Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Good evening and welcome to the June 11th, 2026 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting. With a roll roll call, please.

Commissioner Richie. Commissioner Mahaley present Commissioner Brown eyes here. Commissioner basket here. Commissioner Hunt here. Sure bangs here. Commissioner Choi. Do I need to unmute you?

about now i'm present christopher troy can you hear us i can hear you great thank you um a motion to approve the savings agenda please i'll move approval of the agenda second second all in favor aye aye I'll now open it up for public comment for items that are not on this evening's agenda. So if you want to speak to something that is not included in the agenda, you would be welcome to now. If you're participating, I see a couple of people participating online. Thank you.

You'd use a raise hand function or star whatever it is by phone, but star nine by phone.

Seeing none, we'll move into our first item of regular business. I will now open the public hearing on a request for a GDP amendment. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the Planning Commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there'll be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the Planning Commission staff. After this presentation, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person by computer or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card, use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star nine if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pool their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period.

The applicant and the staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement.

I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the Commission decides to reopen the hearing. The Planning Commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedures I've described? Seeing no objections, do we have notification? Yes. And do any planning commissioners have any disclosures? Seeing none.

Thank you. So Jeff Hurt with Community Development. I'm here to present a case for a general development plan amendment on a 2.8 acre site in Centennial Valley. The purpose of this amendment is to basically address the zoning for this site and we'll get into the details. But the GDP amendment would essentially allow multifamily permanently affordable deed restricted residential on the subject site. and allow residential density up to 37 dwelling units per acre and allow building heights up to 45 feet in height. That's the extent of the request for tonight. There's a lot of context, but that is the specific request. It is to support a future project. So again, it only addresses, this is really about the zoning for the site as opposed to a specific proposal or project. We'll kind of get into that as well. So it only addresses land use density and building height. To clarify, there will be additional future public processes for the specific, any specific proposal. So it'll be through a PUD and public hearings as you would normally see. In this case, this is unique and I'll get into why this is the case, but the city is actually the applicant working with Coble and Company, the property owner for this particular case. So some background for the site. It is in Centennial Valley. It is governed by the Centennial Valley General Development Plan. That's essentially what sets the zoning for this site. And the issue and the reason for the amendment is that only commercial uses are allowed on this property currently. So no residential is allowed, hence the request. And so in terms of the context, it is surrounded by a mix of vacant land and some commercial office land. It is very well served by infrastructure in terms of transportation infrastructure. You see on this map here the proximity to the bus rapid transit station. So well served by transit and the transportation infrastructure is in place to accommodate future development, whether it be office or residential. So this is just looking physically at what the general development plan looks like. I know we can't read this and seeing where the site is within that. So it's a very large area, this general development plan covers. This site's kind of right in the middle of it, just west of McCaslin. So this is context that is not part of the proposal for tonight, but we felt it was important to share. So this specific request is for one site, but there is a larger discussion happening about additional sites in the Centennial Valley area working with Coble and Company for looking at basically changing the zoning on some of those other sites from commercial to residential. So if you look in this map on the screen, I know it's hard to read, but the pink areas essentially show the areas that are being contemplated for future residential, whereas currently residential is prohibited. We only share that with you just to see sort of the bigger picture that this one site is within. That would be a future general development plan amendment also to address all those sites more holistically. This particular site is on kind of an expedited timeline, so we're moving it forward quicker. This is the sort of the broader context. I will say also in the preliminary discussions we've had with Coble and Company that the residential densities and the building heights on those other sites outside of this one are consistent with the comp plan are actually lower than what's being proposed on this site and both in building height and density currently. The nature of this being a permanently affordable just makes it a bit unique. So this actually went to City Council last week for a concept plan review. Concept plan is basically an optional step that an applicant can take to get Council's early input before making an official application. So the feedback Council provided last week was non-binding, but they did in general support the application. It didn't express any major issues with it as it's presented in your packet as well. So the specific amendment being proposed would essentially change that GDP to carve out this one site within the GDP and say essentially on this one 2.8-acre site, multifamily, permanently affordable, deed-restricted residential is allowed. And the densities and the building heights correspondingly would be allowed as well for just this one site And happy to talk about how the affordability component is sort of locked in but that would be through a separate agreement That would be referenced on the GDP to ensure that any residential on the site would be that deed restricted permanently affordable I'll talk about the details on the next slide here So the specific proposal, and again, this is a future proposal that would come forward in a subsequent PUD application and a GDP amendment. But the proposal is for 100 permanently affordable units, a mix of unit types, and the area median income ranges would be for households earning between 30% of area median income and 80% of area median income, with an average of 60% area median income across these 100 units for this specific project. That's what the agreement in the GDP would state is these AMI ranges, so it's specifically for this type of project. They are proposing one parking space per unit. They're not required by code. They're actually exempt from any parking, but they are proposing to provide some. Again, this is subject to a future proposal. This is just context for what the GDP amendment would support. So getting into why this sort of unique situation, why the city is the applicant in working with Coble and Company, for a number of reasons. One, this request really closely aligns with a lot of our adopted policies around housing affordability. There's really clear connection between the comprehensive plan and the housing plan in terms of supporting a project like this. It would also address our city's Proposition 123 commitment which some of you may be aware the City Council by resolution basically adopted a commitment to build 77 Permanently affordable housing units by the end of this year, which is not going to happen I'm happy to talk about the status of that but this particular project would be solely address that proposition 123 commitment that the city has made. That's another reason why the city is the applicant. Another reason is we as a city are supporting a grant for this project, a land banking grant for the state. that Colborne Company is authoring in addition to a low-income housing tax credit application for this project. So there's a lot of things coming together to make us a unique case where the city is the applicant. I will also say that in these adopted plans and actually in the city council work plan that was adopted, it is explicitly stated as an action item for us to be the applicant for a city-initiated rezoning. So it all kind of tracks with our policy direction. Getting to some of the analysis on this site, not getting into all the comprehensive plan and housing plan policies, there's actually an attachment in your packet that lists all the applicable policies that we as staff looked at on balance to make our recommendation. But in general, this site is within the Centennial Valley Housing Opportunity Area, as it's called out in the comp plan. And there's a number of policies supporting housing affordability, housing diversity. There's also some additional policies that I didn't mention in terms of support for repurposing quote-unquote underutilized commercial land for residential, which this is being a commercial site currently, and certainly a lot of policies supporting residential density near transit, which this is. And also residential to support the nearby commercial. So the idea of more housing units sort of off McCaslin in our commercial corridor would support and strengthen that core commercial base and our retail base on McCaslin. So a number of policies in support. of this request. Related to building height specifically, the comprehensive plan has very flexible guidance on this, but it is important to note that for this specific site, the comprehensive plan does call out three stories as the guidance for the maximum height. Forty-five feet in height is intended to support four stories, so it does go above that, but it is important to note that the comp plan does explicitly state that there should be flexibility to the extent that a project provides community benefits. affordable housing being one of them explicitly listed. So from staff's perspective, it does align with that policy. In terms of building heights, Colborne Company did provide some visuals of what sort of the view corridor would look like from McCaslin. We'll go through a couple of those. Hard to see on the screen right here, but this image is basically bottom left is current condition Bottom right, proposed condition. If you're just west of McCaslin looking west, what would a four-story, 45-foot tall building look like? We'll go to the next one. You can see it better. This is a little bit further west of McCaslin. If you're standing on McCaslin looking west, this is what a 45-foot tall building would look like as you're looking toward the mountains. Some additional important context around building heights. We did analyze building heights in the area. If you look immediately south, the existing building is 35 feet, two stories. Just south of that, actually, the current buildings are actually 46 feet in height, so about similar to what's being proposed, but those are three stories because of the commercial floor plates are different. So it's similar in nature to some of the surrounding buildings in height. think this is the last slide on analysis again on the proposition 123 commitment that's important for the city as well it is also important to note that there is a broader traffic impact study that was included in your packet that looks at all these additional sites that we're working with the applicant to refine with our public work staff That is undergoing final review, but there is some information on potential traffic impacts as it relates to both this site and the surrounding site if it were to redevelop as residential. Essentially, the findings currently are that when you look at a build-out of office versus residential, a build-out of residential would actually be lower impact traffic in terms of A and P and peak times than office would be. Residential, a bit lower than office. And that concludes the staff presentation. There's a lengthy recommendation and motion up here, but we do recommend approval for consistency with the number of adopted plans. We do have a representative from Coble here as well that is not going to give a presentation, but is happy to answer any questions about the project.

Thank you. Questions for staff? Commissioner Ritchie.

Thank you very much. I think this is a really great example of the type of work the city should be doing to advance our affordable housing goals. So generally, I'm really pleased to see this work. I do have a couple of questions. One, I'm curious, you mentioned the Prop 123, where we are. I think you're tracking toward a good faith waiver or fast track compliance so that we can make sure these units would count.

