'll I'll be brief. I I I'll struggling a little bit with the amount, especially given um the amount that the city has put into the property. Can you help me understand h how many times can the city fund through historic preservation the the same property? Like is there is there a limit on how many times we can contribute to the same through extraordinary circumstances they can come back again? So we don't currently have a limit.

Okay. So, just to put a a um a little more focus on it, one of the things I think we're hearing tonight is after the million and a half we've done, the million and a half that's on our agenda, that still leaves them hundreds of thousands of dollars short on the project. And I guess I'm just I'm a little nervous about um sort of a a neverending sort of cycle of grant requests for what is it's obviously a different project now than it was in 2015. Um but is there a c is there some mechanism we can cap the total city contribution because $3 million is a heck of a lot more than 181,000. I mean, it's like it's blown the the maximum amount by a huge margin.

Yeah. Maybe I can explain a little bit how because you like Mr. Hart said, we've been working with them for quite some time. Um because we know this is a challenging project and when you look back at the on the history, the city had previously committed a large amount of historic preservation funding recognizing that it's probably not financially viable without public funding support. So then you have to figure out what's the right amount of support. You know, these are public funds. We have to be responsible. So again, it's not part of this application, but part of the urban renewal application was doing a third party independent gap analysis to say in a typical real estate deal such as this, and I know there's lots of non-typical things about it. not about how this applicant is structuring their real estate deal, but how a typical commercial developer would look at this real estate deal as an investment over a 10-year period. What is that independent third party's analysis of what the gap is likely to be? Um, you know, there's some variability in that. There's lots of assumptions built into that gap analysis, but you know, we do it in this way so that we do get that independent third-party view of it. So, you know, they came back with their conclusion, which was the $ 1.95 million funding gap. So, you know, that's that's a guidepost to say that um if there isn't pretty significant public funding in that neighborhood, there's some likelihood that, you know, a a typical real estate developer wouldn't make this deal. So, um so I I think there is some guidepost. Um again, where that funding come from comes from is variable. Um, you know, urban renewal funds are are are limited. There is a healthy historic

preservation fund. This is a very unique historic preservation project for the city and type of structure that that you just don't see, you know, there's very few of them. So, the the ability to activate and preserve one um, you know, has has a lot of importance potentially. Um, so I think I just wanted to provide that context because um, you know, even though this is a really large amount, looking at how much the city's looked at committing in the past um, and trying to get this to be a financially viable project, there needs to be significant funding whether it comes from HPC or other sources or HPF or other sources.

Got it. That's helpful. I guess my follow my last question is what what is our downside protection imagine I hope this isn't doesn't come true but imagine we disperse this grant because it's got part you know property is sold whatever the case may be what what did we get because it's already been right so is this the best. Do we get anything additional in terms of

Yeah. So I think the restoration plan and again the you know we've talked about the way historic preservation grants are they are reimbursed as you go but there is significant restoration work um historic restoration work including um you know the wagon ramp and um you know the the front p the front porch and the c the porch and those types of things. So, we would have a, you know, if they get through those parts of the project, even though they don't turn it into a commercial use, um, you know, and I would say there's also additional significant structural stabilization work included in this grant. Um, so those are the things this is paying for. I think the the issue is is they could get halfway through and then stop for some reason and then we've spent, you know, hundreds of thousands if not a million dollars and then even even the restoration and the structural work isn't complete. But if they get through that, then at least we have a more finished, more stable um structure that will last longer.

Is a future owner obliged to keep all of the that were funded for city money. Um yes. Um because they're they're subject to the restrictions of the landmarking. So they can't modify um you know the building that they can't change how it looks without going to the historic preservation commission and getting an alteration certificate and they'll review it against all the appropriate criteria. Just to be clear, landmarking is something we already have. That's not It is already landmarked.

Thank you. Any other questions? Yep. Council member Cooperman. Um just one further question. Um so for the extraordinary circumstances, um the staff report sort of details what can count as extraordinary circumstances. Is there Is there a criteria for when that work counts as extraordinary or is it just this kind of work can count as being extraordinary? So in other words, how do we how do we make the decision that something actually of those in that category would count as being extraordinary? Um

when we did the analysis, we found that all of those items did qualify for extraordinary because that was structural work, uh code related work, and then work that without the funding um for like older materials like windows or doors would be replaced with new materials. Yeah. And and I would just add in that 2012 funding resolution, it simply says extraordinary circumstances. In our 19 and 25 resolutions, we've added criteria to what that means, but the the applicable resolution just says extraordinary circumstances. So, it's up to interpretation. Um, like what is extraordinary that's not a typical commercial project.

