Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

was on a Monday and we got married that

recording in progress. Good evening. Hello. Can't hear you, Steve. Good evening. Hello. Welcome everybody to the October 9th, 2025 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting with a roll call for attendance, please. I don't know if you've been Yes. Dr. Excellent. Um, Chair Brown Eyes here. Vice Chair Basket here. Commissioner Banks here. Commissioner Hunt here. Commissioner Mullen here. Thank you. Uh with that then I had a motion to approve this evening's agenda. So moved. Second. All in favor?

I. Motion carries. We have no minutes at this time. We want to check to see if there's anybody who's here this evening that would like to speak to something that's not on this evening's agenda. Something that's unrelated to the two items that are on this evening's agenda. We would welcome that comment at this time. Can somebody double check for me online? I'm not. Yep.

No. Okay. Seeing none. Thank you all. [Music] will now open the public hearing on a request for a recommendation to city council for reasonzoning subdivision and plan unit development. Uh 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 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. For those of you who are here, the cards are available on the table outside of the door there. Um, and use the raise hand function if you're participating by computer or star9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person, excuse me, thank you. Uh, one person at the meeting uh may pull their minutes. Two people at the meeting may pull 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 may approve approve with conditions deny table or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be be presented after stating your full name and address or actually whether you're a resident of Lewisville or not. Does anyone participating in the hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none, do we have notification? Public notice has been made.

Thank you. Uh, do planning commission members have any disclosures? No. Seeing none. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening, chair, commissioners. My name is Matt Post, the senior planner in community development. Uh the item before you this evening is Cole Creek Village uh resolution 15 recommending approval of a preliminary PUD preliminary plat a reszone a zoning map amendment and a special review use and then also recommending approval of an ordinance to reszone portions of the subject property uh and including that land use amendment from CCMU and RM to MU. you are. So, we'll start with a quick recap of this application. I guess this this hearing would technically be a continuation if you all recall from last year. Uh the the planning

not a continuation

just tabled. Yep. Just a new new hearing. Fantastic. Great. Um so um the the the planning commission heard this hearing on September 12th, this original application on September 12th of last year and continued that application at that time to October 10th of 2024. During during that October 10th hearing, the planning commission requested revise traffic impact study. Um and the commission directed staff to meet with the applicant subsequent to that October 10th hearing uh where the again the application was continued again to establish a new scope for revised traffic impact study uh that was based on the testimony and concern that was raised during those two hearings both in September and October of last year. Um, at that October 10th hearing, servants aware, the planning commission did continue to December 12th, and I'm sorry, you're right, tabled indefinitely at the September 12th hearing, which means this is a new public hearing. So, thank you for correcting me. Um, chair, uh, that revised study um, that was originally supposed to be presented at the December 12th hearing was not prepared in time. So, again, that's why the application was tabled indefinitely and we're having a new uh, public hearing this evening. And so I'll start just at the top here um with the revised study. So part of the recommendation and request that came from the planning commission was for staff and the applicant to meet and discuss a new scope for the traffic study. And again, that new scope came directly out of the conversation that occurred during those first two hearings. Um the scope that was agreed upon by staff and the applicant included uh a new analysis or an analysis rather of traffic impacts with and without the proposed front street connection. Uh the incorporation of traffic projections from the proposed DLO boom development

which is just south of this particular property and is still currently under staff review. Also located in the highway 42 revitalization area. inclusion of six additional intersections in the study area. Those six additional intersections in sections include Main Street and South Boulder Road, Main Street and Griffith Street, Front Street and Griffith Street, Cannon Street and Griffith Street, Highway 42 and Griffith Street, and Highway 42 and Harper Street included an evaluation of the Canon Circle South Boulder Road intersection as a potential threearter movement configuration. This configuration would restrict north uh westbound movements from Canon Circle in the future. Uh the scope also included an updated directional distribution assumption that would be uh directly related to the number of vehicle trips that are coming out of individual access points at the site. there would be the distribution or the percentage of distribution of vehicle trips that are leaving access points, leaving and entering access points in in those peak hours, those peak AM hours and those peak PM hours. The last element that we discussed in the new scope was the application of a 1,000 vehicle per day threshold for local street capacity which applied only to the front street connection based on what is commonly uh referred to as a neighbor neighborhood livability consideration rather than a maximum roadway capacity that 1,000 vehicle per day. um threshold is the generally the most conservative count for what's con considered a a residential local classification for a street. Um, I'll just I'll state this here since it's in the staff packet and the staff report, but the results of the revised impact study indicate that the front street connection is necessary as part of this development to maintain appropriate vehicular circulation and safe vehicular operations in and around

the site and on the adjacent roadway network. And it satisfies the intent of the mixeduse district and several adopted policies within the city. Um, just continuing on with that a bit here. Due to heavy through volumes on South Boulder Road and then restricted turning movements onto South Boulder Road without the front street connect connection, eastbound U-turns are projected to increase by 40 to 85% in the long term with projected uh project development which would require weaving movements across multiple lanes of South Boulder Road within limited distance of the intersection which present unacceptable safety risks on that particular uh roadway. Uh the study um includes uh information on daily trips. So this this particular study shows that 1,839 daily vehicle trips would be generated from this particular project through the four access points that are proposed with 220 a.m. peak hour trips. That would be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 244 p.m. peak hour trips. and that would be 4 pm to 6 pm. And those numbers account for all four access points around that particular site in those peak hours. Moving into the summary of the proposal, I'll um I think as most folks know, we've most folks know this this application a bit. So, I'll try to go through this a little bit faster than I normally would for the sake of uh the folks here tonight to make public comment and then we'll focus on the revised traffic impact study at the end of this particular application which I think was the general general request from commission on the last hearing. Um so the so the the application has not changed significantly from the last time you all saw this. The primary changes are have come from the recommendations out of the traffic impact study which include uh proactive traffic calming measures on front street and then a novel approach to the front street

Harper Street connection which we'll discuss here in in later slides. Uh but again the PUD just so that everyone is aware is is again a request for the I'm sorry this application is a request for the approval of that PUD and plat for 188 dwelling units and 13,534 square ft of commercial space on a currently vacant 10.7 acre site. This site is roughly at the southwest corner of South Boulder Road and Highway 42. There is an existing commercial pad with Union Jack liquor, snarfs, uh sandwiches right there. And of course, you can see on the site here, the vacant area encompasses this. And then uh Little Italy is to the south. Um then South Boulder Road north, I'm sorry, east to west on the north side. Then Highway 42 north to south on the east side. Um again, as you know, the application includes the reszone request from CCMU and RM to MUR. Um, and then of course that special review used to allow multif family on the ground floor of a multif family dwelling in the mixeduse zone district. Uh, a little bit of background here. The property is located in the highway 42 revital revitalization area and the highway 42 urban renewal area. Uh, that designation places the property within the mixeduse overlay and also within the mandatory reszone area. I think the commission is aware and the folks behind me may be as well, but any redevelopment of this particular site is required to reszone to the MUR or CCMU zone district. Uh that occurred on this property in 2013 with a prior application um after 2013. that with that that mandatory reszone a PUD was approved in 2016 which allowed 51 dwelling units and 30,000 square ft of commercial um that

was a PUD and a plat. That PUD and plat were never executed and so approvals or the the ability to issue permits on that PUD and plat expired in May of 2019. Uh some additional background here on the Highway 42 revitalization area. The the purpose of that area was to encourage development to support an eventual rail station for transit here in Lewisville. I think as we all know, funding challenges have plagued the implementation of the beline, which was the light rail system that was uh slated to come through Denver to Boulder and stop here um in Lewisville. But real progress has been made on a passenger rail service that would link the entire front range from PBLO to Fort Collins with a potential stop here um in Lewisville. Uh feasibility was study was completed in 2024 with participation from the city of Lewisville and other northwest jurisdictions. And then following that study um an implementation plan was submitted to the state and funding sources were made available. Uh just want to make folks aware that would be the front range passenger rail which would be a passenger rail line. Continuing with the proposal here, the the reszone request uh would be to reszone the the three highlighted parcels in yellow in the in on on this particular exhibit on the screen. So on the north side of the site and the east side of the site, those properties are currently zoned CCMU, commercial community mixed use, and they would restrict uh residential land uses. The uh southwest portion of the site is currently zoned RM, and the request is to zone that MUR. The rest of the site is currently zoned MUR. So, this reszone request would uh reszone this entire site into MUR, which would allow for residential and commercial uses.

This is a quick exhibit of the land use map that's associated with the Highway 42 revitalization plan. This would be amended as part of this application. The exhibit on the left is the existing land use plan. Exhibit A. The ex the exhibit on the right would be the proposed land use plan. So again, this would be amended with this particular application. Uh as you know, this in includes a preliminary plat. The request on the preliminary plat is to subdivide the 10.7 acre site into 60 town home lots, which would allow for the future fee simple sale of those units. So these would be home ownership units. You can see the town home lots central to the to the site there. Now, we have four outlots on the site that include drainage, detention areas, utility areas, private streets, open space, and uh private parks that total just over 23,000 square ft on this site. As part of this application, the city would accept 1.2 acres of rideway to be dedicated via this plat. That ride ofway would account for the front street connection through South Boulder Road and then the completion of Canon Circle as well. We'll see. Well, I have a highlighted exhibit that shows those right-of-way completions. Uh, more detail on the PUB here. As you know, 60 town homes would be proposed here. 96 apartments uh would be included. Those apartments would uh be provided in a mix of two mixeduse buildings that are directly adjacent to South Boulder Road and then two exclusively multifamily buildings, 24 units in each building. I believe um the uh the and then I'm sorry the uh the the the the buildings adjacent to South Boulder Road would include that commercial space on the ground floor. Those would just be those two units that are central to the site and adjacent to um South Boulder Road. Again, just

13,500 square ft of commercial space there. The Front Street and Canon Circle uh connection is depicted here. You can see those connections shown in blue. Those are currently unimproved rightways that would be dedicated with this project and built out. Um 23,258 uh square feet of private park space including 316 parking spaces. So the site is appropriately parked. They're not taking advantage of our recent uh uh prohibition on parking minimums on this particular site with their new application. And then those new streets will include detached sidewalks and tree lawns. Run through the blocks here real quick. So block one proposes 32 micro town homes. Those micro town homes are between 350 and 400 square f feet in size, 22 to 25 ft high with a centralized pocket park in the middle. Uh the applicant uh states that those will be available at an attainable price point. I'll allow the applicant to speak more on that product. Uh block two shown in the exhibit highlighted in green will include 36 four and five unit town homes up to a maximum height of 40 feet. This particular block includes the centralized private park which would have a 20,98 square foot open space area. Again, this would be a a private park. Block three, adjacent to the rail line and on the southwest side of the site will include 32 3 and six unit town homes. Uh the applicant has proposed height restricted town homes on the south side of that to a maximum height of 34 feet to provide a transition to the Little Italy neighborhood. Maximum permitted heights in the Little Italy neighborhood would be 35 ft. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 34 feet. Again, for the units on the south end of that leg of block three. other units on the north side of that

would be allowed to be 40 feet in height in line with the rest of the uh entitlements that would be permitted on the lot through the PUD process. Block four again highlighted in green includes those two mixeduse buildings with ground floor commercial to a maximum height of 45 ft. These buildings are directly adjacent to South Boulder Road. Block five consists of the exclusively uh multifamily properties on the west side of the site and associated parking. Uh and then this is of course where the special review use is required to allow multifamily or residential dwelling units on the ground floor of a multif family building in the mixeduse residential zone district. Of course, the intent of that requirement is to uh achieve a mix of uses on on site. So, jumping into analysis here uh for uh the reszone, we have a number of policies or declarations for reszone policies and generally an application would only need to meet one of those particular requests. This particular application uh staff find meets policy number two for a reszone which states that the area for which the resoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area. So again, it's important to remember that this would apply to the CCMU portions and then the RM portion that's on the southern portion of the site. Uh the applicant did include an updated market analysis, but this most recent application and that market analysis shows weak market conditions that do not support large-scale retail such as the 30,000 square feet that was entitled previously in 2016 on this site. And that uh office development and retail demand are currently limited in the area. And more specifically, they're limited to users like gas and convenience and quick service restaurants and financial service

services with some of those larger format retailers becoming scarce. So the market feasibility analysis from CBRE um uh supports policy number two. Uh but again, the applicant is providing 13,500 ft of commercial space adjacent to South Boulder Road. The preliminary plat has been reviewed and staff have found uh that this conforms the city of Lewisville standards including title 16 subdivisions. It is consistent with our comprehensive plan. We'll discuss that a bit later here when we talk about policy uh compliance as this property is located in the in an urban center. The South Boulder Road urban center is identified by the comprehensive plan and then also within an urban corridor in our comprehensive plan. Uh well I'll touch on this here as this has been a topic of conversation which is public land dedication on this particular site. Public land dedication is triggered as a requirement of subdivision generally or rather that provision is located within our subdivision ordinance. Uh so public land dedication the public land dedication requirement has not been waved or no variance has been granted for public land dedication requirement. It simply doesn't apply to this property. Uh it's important to note that this is not a new interpretation. I think as the planning commission are aware of this practice of for public land dedication has been in place for quite some time and the the interpretation is that if a property has been previously subdivided then public land dedication does not apply in that particular scenario. That's been a consistent application um from staff uh well beyond me and uh is is in the record uh for for prior applications as well. So the property was previously subdivided albeit it is an old subdivision application. That interpretation would be consistent with staff's application of that provision on other applications. Uh the application is also requesting six six waivers uh with this with this