Yeah, we're confident that the good faith, I don't know if the terminology is good faith waiver, you may know better than me, but we're confident that we have made a good faith effort with the housing plan, with the comp plan, and with work like this, working toward that 77 units. So we're not going to build 100 units by the end of 2026 certainly, but we are confident we're tracking toward continued compliance with that.

to make sure we've got all the check marks, because I think this type, I think it probably would. I did notice a note in the GDP amendment that just says these affordable units should be, or the landowner of the rest of the property can be credited, these units go out. This only, I mean, if they, If they still need more affordable units to keep on their 12%, this would be the only affordable units? Is that how that's intended to work? Does that make sense? Say they build 1,000 units and they have some gap much later on, they still would have to build more? Or is this intended to meet the affordability IHO

There's definitely some unknowns with that. I think that the language in there is to leave open the possibility for just to ensure that these 100 units or whatever it is could count toward the 12% of other units. So we don't know yet for sure how exactly that's going to look, but the intent is to work toward that as an alternative compliance option, which is enabled in the code.

And then I just have one final question just related to design standards. So, you know, this area I think is subject to commercial design standards. I know we don't really have residential design standards. How do you think a future PUD might be reviewed for design? Just curious.

That's a good question. We don't exactly know yet. That's definitely something that is going to be an important topic, probably for the broader GDP amendment when it comes forward, but definitely for any PUDs that come forward. We don't know yet for sure, but, you know, If you look in our, I believe in our mixed use design standards and guidelines, there is a multi-family design standards and guidelines embedded in that. So we would probably look to that for some level of guidance. I will say that we've expressed with COBOL the importance of, like this site plan that's shown here is not indicative of exactly what it's going to be. Certainly you know that. But we've expressed the importance of buildings fronting and orienting to the street. So there's an activation component. And so however we get to that point, I'm not sure yet what the mechanism is yet. But it's a good question. We don't know yet.

Thank you. Are those affordable units, are they transferable between different owners? So if they sold a lot to a different developer and they said, okay, well, you can get units? It basically would run with the land, no matter who. So not with the land, like, so they're transferable to other properties? Right, yeah, as a credit.

I mean that I think that if I'm understanding or it's similar to Commissioner Ritchie's question in the sense of like these units are intended potentially to be credits toward compliance for off-site. Right.

Yeah. Would that be off? Would that include other owners? Could they sell those credits to a future developer potentially?

I don't know. Possibly, yeah, I think we would have to look at that in an individual sort of case-by-case agreement. But the past so far has been one common kind of ownership group. Right, but that could change. It's conceivable, yeah. I mean, that would have to be fleshed out in an agreement, and you all certainly would see that if that changed.

Okay.

Yeah.

Commissioner Mahaley.

Yeah, clarifying point. I'm under the impression from your presentation and reading the application that all, so the 100 deed restricted affordable units, that's 100% of the property. Are there any units on the property that aren't affordable housing or is it all affordable housing?

You could get clarification from the COBOL representative, but my understanding is all, 100%, all of them are all deed restricted. Yeah.

Okay. And, you know, it said it's close to transit and there's sidewalks, but do we know, if you could pull up the map, like where is the public transit relative to this property? I think there's a stop on the chasm, but I'm not 100% sure.

Yeah, I don't have a great map, but the best I can do is this image right here, which I could blow up, but it's about two blocks south of And there is a fairly direct pedestrian bicycle route.

I'm aware of sort of the hub there where the Black Star is, but isn't there a bus route that goes up McCaslin as well? I believe 228.

I'm not sure exactly where the stop is, but I believe it's 228.

I'm just wondering, because I don't really know the state of the sidewalks, and is it suitable for the volume of people we're talking about in there? Something to consider. It says there's sidewalks there, but... Are they in good enough shape? Do we need to address that as well? Maybe that's for later during the actual development proposal, but just poking at that a little bit.

Yeah, that's an important consideration. I think we'll continue to talk about it.

Something I'd want to see on the Planning Commission, presented to the Planning Commission later in terms of where it fits in the bigger picture and making sure that it's actually an adequate, because people whip through there driving. You know, is it safe for people to actually walk? You know, it says two blocks, but that is actually a pretty sizable distance through a pretty heavy area with cars, so. I just want to make sure it's a safe place to walk for facilitating public transit.

Yeah, definitely there'll be a PUD level topic of concern, yeah.

That new development from CU right between there, right? So there's going to be a whole lot of, potentially a lot of residential.

There's going to be a lot going on there, yeah.

Which I think could help too because CU's obviously going to have to do something for pedestrian walking around there too. Any question I had This is maybe from my knowledge But the prop 123 commitment is that making does that make any distinction between rental units and ownership units?

I don't believe so

It's just the number of total units, but there's different requirements for affordability if it's ownership or rental. Right.

I understood that. I just wondered if there were going to be any plans in this property, and you may not know this yet, but for any ownership type of units as opposed to just rentals. It sounds to me like this is entirely intended to be rental units.

That is the intent. Yeah. If that's different, feel free to correct. Yeah.

So I look forward to a kind of more holistic comprehensive plan for this area in the absence of that understandably due to the time. Are there any other warnings or concerns? We don't change zoning kind of on this scale too often in the absence of an area plan sort of. Are there anything that we should be concerned about as a city when we're changing something like this?

Yeah I mean This is the reason why we had a comprehensive plan, right, in part is to establish guidance for specific areas of the city. And so we were very thoughtful, I think, about what Centennial Valley should look like. And so this was very intentionally, this area is very intentionally kind of established policy-wise as an area that would support residential. And even with the density ranges and the heights, I think it's, you know, we don't have a granular McCaslin small area plan like we used to have, but I think the intent with the comp plan is to keep it flexible. But it was very deliberate to look at this area as sort of a residential opportunity area.

Okay.

So building off of that, thinking like water and sewer, you know, we're adding quite a few units where there weren't before, and it's, I think, mostly commercial or industrial. Like, is that, I'm assuming... So I wanted to make sure that someone's looking at the sewer capacity and the water capacity and adding that extra store is not gonna be a tipping point in the greater scheme of things of how we're gonna look at this area long-term to Steve's point.

yet for sure i mean that in in again uh... not to put it but uh... it once you get to its specific proposal that's all part of the valuation that's done by a public works folks in terms of water waste water capacity i will say with the conference of plan you know there are there are unit count ranges contemplated in there and those unit count ranges assigned by sub area so Centennial Valley has a general kind of sub area wouldn't call it an allocation or a goal or a target it's just here's how many might happen and that was done intentionally in part to address the need for residential but also in close coordination to make sure we have enough water and wastewater so it's well within that kind of analysis that was done does anybody happen to know how many units are orchestral

I don't. That's more than 100, I would imagine, yeah.

More than 100, probably less than 200, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, no, it sounds about right. So, Commissioner Banks.

Yeah, quick question. So, understand it's a GDP level only at this stage. If this were approved, I presume the units need to materialize in order to be considered credits for other developments that the developer may then pursue, meaning it can't be the promise of 100 units. It needs to be the delivery of 100 units for the credit to be applied.

Yeah, that's correct. And the exact mechanism, I don't think we know yet to make sure that that connection is clear. But you're right. Yes, they would need to actually be. So there'll be some sort of sequencing that happens where one has to happen before the other one gets recorded or something or approved. I don't think we're quite there yet.

Okay. And stating the obvious, obviously the developer is going to be motivated to maximize the density if this were to be approved in order to maximize the credits they would benefit from.

Yeah, I mean, that's fair, of course. Yeah, but I will say it's within kind of the reasonable parameters of what the comp plan guidance is as well. Sure.

Well, and they're not all micro units, right? There is a spread between one, two, and some three.

Yeah.

Yeah, there are three bedroom units. It's not maxed out per unit, right? You could get more one unit.

No, but I mean, how clear are we in this GDP? I've read the packet, but how clear are we as to how many units? And we're not giving an exception on density as such, right?

Yeah, there's no, the only sort of density parameters are really in the comprehensive plan currently because there's no zoning. Usually there's like an underlying zoning that says, you know, X units per acre is your maximum and you need a waiver from that or whatever. We don't have that baseline. So, you know, the comp plan is really all we have. And so this goes slightly above it. But again, with that flexibility kind of explicitly stated in the comp plan where it basically says, This is the range that could be appropriate here as guidance. If you were to vary from that range, meaning go a little bit higher, you should get something in exchange for it that's really valuable, such as affordable housing.

Right. And the PUD stage obviously will dictate what ultimately we agree to.

In terms of the specific number of units and everything? Yes, yes. This is establishing the cap, the maximum, yeah.

Okay, thanks. And I just want to clarify. So there have been the questions about maybe transferability of the deed restricted units that are proposed under this GDP. And, you know, the specific ordinance says that this is to allow multifamily residential development with all dwelling units permanently affordable through deed restrictions. We have our other affordability requirements requirements for other multifamily developments. With this resolution, we would be requiring every unit that's here on site to meet the affordability requirement. And because of that, they would be counted towards disapproval, not transferable to some other development because you can't count the same unit twice. Correct.