Thank you. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Do we have any public comment? None. Um, are you speaking as a member of the public? You can um if you sign up. Go ahead. So, I'm not sure if you know this is part of a second presentation or not. uh or if I am public.

So um you know the reason I sent that letter was because I think there was a misunderstanding of uh what contingency is which every project you guys have ever approved has contingency in it. So, I'm not sure I understand the misunderstanding, but certainly the third party consultant seemed to have a misunderstanding of what cons and that's why I sent the letter and hopefully you read it. I don't have to go through all of that again, but in a historic preservation project, things come up. In a normal project, things come up. There has never been a construction project where something didn't come up that wasn't anticipated. And that's what contingencies are for. And what I would like the U permission to do is to go back to the HPC and make this case. They actually said contingency is fine, but you only asked for this much. We're going to give you that much. And part of that can be contingency, and that's fine. Well, I'd like to go back to them and say, hey, we need this much. We we thought we had a funding stack that was going to get satisfied, but we didn't over here. So, we'd like to add it to this funding stack. And you said contingencies. Okay. And so, let's let's relook at the uh applicable items. And then the applicant would like to ask for the full amount this time and not just part of the amount this time. And so, that's that's what I'd like to do. I don't know what that number will be, but um I'd like to be able to go back and do that. And I'd like to ask you guys your opinion on that. Like, ah, you've got enough. Go away. You know, I don't I don't know, you know, kind of what the the thoughts are on council, but um we got to figure out a way to make this project happen. And we're not there yet. That's that's the bottom line. So, um we're not keep we're not going to keep coming back.

We've come we've come with a request, but we were denied part of that request. So staff has actually said, "Well, if you run into something, then come back and ask for it then." Well, so we're in the middle of a construction project. We've got to redo some foundations that we didn't know about. Uh what do we do? Oh, well, we stop the project. We come back, take a couple months off. Maybe we get it approved, maybe we don't. That's not a good way to run a construction project. So, I just don't understand why contingency is even a discussion at this point. But, we've got to figure out a way to fund it to start the project, period. And we haven't figured that out yet. So, that's that's why I wrote the letter. That that's why I made the request. So,

thank you, Eric. We we've got another comment. Next up is Michael Ree. Hi, good evening. It's Michael Ree. I think you can hear me. We can.

Um, thank you. Uh, really well done earlier today. Um, approving the proposal and I would like to just suggest I know it's late. Um, but you're almost there. The whole community is almost there. We all We all have been waiting for this to happen for more than a decade. Um, and those of us that are in this business would probably consider it an extraordinary circumstance not to include contingency in the full budget when you're looking how to pull together all the funding. Um, I would hope you can direct um staff and and some support back to um the various funings committees and um and support this the the development. You, as I said, you're you're almost there. Um I know it's a lot of money. Uh but this community's been waiting for this kind of project for more than a decade and and we hope we can uh find the the gap, the remaining gap. So, I just want to lend my support to uh Eric's request.

Thanks. Thank you, Michael. Anyone else? Okay, let's uh take it back to council for council comment discussion. Yes, Mayor Prom. I just want to um the applicant doesn't need our permission to go back to LRC or HPC and try to have another conversation with them. Is that right? Um right. They could make a new application.

Okay. I just want to um like the mayor mentioned earlier, you know, what we have in front of us, the resolution, what's gone through um and been approved already that we can try to get that across the finish line. Um and so I just wanted to clarify that they don't need our permission and I don't think we need to discuss that tonight, do we? I'm open to see what others have to say.

Yeah. I mean, I I would put it maybe a little differently that for our purposes, we're not a board of appeal for what the HPC does or the LRC. Um, I think I understand Mr. hard Trump and and perhaps some of the others saying he would really like some juice, some direction, some and that's just not that's not something I think we have the power to do within our within our rules and within the application that we have in front of us. I understand the frustration. I'm not trust me I I understand that. Um, and but at the same time, I think there's pathways. They're just not pathways that come through us tonight. We have before us, you know, approval of the money that's been uh allocated, and that's really what we're what we're about tonight. So, I like I said, I'd say it a little differently. Yeah,

definitely don't need permission, but we really don't have any power to or should we exercise power to push somebody else. If they went again, we would have it come to us for approval, but that's not happened. Um, first staff and then