particular uh request. Uh the first waiver would be from block width and length uh standards in the MUDSG which are the mixed use development design standards and guidelines. Uh the block width and length waiver is primarily due to existing access points around the site and required access points. staff are of the opinion that uh the intent of the street and block designs in the MUDSG are satisfied because they're intended to promote a synergistic mix of uses u create a walkable space and pedestrian pedestrianoriented uh districts and so the addition of front street here in the connection of Canon Circle generally satisfies the intent of the connectivity required of the mixeduse district standards. Second request here is for a reduction in public sidewalk width. Our mixed use standards actually call for a 10-ft sidewalk in in the public rideway which is relatively wide. The applicant's requesting a 5- foot sidewalk in this location with an 8ft tree lawn. That would be on both sides of Front Street and then along Canon Circle as well. Uh part of the justification for that is that a five foot width is standard for pedestrian uh through zones and is consistent with recommendations from the National Association of City Transportation officials. staff have supported this before for the 5- foot sidewalk width and then that 8ft tree lawn in this particular location. Um uh the other four waiverss here are coming directly from the the municipal code and they relate to lot width uh coverage setbacks so on and so forth and they support what would generally be a town home style development. So first we have a minimum lot width of 40 ft. Um, you know, town homes would generally be in a 20 to 25 foot range, individual lots. And then again, for home ownership, you'd have 20 to 25 foot lots. Um, and so staff support the reduction from 40 ft, minimum building coverage of 40%. Again, that doesn't

necessarily support town home development andor the densities that are that are required in the MUR district. We have a minimum and a maximum density required in this district. Uh the 20 foot rear yard setback again allows for um coverages and densities to be achieved. And then uh there is also requirement that 70% of all street facing property lines must contain a building. And so that's a that's a pretty significant um push of buildings up to streets all the way around the site. That would include Highway 42, both legs of Canon Circle, and both sides of Front Street. Uh that's that's a really urbanized development pattern. And so the applicant is actually requesting relief from the 70% standard. Um in this particular instance, staffs do support these waiverss as as they've been presented. Um inclusionary housing, uh the applicant has indicated their intent to satisfy the standard by providing uh 12% on-site affordable units. Um I think as you are aware the uh half of those units shall be at or below 60% of AMI or area median income. The other half shall be provided between 60 and 80% of area median income. It's important to note that those units that are dedicated as affordable have to be equivalent in design size and materials to the market rate units. So staff will look for an even mix between the unit types when that determination is made in a final application or if that gets to a final application. Um we'll move into some analysis here spec some some of our comprehensive plan policies regarding this application. So so um oh I'm sorry I'm I'm on the SRU piece so I'm jumping ahead a little bit. So the special review use is required for uh the uh again that multif family ground floor um piece. Oh, I'm sorry guys. I am on I am on the SR thing. I'm sorry. I got I got

a bunch of slides here. I got to reorient myself for a second. Um yeah. So so so so the special review use here. Let me see where I've already developed a slightly secret stability line. Yeah. So um this is uh this this this is SRU standards. So the SRU standards specifically look for um compliance with our comprehensive plan policies and then also to ensure that external effects of the proposed special review use are controlled for and negative adjacent impacts are considered. And so our comprehensive plan policies I think as you'll see here support additional residential in the site additional density. Um they also uh indicate um or look for economic stability. You know, we find that the redevelopment of the site will lead to economic stability and it is in line with the highway 42 revitalization plan and other adopted plans. Um the site functions uh efficiently. Um the external effects are controlled for with appropriate lighting, building and site design, additional road networks. Of course, this SRU is proposed at the northwest corner of the site closest to South Boulder Road. Um and then uh additional pedestrian ways and further improvements along South Boulder Road will be included with this particular uh uh um improvement um to to to further reduce negative impacts in the adjacent area with that SRU in that location. the mixeduse design standards or mixeduse development design standards and guidelines which we use as the primary design review document for this application um are generally found to be satisfied with the two waiverss that have been requested. So these design guidelines establish standards for site design, circulation and building form within our mixeduse overlay in our mixeduse districts. They look for street and block layouts that mirror downtown Lewisville's street network or the connectivity provided in downtown Lewisville, creating a walkable uh uh

district. Um the street connections promote multimodal access and improve circulation and visibility and support future connections to surrounding neighborhoods. Our block lot design standards and connectivity are presented in the MUDSG. We find that this application implements the intent of the mixeduse design standards and that overall uh it it it helps uh the the goal of a cohesive and mixeduse environment which was intended with the highway 42 revitalization area and then those mixeduse design standards as well. Um a bit of additional information from our comp plan here. The property is within our highway 42 and South Boulder Road urban center as designated by the currently applicable 2013 comprehensive plan. It also uh puts this property in the urban corridor. Uh that plan calls for an interconnected street network, multi-modal access in this location and then pedestrian scale buildings and design which would be pulled up to the street um and generally within that two to three story height range uh that are proposed internal to this site. Uh this area supports redevelopment with mid to high density multif family and mixed commercial uses. Again, this is all part of that urban center and urban corridor designation. Uh it envisions a cohesive walkable center with new street connections and smaller parcels of which this application shows and the corridor development type promotes retail, commercial and multif family uses that reinforce that connected urban fabric. So you can see this particular application here's a screenshot from our comprehensive plan which specifically calls for a front street connection in this location. Additional comp plan policies that this meets is uh streets form an interconnected network. This is our neighborhood and housing policies that we find in our comprehensive plan. Uh policy in H34 uh looks for diverse

housing opportunities to be available to residents of varying income levels. This application provides a variety of housing types and ownership options. Uh the character identity of existing residential neighborhoods should be maintained while allowing for the evolution and reinvestment. Obviously, Little Italy is directly adjacent to this neighborhood. Uh this vacant property is being developed in accordance with the adopted policies and the adopted code provisions that we currently have. Uh housing should support vibrant retail and commercial centers that serve local residents. We have additional housing and additional commercial proposed on this particular site. There should be a mix of housing types to meet changing economic, social, and multigenerational needs of those who reside and would like to reside in Lewisville. Um again, that's policy NH5. uh policy NH5.3 uh includes higher density housing should be located primarily and the centers and corridors of the framework. So again that what that this last slide that you saw was actually from the framework plan in the comprehensive plan. This is located in the south boulder road center and corridor. Um and it does call for highdensity housing in this area. Uh then the city should be responsive to market opportunities as they occur and maintain and enhance the city's competitive position to attract development that adheres to the adopted community vision. Uh the south boulder road the south the south boulder road small area plan also applies in this particular area. This designates the site as medium density residential for a dwelling unit count of 10 to 20 dwelling units per acre. That is in line with what's required of our mixeduse development standards in this area and the mixeduse district. Uh the retail office use um aligns with the property's current CCMU zoning, although that retail office would also align with the MURUR that's proposed there as a mix of us is required on properties that are greater than 5 acres in size in our mixeduse district. Uh the South Boulder

Road plan encourages new street connections, including the front street connection to strengthen the overall network connectivity and support a walkable mixed use environment. Again, this is a screenshot from our South Boulder Road small area plan that shows that the front street connection was called for on this adopted plan as well. Our transportation master plan, which was adopted in 2019, is a really broad uh really broad policy plan. Um has a lot of great information in it. Provides a city-wide framework for a safe, efficient, and multimodal transportation system. and it guides near and long-term decisions that are consistent with uh community visions and then land use goals and adopted policies in the city. Uh staff find this application is consistent with the transportation master plan specifically the three primary goals of the master of the transportation master plan which are efficient and safe transportation systems. This particular plan adds vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian connections that minimize network conflicts with projected volumes. Uh cohesive and layer system of streets and trails is another goal of this plan. This this uh development expands multimodal connectivity for walking, biking, and driving. Um complete streets that enhance livability. The front street connection improves circulation for all modes of transportation in this area. And the applicant has proactively included traffic calming and and uh improvements that would uh amount to safer pedestrian crossings in in some of the area to address the some of the concerns around the front street connection. Um, in our our housing plan is uh one of the more recent plans that have been adopted and there's there's some primary goals of the housing plan and those are to increase opportunities for residential development citywide in appropriate locations to expand and maintain access to affordable housing. Of course, we have an affordable housing provision. In order to get that affordable housing, we need developers and and projects that are willing to to

build those affordable houses or those affordable products. Uh, another goal here is diversify diversify housing stock through mixed use and mixed income neighborhoods. So, those are three the three primary goals of the of um of the plan. Uh, some key actions that are in that plan that do support this application. Action 1.1 supporting resoning and redevelopment of underutilized commercial property for additional residential capacity. Of course, we have two vacant commercial properties on this particular site where a reszone would allow for additional residential um action 3.2 uh which uh advocates for expanding opportunities for multifamily housing within commercial zones. Again, the reszone from CCMU to MUR would support this policy. And then in the housing needs assessment included as an addendum to that housing plan, uh there's an identified um advancing goals to diversify Lewisville's housing stock to meet future demand. Of course, there's a diversity of housing types proposed with this particular application, both um home ownership and rental opportunities on this particular proposal. Um so we'll jump into the traffic study here. We'll spend a little bit more time for everyone's benefit on this one. Uh the updated study again we went over the scoping of the new study but it did include uh new counts. So the applicant actually updated the counts. I believe that was part of the original concern is that the the counts were a bit outdated. So the applicant updated their counts. Uh we expanded intersection analysis at the request of planning commission and concerns generated by local residents and then um considered long-term conditions again with and without the front street connection. So the results show that the development integrates safely and efficiently into the roadway network with the front street connection. Those are the results of the traffic impact study. Uh the connection

provides the improved circulation and and t traffic distribution. Um it provides traffic redundancy and network resilience in this area where we have a major primary arterial to the city two major primary arterials and then safer more efficient operations consistent with city and regional planning efforts. So, in regard to the traffic impact study, staff do find that the connection for Front Street not only meets a number of our adopted policies and our mixeduse development design standards and guidelines, but it also uh provides a connection that's essential to maintaining acceptable traffic conditions and network compatibility in this area. Um this is a uh an exhibit of proposed uh traffic calming measures that the applicant has provided. They've included a a curb extensions, ballouts, and a raised crosswalk um on the uh northernmost portion of the site there uh in blue. They've included additional curb extensions and ballouts at the Front Street and Harper Street uh intersection. Although we have um the applicant has proposed again a novel approach to reduce cutthrough traffic there that I'll I'll show you here in a bit. And these are all recommendations that come out of the traffic impact study. By the way, um there's some additional intersection improvements um at Front Street and Griffith Street to support crossings in that area, including additional ballouts, potentially raised crosswalks in that location uh for students that may be going to school on the north side of Griffith Street to Lewisville Middle School. Um, obviously there's a concern with the train crossing in that location and queuing backing up there, right, and then blocking that intersection at Front Street and Griffith Street. The application or the or the study rather also recommends uh signing that intersection then marking the pavement with do not block intersection signage so that intersection remains open in the event that vehicles are queuing when a

train is there. On the upper right hand side, you'll see that um there is uh staff originally or rather this application originally proposed to close an access point to a private property uh that's that's located on at uh on in the northeast corner of the site. It actually has two access points. One from Canon Circle and and you can see the arrow pointing to it there and then one from South Boulder Road. We did receive an objection from that uh property owner um and the property owner has agreed to work with us to reduce the size of that access point to allow vehicles to queue at the stop bar stop bar when they're northbound on Canon Circle. There's currently a very very small queue. Only one vehicle can actually queue there next to the access point. Um, and so the applicant, I'm sorry, the property owner is going to work with us to move that access point south so that we can get additional vehicle queuing there so we don't get additional backups in South Boulder Road or at Canon Circle. And the same uh method will be applied. Do not block intersection signage with pavement marking. Um, so we're um thankful that that property owner uh is working with us on that closure to make that again a safer intersection in that particular location. Uh this is what the applicant has proposed for the Front Street and Harper Street connection. Staff are generally supportive of a concept that is similar to this. Um what's what's proposed here is that we would potentially consider ending the ride ofway on Front Street in this location. So you can see what's in red would actually end the ride of way. The red curve linear line on the south is with the existing extent of the ride ofway. And we would ask for an easement, a public access easement over this

location that would include um a raised design that would uh discourage cutth through traffic in this particular location. It would be necked down and narrowed to a size that would be appropriate more specifically for emergency access. Lewisville Fire Department would have to work out the details on what the design actually be, but the applicant would actually enhance this area to make it look more um like a pedestrian access or potentially a um a bicycle access point while still allowing vehicular movements through this location. I'll let the applicant speak a little bit more to this. They used this concept on a very very similar development in other jurisdiction here on the front range and um we felt that uh it may be an appropriate solution to keep Front Street open, allow vehicular movements through this through this site right here or through this particular location. Um and then also hopefully address some of the neighboring concerns. So again, this is conceptual at this point, but we have told the applicant we're willing to consider something uh something that's close to this and so we can talk about this a little bit more. With that, I think I'll go ahead and call Cameron up um and he can discuss some of the details of Oh, I'm sorry, Jeff.