Yeah, you certainly can't count the same unit twice. So yeah, what this action would do tonight is it would allow residential, but only for permanently affordable deed restricted. And it would allow those units, it would establish what those unit types could be in terms of median income ranges that could be affordable to them. And it would allow, it doesn't explicitly say who it goes to or where, but it would allow them to be used as credit toward other developments. Sort of TBD on what the exact structure looks like, but it would enable that flexibility. Does that make sense?

Commissioner Choi.

Maybe. I was trying to see if that made sense to me. I mean, if every unit here is required, well, okay. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but if I'm the only one that struggled with that, I'm happy to move past it. Just another question of clarification. I know the city is the applicant and specifically been working with Coble and and even bringing the preliminary discussion to Council. Can you just confirm right now Coble is the current land owner?

Yes. But and that trade ability, there's a possibility that a developer on the other side of town could say we're going to put in 10 market rate units and we're going to buy these affordable credits from Coble.

You know, it's conceivable. I think that that, you know, is pretty unlikely, but that would be something that, you know, this agreement, this agreement you know, the agreement that establishes that these units could count off-site. So our ordinance says you can count off-site affordable units to count toward your own. It doesn't say where or how close. It just says off-site. So there's a lot of flexibility. So if that came to fruition, that that was... you know, that, that's how it played out. Then that would come back to planning commission certainly through, are there a GDP amendment or a PUD where we'd have to alter any sort of agreements to make that connection really clear.

So it's only, but it would be similar to when a developer chooses fee and Lua where we don't have any standing to say we don't like that approach. Right. That is an option.

It's ultimately up to council. The given is that these should be built on site, right? The 12% should be on site. Anything different than that, council has to approve. And so in this case, they would be approving through a future action and on-site affordable housing sort of alternative agreement that hinges off of this site. It would be complicated and messy, but this allows that to happen if that happens.

Yeah, but I'm not even sure what the mechanism is that would allow that accounting to even happen.

My question is related to that is, are these credits somehow severable from the land? Like wouldn't it, wouldn't this only arise, and then maybe just not understanding how it works, but wouldn't that only arise if they sold the land that this is, that these are on to, so it would be all, didn't that all be the same owner? No, it doesn't.

Two different things. So I think, are you thinking about like the actual tax credits that are generated?

I was thinking about if they, the concern that they could someone, some other owner of a different parcel could somehow just buy the credits from this building.

And I didn't, that didn't seem restricting that.

But so what, so the credits are something that can be sold separately from the development?

Any, any, any, wherever these units are credited toward would have to be through a City Council authorization and approval of an agreement for that specific proposal.

And I think Commissioner Choi, you were maybe suggesting that like 88 percent of the units could be credited toward other projects so that the 12 percent of required for this so not 100 of these units could be credited elsewhere if i maybe understood is that what i i wasn't sure how any of them could be transferred over um if

If this requirement says that all of these units are affordable through deep restriction, then that counts for the requirements of what this GDP would be. Full stop. And then any other development would have its own requirements. And so that's where I was coming up with that. You can't count them twice.

I mean, I will say that the path that this is on right now in looking at the broader context is that There's one, this is one GDP amendment that has one agreement tied to it that says these units have to be de-restricted and affordable, all of them of the case, and they can be used to satisfy requirements off-site without specifying where it goes. But the path that this is on is that those other sites, so looking at that broader map that shows the other sites COBOL is contemplating for residential, that will come before Planning Commission, I anticipate, as a subsequent GDP amendment. that will be bigger and broader. We intentionally separated them so this one can move forward. But as part of that broader GDP amendment, I think that's where you'd see all the mechanisms that all point to this. All these other sort of scenarios, like they are hypothetical and they could happen, but I think From our perspective, that's the path that we're on is there's one bigger GDP amendment coming that locks us all in through agreements that are assigned, if that makes sense.

I think what I'm hearing is that this agreement that they can count them is to facilitate tearing this off of the larger project and getting it done now.

Yeah, frankly, it's all driven by, not all driven by, but the time sensitivity is there's a low-income housing tax credit application coming very soon, and that's one time per year. And so that's what's driving the expedited timeline. In a perfect world, we would have taken this all together as one holistic GDP amendment, certainly.

Right, and then these units would count towards the affordability requirement for the entire year.

development you'd see a cleaner package and then absent that deadline that makes sense yeah additional question is so on a bigger picture question is this the best way to do affordable for our community

I mean, this is personal kind of opinion, but we hear from developers all the time that doing on-site 12% is really challenging as a 12% of the overall units, just because of the structure and financing and all that. So it's... That's why you see most wanting to choose the fee-in-lieu option. And then the other more feasible practical option is to put it all in one place so you have more of a clean sort of financing structure, tax credits, all that kind of stuff. So this approach, from my understanding of how all this works, is one of the preferred sort of cleaner approaches. The 12% onsite is really problematic for a lot of developers, yeah.

And so with the 12% onsite, we also have a requirement that they be similar, you know, style, fit out, finishing. This doesn't necessarily have anything quite like that?

That's a good observation and a good thing to note as we move through this process to ensure that I think any future agreements for those peripheral sites have some of that language in those agreements that say, that draw that connection. The mix of unit types kind of puts it on a good path in terms of one to three bedroom units. Like if they're all studios, I think there'd be a concern, but it's a good question and something we'll definitely have to look closely at for the broader GDP, but make sure that they, yeah, like similar.

Just given, I think, some of the questions that we're raising and some of the things that are up in there, and maybe this is a question for Coble, does it make sense to maybe just strike this kind of credit language from this GDP and then add it in on the next one when these details can be more figured out in case there's, you know, just, I don't know, just a thought, if we're really just trying to get the zoning locked?

Yeah, I mean, I would let the COBOL folks answer that one, honestly. But, you know, from our perspective, You know, there are challenges that you all are raising in terms of the logistical aspects of it, but we also want it to be flexible and we want to keep this moving forward. And so I think, you know, we're open to it, but it definitely would be a COBOL question. Yeah.

All right. Yeah. Maybe do we have an additional questions for now? Maybe as we invite him up, recognize that, again, we're looking at only the GDP for this without the affordable, technically.

Well, except there's the note on the GDP that references the affordable, so that's where I'm... Yeah.

And appreciate that they're here to speak to it, even though they're not the applicant. Commissioner Troy, do you have any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, all right. Can we invite them up? Yeah.

Everyone, thanks for for having me today. I can jump right in with some of the questions if that's alright. I'm Christmas room with Koblenz Company. I work exclusively on our multifamily affordable housing team, so my focus across the state is building and developing primarily rental income housing.

We also are studying just to confirm you're not a. You don't live in Louisville, sorry you don't live in Louisville. That's just a little detail we have to confirm.

No, I apologize. No, I live in Evergreen, right? So thank you. Yeah, of course. So that's my focus is these types of housing communities. As Jeff mentioned, these can be rather tricky to finance. What's really driving, as you said, what's really driving the urgency and splitting this off is if you think of the timeline of developing of LIHTC community, low-income housing tax credit community, if we were to receive awards of credits this year in November, you know we're at least a year to get through design and financing and in the complex financing environment we're in today that's that's taking more than a year we really wanted to get this project in line and get an application in machapa in august otherwise we do have to wait until the following year to get our application in it's not guaranteed you'll win credits on the on the first round sometimes it takes two rounds to do that so just in the interest of getting the housing done you know sooner than later that's what was driving the request to split this out

Thank you for that. How many LIHTC projects or what feedback are you hearing from CHFA on this project? I'm just curious if you can share kind of their initial thoughts on this one.

Yeah, so we've only had some preliminary conversations with them. We do have a letter of intent to submit an application in August. We've not yet had our exploratory call with CHAPA regarding that. That said, we do a lot of projects with these folks. In fact, we just closed financing on a 65-unit affordable housing project in Gunbarrel today, actually. So, you know, we're always in conversation with these folks. I think some of the initial reactions I've received are very positive in that They haven't seen a substantial amount of low-income housing development in the region. I think would look favorable upon this project being developed here, this 100 units.

I'm curious on the unit mix. How do you arrive at that? Was it 65, 24, 11 currently possible proposed? I know without going too deep into it since we're not in the PUD stage, but

Sure. When you say arriving at the Unimix, you mean in terms of the various AMIs?

Well, that also, but also one, two, and three-bedroom.

Sure, good questions. I'll address the AMIs first. It's something we've seen work really well at other affordable housing communities we've developed. This will be our 13th low-income housing development if we're successful with the application. We've seen for family housing like this, certain AMI mixes work well. The average below 60% is a target for us. We try to keep the average below 60%. 60 depending on different soft funding sources that are available to us that we might utilize for the project each one will come with its own requirements for certain amis so taking all of that into account on what we've recently used to accomplish projects in lone tree and gun barrel we feel like that is an ami mix that would be supported by chaffa

Got it. And then do you happen to know off the top of your head roughly what those AMIs equivalent to with rent?

I should know that off the top of my head. I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head. I would tell you that entry-level rent for the lower AMIs is going to be closer to $600 or $700 a month. And then as you get closer to 80% AMI, they're going to be, depending on bedroom counts, you know, be in the $1,500 to maybe $2,000 range depending on, you know, one, two or three bedrooms and AMI level.