Yeah. Um, I would just like a a point of clarification. It's my understanding that HPC talked about the contingency extensively and so before we direct you the applicant to go back to HPC, it might be helpful for council to understand what that conversation was because I I just hate to waste people's times. If if you know the general consensus is it shouldn't be considered, then that's a direction. If the consensus is that it should be considered, then I think it's helpful for for council to understand what HPC's discussion was related to the contingency. Yeah. And can can I add to that? So um

so they did discuss the contingency quite a bit. there is a um you know the bid includes a contingency and then so then there's an owner contingency and so they discussed all of those variables and the applicant's desire to have more flexibility to use the owner's contingency. So, you know, I again I think part of this is we, you know, we are trying to structure there's there's lots of pieces here as you've seen with urban renewal and this and so again we are trying and in order to try to be responsible with public funds too. We are trying to fill the gap. So even if we want to like if if somebody wants to provide more money outside of the gap, they can um urban renewal or HPC, but you know, staff's been structuring its recommendations also around the gap analysis because we feel like that's important. Um and the gap analysis did include the contractor's contingency numbers in that consideration. Um, and so yes, a lot of projects have owner contingency in them and other things. Um, but that may, you know, that doesn't necessarily need to be part of the real estate gap analysis. Um, you know, contingencies vary probably. Um, you know, Vanessa can weigh in, but they they might be 10%, they might be 20% depending on the project of what contingencies get included in a typical project. Um, so we felt like 10% was reasonable. that was already built in there. And I think our consultant felt like that was an appropriate amount as well. So again, I know we're not t, you know, we're not talking about this, but I think to the city manager's point, um, I, you know, anybody can make an application at any time and we would process that if it's a valid application, but, you know, we don't necessarily feel like it may be

appropriate to relitigate what's already been litigated. Well, funny you should mention the word vacation just because I I sort of feel like that's kind of where where we're at. I don't think we're in the business of making direction to anyone to especially to our to HPC. they have their process and I there have been some discussions or comments about people misunderstanding and so we're not in the business of evaluating another board's understanding or misunderstanding. That's just not what we do here. And so I appreciate the explanations. I just don't think there's anything we can or should be doing about them tonight. I think um we've got we've got a resolution in front of us and we've got our authority to approve or not approve with and we I can make that decision I think shortly. But I don't see any need to go any further about directing anybody to do anything. But if there are other council members have disagreement, I'm glad to hear it. Or if staff has disagreement. Yeah.

Oh go I just want to just clarify that this discussion about two contingencies.

So my understanding that it's a fixedpric contract for the construction and so the the contractor included a contingency in his bid in their bid that um it's they have to deliver the contract for that amount and if they don't end up using the contingency it's theirs. If they end up going over that's their risk. So that's the contingency that my understanding is included in the TIFF analysis. Is that correct? Okay. The other 10% contingency is we're talking about the developer contingency to cover other costs that are outside of that specific what the contractor is doing. And I know that the contractor is not doing all of the work that's associated with the project to have a finished product for the use of the project. And so this is really the uh my understanding the point of contention is that it is including the builder's contingency. It's not including the developers contingency to be able to complete the entire project. And that's why this is so confusing with this concept of the two contingencies. And um and that's also why my understanding is HPC did not include the developers contingency as an eligible item.

Right. And I I I do understand that the TIFF piece is LRC, right? I mean, and that's we don't have to deal with that. I mean, even though I think it helps to understand there's two different contingencies, but I I guess I'm still struggling to understand whether in fact the the other contingency is something we I mean or or is it even within our power to to try to evaluate two different numbers on the contingency that's been approved already? one way by the HPC. I mean, I that's what I that's what I just don't understand and I don't know who the best person on staff is to to tell us that.