Can't hear you. Thank you. I'm I'm so sorry. You bet. Um, so, uh, yeah, Planner Post. So, that that, um, connection there is the intersection between the existing Front Street as it goes through Little Italy and then the newly platted portion of Front Street heading to the north there. Do I have that right? That's correct.

Okay. All right. And again, the the intent there would be to discourage cut through traffic. I'll be and I'll be completely honest. We don't want project generated traffic to be discouraged from using that intersection from that. That's the whole purpose of asking for the front street connection there and getting that connectivity. However, you know, in in listening to neighboring concerns with potential cut through traffic in that location, we felt that this this was maybe an appropriate method uh that to to address some of those items. Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure I understood the location. Thanks. Yep. Another question, Commissioner Basket.

Clarifying question on this as well. So, the traffic counts that you reviewed a few minutes ago that assumes this configuration. It it it does not. No. Um that's that's something we pro we might have to take a closer look at. We would we imagine that that count might drop at that point if that's the case. But again, that count only takes in that those counts that we discussed are project generated traffic, not um through traffic or cut through traffic. So, hard to say at this point, but I think maybe our city engineer and then the applicants uh traffic engineer can give provide a bit more information on that. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. Thanks, Matt. Uh, evening, commissioners. Cameron Folks. I'm the city engineer in public works. Um, you know, about a year ago, we went through this development as well. And and in in prep for this meeting, I met with planning staff to go over the zoning on the property. And I said this in the last uh planning commission hearing and I I want to restate it is that you know development of this parcel uh within the allowable zoning uh would require the front street connection based on engineering staff's review of this. So this is needed for the overall health of the transportation network. Uh provides better emergency access and shorter response times. It also creates a a balanced distribution of traffic from the site. Um and some of this information is repeat. So, I apologize, but I think it's important to say. So, without the front street connection, as Matt stated, um, you know, creates a 40 to 85% increase in the U-turns on South Pole Road and Highway 42. We think this will be similar over on Highway 42 as well. And, uh, that's just, you know, for safety reasons. Uh, this is an arterial street with higher speeds. uh creating that U-turn movement, you know, creates a a bigger bigger uh likelihood of crashes with vehicle vehicle and vehicle pedestrians. So, and then we have the vehicle weave movements. So, leaving the site, they uh vehicles would have to cross, you know, two to three lanes of traffic to be able to make this U-turn within, you know, 400 ft of this intersection. So, again, not an ideal situation on an arterial street. Uh staff reviewed the updated uh trip distribution model. And this kind of goes to the revised um connection point, but uh staff's opinion is that's a pretty conservative trip distribution for the front street traffic heading south. So it's definitely a worst case scenario. You know, staff believes that

actual traffic going south and and even implementing the revised uh connection point there would even likely reduce that. So, we think that's definitely a worst case scenario and the actual traffic at at that location would be less. Um, you know, the applicants also proposed traffic combing as Matt stated. Uh, so we have a raised crosswalks, bumpouts. Uh, also the curve linear street. Um, and I know it's not super curvy, but it does have a slight bend in it. All these things will kind of deter cut through traffic and also help lower speeds on on the local street. So, um, the last thing I've kind of got here is the level of service for the intersection. So, they looked at it with and without the front street connections, and basically the level of service, uh, is acceptable for all the added intersections that we looked at with the scope scoping study with the applicant. So, with the front street connection, level of service stays within acceptable levels for the traffic. So, that's what I have. I'm going to turn it back over to Matt or if you guys have questions.

Thank you. Yeah, please. Let's open it up. Thank you very much, engineer folks. Um maybe just a couple questions. So, I want to make sure I heard I heard one of the first things that you said correctly, which was um if the site was if the site wasn't resoned but was just built with the current entitlements that it has, it would still we there would still be this recommendation to make the connection from Front Street for kind of all the reasons that we Yep. for all the reasons that have been here. Yeah. So, we met specifically on the um on the zoning of this just to make sure like, hey, if we did the minimum zoning, would we still require that based on the counts and and the number of units that we would have here that that's still the case? Correct.

Okay. Okay. That's that's very helpful. And then you um I'm aware of this other project and it was mentioned in this in the traffic report as well. Um the future 42, do we do we have a sense of when those improvements might be coming? So that's, you know, like the Griffith um the Griffith intersection on State Highway 42. I'm sure it's hard to make those predictions, but it is it is difficult. It's currently not funded. We're currently in a cycle where we're putting in applications with Dr. Cog for uh master planning efforts and it the future 42 project is in the master planning efforts for that. But okay,

that doesn't that doesn't guarantee any funds by any years. So, you know, best guess is definitely probably 5 years out at a at a very uh minimum and it it could be, you know, 10 20. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Additional questions for staff on any issue. Uh yeah, actually um plan a post the uh I'm talking about the multi-use the ground floor approval to make that dwelling units would currently the plan is for 96 apartments. I presume that would increase the number of apartments. I I don't believe so. No, the 96 is planned with the intent or with the consideration of an SRU approval.

Okay. Thanks. Sure. Please go ahead. Um uh for either of you um there was some public comment about the alleyway uh behind uh behind that northern row of homes in Little Italy. Did you want to address where we're at with with that? Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you.

Yeah, I think we So we've we've we've discussed this as a staff. Um I I you know, the original plan didn't include any um any improvements to the alley. You can see the alley here on the on this just so everyone knows what we're talking about. This is the alley that Commissioner Molen is is asking about. Uh we we will request that the applicant improve this alley with this application when this comes to final. Obviously, we need to work closely with the property owners in Little Italy. Okay. Um because there hasn't been uh really an established extent, but there is right of way in this location. It is city right ofway. I will note that there are two unplatted properties here. Um we we've been talking to to one of the property owners there in in an effort to ensure that they're able to retain alley access. Currently, they actually access from the backside. The applicant has indicated uh that they'll assist uh those homeowners in potentially developing exhibits and easements and or platting those properties so that we can actually dedicate alley. I'll let the homeowners speak on that too. I don't want to speak for them, but we're we want to work with them to ensure that they retain alley access there.

Okay. Maybe just one one more little clarification here. So, the alley is technically not part of the application. It's the it's a right of way between the existing uh or a portion of the existing subdivision that's that's city right of way and south technically of the application itself. Sorry. That's correct. That's correct. Yeah. Thank you very much. I should note too, I don't believe we've told the applicant we're going to ask for right away approvals there. So, That's it. They can they can give you their thoughts on that. Okay, great. My additional question is actually just further clarification on that alley access. Is it currently accessed from the east across the unplatted lots? Sorry, from the west.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. From from it is Yeah, it's accessed from Highway 42 at the moment. But also too, this is I you can ask the folks here in Little Italy. They may access it in multiple locations at this point, but generally it would be accessible right now legally from Highway 42. Um, and then there is also this access point here on one of the private street connections within the actual development uh to the alley. I guess that's a question for the applicant as to where access would be. So, it's not proposed that access would be connecting to Front Street. No. No, that's correct. Right. Yeah. No.

And Commissioner Hunt, I can't quite It doesn't look like you have a hand raised at all now. Just wanted to double check. I don't. I had raised my hand, but Commissioner Molen was reading my mind and asked me the exact question I was going to about the current entitlements and the need for the Front Street connection. So, great. That was my question. Appreciate it. Um,

additional questions for staff at this time? I've got a I've got a couple more slides just just to finish off here. Yeah. Um and then I'll just I'll just piggyback off of what Cameron said here previously when he mentioned that any development on this property would require the connection to Front Street. And our mixeduse design standards call for a minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre on this site. Right. Right. So at at at 10 at 10 10 acres, it's we're looking at 120 dwelling units per acre at a minimum that would be mandated by the mixeduse design guidelines and standards, the mixed use overlay district, and our adopted policies as well. So just want to make sure that information is is there. Um, continuing on here, uh, what what what you see on screen when when when Cameron was was talking here on the right is a total traffic level of service with the Front Street connection. uh a a level of service of um A through D is generally considered acceptable. Level of service for those that may be unaware is is a um a le a measure of delay at an intersection. So for example, I believe an A level of service would be a 0 to 10 second delay at an intersection. Um, and if we're looking at what would be considered a failing intersection, E and Fs would be considered failing intersections. And those would generally be delays at 55 seconds or greater in peak hours. So again, we're considering peak hours with these movements, AM peak hours, PM peak hours. So what you see in red uh are are failing intersections and then the orange with ease are also failing intersections. This is the the projected level of service with the front street connections. However, if you look at the existing background volumes, they're generally similar here. Those are tough intersections at Highway 42 and South Boulder Road uh at at the moment regardless of of any development

that um comes in with increased volumes. Uh what's what's on the left here is um that vehicle per day table. uh that kind of that 10,000 vehicle per day threshold that we discussed, but this would be uh just movements uh through the front street intersection uh I'm sorry through yeah so anticipated front street traffic volumes with and without the connection between South Boulder Road and Griffith Street and so you can see the 2045 build out with the Front Street connection we're anticipated to see 79 vehicles per per hour through that location and uh 93 and then with a breakdown of what that time gap would look bike. Although there is a peak hour within the peak hour that is that I want to be sure that we get in there right. So there's a 7 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The true peak is like a 45minute window. I think it's between 7:45 and 8:30 maybe potentially. It's somewhere in there. So um I just the the the absolute one car for every 45 seconds. It isn't necessarily accurate, but it's a it's just a good representation of the number of vehicles that would move through there. and obviously a significant difference from no connection in that in that area. So we just want to make sure that uh folks are able to see that. Um and so and so that's that that concludes uh staff's presentation here. So um staff continue to recommend approval of an ordinance to reszone portions of the Calonia Place subdivision platform from CCMU and residential medium density to mixed use residential density and amending exhibit A land. I'm sorry. Amending exhibit A uh land use map uh referenced in LMC chapter 1714. Uh and that ordinance uh would that that would if if just so that the planning commissioner aware that that this the the reszone ordinance were to be approved tonight would actually move forward to city council for a first reading and a second reading and that would become effective.

the preliminary plat and the preliminary PUD. Of course, I forgot to mention this at the beginning. I apologize, but are would if they are um if they move forward. Um so, planning commission makes a recommendation tonight. This moves forward to city council. If those applications move forward and are approved, they would then move into the final process, final platin, final PUD. If it gets to that stage, you will see this application again in final form. Um we'll have some more detailed engineering at that point with some changes. But just so everyone is aware, this is the the there are the two differences there. The ordinance for the reszone and then the resolution for the preliminary PUD and plat. So we recommend approval of the ordinance reszoning those portions of the property. And we also recommend approval of uh this resolution uh approving the Cole Creek Village prelim and plat with the following conditions. Uh first condition here is that the applicant will work with staff in that final PUD process to redesign the proposed sidewalk and rideway improvements adjacent to South Bal Road. What's currently depicted is actually a um an attached sidewalk or a connected condition. We want a detached sidewalk in that location. Again, a detached sidewalk would be a sidewalk and a tree lawn and then the street. Right now, it's attached. And so, u there's enough room there to work that out. we would uh uh hammer through those details on a final plan. Uh second condition here is the final PUD shall comply with Colorado Senate Bill 24005 which prohibits nonfunctional turf. You all should be seeing a a code amendment relatively soon for that. Um and so this this that would apply to this particular application. Um third conditions here are of course the improvements that are described in the traffic calming exhibit that was on screen previously including the front street Harper Street design concept shall be incorporated into the final PUD

and plat applications subject to further staff review. So we'll work with the applicant to ensure that those designs meet our standards and emergency access conditions uh and then incorporate those into a final PUD and plat. And then the applicant shall work with the sta with staff and the property owner at 1110 East South Boulder Road to modify the plans as necessary to ensure that vehicular access to the property from Canon Circle is provided. This is part of that access point I I talked about earlier with that commercial property owner where we're asking them to shift their access point south so that we have a safer queueing condition at Canon Circle um for um for northbound movements out of that lane. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any additional questions. Cameron is available. The applicant does have a presentation tonight as well.

Thank you. Can we start now? Yeah. Um, Senior Planner Post, you didn't really address I know a lot of the community comment has been about drainage concerns. Yeah, I'll let yeah, I'll let Cameron talk about the

so information provided in the preliminary drainage report and again it's it's preliminary at this level, but I know there were some concerns at the initial meeting about drainage going towards Italy Little Italy, but based on our review of the drainage report and the detention pond, uh the design, again, it's in preliminary stage, so there's not a lot of detail there, but based on the design currently, we don't see any issues with drainage entering the Little Italy neighborhood. Everything's designed to go to the detention pond and across Highway 42 in the historic pattern. So based based on our preliminary review of it, again, there's not a lot of detailed information. As we move towards final plat and a final drainage report, a lot more detail will be provided and we can, you know, kind of react to it at that point. But they're not going to be able to push any of the drainage south into the alley or to the Little Italy neighborhood. And maybe just just a clarification. So currently one of the drainage ways goes through the is that the right way to say this that that one of the drainage ways is going through this this um site this property to and then conveying under state highway 42.