Sure. Thanks. Any additional questions? Commissioner Choi, anything? Saying nothing. Oh, so the application mentioned national green building standards. I'm not aware of any national green building standards particularly.

So NGBS, there's many. I think we've probably heard a lot of different ones. There's LEED standards. There's NGBS. There's a lot of different environmental building standards out there. The National Green Building Standards is one that we use as sort of a baseline for any of our communities. We typically exceed that.

Is that out of ICC?

That is, I don't know that that's through ICC. I think that's a separate. Certification that we get through our energy consultants that work with us on these projects But that's again, that's just a baseline and we put that in there for that purpose, but we we always exceed that.

Okay All right seeing no additional questions Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you being here I will know open up public comment. We do have, actually we don't have any for this issue. And nobody hands, was there anybody here in the audience who wanted to speak to this issue, seeing none?

No.

All right. No closing statement. All right. Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who's got some thoughts they wanted to share initially here?

Jump in.

Sure, I'll jump in. Generally, I'm in favor of housing in the Centennial Valley District. As you've poked at, I'm a little weary of diving in without seeing the whole picture. I am a little concerned about the density, and I would, you know, when we get to the GDP or the PD phase, we'd like to see details on walkways and lighting. I think that, you know, having a high density in that one spot, there could be some challenges there that we would need to address in the development plan. And so I would want to hear those details. So that... Would help but for now to get to keep the process going and because I do believe that that is a good area for This sort of development.

I'm generally in favor Thank you Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Mahalia and I look forward to seeing PD and seeing how you know more detail on how this will be developed But I think that getting getting this project rolling is important for the area and for our community. So I will be the support Mr. Baskett

so i'm comfortable with the risk that we're taking with this i think it's important enough and a good enough opportunity that we should rally behind it and look at the details with great deal of scrutiny as they come forward thank you commissioner choi we almost here yeah okay yeah um

Overall, it's an underutilized area. It's identified in the comp plan as a target location to enhance residential offerings. I am hopeful that ultimately it's going to come through as it's crafted right here in this preliminary application. So, yes, I agree with everyone else. We'll definitely scrutinize everything that comes through. through the PUD and want to make sure that we are tracking along with what it is that we're looking at tonight. But overall, I'm in support of that. Thank you.

Commissioner Bangs?

Yeah, I'm generally aligned with all the comments so far and generally in favor. I mean, it's a creative approach and it's timely. Clearly, the developer wants to get moving for... various reasons. Yeah, it's unfortunate that we can't see the overall picture, but we understand the reasons for that. And I understand pockets of affordable within a broader development are more challenging to fund. So it makes sense. Yeah, it's good. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Ritchie.

Thank you. Thank you, staff, for preparing this in a creative way and advocating for affordable housing. And I just want to thank COBOL as well. LIHTC deals in these affordable housing developments are very layered and complicated and take many, many years. And so I'm just grateful of your willingness to invest in affordable housing in Louisville. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I also look forward to kind of seeing the bigger picture and making sure it all makes sense. But I also appreciate that there's an opportunity here and that as a community we have expressed interest in trying to get this. And it might not be everything that I want to see on a certain spot, but I think it's that we need to jump on it. I think it's important that we're able to move quickly as a community. So thank you for all the work that's gone into it. With that, yes? Thank you.

Do we have a second? Second that motion. Thank you. Roll call please.

Commissioner Ritchie.

Yes.

Commissioner Mahaley. Yes. Commissioner Choi. Yes. Chair Bronis.

Yes.

Commissioner Baskett.

Yes.

Commissioner Hunt. Yes. Commissioner Banks. Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you all for your work on this. All right. Let's see. 716. We will now move into our second item of business. I will now open the public hearing on a request for a GDP amendment for the St. Louis Parish. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the Planning Commission.

The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows.

First, there will be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the Planning Commission to staff. Next, we will have a presentation and testimony by the applicant, followed by questions from the Planning Commission to the applicant. After these two presentations, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person by computer or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card, which are available on the table outside the door there. Use the raise hand function if you're participating by computer or star nine if you're calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pool their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony, not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I'll then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the Commission decides to reopen the hearing. The Planning Commission will discuss the matter, may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none. Do we have notification?

Yes.

And do we have any Planning Commission members or disclosures?

I'll just disclose I was the previous case planner the last time this GDP came before you all, but I can be impartial and review the facts of the case.

Thank you. Any additional? Seeing none. Thank you very much.

Good evening, Commissioners. This is Emily Klein-Gibson with the staff presentation. This is for Resolution 8, Series 2026, recommending approval of a third amendment to the St. Louis Parish and Commercial Park General Development Plan. Excuse me. The request is specific to one lot within the overall GDP area. The proposed GDP amendment includes an increase in the allowed floor area for the lot as well as a new proposed zone for the GDP design and bulk standards. The request is to best facilitate the development of an indoor sports complex, which will be further reviewed by separate PUD and SRU applications in the future. Staff is recommending approval of the request with a condition that the GDP is not recorded or become effective until the PUD application receives approval from City Council. Since the proposed GDP amendment is for the specific needs of an indoor sports complex, this condition ensures that the existing GDP standards established with the second GDP amendment, which is the current reigning document, remain in place if plans for the sports complex fall through. To provide some background, the land included within the GDP is located on the corner of 96th Street and Dillon Road and runs north between 96th and the BNSF Railroad. The land was annexed into Louisville in the late 1990s and placed in the Agricultural Zone District. The approval of the St. Louis Parish GDP in 2004 rezoned the properties to the planned Community Commercial Zone District, which was a significant up zone in density and use allowances. In an effort to retain the area as a transition between the rural surrounding open space to the south and west and the industrialized CTC development to the east, design and bulk standards were incorporated in the GDP. This slide provides an image of the St. Louis Parish GDP. Land within the GDP is divided into three zones, as shown on the left, and each zone contains design and bulk standards, which include a list of permitted uses, floor area ratio and lot coverage maximums, building setbacks, and maximum building heights. These bulk standards reflected broader policies at the time, like the 1998 South Subarea Comprehensive Plan and the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, which identified this area as a rural gateway to the city of Louisville and established a maximum FAR of 0.25 to reinforce the idea that this area was a buffer between the surrounding land uses. These plans have since been replaced by the 2026 Comprehensive Plan, And the 2026 comp plan does not label this area as a rural gateway, nor does it provide any maximum floor areas. The first amendment was approved in 2017 and included just minor revisions to the permitted uses. The second GDP amendment was approved in 2020 and included major changes to the document. such as rearranging the zone boundaries, modifying the list of permitted uses, increasing the total allowed floor area by 60,000 square feet, and other site design revisions like increasing the maximum building height from 35 feet to 40 feet and reducing the building setback from 96th Street. The land within the GDP had remained undeveloped for over 20 years after it was annexed into the city, and many of the changes in the second GDP amendment were intended to create better development conditions for the properties. And once that second amendment was approved, several industrial and commercial buildings were constructed. So this slide shows what the second GDP amendment looks like. And this is, again, the most current zoning document for the area. The image to the left shows a revised layout of those zones that better align with the property boundaries. And the commercial development characteristics table to the right reflects those design and bulk standards for each of those zones. The games parcel, which is that rounded property that's located to the far left in the site diagram, is a subject property for tonight's proposal. The same design and book standards of setbacks, parking, height, and architecture that were in the original GDP remained with the Second Amendment. And the FAR and total square footages were placed in a new table that's located on the bottom right of the screen. The FAR development table outlines maximum floor area allowances for each zone, and then each zone is added to get the total floor area allowance for each parcel, which is then added for the total overall floor area allowance for the entire GDP area. So tonight's proposal includes modifications just to the games parcel, which again is the single northernmost parcel located on the screen here. The proposed changes include increasing the floor area allowance from 50,456 square feet to 80,000 square feet and creating a new zone 2C for just the games parcel, which would consolidate zones 2A and 2B while maintaining those same bulk and design standards. The table to the right provides an overview of the changes in floor area from the original DDP, the Second Amendment, and now tonight's proposal. And this slide provides an image of what the proposed changes would look like on the GDP document itself. And those changes are highlighted in red. The proposed Zone 2C covers the entire parcel and would allow for greater flexibility in building placement on the site without being constrained by the floor area maximums for each of the individual Zone 2A and 2B. And the proposed Zone 2C bulk and design standards shown to the right include the same standards that are located within Zone 2A and 2B just in a combined format. The transition in building height and roof design from Zone 2A to Zone 2B is proposed to be represented by an equivalent linear distance from South 96th Street. And the bottom right shows an updated FAR allowance table that reflects the proposed increase to 80,000 square feet. A conceptual site plan and updated traffic letter were included with the application to provide an example of a potential development layout as well as potential trip generations for the site. A separate PUD and planned unit development and special review use or SRU application will be required prior to any development on this site and that will include thorough review of the building layout, site design and anticipated impacts from the indoor sports facility use. So for the analysis, as a reminder, the purpose of the planned community zone district is to use contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design to encourage and improve the health and safety of the community and recognize the economic and cultural advantages of a planned community development. There's no specific review criteria for GDPs in our planned community district, so they follow the same process in which they originally approved and are guided by the above purposes. Staff find the proposals consistent with the purpose of the planned community zone district. Although the maximum floor area allowance for the games parcel is proposed to increase, the same design characteristics that were established with the original GDP and then revised with the second amendment are still in place and are aligned with that original intent to maintain this area as a transition buffer and in bulk and density from the open space to the CTC. And those design and book standards that are outlined in the GDP, combined with our commercial design standards, which are required for any commercial development, provide additional parameters to ensure that future development remains aligned with the character of the surrounding area. And once again, prior to the construction of any building, those PUD and SRU applications will be reviewed and will require public hearings. So the 2026 comprehensive plan labels the property as part of the mixed employment place type, which is the place type that's also designated to the CTC. This place type allows recreational facilities as a supporting land use and encourages a mix of land uses to support economic growth and activated employment areas. The proposed indoor sports facility is also supported by policies in the comprehensive plan that encourage a range of recreational opportunities and facilities that support the community needs. with all this staff recommends approval of resolution 8 series 2026 with the condition that the gdp amendment shall not be recorded or become effective until the final pud for the indoor recreation facility project has been approved by a city council this concludes the staff presentation the applicant is also present and would like to speak and i'm happy to answer any questions thank you The condition? I personally am not sure if we've done it in the past, but it seems like we may have.