I think the other way

what I'm what I'm struggling with is why do we keep talking about this if we're not talking about this? So, so I think one of the well, so what I think you know HPC makes a recommendation to city council and so I think we've analyzed and HPC has agreed with the eligible items and there's a contractor bid for the cost of the eligible items with contingency. So I think you know you have a recommendation from HPC. I would say from staff's point of view um you know that the the cost of the eligible items could fluctuate even beyond the contractor's contingency. We don't know. Our recommendation to the applicant which has been talked about was well if it goes beyond the 10% contractor's contingency if you have a real un you know if if there's some like these are weird buildings they're old buildings. if something comes up that is going to be a really substantial cost and be beyond the 10% contingency that could affect your gap analysis and we want to work with you to find the most appropriate way if it's possible to consider additional funding. And so that's the approach that we've taken is um you know if there is some big strange thing that cost a really significant amount of money that takes you out of the 10% contractor's contingency again because this is a really big grant trying to be productive of those public funds. Um our recommendation is that they do come back and come through some process so that we can vet that. So, I I don't know that it's fully out of your consideration tonight because they're not asking you to change the eligible items. They just want to be able to spend more on eligible items potentially and you could theoretically change the the grant amount. Um, you know, or staff's recommendation is if there's something beyond the contractor's 10% contingency that's significant that we look at well, you know, where's the best

funding source? What's the most appropriate funding source? Do we want to go back through HPC? Do we want to go to urban renewal? It might depend on what the issue is that they come up against and where funding's available. So I that's all in the background of how staff has tried to structure this and put limitations on it, balancing the significant amount of public funding with their need for funding. Thanks, Council Member Kern.

Yeah, thank you. So, um, it's an astronomical amount of money that the taxpayers are contributing to a single project. So, I I appreciate um how careful and the attention going into this. I think my concern is we see this, right? construction costs can I mean all it takes is reactivation of an international conflict and now we're we're 10% out of budget and we delay a project that the city would now have you know over $2 million invested in and now now it's not a $300 a $300,000 contingency gap it's or 700 and you're asking for three it's not a $700,000 contingency gap It's a $1.2 million. And so my my concern here is if there is an approval of contingency funds, it can we can we can do things like authorize that, but it it's a contingency. It should not be needed. The 10% that's the overage that a developer could face is already cooked into this. And and I and I would ex I mean there are some I I think Rob we could put some guard rails around this and let this have like a certain level of approval. It can't be contingent on something that isn't directly related to let's say the um the preservation or the restoration of the building. I mean, if it's something that is going to the activation of the space, that should not be historic preservation funds at this point. Not with this amount of money going into it. But we wouldn't want to hold this whole project up for such a for 300,000 when we're already today looking at almost 1.6 million going into this. Does that does that make sense? I

mean, I honestly I I mean, I'm I hesitated with even agreeing that this amount of money should go into one private for-profit project where the city only if it is successful and we get sales tax would the city see any benefit from this other than it's a historic building being preserved, which it's already a historic building that's being preserved. But I think it's a matter of if we're going to invest this much, we want them to be successful because we would like to see the community successful. And if this is the small measure of difference in fulfilling that project, perhaps we authorize the additional money, but it has to they have to show evidence to staff that that the that it was needed or maybe it has to then go to historic preservation to demonstrate like that it isn't something not for historic preservation reasons. Does is there any way we can work on that together? So again, we have the list of approved items with con, you know, final construction document bidded costs. So I think that if there is a cost overrun on any of those items, um, you know, you could consider providing additional grant funds through some contingency. I think if there's a item not on that list that hasn't been vetted, that's what we've been talking about that that should probably come back through the process. Um, but if it's already been determined to be eligible, perhaps you could. But we also did look at this that, you know, we asked the applicant to get to complete the construction documents and get a final bid because we so we'd have certainty of cost. And I think that they have, you know, the applicant can talk to this, but I think they have a, you know, that this this contract is a um,

you know, they have a hard bid, I guess, is all I would say. Um, so there's some certainty unless something comes up that they weren't expecting and then that may or may not be on the eligible cost, right? But if if they're if they're redoing the windows and they bid the, you know, the contractor comes back and bids those out and they're outside of their original um bid, then they have flexibility to go up that 10%. That, you know, they're they're different things.

Okay, so that's already in here. This would so this is anything that comes up outside the scope. So, if something comes out, right, we we're not recommending that we allow HPC for something uh HPF for something that's not on the approved list. At the very least, that we would recommend that it be connected to the list of approved items if you if you wanted to, you know, up the potential grant amount. um you know and that they'd have to demonstrate that the the costs escalated beyond their contract for some reason for an eligible item.

But but the develop and maybe I should let the developer speak to this, but the developer saying they're expecting something in addition to what's on this list and that's the concern. Um can can I make a a point of clarification and this goes I think towards HPC funds but it will go towards urban renewal funds as well. Um we do build in contingency for these approved items but we cannot have a contingency for something that may come up that is not in any of our programs. So, like we build in a contingency for the cost of an eligible item, but like the applicant brought up that, hey, maybe when we get in there, we discover something no one had any idea of that no one could have foreseen.