Correct. The drainage way technically starts at Highway 42, but but but correct. They have to get all the drainage from their site and some overflow from the Good Hugh ditch through their site and over to Highway 42, which then it goes underneath Highway 42 and across the Harney Loka property. Okay. Yeah,

thank you. Uh, one other question regarding traffic, right? Obviously, we don't usually plan for failure whether it's D or E or F. Um, and so I'm thinking like in a green field you would just have bigger streets, right, with higher volumes and signalized intersections. Um, and so is it simply just a function of this size of neighborhood that prevents us from accommodating larger traffic flows?

So, if I'm hearing the question right, you're you're wondering why why streets aren't bigger. So, it's really uh when we talk about level of service, it's at the intersections. And so, we have a lot of failing intersections that are here currently that this development, you know, whether you add it or don't add it, that intersection is still going to be failing. So, we're talking about Highway 42 and and South Bull Road specifically, which is in the plan for city the city to do on the feature 42 piece. the the rest of the intersections that we analyze or we have the uh engineer analyze uh the difference between with the front street connection and and without the front street connection is negligible. So

thanks. And just to fill people in, so future 42 that calls for two lanes in each direction, correct? And improvements at the intersections as well as multimmodal improvements. So yeah, we'll have there'll be two lanes each direction on future 42 once that's all constructed. Thank you. Any additional questions at this time? Seeing none, um we'll be coming. We're going to take a break. We're going to come back and uh invite the applicant up uh in about let's see five minutes. 7:37. Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you. If we can reconvene now, everybody can take their seats. And there are a few seats in the back of the room over on this side if anybody still needs them.

Thank you all. Can we wrap up our conversations, please?

Yeah, I know. I don't have it anymore. I can't really use it. All right. Thank you. Can we wrap up the conversations, please? Thank you. Welcome back. Uh we'll welcome the applicant up. Um if you'll begin with your name and city of residence. Sure. Thank you for having me. Uh Sam Coots. I'm land planner and landscape architect with Ripley Design out of If we can keep the side comments down, please in the back. Thank you.

Uh out of Fort Collins, uh Colorado. I'm here representing the applicant Markel Holmes for the presentation tonight. Um, and I know Matt did a very thorough presentation. Um, I'm I'm gonna try to keep it short. Uh, and sake of brevity, I think we all know uh the various applications in front of you tonight. If you have any questions about those, let us know. I'm going to focus mostly on what's happened between the last hearing and tonight um to fill in a little bit of the color uh in the background story there. Um, I think a lot uh detail was said about the site plan itself. I did want to highlight in this now that we've got a colored version here of where that uh central pocket park is in the town home area there in the central block and then a second pocket park in the southeast corner for the micro town home area. Detention is down there on the southeast corner. Um just we've got color now a little easier to see those. Um, and then we we had uh in the last hearing some depictions of what those spaces might feel like. So, I just wanted to jog our memories a bit of of that. So, here's the mixeduse PLA plaza between the two mixeduse buildings, what that might feel like. Um, just giving you a sense of scale of how big that pocket park in the central town home area is and what it could feel like. Again, the playground in the micro town home area. Um this is the vision for the streetscape. Um I know the non-functional bill turf is passed or bill is passed. So this is something that complies with that. Uh very ornamental, a lot of perennials, um pedestrian scale. Um the architecture was covered pretty well. I think the main goal from the applicant here is to uh achieve a really cohesive look and feel even though we have a lot of different ideas happening. We've got commercial, multif family, town homes, micro town homes. How do you uh

establish this architectural vernacular that talks the same language? It feels like a cohesive development, but you are able to discern uh you know the the commercial from the town home. Um so that's the overarching goal there. Um I think this was covered really well, but just a map of the the various intersections that were added and studied in this uh revised TIS. And I think to start that story um that the hearing was um tabled in October and our team immediately went to work and you know it takes a lot of time to update traffic studies and traffic counts and add all these uh extra analysis. There's a ton of analysis that went into this report. So it did take all the way until July of this year to wrap that up, make sure we've got a really wellstudied, well vetted report. Um, and so then it was in the city's hands. They did a a great review on it and ultimately approved that report in August. Just to zoom out and talk about the methodology of how this report was generated. The the first step is to figure out what is background traffic, what is the existing traffic? And so that's what you see on your left. And so that includes all the existing counts that were gathered, a growth factor applied for the two years. Uh we included the the Del boom development and all of that. itself is gathered and uh as background traffic. From there the study would took two directions, two scenarios. What is background plus the project traffic when front street is connected? What is background plus project traffic when front street is not connected? And so that was the big goal of the study was to figure that out. And I think this was talked about a lot, but just to reinforce uh what the recommendations of those study was um is that when you have that front street connection, it does provide uh for redundancy in the

transportation network. It creates this gritted street. There's a lot of good that comes out of gritted streets. Um there's more pat capacity in the system as a whole. Um greater circulation. Um and ultimately when you have that redund redundancy, you're able to create uh narrow narrower streets which are better for pedestrians. So um aside from the gritted street um the great things that come out of a gritted street, there's the recommendations of all the traffic calming that was discussed. Um I think this was really well covered from Matt. If you have any questions, let us know. we our traffic engineer is here um to talk more detail when we look at the recommendations of what happens without that uh front street connection. I I think one point is important is that the level of service requirements are still met. So that's a a good thing to know. However, it does put strain on on some um some dangerous movements on South Boulder Boulder Road, particularly coming out of the development and needing to weave across several lanes of traffic in order to get to an already difficult intersection on an arterial arterial road to pull the U-turn to head west. Um so that is that is a concern of our uh traffic engineer and the city. Um and so that is something that uh I think is weighs heavily on on the recommendation of what happens without a front street connection. Uh but again, you know, from a level of service standpoint, it was just one way to think about traffic u study is that those requirements are met. Either way, both scenarios, front uh front street open or closed, uh that front street stays well within its capacity limits. um even if it's open, it is well um under capacity. Um there are several off-site

improvements that need to be made whether that is closed or open. Um and that's uh limiting access on on to South Bal Road from Canon onto Highway 42 from Canon and then extending a turn lane as you enter uh taking a right into the development um heading eastbound on South Boulder Road. Um, so what I what I want to focus on is is obviously we have um a very passionate neighborhood with us. We've got Little Italy here and um it took us a year to do this study and we wanted to make sure that that the full story is told. We came out after the city had approved the traffic study in August and we sat down with the neighborhood and discussed it. Our first goal is just to get it out in front and say here's here's the results. We studied it every way we could and and here is what the traffic study conclusions are. Um, as you may discern that that there's still a a concern about this connection to Front Street and what that means. And this table kind of tells the story of why this is 20 years out what what that is. Um and this is in that that peak um hour or so uh with the Front Street connection that is you know and again talking averages uh one car every 45 seconds or so coming down Front Street through uh to Griffith there. Um and without the front street that's one car every 6 and a half minutes. Now while one car every 45 seconds meets all of the traffic requirements that engineering standard wise that is perfectly fine but as a resident you feel that you feel a difference between 45 seconds and and uh 1 minute or sorry 6 and a half minutes. So um as the applicant we we heard that we heard the concern and we said you know I think we

can do better here. I think we can find a winwinwin scenario. Let's find a win for the neighbors. Let's figure out how we can reduce some traffic. Let's find a win for the city. Let's make sure we give them a plan that meets their comprehensive plan, all of their policies, all their standards, creates connectivity where it's needed. Um, and obviously we need a win for the applicant. They they have to have a project that is uh financially feasible and and um so we went off to work and studied and drew maybe a dozen plus different ideas of how to change the plan to find this win-win-win scenario. When we started that study, uh, a couple things stood out where we we looked back at this schematic of, well, what's the big difference here, whether it's connected or not. One thing stood out is that when the Front Street is connected, there's this added piece of the puzzle that gets generated for traffic, and that's the diverted traffic through Front Street. So, if you're on South Boulder Road and and that intersection's back backed up, you want to head south on 42. there's diversion now that Front Street enables. Um, we poked at that a little bit. Well, how much is that? And so this is in 20 years, uh, this is kind of an an anticipated volume of of how much diversion comes through Front Street. And if you look at the pie, that's twothirds of the traffic on Front Street is coming from cutth through traffic. So that jumped out to us immediately. This seems like something we might be able to impact here. It's it's hard to impact project generated traffic because the only way to do that is reduce units. Only way to reduce units now creates not a financially feasible plan. Um it's hard to you know impact traffic in other existing conditions. Existing conditions are what they are. But you know this is something we can we can really look at is the the cut through traffic. Um so out of our

studies again I think we drew a dozen or so different ideas of how could we look at this? We we came in September and met with the neighborhood again and presented a handful of kind of the best of the best of those ideas. Showed them here are some ideas we heard. Here's why they may not be a win-win win. We need three wins in this to be a success. Um but we do have one we do have one idea that is the win-winwin scenario. And that's what we've discussed here so far. Um and so this is uh background. This is an idea I've actually used in another municipality up in Fort Collins on a project. It was extremely similar. A large multif family development being forced to connect to a small enclave of existing single family homes. Um and and very similar situation. Um this was implemented with a lot of great uh results. And the idea here is that you terminate the rightaway. So you you have two separate rightways that enables um Front Street to be named Front Street. Everyone's still addressed off Front Street. The new development that that rightway that's being platted now gets a separate name. And so that's you know to be determined street uh headed north to to South Boulder Road. What this does is from a navigation standpoint, you know, when we work with the city's GIS team at at Final Plat, um there are ways to plug this in so that uh the the apps, Google Maps and Ways don't recognize that there's a connection here. So now when you're on South Boulder Road, you're backed up because of the failing intersection. Um Google Maps isn't going to tell you, hey, take Front Street down through the neighborhood. Um, so again, we we want to attack just a portion of the problem. We we can't solve all the issues, but that seemed like a really

good way to start. Um, so the way this is designed then, it's twofold. We want to make sure this is um a legal vehicular access. So while there's no rightaway, there is a public access easement over it. There's emergency access easement over it. Um, so fire, ambulance can get through here. The public still legally allowed to cross through here. Um, but it's designed in such a way that feels pedestrian. It feels like a spot where people should be, not where vehicles should be. So, if you do happen to drive down Front Street, you are discouraged. It doesn't jump out as, oh, I'm going to go straight shot through here. Um, and the way we do that, I'll come back to that is, um, this is an elevated, you know, like a speed table. um little bit more exaggerated. You can score it nicely, make it feel more like a plaza, maybe it's colored concrete. Details are still in the works. This is concept at the time, but this is what that could feel like. So, from a pedestrian level, um this feels nice. It's got some enhanced landscape next to it. It narrows that point of view, uh discouraging some vehicular traffic. From a vehicle standpoint, you see this this tighter space. It doesn't jump out as this is a thoroughare. This this is not a way to get north. It does look like Okay, I probably could. I'm not going to say it reduces all of the traffic through the neighborhood, but it's a it's a good uh way to mitigate as much as we can here. Um in the example in Fort Collins, this is actually a sheet right out of that plan just to show you how they implemented this. The existing street was Lupine here on the on the left. That's the existing rightway. Um the multif family development was on the right. there's their public right away. We had joined it by a private drive um and even put this kind of chicane movement in that access. Um and put some

community gardens next to it. So that did actually encourage pedestrian activity too if you've got a family standing on this plaza gardening. Again, another deterrent to vehicles even though they're allowed to uh connect through here. Um so this is just one example of how this can be done. This is kind of, you know, the final plan level, but obviously we're not there yet on this application. Um, so that's I just wanted to throw out kind of some color behind where we started, what the last year looked like. Um, we're we're really trying to make a a great scenario for all involved here. Um, and I want to just end with the the housing plan because I think this development does a lot of good for Lewisville. Um it's the most recently adopted plan and and and has some really um kind of shocking data about housing in Lewisville and where we're headed and what do we do if we don't start doing something creative here. And um some of those creative solutions are are reszoning vacant or under utilized land like we are here. Look and and also looking at um a lot of different types of residences. So micro town homes is a great new creative way of achieving some attainability here. Um and so I think just from a bigger picture uh this this project can achieve a lot of good for Lewisville. Um so hopefully that um gives you a little bit more color behind the applicants uh direction the last year. And then we've got our traffic engineer as well as Markeel Holmes here for any questions if you've got them.

Great. Thank you. We can now open it up for questions of the applicant. Um, thanks uh for the presentation. I appreciate it. Um, so the question would be the the traffic that would then not be routing through the solution area. Where where does that end up going if it wants to head west on South Walder Road? It Yeah, I'm assuming you're that the the theoretical cut through traffic that we're trying to Right. Yeah. I mean, if if you're currently headed east on South Boulder Road and you're stacked up, um, and you can't, you know, maybe they want to take a right on Highway 42. Sure.