But it is unusual. Yeah.

Thank you for your presentation. So I don't have history on this project. So is St. Louis Parish proposing any other buildings or structures?

The St. Louis Parish is not part of this proposal at all. Not for this. I understand this is just... Yeah, it's just the name of the guiding zoning document. I'm not aware of St. Louis Parish having any future hand in the land. There's no active applications for it.

So this is a for-profit recreation facility? Correct. Okay. Yes. I didn't feel like that was crystal clear to me in the staff report. So that's helpful. My second question has to do with the public comment we received about the parking. Staff's reaction to that in terms of what you've seen so far. Also, can you go back to a map and show where that property owner is located that is concerned?

The history on this piece of property? this piece of property has always had a different owner than all the other parcels. Gomez, I think was the pronunciation we used to use. Yeah, uh-huh. And so that's where that house was until a year or two ago, something like that. And so I don't know, does anybody happen to know, does St. Louis still own the far parcel there? I think so, yeah. I believe so.

Yeah.

Yes. So all right. Yes, so as we move into that, yeah, parking, can you speak to that?

Sure. So the applicant did provide a conceptual site plan based on just by staff's recommendation to provide that just to ensure that their proposed building bulk and the required minimum parking spaces per municipal code could fit on the site. As far as, you know, future parking needs and stuff like that, that would be determined mostly through the PUD process and the special review use application as well. The indoor sports facility is a special review use per the existing general development plan, the Second Amendment. That's not proposed to change or anything. So one of the things that staff will look at with the SRU application is what the proposed impacts would be on parking, and what their business plan lays out for their schedule events and stuff. And then the PUD application would address the specific number of onsite parking requirements. But as far as the conceptual plan goes, they are able to meet the minimum parking per our code.

Thank you. Commissioner Ritchie.

Yeah, follow up on that.

Go ahead.

Commissioner Ritchie. I was just going to ask for a quick clarification. sports facility is an SRU, it's not something that's a use by right after the second amendment to the GDP?

Correct. It will remain an SRU. Correct.

Commissioner Ritchie.

So it looks like the conceptual site plan shows one spaces per 500 square feet. Is that the code parking requirement for indoor sports facilities? I don't recall.

I'm just curious if that's... That is the code requirement as far as I know. And that's also, I believe there's another indoor sports facility in the CTC. That's the code requirement that we used for that development as well.

At one point there had been one other just a moment. There have been a right of way dedicated for a trail in the back of these properties adjacent to the train tracks.

Yes, on the back. So for East are you talking about? Yes, as part of the conceptual plan they did. Leave that space dedicated Commissioner Troy.

Thanks, sir. So another previous staff comment said that commercial done standards apply to this. And there was an intent to try to maintain character with the adjacent developments where there are consistent bulk and use guidelines for the whole area. I know that previous developments include areas of abandoned turf that are associated with some, you know, rather large tree lawn areas adjacent to the roadway. Are those standards still applicable to this? Just as they're kind of reflected on the conceptual site plan? non-functional turf no they're not are you uh commissioner you're referring to the in the current gdp there's significant buffer standards from 96th street like landscape buffer standards yes and just you you had made the comment that you know there was an intent through the commercial design standards to maintain the same character of the existing development and there's a significant amount of that abandoned turf that was part of that existing development I just wanted to understand how those are being reconciled. Well, you said abandoned abandoned turf.

Commissioner, you said abandoned yes.

The non functional turf that's. Along the roadway.

Well, I think it's all dead right now, but I you know, I believe that that turf if it's along the roadway within this property that would be addressed with the PUD through a landscape plan.

And it's certainly not a requirement anymore. It was at the time that the grass in front of the 7-Eleven was put in, but we've moved beyond that as a city, fortunately.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't a character of the existing development that wanted to be maintained through this.

Oh, right. Got it. Yes. No, I think current law will overrule that. Yes. Correct.

And I just want to, not to put too fan a point on it, but all these changes, the, the, any, any perceived rights granted by the, by changing the GDP now would not become effective if a PUD is not approved.

Um, if a PUD specific to this indoor sports proposal is not approved. Correct.

Then this goes away or does it stay?

It would not become effective. Right. Okay.

Additional questions for staff, yes. Commissioner Mahaley.

Could you clarify the code? Maybe you said it and I was missing it looking at the resolution. The parking requirement is tied to square footage or what metric is the parking requirement tied to exactly?

The parking requirement is one space per 500 square feet.

Thank you.

Additional questions? Seeing none, thank you. If we can invite the applicant up, please.

Good evening. My name is Tim Merkel. I am a resident of Louisville and I live at, do I need to say the address?

No, not anymore. That's the old way. That's the old way.

Okay. Um, I'm a resident of Louisville and I'm the applicant and want to just say thanks to staff for all the hard work. Thank you guys for doing what you guys do. It's awesome city to live in. Um, Staff did a great job of talking through the GDP details. And if I can answer any of those questions, I'll try. And of course, we can get staff back up here. But I thought I would talk about the concept because I'm sure you have some questions about what the heck are we building here? What's it for? How would it work? So let's talk about what this thing is and why do we need extra square footage. So this is an indoor sports facility. And imagine three pads, fields, if you will, of about 100 feet by 200 feet. And in a space like that, you can put one hockey rink. We're not doing hockey. We're not doing ice. But one indoor soccer field. four basketball or three basketball courts, or you can put four volleyball courts. These spaces require clear span, which is why you have to build a building specific for these uses. Our friends over at Relish were able to find a way to work within the posts of the facility over there, but these sports need a large clear span. So we don't currently know what we're going to be putting into these three. Think of a business card kind of scale size. So if you had three business cards stacked on a field, on a table, you could have one indoor soccer field, maybe an indoor lacrosse. They're interchangeable. And then one set of courts that could either go with volleyball or basketball. These facilities... scale are only really feasible these days in this environment with the cost of money and the cost of construction are only really feasible at a large scale. The economies of scale kick in to make these projects barely feasible. Most of these projects are passion projects. and this one included. It's still a for-profit. It will be a successful business, but there's a lot of heart in these types of projects. So right out of the gate, we need three fields. That's 60,000 square feet. Add bathrooms, social areas, a snack bar, a sports performance area, a.k.a. a gym. And then maybe there'll be some facilities for physical therapy-type uses or ortho-type uses. We're envisioning a partnership with a hospital, Advent, or UC Health, having some space in the facility. So the sports would be a mix of turf sports and court sports. Turf would be primarily soccer and lacrosse, but there's no reason we couldn't do kickball, adult and youth, ultimate frisbee, field hockey. On the court side, primary uses would be volleyball and basketball. From a function perspective, we're thinking it'll likely be leagues where you form a team with your friends and you join a league. You play eight sessions, one game per week. And then the cycle repeats. There'll be developmental academy type programs where kids show up. They're sorted onto teams based on skill level. They get one practice per week and one game per week. And the intention is to get kids off the couch and into new sports. And then there's also clinics and camps. It's just in the focus for this facility will be more on learn to play. So there are some facilities out there that are really for elite athletes. And we'll have some of those. But our passion is for getting kids off the couch helping them socialize, helping them move their bodies and be healthy and learn some grit. And we're also, our target market is getting adults back into sports as well. So everything from adult competitive leagues all the way to adult competitive things like soccer or basketball, all the way down to walking soccer, helping adults stay in sports and get back into sports. Let me just make sure I covered everything that I wanted to cover on the what it is. Why are we building this thing? Today more than ever, adults and even youth need more ways to socialize and more ways to move their body and what better way to do that than do it at the same time. Specifically, we're building this because we think it's the answer to screen time for kids. We think there needs to be more outlets for youth to get off screens. And for adults, there's a loneliness crisis, and we think this is a great way for adults to connect with their fellow citizens and get healthy at the same time. I think I could go into this. I wrote this all up, but you guys are all very knowledgeable on the comprehensive plan and the areas that this would align to. So I'll just briefly touch on the facts in the top 10 things to get right. Exceptional parks, recreation, and cultural opportunities and core values includes community places and community connectivity. We think we check all those. And from an economic vitality perspective, this type of facility generates a good amount of traffic, the right kind of traffic. So I won't break down the math, but assume that during primetime dinner time on a weeknight, 300 folks will rotate through our facility. And I guarantee that some of those folks will come early and have dinner and eat and patronize our awesome facilities here, our businesses here in Louisville, or stay after and do the same thing. So with that, I think that covers most of the concept. I'd be thrilled to answer your questions that you have on the concept. But keeping in mind that this is just a GDP amendment, and we're really just trying to figure out if we can get enough space to start to design this thing. So we've done some feasibility studies. I'm sure we're going to talk about parking. And so once we get the thumbs up on this, then we will get into detail planning, and we will be able to answer a lot more details during a PUD and special use review process. Thank you.