Yeah. That's not in any of these programs or agreements, they would have to come back to us cuz we don't have s we don't have a system where it's anything that comes up regardless of program eligibility, you can pay with this bucket of contingency money. So anything that's not in any of our program approvals with them would have to come back to that to whichever body for discussion and approval. Thanks. Yeah. Um Mr. Ard, we're not hearing anymore. We're having council discussion. Um, so I I thought what I'm going to do is I'm going to move

and we can we can go from here if we have some uh further um comment from amendments. But I'm going to um move uh to approve resolution number 39 series 2026. Second. Can can I speak briefly? Absolutely.

Question unless you like the privilege. Um just just to the issue we've been chewing on. I I am I am just to speak honestly barely comfortable with the amount of the grant request that's in front of us that was approved by HPC in comparison to the maximum amount in the resolution. It's an order of magnitude more money. I understand this is a a big and important and long-term project for the city. It also stretches um very far. I think what that resolution says, what the historic preservation grant program is about um it it stretches that about as far as it will go. I am I am nervous about the city essentially becoming a joint venture partner with a private developer and the the funer of last resort for all unforeseen costs in a situation where the only the only real benefit we're getting out of this is the landmarking which has already occurred. Um and while this is a great project, I support the project. I'm supporting the resolution. I just want to express my reservations about the amount of money and and the potential that we will be um in the future seeing requests for additional funding to because it is I mean I I certainly agree with the with the notion that it is there are a lot of unforeseeables when you are dealing with a a building of this age and that that probably has been neglected for however many decades over decades over decades. Um, but I I don't think the purpose of our program is necessarily to absorb any and all unforeseen costs, especially when the landmarking was more than 10 years ago now.

Other council members, comments, right? Um, all in favor of the motion say I.

I. Any opposed? All right. Go. And uh I'm hopeful that this is all gonna work out. Um just uh time check. It's almost 10 o'clock. Um we've got two we got an ordinance uh second reading that we're start we would be starting now we've got a resolution uh on top of that both relating to uh short-term rentals. Um it's it it's pretty late to be starting this but I'm open to suggestion from other council members. Mayor Prom,

I am committed to bringing this across the finish line efficiently. We've already had multiple discussions about this and I think we should be able to cross the finish line very efficiently in the next 15 minutes. My presentation's quick. Anyone else? All right. I I I agree with um I I don't really need much of a presentation at all. speaking only for myself and th those with these items very sensitive to that. I appreciate

uh the desire to go forward. So um first is ordinance number 1921 series 2026 an ordinance amending the Louisville municipal code concerning temporary short-term rentals. It's on for second reading and this is an ordinance so there'll be two rounds of public comment. Uh, and go.

Mayor and city council, Vanessa Sate. Thanks for having me back again. We're here for the second reading to amend our municipal or ordinance amending the municipal code concerning temporary short-term rentals. She told me to go fast and then I got and then I can talk really fast and then here we are. Um, as some background on how this came to be, um, Sundance Film Festival has announced that they will be moving their annual 10day festival to Boulder, Colorado starting in 2027. Um, they are expecting quite a few attendees, over 85,000 attendees um, at their 2025 festival. With that, they are anticipating a regional need of about 30,000 hotel rooms to meet this demand. there are not that many hotel rooms in Boulder proper and so as we've planned regionally for this festival to come to the area. We have worked across jurisdictions to figure out how we can potentially meet these regional housing needs to support the festival. So we are proposing a shortterm um rental policy as it relates to the Sundance Film Festival. Just quickly, um, we've had previous discussions at the EVC in December 2025 and February 2026. We had discussion direction in front of the entire city council March 10th of 2026. And this first reading, April 7th, 2026. Now we're here for the second reading. Just as a reminder for the framework, it'd be a rental of homes, town homes, condos, ADUs, and mobile homes. Um, four dates surrounding the Sundance Film Festival. So 20 a time period of 29 days or less as set by resolution by city council every year. The short-term rentals would have to pay all applicable taxes and lodging taxes and they must display their license number on all advertising that they do for their for their room. Um, leases