Um, they just continue doing that. So, it you're you're still in quue there to turn right on 42. And and for the res for the people in this new the residents in this new um subdivision, if they wanted to head west on South Boulder Road, what would what would their route then be?

Yeah. And that's where part of the the trick is of this design is as a resident, if if this is where you live, you probably know about this access. You you you know it's there. There's there's nothing prohibiting you to use it. So residents, as as Matt pointed out, that the city um needs this connection for for residents, wants it through all the comprehensive planning. Um so residents of this of this development likely use that and head head south out to Maine. Um but it the target of of what we were trying to do is limit that the non-resident traffic cut through.

Okay. And so that's that one that that raised section then would be a private like in the four columns a private drive. Okay. Priv private drive with a public easement on it essentially. Okay. Thanks. Uh yeah, maybe it's a question for your traffic engineer, but um you had a slide earlier on where you were talking about some of the enhancements or mitigating um actions with a front street connection. I saw flashing beacons and something else mentioned on one of the slides. There you go. Yeah, bring Carrie up with

I mean you you you described obviously the proposed raised pedestrian walkway. I just wondered if there were any other suggestions because you didn't speak to the flashing beacon um idea for example. Do you want to look at this? Let me introduce myself first. Carrie McDow Shreder, traffic and transportation engineer with McDow Engineering. And you're not a citizen of Louiswisville? No. Thank you.

Um so when we were originally talking about what appropriate traffic calming implementations would be, one of our thoughts was um the pedestrian crossings at Griffith. And so that was just one of the ideas that came up. So that was left in the study. We did a couple iterations of the traffic calming plan. Um the RFB came out in our final traffic calming plan. Um so that's how we ended up with this. Okay. Thanks to that answer.

Um I guess you you can you elaborate. I mean I see the the signage and the pavement markings, but that flashing beacon reference was something that's not detailed here per se. So Sure. Is that a hawk or what's what's the idea there? Do you have an example in town?

Yeah. Uh, city engineer folks here. So, we did review the flashing beacon and it does need to be in a warranted situation. We don't install these unless they're in a warranted condition. And current time staff doesn't support installing a this would be considered an RRFB. So, an example would be the one by the rec center uh if you guys drive around uh that people push the button and the lights flash on this. So, not a hawk signal, but an RFB. But, but just to be clear, so staff's recommendation is not to put one of these across across Griffith Street at the connection as recommended by the traffic engineer. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Hunt.

Thanks. I was just following up on something that Commissioner Molen um had was talking about and about the the solution with the raised um crossing. There is the thinking also that it would in addition to not being on the the GPS, which I think is very creative. I had not even thought of that. Um, is there is it the thinking also that having that raised there would make it less attractive to go through because it you'd have to stop and slow down and go over that hump?

Yeah, that that's exactly right. It's it is u you know the the legal aspect, the triming back the rightway and the easement. That's kind of how you deter the apps from recognizing it. But say you say you wind up on this road anyway. Um we still want it to feel uninviting from a car to to use this connection. So at the very least this the raised um you know it's like a large speed table essentially. At the very least it'll slow the traffic down that does come through. Um you know there's there's nothing there putting up a a gate saying it can't. But um yeah, you're right. That is that is the intent. Any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none, thank you. Uh I will now open it up for public comment. Um as we do that, we'd like to I'd entertain a motion to uh addendum one to our public record.

So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Uh, and then just remind people if you please limit yourself to three minutes, we will be using the clocks. Can we fire those up right now? Um, and uh, if you begin with stating your name and your city of residence, we have a stack of cards, I believe. We'll start there and then we'll also kind of weave back and forth between people who might be online and participating also.

All right. Um, first up we have uh David Fineore. And then in the on deck, who's uh who's up after him? Uh on deck, Juliana Msaro.

Great. Thank you. Please. Hi, my name is David Fenmore. I live at 720 Grant Avenue. Uh when I first moved to Louisville in 1982, I lived on Harper Street, so in Little Italy. Um, I'm here because we keep talking about this one issue, traffic, traffic, traffic. And this site is basically fatally flawed in that regard. There's really, you know, when you talk about uh the U-turns that we're trying to avoid. Well, those U-turns are now going to all go out Griffith Street and they're going to be right in front of LMS. Have you driven there in the morning? It's not going to work. It's simply not going to work. And you know, we can talk about meeting city codes, standards, plans, level of service. you know, with all due respect to that and due respect to what's actually a pretty good-looking development proposal, um, it really comes down to you commissioners deciding if this is, you know, this is how we end up with uh um with traffic gridlock, right? We we meet codes. We Everybody says, "Yep, we did our jobs, but we still end up with this horrible traffic problem." Because you have to imagine yourself driving down the street. Is this what we want? And I don't have the solution. I'm not saying you should vote no. I'm saying there's this is there's a reason this site hasn't been developed before. I think um you know the raised thing is great but the real

problem is how many units is it? However many units it is those most people go to Boulder right I mean you look at South Boulder Road in the morning. So I think we're setting ourselves up for a real problem unless we can figure out how to solve that problem. And and unfortunately yeah I mean I wish I had I'm not that creative. I don't really have a good answer and a lot of creative people have been working on it and they haven't seemed to come up with an answer either. So, um I just want to sort of like shake it up and say, you know, you have to imagine what this is really going to be like. Um uh cut through or not. So, um anyway, that's what I'd like to say. Thanks for your uh everybody's work here.

Thank you. Are we able to get the clocks working? Yeah, it's on the screen. Oh, behind me. Okay, great. Thanks. Um, we have Juliana Masaro next and on deck, um, Annabelle Mass. Good evening, everyone. Um, my name is Juliana Misaro. I'm an attorney with Packard and Durking and I'm here on behalf of Snarf Sandwiches, which is a popular locally owned and operated sandwich shop. Um, just to confirm you're not a Lewisville resident.

Well, I live in Lafayette. I'm just like I don't know, a stones throw literally from this property, but no, I'm not a resident of Lewisville. Um, so Snarfs asked us to come and chat with you. We have been working with staff over the concerns. Uh, the original PUD showed that the applicant had requested to close a business access into the Snarf's parking lot on Canon Street. It is the primary access point for this business and I believe for um the liquor store located just to the east. Um, obviously we just for the record wanted to oppose any uh change that would close that business access and wanted to note only for the record that uh we don't think the applicant has a right under the code to ask for the treatment of the right of way on the portion of the rightway that does not border its property. Uh we recognize the city's traffic concerns and so that's why we reached out to staff to try to find um something that would work. It's our understanding that staff is going to recommend narrowing the business access into the parking lot uh by moving the curb cut maybe 6 feet to the south. Um it's going to narrow it maybe to 24 ft, which I understand is still an acceptable um narrowing of that area. uh it could eliminate one of the parking spaces, but I noted on the traffic or excuse me on the parking plan that um there's an excess of maybe 300 or excuse me, there's an excess of like 34 parking spaces. So they're they're showing additional parking that isn't technically required under the code. Um, so in addition to I guess this narrowing, uh, we understand the staff wants to do some do not block paint so that the access to this parking lot

isn't blocked and you don't have cars queuing where they're not intended to queue. We would support that recommendation. Um, we would oppose putting a median anywhere on Canon Circle. Again, this is a pretty important business access point for uh, Snarfs as well as the liquor store nearby. Um, so I just wanted to say thanks to staff for working with us. Um, we're looking forward to partnering on this. Um, and if you have any other questions, I've got more in my uh, submitted comments. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Have um, Annabelle Mass next and Andy Mass after that. come up. You can begin with your name and whether you live in Lewisville or not.

Yes. Um, hello. My name is Annabelle and I'm a resident of Lewisville, Colorado. I live on the corner of Harper and Front and I've lived here since I was born. Um, this neighborhood consists of families and elderly and um, I walk to Louisville Middle School every morning and I have for the past 3 years since I've attended there. Um, I already see plenty of traffic when I'm walking to school and from parents and people trying to get to work. Um, if roads are added, it'll just be more congested and it'll make me concerned for the younger kids that attend my school and including me as well. Um, Lewisville has always felt like a pretty safe town where everyone is looking out for each other. And when new development is built, I feel like families will be attracted to that. And um for these reasons, it'll just make it more of a struggle and an unsafe community since people are trying to get to place to place like Boulder um for work and they will not be able to take a west turn on South Boulder Road. So that would mean they would have to take alternative turns and one of those could be going through our neighborhood connecting to them to um Front Street and where the school is and down Main Street. And considering our crossing guard isn't always there. Um even when they are, the walk is still a little bit dangerous and difficult. I hope this council will consider the children's safety in Lewisville and all the other residents and um pedestrians even outside of Little Italy. Everyone will be affected. Please make a wise choice and take into consideration everyone also the wildlife that can't speak for themselves. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sorry. I It's great to support them. I'm thank you for coming out, but we're going to discourage any clapping after anybody speak whether you're for or against it. Thank you. Um next next um I have Andy Mass and then after that we'll have Conrad Zmen.

Hi uh Andy Moss uh 103 Harper Street. That was my daughter who spoke. So we live we're be the closest to this development. would live on the corner there where they are proposing that raised area and um the I don't remember his name but the first gentleman who spoke I you know I couldn't do a better job he basically summed it up like you know everybody's sort of trying to cover their butt you know I don't want to be in your position this isn't my decision to make but you know Matt and and this engineer you guys don't live here so as long as you cover your your bases is and the applicant, you know, legally meets all the requirements, it's going to be built the way it is. But the reality is it's really not a very good situation and we can't change the railroad. We can't change the school. We everybody in the neighborhood is still going to live there. So I don't know what the solution is but to just rubber stamp it you know the the developer will go on develop other properties um people who made these decisions may or may not you know have any lasting effects of it but we live there my daughter lives there you know my mother owns a home there and it's just like I don't have the answer and you guys probably nobody has the exact perfect answer because there isn't any perfect situation, but um the way it is now, you know, there's a reason why we've had such a turnout. You know, like I remember the first time when we were in front of you last year, you guys were all sort of surprised. You were like, "Wow, what a turnout." Like we can't vote on this because we didn't understand, you know, we've never had this much of a like an opposition. And I can't speak for the rest of the neighborhood. Um, I'm not necessarily

opposed to it. I'm opposed to the way it is sizewise. You know, we keep hearing, well, it's not feasible financially if it's less units. That's all that was been said. It's not feasible financially if there's less units. Well, feasible for whom? You know, yes, you have to make money to do a project, but if it's not feasible, maybe you shouldn't do the project. You know, it would be more feasible if you built 500 units. you'd make, you know, more money, but that wouldn't work either. So, it's just like someone has to be the voice of reason here. And, um, you guys are in charge, so I trust that you'll give it great thought and we can come to some sort of a, you know, reasonable compromise between all the parties. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we check online? I don't have any access right now to that. Yeah, why don't we go ahead after who? We'll put the person who's online as the on deck. Um, so Conrad Zmen will be next and then we'll go online to Robert 21.

All right. U, my name is Conrad Zean. Um, I was I I grew up in Lewisville my entire life. I'm 25 years old now. I live in Golden currently, but I live 23 of those years on Front Street. And uh having lived on Front Street my whole life, I got to do everything. I went to Louisville Middle School just like they did. I went to Louisville Elementary School, Monarch after and always walked. I always walked everywhere in town. I could go downtown. That was one of the best parts of my life actually is when I first got to go downtown by myself on a safe street. You know, no parents, going down the sidewalk, you know, I learned to ride a bike on Front Street. And you can imagine with a I think they said it's six six minutes per car. Um I don't know how that would be feasible with this. Um, as far as they said, you know, this is a mid to high density development, right? And I, my entire life, I've never thought of Lewisville as mid to high density anything. You know, I've watched this town do development after development, and it's just growing and growing. And I'm not against growth, but in the way that they're doing it with these massive apartment complexes, that doesn't scream to the character and identity of these neighborhoods of this town. And uh it feels like I get where this looks good on paper. Um you have these beautiful illustrations of this. I mean, it looks good. But I have to say it looks good. But does it tell does it scream looseful to me? No. I look at that and that could be in Denver or Fort

Collins. You know, I'm sure it's great there. But they have this raised sort of pedestrian walk that they're proposing. Yeah, it might discourage cars. Um, but I know as soon as everyone finds out that they can use that, it doesn't matter how you make it look, it's going to be that's going to be the path everyone takes because Maine, especially during the school times is uh it's a disaster already. And I know turning on to 42 currently is already a disaster. So, if you just add so much more traffic through there, I mean, it, you know, you got the numbers and everything and it looks good on paper, but in reality, I think it's going to be a nightmare. I mean, I just think that uh as far as this what little Italy has meant to me growing up there, it's going to change it entirely. And uh I don't know, makes me sad more than anything, actually. Yeah, I guess that's

um Yeah, thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming back to town. Next up is online. Yeah. Um Robert on Zoom. Yeah, Robert, we're trying to uh unmute you at this end. We may have accomplished that. You might be muted at your end. Always a possibility. Unmute. There we go.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So, my name is Robert Kulicowski. Um, I am the managing member of the entity that owns the property located at 10:30 East South Boulder Road. And just to confirm, you're not a Lewisville resident. I was born and raised in Boulder and I live in Boulder. Thank you.