Questions for the afternoon? Yes, Commissioner Bangs.

Have you done one of these before?

No. We are... Just to be totally blunt, my day job is something different than this. So my investors and I are together with some expert consultants who this would be their 81st facility that they've built. And not just the construction, but design the programming. And actually, there's firms out there that will actually run these facilities alongside you. So we're getting a lot of expensive expert help.

And in this area, what's the nearest like facility of this scale?

Absolutely. So many of you might know Sports Stable or the COPLEX here in town or Boulder Indoor Soccer or Longmore Indoor Soccer. You hear all that and you think, wow, why would these guys want to build yet another one? We've got some pretty detailed market analysis that shows that this area is – very active and very fluent. And kids' parents will spend a ton of money on kids in sports. The goal is not to squeeze that out of the parents, but these facilities are expensive. The cost of the facility is the number one line item in our operating budget. And so unfortunately, in today's environment, we need to charge a certain amount. And this community can afford it.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah.

I know a lot of this can go for when you do the POD, but how would you then, because the closest one sounds like is a sports table, like how would you distinguish what you're offering from planning to offer from what the sports table does?

Great question. So sports table is over 50% ice, and ice is... from business perspective, really tough. And they're doing a great job. Sports stable, gosh, raise your hand when I get into detail. I'm passionate about this. Sports stable has a soccer pitch that is a weird shape. It's like a square. It's not great for soccer. It's not really great for any one sport except baseball. They do have volleyball and basketball courts. I'd say two volleyball courts or one basketball court and then another one. And maybe they got three basketball courts. Our facility will at least have three basketball courts. And that's not enough to saturate the market. So they're ice, court, and a tiny bit of turf. And the court, I mean, look, the complex is down the street and they're doing just fine. So we're far from saturating the market on court space and on turf. Sports stable doesn't even really make a dent. Our biggest, if we're doing a business case analysis here, our biggest competition would be Boulder Indoor Soccer and Longmont Indoor Soccer. And they are wildly successful. Hats off to them. But I think there's more than enough customers to handle another facility. Does that answer your question?

Additional questions as it relates to GWP? Yes, Commissioner Ritchie.

Thank you. I think this would be a great use in this site. I think the visibility would be good. I think it'd be great to activate and continue to see investment here. I think like the others, I am curious about parking. Can you remind me if on-street parking is allowed on the interior streets? I don't remember. You can answer that in a minute. But I guess knowing that you have concerns from some of your neighbors, what are your plans to, if you're wildly successful, how would you manage parking? Or can you speak to that?

So that's, I just came back from the indoor sports complex conference. And this is something that every facility has to manage everywhere. No facility has unlimited parking. And so your programming dictates your parking. And I'll just take you through an example. In our three pads, if you will, and we did all turf, and we did all soccer, and we just do a quick mental math. Each team has six players on the field, but let's say 10 because they've got people on the bench. So there's 20 players per field, so that's 60 players for the whole facility. I believe at 80,000 square feet, we're required to have 160 parking spots. And so right now we have 60 players. Let's add 10 for staff and referees. So we're now at 70. And let's go worst case scenario. We turn everybody over on the hour at the exact same time. We're at 140 spots. We can gobble that up no problem with 150. Same scenario if we decided to go volleyball. Well, now we can get 12 volleyball courts in there. And if we ran the whole facility on volleyball, that is 60 players per pad, if you will. Now we're talking about unsustainable programming. And I guess I'll go... on record and say that our goal is just to maximize the parking within the design guidelines with the open space. And I believe in the packet, there's a conceptual design that you can see, but our goal is just to The sketches we're doing internally, we think we can get 160 to 200 spaces on the spot, on the lot. And we're asking for 80,000 square feet. But in all likelihood, we might end up at 78,000, 76,000 square feet. The envelope is really just to get us permission to design this thing. So we might actually shrink to optimize at a future date. So I think as long as we are thoughtful on our programming, our parking will be good. And we want our patrons to have a good parking experience, and we know that we have zero plans to rely on our neighbors for parking.

Special events, tournaments?

Is that tournaments or not? Well, TBD on that, but parking would be part of the planning process.

Additional questions? Seeing none at this time, thank you very much. I appreciate your thoughts. I will now open it up for a public comment for people who would like to speak. Please limit yourself to three minutes. State your name and city of residence. Is there anybody here who wanted to speak to this issue?

We have Steve Hamilton.

Online there? Oh, here. Okay, yes. Thank you. Welcome up. As we do so, can we have a motion to enter a public comment received by email into the record?

I'll move to accept that in the record.

Thank you. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye.

Good evening. Steve Hamilton. I work for Cushman and Wakefield out of Denver. We're the owner's rep for what used to be on that screen, the two big warehouses, Tendag and Honeywell. And of course, we're here because of parking concerns. It wasn't very long ago, my kids, they're in college now, they were doing the sports, visiting these great facilities. So we're not against the facility, but every time we visited, they're notoriously under-parked. We're the adjacent building, and we're going to be the free rider spot with all the parking. We're concerned about liability, slip and fall, the winter these are indoors so we'll have a lot of games we're already we have we have car meets we have burnout groups damage to our asphalt damage to our concrete and there's not even anything organized yet so liabilities are big concern damaged asphalt the trash we incur having to pick up It just goes up from there. A couple things I heard a moment ago. On one hand, he discussed density. We're going to put a lot of fields, get a lot of people. We have restaurant. We have 300 people at a time, sports, medicine. That density is going to bump the parking, and we're going to suffer. How we handle that, we can be great neighbors wherever you went and work on it, but there's a cost associated with it. And that's what we want to, you know, safety and then economics behind that. So that's our opinion. So thank you.

Appreciate your time. Is that the only card?

Two more. Oh, two more. Okay, great. Thanks. Greg Freebury.

And then also on deck.

And then on deck, Andrew O'Connor. Good evening. My name is Greg Freeberry. I'm a Louisville resident, sports dad as well. I'm the founder and owner and CEO of Tendek, which is in the building that you saw that was just to the south of this complex. I also have two sites in the CTC. One of them is on Box Elder, which is nearly across the street from the COPLEX site. So I have a little experience with overflow problems with parking. At COPLEX, when they have tournaments or events, if you use the same parking formula over there, it's not working. You've got hundreds of cars up and down on Box Elder Street, and you've got lots of cars in my parking lot. Sierra Space, which is their next-door neighbor, is very grumpy about this, and I think they're being aggressive about trying to keep people out of their lot. The challenge I see here is at COPLEX, you can accommodate overflow parking all up and down Boxother, which is a long run. So if you did want to keep people out of other people's lots, at least you've got an option there with overflow parking. The challenge I see on this side is you're pinched. You've got the train tracks on one side, you've got 96 on the other, and you've got my building just to the south of them. Where's your overflow parking going to go? There's no place. There's no street parking. so uh you know my my suggestion to the council and to the applicant is what is your plan for overflow parking because i don't believe one in 500 square feet is enough i've been through this applying with the city one in 500 is for manufacturing density i think when you've got an event and you got mom and dad and grandma and grandpa and friends and coaches and Hopefully Scouts, you know we got ambitious young athletes around here. I don't think you've got enough parking with that square footage and that kind of density. So that's my. You know, general question to the group is what is the plan for overflow parking? And you know, as as our manager is stated, I hope our lot is not the plan for overflow parking. Thank you. Thank you.

Andrew O'Connor.

I think we have a backstop here with not recording the GDP and guaranteeing them, but that's kind of where my concern on this. I'm not sure what we can do at this point to guarantee it.

Thank you. Commissioner Mahaley?

Yeah, I'll just acknowledge that I'm not sure how to handle the last comment regarding the title issue.