will be able to rent their property with written permission from the property owner. As part of the application and the yearly renewal, we will have them sign and submit a safety affidavit that includes insurance coverages, life safety components, and a point of contact that can be on site within 60 minutes should there be a massive problem. $200 application fee to the city initially and then $100 annually for each renewal. Um this is some additional background mainly surrounding implementation. So the application will be administered in partnership between community development and our finance team. The application form would be utili would be created through our existing programs um and submitted that way. The city will work to create a communications plan and website for how-tos, questions, FAQs, and additional information if you want to get involved. What does that look like and what will be expected of you as someone who is running a short-term rental? Um, enforcement and compliance issues would be done through our existing systems. So any um any noise complaint, any code enforcement complaint, all of that would be handled through our existing systems predominantly in our community development office. And non-compliance could result in a uh revisation of your license for a year. So, should you be presented with a problem that you um are out of compliance or not adhering to and it is not fixed after our rounds of normal enforcement, should you still remain not in compliance, your license could get revoked for a year. We built this um mainly surrounding the city of Boulders's policy, but we included all of our surrounding communities as well to showcase what they're doing for their short-term rental policies. information can be found. Additional information can be found on those website links.

Questions? Council questions. Council member Coopermanman. Um, can an HOA have restrictions that would not allow you to do a short-term rental? Um, many do. So, similar to what we were proposing, if you lease a space, if there's an AOA HOA restriction that you could participate with permission, written permission from the HOA. Um, and the just a little question, the fees that people pay and will go into the general fund.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Uh then let's get some public comment if we have any any public comment. Back to council. Yes. Council member Kern. Um if there are no comments, I'd like to make a motion. No, we got to go back for public comment. One more. We really need to do the first round of public comment and first reading and the second round and second reading.

Any any public comment? No. So, we're back council and council. Make a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we pass ordinance number 1921 series 2026, an ordinance amending the Louiswisville Municipal Code concerning temporary short-term rentals. Second. Second. Any discussion? Yes. got to work Cooper with uh just one little comment. Um looking ahead, I think it might be nice if you came back with like a summary or some feedback about how the program went in January of 2027. Um and just, you know, see if we want to make any changes to what we're passing tonight.

Yeah, we can come back with how many people participated, what we anticipate the revenues from the program are, any hiccups or any recommendations on what we might want to change. Um, all right. So, we take a roll call. Council member Cooperman, yes. Council member Kern, yes. Council member Hefner, yes. Mayor Prom Hamington, yes. Council member Fehee, yes. Mayor Lei,

yes. Okay, ordinance passes. We're on to the next and final uh resolution number 41 series 2026, a resolution establishing an application fee and eligible dates for temporary short-term rentals in 2027. Uh since we're opening the public hearing if there's any disclosures. No. Uh doesn't look like any. Um oh no. Manager Zarati, you're on again. Oh, I have I do not have a presentation. Um, this is our proposal to set the dates and so that when the application becomes live, people know when they can advertise.

Okay. Uh, there's only one round of public comment on this. So, do we have any public comment? Doesn't look like any. So, I move to approve resolution number 41 series 2026. Second. Um, any discussion? Okay. Uh, all in favor? I I Any opposed? All right. Nice work. We did get it done in less than 15 minutes. City attorney's report. None. Thank you. Uh upcoming agenda items and identification of future agenda items. Yes, Council Member Kern.

So, I would this this has been coming up um a fair amount and we've we've had some residents um asking for the council to discuss this and it just it's been a tight agenda. So, I'm going to bring it up to you. Um, the we have a an elderly resident who would like to donate a bench to the city has gone through all of the proper parks channels and everything and the she found out in this process um that she's not able to say that she donated the bench. It's we're not allowed to like identify her donated bench even though she can pay. She's donating it and it's a beautiful stone one. Um, and I'd like for us because apparently we used to allow it. We had a uh memorial bench program that was discontinued, I guess, a couple of years ago. And so the question is, can we put this on this schedule for us to discuss not a memorial bench program, but a dedication program so that this can move forward. And even if we have to just make an exception for this one time to have a much bigger conversation, her bench is meant to be put on Davidson Mesa this summer. And I was hoping this could come to the council for a discussion. And whether it's a quick one for first just for Sonia or a very big discussion on us starting up a bench dedication program. It's nice when residents are willing to pay 1300 plus dollars for a stone bench. Um, how many are interested in that?

I'm I'm happy to have the discussion. Okay, looks like we put that on the agenda at some point. All right. Thank you very much, actually. And thank you from Sonia, an 89year-old dog walker who loves Lewisville, has lived here for 40 years, and just wants to do something beautiful. Um, all right. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? So, second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you very much, folks.