Um, also, Eric Geller is online and I would ask the same courtesy to be extended and me to use his three minutes for this conversation as it is done in person. Um, Mr. Post indicated that this is a vacant parcel and I just want to preface this with that is unequivocally false. The PUD that's being proposed is compo is comprised of an HOA. Now, I own a small parcel on the northwest section of this proposed PUD. Um it's part of the current PUD which was the Cole Creek filing PUD number two. Um I have not been party of the conversation. I really feel that the pro my the property and the ownership interest uh referenced by the proposed PUB 10 N 1030 East South Bola Road which is this property I'm referring to and representing uh is not prop you know is is not being represented here. And so I just wanted to put that out there that um it's a small square of land on the northwest corner. Uh it is part of the this the current site and subject to the same POD. However, it's not being referenced in here and I only received notification on a postcard. Um, I'm here tonight to formally object to the pro proposed PUD unless and until my legal rights as a property owner are fully addressed and uh, respectfully request that the commission delay any decision on this application until the developer has engaged in substantive discussion with me and entered into a mutually agreed uh, terms that protect my recorded and historic use rights. Uh procedure procedurally I'm I'm concerned

um and the notice of process. I received notice of this hearing like I said on Monday by a postcard. I have previously previously asked and included communication related to this pro project. I sent an email to Mr. Post Elizabeth uh and I apologize for butchering their names. Marchetti, Rob Zakario, Jeff as well as Ashley statement on March 15 uh of 2024 uh asking to be kept a you know a breast of the situation and be copied on any submittal information. Um this email had followed uh over a year of no contact from the city since January of 2023. I received no reply to this email and was not aware that this proposal had moved forward. Um, and my concerns have not been addressed. The impact on this parcel um is governed by recorded covenants. Um, and the property is entitled to access rights, parking rights, use of surrounding common areas. Despite these legal re these legal rights, the PUD proposes to allocate only two parkings which is inadequate for the employee and customer use. Uh the developer previously mentioned installing a new water tap and service lines but no further details were provided. The site plan appears to remove sidewalks and ADA accessible routes that currently serve my property. Uh there's no connectivity to this site. uh the site's new roads, walkways, or internal access ways. Uh they're also proposing changing the access on South Boulder Road. Uh the plan would isolate this building uh from the rest of the development and interfere with the

future use and value. Uh the property has historically accessed and used surrounding areas which now appear to be removed without my consent. Um, that being said, you know, in the narrative of this proposal, they're mentioning Arento's impatas as an adjacent commercial space, which is the location of the subject property. Uh, it's also indicated on page two, I believe, of the submitt as the little red dot on the top, you know, on the what would that be? The northwest corner. Um, I'm also very concerned about title and marketability of my property. Uh, with the approval of the POD, it must clearly preserve the existing covenants and legal rights to my parcel, avoid creating title issues and in uncertainty for future use and transfer and include proper documentation in the public record to confirm that my property rights are intact. Uh, I'm just making a request for action. It appears that the developer is moving forward without my involvement, consent, or consideration of how the PUD impacts my legal rights. And I urge the commission to deny or delay this application until my concerns are resolved. require the developer to negotiate directly with me to address access, parking, utilities, and other essentially property rights, and ensure that I receive timely and complete notice of all future submitts and hearings, not just when public notices are mailed, but as an affected property owner. I want to thank you guys all for your time and considering the rights of all property owners on this parcel and not just the majority landholder. and I'm happy to answer any questions or provide further documentation. And I did submit this uh electronically.

Thank you. All right, Beck in the room here. Next up, um next uh Linda Kadora and then after that, Anita Mendez. So, I'm Linda Kadora and I was told by city manager to bring pictures. So, to help uh help my case. So, who do I give these to to get them to you? Did you email them in at all or is this just the first time you've had the pictures? I did not email them.

Okay. Yeah. No, you can pass them over here and we'll pass them down the line here. just in general for people uh the sooner you email the easier it is for us to get access in the future. Um just the way it is. Thanks. Okay. So, um my first picture is my first thing is the failing intersection at SP road and highway 42 is one of the barriers that cannot support this development. The right turn only exits are the issue. So the proposed workaround is to route traffic into a oneb block wide old neighborhood onto a school corridor and a railroad crossing. And this workaround then becomes part of the chaos at the Lewisville Middle School. So this picture shows front street looking north and the work workaround is an invitation to cut through the neighborhood. So, I've got an arrow pointing at Solder Road there, and this is Front Street, and that's where the connection is going to be with the glorified um speed bump. So, then this next picture that I have shows street looking south and the terminus of this cutth through is DLO sitting in the middle of this gritted street. So, it's not a gritted street. You can see that front street is actually narrowed to half its distance. effectively turning it into an alley at at Griffith in front and um this alley is not is so any presentation of this is

being gritted is false and that alley if you look on the next page that alley looking down that alley it's uh showing the DLO public uh private parking lot um again there's no access to DLO commercial through this and all of those buildings with the arrows, those are residences along that alley. Um, so where does this uh the traffic study says that there's a 900% increase in traffic on this front street connection versus a 45% increase on suppler road U-turns. 45% versus 900%. So, where does this Front Street connection routing 900% increased traffic go? If you turn the page, it's going to Lewisville Middle School. So, this is the view. I've got Friend Street t-boning into Griffith Street. There's the railroad crossing. And there's Lewisville Middle School. And that's where we're routing the cut through traffic 900% increase directly into the school corridor. the main street, the chaos that's there, the kids on their ebikes, the crossing guard that may not be there, the the preschool across the street, that adds chaos, too. And so, I just think it's irresponsible for this flawed intersection, this flawed development to utilize a a plan that doesn't make sense. You don't route traffic intentionally to the middle school and call it a safe route or safe corridor or anything like that. Thanks.

Thank you. Yeah, as we call Go ahead. Okay. Uh Anita Mendez and then after that Mark Zmen. And a motion to introduce this into the public record. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Thank you. Ready? Please. Thank you.

I'm Anita Mendez. I've been a Little Italy resident for 11 years. Raised two kids here. I'm also a Lewisville base realtor right here on Main Street with ReMax where I've been for a number of years. This is a bad product at a bad time. Attached units are sitting. They're not selling. In the last two years in Lewisville, 182 condos or units went on the market. 41% never sold and withdrew from the market. HOA fees and property insurance and all those increases are pushing people toward single family purchases. Doesn't make sense. the micro homes at $1,000 a square foot. The average price per square foot of all the other attached units in Lewisville is $352 and they're not selling. So $1,000 a square foot. I don't see how anybody would think that would be a long-term financially sound purchase. So who is going to buy them? investors. 41% of small apartment-like units in Colorado are owned by investors. Therefore, who will live there? Transient renters with no time, no ties to our community that will only stay here short-term until they can find something more livable on a permanent basis. Who is benefiting then from this attainable housing? That would be the investors that don't live here and the builders that sell them for $1,000 a square foot. To recap, approved for 51 homes. Now

there's 188 900% increase in traffic in our neighborhood and 40some increase in U-turns on South Boulder after dangerously veering over several lanes of traffic. It's lunacy. And despite trying to work together for a year, the builder basically submitted the same plan, albeit with some lip service in form of a speed bump, a traffic sign, and efforts to discourage traffic. But someone facing the option of quickly cutting through Little Italy versus sitting at that already failing intersection, they're going to cut through and they'll figure it out. I get it. They're a business. They're self-serving. Their own proposal states that these micro homes form an ideal transition to the existing Little Italy neighborhood. That's that's laughable. I have a five- bedroomedroom 2700 ft house on an 11,000 square foot lot in the oldest neighborhood in Lewisville. They have

just to let you know your time is up. If you can wrap up. Thank you. Oh, okay. Um, well, it's unacceptable. It's dangerous. We're prodevelopment, but we're asking you to table it until traffic and safety are really worked out and common sense is integrated in a real and meaningful way. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, Mark Zmen. And then after that, Rita Zamora. Yeah, my name is Mark Zean. I live at 1439 Front Street, Lewisville. My wife and I bought our house in 1993 and we've seen Lewisville change in lots of ways and some of it is not worked out very well. Um, the planning commission, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak. The biggest thing about this development is traffic into the our little little city, our little little little Italy. Um they're going to cut through. They used to cut through when it was a dirt lot until signs were put up. No traffic. This is not an access. Um they will cut through. I can understand the city wanting the the connection and you know the the developer basically has said we don't need it. But the city says, "Yeah, we have to have it." And the only thing I can see having that connection for is a fire truck, an ambulance, a police car, or city maintenance trucks. I don't see why you have to run all that traffic through a through a established historical neighborhood and um just to have it. that that connection will dead into, as my wife pointed out, into nowhere land and it's going to put it into the schools. Now, the whole statement about, well, we can't have people doing U-turns. You don't have to do U-turns even if all three access points are right out. You can go out, make a right on the South Border Road, make a right on the 42, and if you have to, which is not a great idea, you can approach Griffith off of 42 with a right-hand turn. You do not have to run

all that stuff through the middle middle of old an old neighborhood. Um, it's, you know, it's not it's it's it's not true that we need to have this connection. And if that connection with that raised walk was to be put in, I would propose that you put in a gate that only fire, the city or police can use. You can still get ride bikes through there. You can still walk through there. People could walk to the school. They could walk downtown, but it's not a necessary thing. And you know, you know, the righthand turn thing, you know, that does put traffic up on Griffith Street, but you're you're wanting to put traffic on the Griffith Street, which is a right-hand turn at Front Street, which is a blind turn as it sits if you park cars on Griffith. Um it's just dangerous. I I think it's irresponsible. And um I think that we need more time to look at this. Um more solutions, more rhetoric has to happen. And I think the the builder has actually tried to do this with us. The city has not. And for them to say this must happen is is false. Thank you.

Thank you, Rita Zamora. And then Jod Ash after that.

Hi, thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you all for being here. My name is Rita Zamora. I live on Griffith Street at Griffith and Canon. I have lived there since 2016, since the DLO town homes were built. Um, I'm concerned that the developer is saying they've met with the neighbors multiple times and they're very familiar with our area, yet they come up and refer to our neighborhood as Del. So, it's DLO. Um, just so you know. Um, I have had my own business for 15 years and work remote for 10 years. So, I am home 247. I have a little dog and she has to go outside to go potty. So I am outside at the corner of Griffith and and Canon and all around the block through the DLO apartments and by the middle school like four or five times a day. So I can tell you I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. I'm asking that you respectfully deny this new proposal due to safety. And um in 2019, I emailed the city of Lewisville because we do have this incredible multi-generational neighborhood. That's what I love about Little Italy and DLO. We have elderly people that I observed walking with their walkers crossing the street from Canon on front and Canon and Griffith. And I've also I should say Griffith and Canon and front and Griffith. And I was concerned. We also have seniors that have had surgery. They're hobbling across the street. We have young families with strollers, people with dogs. So, I asked for a um crosswalk there. And in 2020, they the city implemented the yield to pedestrians uh state yellow sign. I did email you a digital copy so you could see what I'm talking about. that was implemented in 2020 because it was unsafe due to speeding and the volume of cars and the narrow streets that are in the little Italy and DLO neighborhoods. And so, um, over the course of the next few years,

that sign had to be replaced at least a half a dozen times, five or six times because it was not struck once or twice. Every time someone hit that sign, bam, it sounded like a gunshot. So throughout the day, it wasn't just at night, it was in the morning, it's at lunch, it's in the evening, and certainly when you're sleeping, this pedestrian sign, which is where they're going to put the raised uh lot or the raised crosswalk over at Front and Griffith, it's not going to happen because we can't even have this thin crosswalk sign without it getting decimated. And it was not hit once or twice. They were hit multiple times. So, I hope you'll look at that picture. Also, I want to tell you about the calming measures uh in front of DLO apartments. We've had the calming measures, the curved streets, the slanted sidewalks. It does not slow the traffic. I walk my dog there just last week. A neighbor came running out of his apartment and it was like a six- foot tall man and he's like, I swear to God if these cars don't calm down, someone's going to be really sad that they didn't um listen to me and they're going to be sorry. So, please um I'm not against development. I want it to be safe and responsible, but please consider our our beautiful neighborhood and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you. Um, as a side note for procedure this evening, uh, I should let you guys know we have a long-standing informal policy of not taking on new issues after 900 p.m. So, it seems uh that you all could be released if if because we're not going to have time to get to to that. uh our second item on the agenda this evening. Thanks. All right. Next up. Um that'll be Jody Ash and then after that Ash Colby. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you for allowing me to speak and thank you for your service. My name is Jod Ash. I um am a Front Street resident and um I am I own my home. I've lived there since 2017 and have been a Lewisville resident for 20 years. I used to live on the other front street and it was too busy. And it's one of the reasons that I came to little little Italy is that it's quiet. It's not a thoroughare. It's not the busy downtown. It's this little tuckedway neighborhood that is so special. I mean, all my neighbors, we're all friends, you know? We've literally have a community of people that have lived there for a long time. And I just I wish that you could feel, you know, the specialness of it. And with that, um, oh, and I did want to just mention that the development is beautiful that they're recommending. And I do really appreciate the efforts um that that the developers have made to offer the win-winwin, you know, and I I think that I I wanted to make sure I said that. Um everyone has had, you know, really important things to say and I feel like I'm just kind of reiterating, but I think it's important. LMS is a nightmare in the mornings at drop off. It is a nightmare in the afternoons at pickup. Patchwork is included in that, right? There's just there's just so much traffic you can't even, you know, you can you can wait 5 to 8 minutes literally to make a turn. And if you're turning So obviously I live on Front Street. I love my street and I don't want there to be more traffic there. Um it would change our neighborhood so drastically. But but the real real important thing is the safety. You know,

I understand we're talking about the traffic studies and the safety of crossing over to try to make U-turns, but it's it's equally as important to really understand what happens in the mornings during rush hour during the highest traffic um times. What's going on at LMS? like it it it we're going to be backed up through our neighborhood down Griffith and it it's just it's really it just isn't going to work. And you know, another thing that really struck me is about the traffic impacts that are already an issue. We already have a problem, right? And we're not solving that problem first before we add all these other cars. And so we're compounding an already problematic issue and and really it's almost it's it's absurd honestly. Um and also you know one of the things about Front Street I don't know if you've ever been down the the North Front Street. Um there's a lot of

All right. Your time looks like it's also Thank you. Oh you can wrap up. Okay. Thank you. A little bit. Yeah. So, I've heard comments that dealing with the city is like shouting down into an empty well. Please hear us. You know, we're the citizens that have been here, that will be here, that we've settled here, and um keep our wonderful historic neighborhood quiet, peaceful, and safe. Thank you.