Yeah, we'll let the city take care of that.

Yeah, so so I'm stating out loud that I'm that is that is my perception that the city will be taking care of that and that I don't see that as part of the criteria right for discussion today. So just acknowledging that and acknowledging that that's an issue so. I agree very much with Commissioner Ritchie. I think the the approval of this will very much be viewed through the lens of parking, and I think all of us, at least I certainly resonated with the comment about the constrained parking that there is. There really is no spot for overflow. You know, it's not like the CTC where you have other streets where you can go to. As a sports parent myself, I won't name any specific facilities, but that is probably my largest frustration about about these sorts of facilities. It's fun when you get there, not so much when you're on the way. And so I think that's going to be the crux of the issue when we're looking at the design. And so that being said, we can't really get to that phase unless we make some progress. So I am in favor of this so we can get to that phase and start getting into the nuts and bolts of what's the layout going to look like? What's the parking going to look like? What is it actually lining up in terms of? parking per square foot, acknowledging also that that's, as noted by the applicant, that's also a function of what's actually going inside. Is it just dense courts? Is it fields? You know, that very much factors into the math here. So I want to see the details, and I like the backstops, as noted. So I am in favor of acknowledging these concerns and these key issues that we're going to have to be very diligent on.

Great.

Thank you. Commissioner Beckett.

It seems like there's a bit to be worked out, so I will look forward to discussing this further. I will be in favor this evening.

Thank you. I think it's all been well said. I don't have really anything to add other than I look forward to seeing the PUD as well and getting the details ironed out. I think it's a really nice idea to bring some more economic development to this particular spot if we can get all the details worked out. So I'm in favor as well.

Yep. Similarly, I'll be in favor. GDP subject to PUD seems to be the perfect, yeah, perfect way to proceed and make some progress and get to a decision.

Thank you. Commissioner Choi.

Thanks, Chair. Based on the application as it's written and the level of development and the tie-in of the approval and recording of the GDP to an approved PED. There's nothing that's presented right now that there's a defensible argument against. No violation of anything that would present an objection. So I'll put all of my bags in the PED review and approval bucket and be in support of the application as it's written tonight.

Great, thank you very much. Similarly, I think at the GDP level, we're in a good spot and clearly it's an issue that needs to be worked on with all concerned parties. So with that, I would entertain a motion. Yes.

I have it pulled up so I can would you please make a motion to approve resolution number 8 series 2026 resolution recommending approval of a third amendment to the Saint Louis Parish and Commercial Park General Development Plan.

We have a second second. Roll call vote please.

Commissioner Ritchie. Yes, Commissioner Haley. Yes, Commissioner Choi. Yes. Chair Browneyes? Yes. Commissioner Baskett? Yes. Commissioner Hunt? Yes. Commissioner Banks? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you all for coming out this evening and sharing your insights on some of the issues out there. We'll take a seven-minute break. We convene at 8.10.

with the trifecta of planners tonight.

All right, thank you all. Welcome back. I will now open the public hearing on a request for a minor... Recording in progress. Yes, thank you. Welcome back. I will now open a public hearing on the request for a minor subdivision to combine lots. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the Planning Commission. Procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there'll be a presentation And testimony by city staff followed by questions from the Planning Commission to staff next we'll have a presentation and testimony by the applicant Followed by questions from the Planning Commission to the applicant after these two presentations members of the public who join this meeting in person by computer or telephone may speak regarding the application and he would anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card and Use the raise hand function if you're participating by computer or star nine if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pool their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony, not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the Commission decides to reopen the hearing. The Planning Commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and whether you are a Louisville resident or not. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing no objections, do we have notifications? Yes. And do any Planning Commission members have any disclosures?

For the sake of transparency, I'll acknowledge that I know the applicant as a former neighbor. This is my former neighborhood, but I don't have any ties or anything to gain from this application, and it will be impartial, and I've consulted with the city attorney, and they agree that there is no conflict here.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Matt Post, Community Development Team. I'm actually presenting this case tonight on behalf of our senior planner, Jess Daniels. She is unavailable to be here tonight, so I am covering for her. But the item before you is Resolution Number 9, Series 2026, which is recommending approval to the City Council of a minor subdivision at 1006 and 1008 Honeysuckle Lane. The subject properties are directly adjacent to one another, and they share a property boundary, as you can see on the screen. So there's an existing home built, which is the applicant's home, then a vacant property directly adjacent. Those properties are outlined in blue. These properties are located in the Centennial 8 subdivision. Both properties were impacted by the Marshall Fire, with original homes on each lot lost during that event. The applicant who is here this evening, Joel, is the owner of 1008 Honeysuckle Lane. His home was rebuilt in March of 2004. The adjacent property is 1006 Honeysuckle Lane, and that has remained vacant. I believe it's currently listed for sale, and the applicant is considering purchasing the property and consolidating the property into one property. So again, we have two existing single-family lots right now. The applicant is proposing to take ownership of both of those, remove the lot line, which would be a consolidation for one large lot. Just of note, because we've discussed this in the past, public land dedication with subdivisions. Public land dedication was satisfied with the original Centennial 8 subdivision back in 1987 on this property. Into the proposal, so again, the applicant's requesting to consolidate lot 35 and 36 into one new lot, which would be lot 35A, excuse me. Overall size of that property would be 13,077 square feet. I believe the applicant has indicated in the application material that the larger lot would be used for residential gardening, a play area, and potentially a future ADU in that location. Here is a view of the existing consolidation plot. You can see that dotted line in the center. That line would be removed. So again, just over 13,000 square feet, 150-foot lot width in this location. Here's an example of the existing home. That's an elevation from the permit set on the right. And then the new proposed ADU that the applicant is considering, I believe he's in the design process, would be on the left. So single story there. Thorough analysis is provided in your staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions about the analysis of a staff. Do you find that this proposal satisfies the applicable final PLAC criteria, zoning requirements, and subdivision regulations? That said, I think there are a few key considerations that staff took the liberty of analyzing. And so first and foremost, there is no maximum lot size. And the underlying zone district. So this is located within the Centennial 8 planned unit development with an underlying zone designation of residential estate. We do not have a maximum lot size. We have a minimum lot size. So there's no restriction on consolidating lots in our subdivision or zoning ordinance here. Staff also evaluated how lot coverage would be affected in this particular scenario. So under the RE zoning standards, 1006 or 1006 Honeysuckle, I'm sorry, currently has an allowed coverage, footprint coverage of structures of 1,935 square feet, while 1008 Honeysuckle has an allowable lot coverage of approximately 1,929 square feet combined. Those two separate lots have a total coverage of approximately 3,864 square feet. Again, that's each individual lot as they exist right now. With the proposed consolidation of those lots, that new lot, again, will contain that 13,077 square feet with that 150-foot lot width. Under RE standards, that would result in a maximum lot coverage of 20%. or 3,000 square feet, whichever is greater. In this case, the lot coverage of 3,000 square feet would apply. And so that would represent the largest allowable lot coverage within the Centennial 8 planned unit development neighborhood. It would exceed the next largest lot by only about 300 square feet. So other lots in the subdivision range from approximately 6,500 square feet to 9,800 square feet. square feet in size, with the resulting allowable lot coverage maximums at 2,000 square feet to 2,700 square feet. So again, right now, max square footage in Centennial Lake with the existing lots is 2,700 square feet. This new lot would be up to 3,000 square feet, which could potentially be built. But again, there is an existing home on the property. So that's a delta of 300 square feet with that new consolidation. One of the additional considerations to take into account here is the applicant is considering an ADU on the property. And so as you are aware, the first 500 square feet of an ADU are exempt from our coverage limitation requirements. Just worth noting there. So I'll let the applicant speak more if he would like to, but that would technically allow for up to 3,500 square feet of footprint on that property when we're considering an adu as well right so again the applicant has a current single family home there so that would be a scenario where a new home is built potentially or in addition to that home is proposed and then an adu is there but again that could potentially be the maximum footprint that we that would be allowed on that lot that would be that 3 000 square foot limitation that would be within the re standards based on the new loss size that's there um So that's really the primary analysis that staff performed outside of our typical final plot criteria analysis. Again, due to the fact that there is no maximum lot size standard, this is a legal and permissible subdivision per our subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. So with that, staff do recommend approval of this resolution. I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have.

Thank you. Opening it up for questions. Yes, Commissioner Rich.

Thank you for doing all that math. I really appreciate it. Would the maximum size limitation of an ADU not allow it to be built to that full 3,500 square feet, or are you not sure on that?

Well, I believe ADUs are limited to 1,000 square feet, if I'm not mistaken. So you can build the ADU up to 1,000 square feet. I think the takeaway would be there that they would have an additional 500 square feet with the ADU because 500 square feet, the first 500 square feet of the ADU are exempt citywide.

Okay. And yeah, my other questions are just for the applicant.

And that permits a driveway, a second driveway?