Thank you. um Ash Colby and then after that Caitlyn Sigril uh Sigrillo. Okay. Hello, my name is Ash Ki. I live on Front Street in the Little Italy neighborhood and I'm not opposed to the idea of this development. I think the pictures look quite nice actually. Be a nice place to walk around. My main concerns come with the traffic as well as them saying that they want it to be pedestrian like centric. They want it to be safe for pedestrians and yet they are uh making the sidewalk skinnier and also increasing traffic which from my experience does not make walking safer, makes it scarier. Also, the issue with middle school traffic as well as traffic turning out onto Highway 42 from Griffith and from Harper. I frequently get stuck in long lines of traffic. It's pretty annoying. I mean, as Jod said, there will be wait times. Sometimes I'll wait at the stop sign turning on to Main Street for 5 to 10 minutes um in the mornings when I'm going well especially when I was going to school but now when I'm going to work and stuff but also I'm concerned about the flow of traffic coming down Front Street if it is connected to South Boulder Road. Um me and multiple of the other residents of Little Italy work on projects in front of their houses. We walk our dogs. Many of us have cats that are indooroutdoor just outdoor and walk through our neighborhood. And if there is the increase in traffic, which I believe is 900%, correct me if I'm wrong, but uh I'm concerned that with

that many cars, the safety of our animals as well as the wildlife like the coyotes, the bunnies, stuff like that, it's just not going to work. Um, also the I forget what they called it. I think pocket park idea to me just doesn't really seem when I hear the words pocket park, it does not sound like a nice place. I want to go hang out. It seems like a little like, you know, it seems like a get around to please people. So, I don't know. It's just all the words that are being used, the impacts of the traffic, it just doesn't work for me. Thank you. Thank you,

Caitlyn Sigrillo. And then Joan Dittle after that. And we'll third on deck will be somebody online apparently. Yeah.

Hello. Um my name is Caitlyn Sigrillo. I'm at 1435 Front Street. I've lived in Lewisville my entire life. I briefly moved to Arizona for college, but I came back for a reason. I attended Fireside Elementary School, Lewisville Middle School, and Monarch High School. I walk to school pretty much every single day on these streets. Um, I love this town and everything that it has to offer and I want to see it continue to develop, but it needs to be in a viable and safe way and in a way that it'll keep Lewisville's character. I drive to I drive down South Boulder Road every single day for work. Um, adding upwards of 300 people in such a tight spot will make rush hour even more of a a mess. We already know that this is an issue. Um, also the gridlock that happened during the Marshall fire was an absolute nightmare. Adding more people to this area where it there's already been issues is just going to make it even more of a mess. The road's infrastructure cannot handle this. The plan that forces Front Street to be a through street is extremely disruptive and causes real safety hazards not only to the people in Little Italy, but to the middle schoolers who walk to school every single day. Um, not to add the ebikes that are constantly ridden through these streets. Um, ebikes are going to continue to get more and more popular. Accidents have already happened in this exact area around the middle school. Adding more cars through these streets is not going to help that. Um, the traffic study claims that volumes stay under a thousand vehicles per per day. and with the calming measures of this raised crosswalk that discourages cars from going through the through street on Front Street really is not going to work. I know if I were driving through there, I would just drive through it every single day. Once people in the new development know about it and people in Little Italy know about it,

they're just going to use it every day. So, it's really not going to solve any issues. Um, finally, the density and the design feels wrong for Lewisville. You're marketing some of these affordable places or attainable places for $1,000 per square foot, which is over double of what the average home in Lewisville costs. As a young person dreaming of owning a home here in Lewisville, I currently fall into their target demographic to afford these affordable homes that they're trying to build. However, the people like me who they're saying are going to buy them aren't going to be the ones investing in these properties because it's truly not a great investment. especially for someone who has a family who's invested multiple properties in and around Boulder County. Um, I want thoughtful growth for Lewisville, not this rush of density that prioritizes that prioritizes quantity over quality. I want growth that matches Lewisville's heart and their character. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Joan Doolittle. Is that Joan or John? What was that? I'm sorry. Uh Joan Joan Doolittle. Not here anymore. Okay. All right. Thank you. Go to online. Mark G online.

Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes.

Sorry. Thank you very very much for taking my call. Um yes. I live at 1014 Johnson Lane in the DLO town homes. Um we've been there now seven years and I just really just we've talked all about the traffic and and I just want to make sure that from a common sense that people don't drive that area regularly truly understand this is very factual. So again, people that want to go towards Boulder coming out of that new development are going to have to come through the new roads and and making it more narrow and raised is only going to create more problems as they're trying to get out. You're going to have people coming in. They go right past the middle school, we have already said, has just horrendous in traffic. But the bigger issue to me being in the town homes is coming home in the evening, anybody coming in from Broomfield or the toll road out there, anyone coming that way on 42, the only way they're going to be able to get into the new development is to go north on 42, take a left at the light at Short Road, go through the DLO apartment complex parking lot, go through our alleyways in DLO apartment in DLO town homes to feed into the new front street connection to go in those homes. It makes there's no other way for somebody coming from Broomfield to get into that new complex in the evening rush hour. You cannot go up to to uh South Boulder and take a left because then you can't take a left into the new subdivision. You can't turn anywhere else on Highway 42 other than that red light because finally you get a green arrow that's going to drive every single one of those cars automatically to go through the parking lot of the DLO apartment complex where you have tons of people walking and go right through our alleyways in DLO town homes which oh by

the way is a privately maintained road that we maintain and a very narrow road. So I beg you to please think about the consequences of this vote that you're going to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Just a rough sense. How many cards do you have remaining? Yeah. Okay. Great. Um why don't we take a five minute break? Everybody can refresh so we can all pay attention and we'll reconvene. Thank you.

Perfect. Thanks. Thank you all. Okay, if we can continue with public comment at this point. Thank you. Um, can we have uh Jean Morgan next, please?

Hi. My name is Jean Morgan. I've lived in Minersfield neighborhood for 55 years and know that my um my neighborhood and Lily are two of the original Lewisville neighborhoods. And I think it's wrong to channel traffic from this develop from this development into one of the original Lewisville neighborhoods. The impact on Front Street would be horrific. Imagine yourself owning a home there with all the traffic which would be funneled there from the new development. I'm sorry that there's no direct westbound traffic out of this development, but the impact on our historic neighborhood is not the answer. Please listen to those who would um be impacted and put yourself in their shoes. It is a historic neighborhood, not an exit for a huge development where residents are trying to avoid South Boulder Road and Highway 42. The development's traffic must go north to South Boulder Road or east on Highway or east to Highway 42 to access Griffith in order to go west. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you. Um, can we have uh Cammy Donnelly next, please? Sorry. Is that anybody who's still here with Cammy Donnelly? No.

No. Okay. Um, Cindy Bedell. Oh, hi. My name is Cindy Bedell. I live in War 2, Lewisville. So, I just have a couple things I'd like to say. One, this development needs more public land dedication. A 15% public land dedication for 10.7 acres would require at least 1.6 acres. This proposal only suggests a 20,98t park, which is, I think, about half an acre, and a smaller 2350T pocket park. You should require this based on current public land dedication standards. It's not an appropriate interpretation to say that this partial should be exempt from ML LMC 16.16.060 because the land was platted in 1890. At that time, were there any public land dedication standards in 1890? Probably not. It seems past city councils anticipated public land dedication would be included at the time this parcel reached current platting. So, please require public land dedication of at least 1.6 acres, preferably more in consideration of a development of this density and size. Secondly, looking at the architectural projections, these threestory modern industrial looking, some of them are matte black, looks like office buildings with strange new weird roof designs. They don't fit in with surrounding little Italy neighborhood. And so if this is built, I think it should be consistent with historic smalltown Lewisville with the architecture, with the design, with the

mass and the scale. And one easy way to do that is, for example, to put on a gable roof could be that simple. Um, twotory would be much more consistent with neighborhood character rather than three stories. So that's all the time I have tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Andre Armyho. And next up after him.

Hello, my name is Andre Armiho and I live at uh 1401 uh Canon Street, UNIB with a beautiful uh Japanese garden. Um, I moved here about 20 years ago and bought my house when I was 21. And it was the most quiet, calming, peaceful neighborhood that you can't even describe right now. I'm I grew up in South Boulder and I got sick of Boulder because of all the gentrification. I love Louisville. I don't want to disrespect Lewisville right now, but it's kind of becoming like Boulder in that way. And you know, all the new growth is good for business. I understand. But honestly, the speeding on Griffith is horrible. Some cars go like 50, 60 miles an hour down our street. It's it's very unsafe and we need to deal with the problems the the real problems before we get more problems like the speeding on Griffith the horrendous traffic during the school times and it's very unsafe and uh yeah that's basically the way I feel like when I first moved here, it was so peaceful and quiet. Like most of the businesses closed at like 9:00. And back then I was I was 21. I was just a kid, you know, a punk.

And I got to the point where this is very nice, you know, like I could see the stars. The the the night sky now is so much more lighter now. And that has to do with Denver and Boulder, too, you know. But honestly, it was very peaceful. like you just walk outside and hardly any cars would drive by Griffith Street and you walk down Main Street and it was just very very peaceful family, you know, and that's one of the reasons why I moved to Little Italy. I just love the neighborhood. It was so quiet, peaceful, and I grew up in Boulder all my life when I was a kid. And I was like, I got to get out of here. Every time I went to Louisville, it felt like I was going to another country cuz it was so different. It wasn't like going to Fort Collins. It wasn't going like to Denver. It was just so nice. And I'll keep it real quick, but uh every five years I could just see the growth just getting worse and worse every 5 years since I've been here in the last 20 years. And I love this. I love this neighborhood. I love Lewisville. I think I'm going to live here till I die. And I really hope that the street from

sorry street time is up. If we can ask you to wrap it to Griffith Street does not cuz it will be a disaster and thank you for letting me speak and yeah thank you. Thank you. Y

um Michael Mccclure and then after that Jet Sandival. Hello, my name is Michael Mccclure. Yes. Okay. Um my name is Michael Mccclure and I live on Griffith Street. Um in here in Lewisville, Colorado. Yes. Um this has been an interesting I don't envy your position. Um this is this is clearly and you know the developers clearly they're trying. I mean I understand. Um I wanted to speak briefly. You've heard about traffic traffic. Um the calming measures. I also heard that whap and bang every time they hit the little sign that they put in the middle of the street in the crosswalk. And I broke I picked it up a couple of times all broken and stuff and wondered what it did to people's cars. But um yeah, calming measures I'm not so sure how much effect that's going to have. It didn't really seem to have a lot of effect the last time we tried it. In fact, I believe the city just abandoned and just took the thing out because they were tired of replacing it. Um, so traffic, you're in a tough spot here and so are we. I live in a place I'm kind of boxed in. Railroad to the west, 42 to the east, South Boulder Road on top. It's just a natural the neighborhood is just naturally boxed in. It's And then we have LMS in one end of the street. I mean, you've heard about it. Um it's just that's just the reality of this the way this piece of land is and maybe that's part of why it didn't get developed until now. It's one of the last places that's in close because it's the access is so difficult. I mean I imagine that's part of this. Um it's been fun watching the ebikes and the ebike arguments going on among the parents and LMS picking up. The other

part that when I grew up, um, people didn't walk to get Ziggies and coffee and then walk to to middle school with a coffee in their hand and cross the streets, um, to go to sixth grade. I was I'm kind of surprised at that all the time when I see it. Um, but, uh, what I'd like to say is maybe there's a reason we're here. Maybe there's a reason. I mean, we're boxed in. We've got a middle school there. We've got traffic problems. maybe this piece of land is just not set up to support the density that we're talking about. Um, going from 50 to 180 or whatever it is. Um, I mean, maybe this just can't support that kind of density with the traffic and with the neighborhood there. Um, I do oppose cutting the um the access through to Griffith. Um, I do admire the measure that they made though with the bump and everything. Um, but maybe there's a reason why we're here and it it maybe a combination of more public land dedication, lowering the density, figuring out something to do with the traffic is what we have to do. But, um, we kind of are where we are and I don't this might be one of these places where we just have to make some compromises on a few things in order to get something through. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Um, we have Jet Sandival pooling time with uh George Joyce Goolio. And then we also we have one online next. Great. Thank you. Hello, my name is Joyce Goolio. I live at 1092 Harper and I'm seating my three minutes to Jet Sandival. Thank you.