We have no restrictions on a second driveway. Yeah. They would pull a permit through Public Works. We would require appropriate curb cuts. We don't actually have separation requirements yet, although we are adopting new engineering standards, I believe, where that will potentially come up. But they would be allowed to legally establish a separate driveway with a driveway permit.

and pushing us out, say, 100 years using our current laws, is there potential that multifamily could be built with a different ownership structure? Let's assume that.

I'm sorry, can you ask that question again, sir?

Can multifamily be built on this double lot?

Oh, yeah. Well, not under current zoning standards, no, but, you know, potentially if the state comes down again and decides to do something else.

All right. Any other questions?

I didn't see anything in the proposed language or the resolution. If this lot is currently for sale, are we reconciling that with a combined plot?

There was a letter from the current owner in our packet that said that they were okay to go ahead with this discussion, right?

Yeah, I believe so, so I apologize. I didn't handle this application, but we would have accepted a property owner authorization in that scenario, yeah, if you're still pursuing the purchase of the property.

We'll let you speak in just a minute here, yeah. Thanks, yeah. All right. Any other questions for Steph right now?

Commissioner Detroit, anything else? Just one other question. The rendering of the conceptual ADU gets to be a pretty demonstrative appearance right on the street front there. I know there are a lot of requirements for different development areas around the city kind of maintain a diversity of the stock that's in the development, right? That showed true from a lot of the developments around town that happened 30, 40 years ago with a variety of housing stock. Is that a concern for staff that the presentation of an ADU adjacent to an existing building, or if there was new stuff built up, that it would be a little bit overbearing or overwhelming for the overall character of the neighborhood?

I don't know that that's necessarily of a concern for staff. We don't have any design regulations or requirements for variation among single family structures that I'm aware of and or design requirements for ADUs. I believe the applicant's intent was to make the ADU look similar to the existing single family home that's on the property to maintain some of that same character on the property there. Obviously that ADE would have to meet setback standards. I believe they have a greater setback standard than principal structures in this particular zone district outside of our old town area. So it will be set back further than the principal structure.

Thank you. Anything additional?

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Any additional questions? Seeing none, can we invite the applicant up?

Hi, folks. My name is Joel. I am one of the co-applicants. My wife is at home with our two very young boys who are hopefully sleeping right now. I have no presentation for you all. I believe this is a pretty simple case, but I can answer two concerns that came up already, and then I'm happy to take your questions. The first one is that we are under contract for the property, contingent in the contract on the approval by the Planning Commission and then City Council to follow up. The second thing is we do plan to put in a driveway for an ADU if we're going to have a garage in it, which is the current plan. I say that in that this is not a, the matter here is not approving any ADU or plan for ADU. This is something I had to talk about with my neighbors a lot, which is that we intend to do it, but there's nothing here binding us to build one, let alone in any specific capacity. So I just want to point out that distinction.

Great, thanks. And actually for staff on that note, if the ADU wasn't built, would the right to build that continue in perpetuity?

Yes.

Yeah. Thank you.

I actually have a little bit of a wrinkle to mention there, which is that we've made the request to keep the tap on the 10 Oh six lot because our tap is at capacity for the main house. We couldn't put in an ADU without using the 10 Oh six tap capacity unless the city was willing to do some sort of tap credit to allow us to convert the main structures tap because it's, it's at max. Um, so there is a little bit of that condition there, but the city has worked with us on it and that is, that is part of the application. That's why we're preserving it.

Thanks. Questions for the applicant?

Good to see you, Joel. I'm curious why you don't just leave the lot line and leave yourself the flexibility of a sale in the future or, you know, again, with TAP. So just, yeah, I mean, the plot meets code, but I am really curious why you're choosing to do this.

Everyone asks me that. And the short answer is yes. insurance and resale. So speaking with our insurance provider, and you can imagine having rebuilt my house after the fire, I know too much about homeowners insurance. My policy today would cover this ADU for no additional premium if it's on the same lot. Because Allstate, my insurer, when they write policies, you automatically get 50% of your primary dwelling coverage in coverage for any accessory dwellings. versus if the lots were kept separate, I would have to write a new homeownership policy. And I plan to die in this house, or maybe in the ADU. Sorry, that got dark. But those premiums would add up a lot over time, to be paying premiums on two properties. The second thing is, for those of you who are familiar with the ins and outs of lending, my plan is to develop this into one place. So if I were to go sell that place on the market, any potential buyer, if they remained separate, would only be able to write a mortgage for the primary structure, and then they would have to pay through some other financing option for the other lot. And that would drastically limit the pool of potential buyers, such that I believe it would be unwise financially to purchase the lot unless I could combine the two.

Thank you. Additional questions? Commissioner Troy, anything else? Seeing nothing.

All right.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you all. We'd open it up for public comment now. I do see two people online and one by phone. Please use star nine if you want to speak by phone. Raise hand if you want to watch online or participate from online. Not seeing anything there. Do we have any additional statement you want to make? No? All right. Staff statement? Closing statement? None. None. Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and the Planning Commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to begin? Why don't we start on the far right?

No great deliberation required on my part. I think it's pretty straightforward. So I'm in support.

I agree. I like the creativity. I know some of these lots are small and it's a nice opportunity to create something in ADU and it seems to satisfy the requirements.

I will also be in favor. It is a creative approach and a long-term plan.

Commissioner Choi.

No major comments, Chair.

Thank you.

I don't really have a flavor either way.

All right.

Mr. Mahalia. No major comments. I think it's a pretty straightforward one that meets criteria.

Thank you. Commissioner Archie.

Yeah, again, I agree with you all. It meets our code, so we don't have a basis for anything other than approval at this point based on the code we have, so thanks.

Thank you. Yeah, I also find myself in favor. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out over the years. It'll be cool in 100 years from now, people are like, how come that one's different? So nice. With that, I would entertain a motion.

Alright, motion to approve resolution 9 series 2026 resolution recommending approval of Centennial 8 replat B to facilitate the minor subdivision at 1006 Honeysuckle Lane, Honeysuckle Lane and 1008 Honeysuckle Lane.

That's a typo.

Yeah, it says land.

OK. And a second. Yes, thank you. And a roll call, please.

Commissioner Ritchie. Yes. Commissioner Mahaley. Yes. Chair Browneyes. Yes. Commissioner Baskin. Yes. Commissioner Hunt. Yes. Commissioner Bangs. Yes. Commissioner Choi.

Yes.

The motion carries. Thank you for your time. All right, with that then, does anybody on Planning Commission have any comments they would like to share with the rest of us staff?

I do have one thing for July Planning Commission meeting. I wanted to do a little polling on the alternate time. So I think at least three of you are out, Commissioner Ritchie, Commissioner Browneyes, and yeah, so quorum is a little tedious. So I think we had talked about potentially just go ahead and do an alternate date, but wanted to get the Commission's opinion. Well, I guess the first question is one, should we just do an alternate date with that slim attendance and two, If yes, what date should that be? I would throw out July 23rd if we want to go that route but for discussion.

I still have this understanding that the only option we have is that two weeks later. I'm not sure. It would be strange to have a Planning Commission meeting on a different day of the week. It would be bizarre. I guess we can poll people for the 23rd as an option. I will still be out. Two weeks later?

Two weeks later, yeah.

Yeah. I will be out.

I will also be out for a different reason, but out that night at a family reunion.

I don't know that there's anything that says it has to be two weeks later, so we could look at, we keep it on a Thursday preferably, but we could look at July 16th or July 30th would be other options.

I couldn't do the 16th, but I could do the 30th.

Okay. Are you already tracking a number of applications for that meeting?

There are a couple cases that are hoping to get on for that meeting, yes. We would like to keep a July meeting if possible.

Yeah, I could do the 16th, but not the 30th.

I could do either. I could do 30th, not 16th.

I can do the 16th.

should be tracking this place i am not certain i might not be available on the 16th but i am available on the 30th so we're down one on the 30th commissioner troy could you do 30th yeah yeah okay great thanks i could do either one so we'd have six people on the 30th if it all works out july 30th only has one person that can't i thought there were two yeah no this one no yeah

Two cannot do July 30th.

Who's the second?

Okay.

All right. So two cannot.

How do we feel about that? Five? Four is a quorum. Or one. Or one above a quorum. That may be the best we can do.

It seems like the best we can do on a Thursday in July.

I can send out an email for confirmation if you want to confirm your schedules, but tentatively July 30th plan for that. Okay. I'll send up a follow-up email.

All right.

Okay.

We've got five for that. No. Okay.

Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If we are ready. Yeah. Once we, all right. Does that work?

Email is great.

Five on the 30th.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah.

All right. And then one last, we had one last staff announcement. I did want to announce that Emily is leaving us for sunny Southern California. She is relocating back to Southern California. So we are going to miss her very much and really appreciate her service. We've loved having her. We love her. so many things about her presentation style, her work ethic, her attention to detail. So we do want to make that clear. I almost teed it up when you're about to do your presentation, but I thought that might make you nervous. So thank you for reminding me. But yeah, we're definitely going to miss Emily. So yeah, don't announce that.

Thank you. Excellent. All right. Motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

All in favor?

Aye.