Sorry, can you restart the clock? I'm going to need every second. Thanks. Hi, thank you for having me. My name is Jet Senaval and I'm a proud new homeowner in the historic Little Italy neighborhood living right on front and Griffith Street, a contentious corner in this proposal. But more important to me is that I serve the community every day as a local school social worker. So I become come before you not just as a homeowner, but a professional who deals firsthand with the tragic consequences of the Boulder County housing crisis. Every day I support families going through housing insecurity under the economic toll this crisis takes on families and public sector professionals alike who educate and support them. While we welcome thoughtful growth, this specific Cole Creek Village plan is not responsible development in my eyes. It's an act of maximizing density to to make profit gains. It's not for the p public good and it sets a terrible precedent for prioritizing gains over our regional needs which is genuinely subsidized or affordable housing. So this project dramatically increases the unit count from the old 51 to 188 units. Yet the applicants claim that no reduction of units can happen with their current proposal to enable a financially viable project. So if the original proposal was only 51 units, what changed besides the financial expectations of the developers? The jump from 51 to 188 units is not a necessity. It is a clear choice fueled by the need for private gains. Density sure has to be leveraged for community benefit. Okay. But density uprise is not the same as making homes affordable. So, getting into the numbers, 60 town homes, 96 apartments, 32 so-called micro homes, which would be 300 to 400 square

feet. This is Lewisville, Colorado, not Manhattan, New York. We would like to keep it that way. I don't think that 300 to 400 ft² is enough for the multi-generational housing needs that our community members demand. The critical fact here is the price. It would be up to $1,000 per square foot with the 300 to 400 ft² micro homes. That doesn't make it affordable to teachers, aids, essential workers, food service, and health industry members. We have surrounding hospitals. I'm sure this could be a place that could help those people, but a lot of them, most of them would not be able to afford to live in a place like this. So Lewisville Mun M municipal code requires mandatory 15% public land dedication on this 10.7 acre site. There's only 1.6 W which would mean 1.6 acres of land. These guys have 23,000 square feet of total SP park space. That is 33% of what is what is required. Calling it a pocket park. A pocket park. It doesn't sound very welcoming or expansive and inviting to be outside. It just kind of sounds like an afterthought. We as a neighborhood have proposed multiple times to the developers a 1 and a/4 acre land dedication to settle the land between our communities to help make us neighbors. We want to welcome in neighbors. It's just going to be so hard when all these constant problems with safety and our needs being ignored. It's going to build resentment. And on top of that, there is already there is already resentment as you can see. um leaning on a century old code that says we don't have to uh have the

15% land dedication is under man undermining the mandatory public rights that we're asking for for land to be dedicated to enable people in the community to enjoy the space and to help our environment as the future looms over us with climate change. Lastly, um safety. This is the most horrific concern here. Um very recently, a elementary school student was struck while crossing South Boulder Road to get to Main Street. They were on their bicycle. They were struck by a vehicle. Um these problems already exist. They can be fatal. This only will make things worse. It's already a failing intersection as the developers have acknowledged. It will be failing whether this is developed or not. It will be a failing intersection whether this land is developed for this proposal or not. This is a band-aid that is going to fall off and create a new scab that oozes more and more. It is irresponsible to put this plan into place when we don't have Highway 42 or Courtesy Road figured out yet. It's sort of funny. It's called Courtesy Road because I think a lot of decisions would be made that don't seem so courteous um in regards to trying to help current residents. Um I commute through this area. I already have to instead of instead of going east on Griffith to then turn left and go north on uh 42, which is impossible in the morning, I have to go around past Lewisville Middle, turn right onto Main Street, and then turn right onto um South Boulder Road, and it takes me two stop lightss to turn left going north onto 96. That's going to be worse, too. It's not a lot of room to make these things possible. Also, I don't think

you've heard today, but the infrastructure and drainage is a real problem. Um, you may not know this, but it's a seasonal wetland right there and the Little Italy sewer lines are only 10 in and already experienced flood issues. So, that paired with the lack of developers even mentioning that there's a railroad there, huge safety concerns from me and my fellow neighbors. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we have uh Sonam Puush online.

Are you able to hear me? Yes. Yes.

Hi. Um, my name is Senam Pesahesh and I live on Canon Street between Harper and Griffith in Little Italy and I am a parent and a neighbor who just really cares about the safety of our kids. I'm also a child therapist and have my office right on Main Street on East Main Street across the street from the middle school. So, I'm very familiar with the issues and the traffic and the problems that we're having and the safety of our kids that's already jeopardized with the way traffic flows in this little section of Lewisville. Um, our neighborhood, Little Italy, is a quiet, historic neighborhood. We have families who have lived here for decades, sometimes for generations in a number of our families. Um, we have kids playing out in the streets, riding their scooters, playing soccer in the streets, riding their bikes around. And we also have the middle school where children are zipping around on these ebikes. Already a huge amount of congestion. As Jet mentioned, I wanted to speak to as well, the child that was hit just on the corner of the two main roads, adding a tremendous amount of traffic and a disruptive flow to this area is going to create a huge safety risk for primarily for our children as they're moving, walking, um, riding their bikes and their ebikes through these neighborhoods. So, I personally, as a parent, I moved. I'm a single parent. I moved to this neighborhood because it is quiet. It is safe. It's a peaceful place to raise my child and for other families to raise their children. And it's not that I am

anti-growth or want to stifle responsible development. Of course, our community needs development. We need growth. But it has to be growth that respects the families and the neighborhoods that already exist here that don't impose safety issues and create issues that are going to be irreversible um once it's done. And I'm particularly concerned about that front street connector bringing that much more traffic into a neighborhood that is not designed for it um is is really concerning. So I'm just asking myself as a citizen that you consider and the develop the developers and planners consider just protecting the integrity and the safety of the Little Italy neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods as we kind of navigate this issue. Um yeah, that's all.

Thank you. Uh Laurel Danof um pooling time with Jose Rodriguez.

Um is Jose here or No, they left. But I can I use Jillo's time instead

if if he agrees. Yes. Yeah. All right. I'm Laurel Dana uh Sigrillo. I live at 1435 Front Street, neighbors with all these humans. Um I want to say thank you for the important work for that you're doing. I also want to say thanks to the Markell company. You guys have been great in working with us and staying in contact. Um, I also want to mention that I sent in a petition earlier today. It should be in your packet. Last year we had 80 signatures on a petition. This year we got 22 as of this afternoon, maybe more now. I just want to mention that the the the support for responsible development has really grown as this project has um continued to be on the table. Um, you know, I don't want to repeat too much stuff. I don't want to repeat last year, you guys were here when we spoke last year. We're a passionate neighborhood, but you know, the the traffic study did show, it's funny, it feels like it can be skewed either way. To us, it it it showed what we feared. Um that all of the intersections around us and the proposed site are stressed already, that sending cars down Front Street, you know, you heard the 900% number. You heard the from six or seven minutes to less than a minute numbers. Um, and it it hasn't changed that it's going to send stuff towards the middle school. It's going to send stuff towards DLO. It's going to send stuff towards the stressed 42 intersection. None of that is appropriate or safe or helpful. Um, and we also learned that the reality is opening Front Street doesn't help any of

those intersections. the South Boulder Road in 42, that's an F, will still be an F according to the traffic study, even with Front Street coming through. So, the city's asking this historic neighborhood that's quiet and peaceful to bear a burden that has no like public help. It's there's no public benefit to justify it. Um, Markel say they don't need it. It's the city that has been pushing it through. Um the safety risks on South Boulder Road are indicative indicative of deficient infrastructure not of a reason to open other roads onto other it doesn't help. Um I have this thing people keep saying the grid right everybody the cities reference the grid the developers reference the grid. I sent in a in my email earlier a map that shows the grid section of downtown is what they're trying to ask us to tie into. But the proposed development site and Little Italy is surrounded by the railroads on the west side with three entrances or crossovers on South Boulder Road, Griffith Street, and Pine Street. So there is no possible way to tie in for one thing to the grid. For the other thing, the middle school disrupts the grid up here. To the north, there's the Christopher Village, the apartments, Steel Ranch, which none of that's in a grid. Steel Ranch also has two right in and right outs, and they make that work just fine. Just side note. Um, King Supers, Bellour, not in a grid. across 42 is open space, seventh generation farm, ball fields, recycling stuff. None of that's in a grid. None of it's going

to be in a grid. DLO to the south is off the grid. It is literally offset from Front Street. So there's no grid. Like the longest grid that's possible, the longest street is Canon, which dead ends at Short Street and dead ends three blocks later at Harper and can never go through because there's houses there. this rhetoric that there's a grid that we're tying into the development that was being proposed isn't even really very gritted. Like there's I feel messed with by the city. There is no grid. Also, when Diana Langley asked the city could a front street goiruitously through um you know they said well we need a grid system. But um their first response of a in the sentence was this would require a significant redesign of the subdivision and development plan. What is the problem with that? This design has not been approved. Um we've we've continuously sort of felt like the city is not working for us. The city and the developer are working together. What's wrong with asking this the development to redesign so it works for the citizens? Um there are god I have so much stuff to say you guys. Um I'm concerned about the infrastructure. Several people have mentioned the concept that maybe this site doesn't work. Um the safety issue around emergency evacuation is very real. And this is not speculation. We have evidence of a couple of years ago when downtown had to evacuate right into this area and South Boulder Road blocked up past Via Aia and Highway 42 backed up all the way down south past town. Had the fire come through

downtown, that would have been a tragedy. And we're talking about this very constrained location with railroads to the west, 42 to the east. It's not changing, you guys. We can't add more. The safety issue is so great. Beyond that, we haven't been heard about um and that's your time actually. So, if you can

Okay. There's just there's so many unanswered questions including land plats, including what h where's the piece of land that was a railroad spur? Is that being given to the developer? Anyways, please please hear us that this is not ready to go through. It is not ready to be approved and um thank you. Thank you. Um next we have Lauren Foster pooling time with Daniel Alejandre. And Daniel is here or Daniel's online. Yeah. Okay, great.

All right. Is there a timer that'll go? Thank you.

Hi everyone. Thank you for your time and attention last year and again tonight to this critical planning meeting. Um I'll introduce myself again. My name is Lauren Foster. I'm a resident of Little Italy. I live there with my wife and two children. I am an engineer with a PhD from the Colorado School of Minds and my job every day is to build and use numerical and statistical models to better understand complex risks and challenges. I only share that with you today because I think it is relevant to my understanding of the proposal before you. Since I work in statistics, I know that the way numbers are presented is very critical to how we understand a problem. And I want to discuss a few of the results of the recent traffic study. there is a discrepancy in how these results have been presented to you. Some numbers are shown as a percent change while others have been shown as a magnitude increase if you're reading the results. Um so for example, the increase in weave maneuvers in the results of the traffic study is consistently presented as a 45% increase while the increase on traffic for Little Italy is presented as a 9.3x multiplicative factor. Um, nowhere in the traffic study are these put in apples to apples. And I know my fellow residents have been mentioning them in apples to apples, but let's just start by saying that an in a 45% increase in weave maneuvers on South Boulder Road should be compared to a 930% increase in traffic on a single block, which as you've heard is currently used primarily by bikes and pedestrians, especially downtown access and middle school students. Um, or let's compare them both as multipliers. A 9.3x increase in traffic on Little Italy would be comparable to a 0.45x change in weave maneuvers on South Boulder Road. So, with those numbers in mind, I want to discuss the concerns that the city hopes to alleviate with

this front street connection and why the traffic study did a comparison of with and without the connection. So number one, we have a male major failing intersection at South Boulder Road in 42. Does the connection change the failing statistics? You saw the big table which had Front Street on the left and Front Street, Front Street connected on the left and Front Street not connected on the right and then the colors across which show the rankings of those intersections. Not a single intersection studied changes its ranking as a result of including or not including the Front Street connection. Does it solve the westbound northbound access problems for the future residents of the Cole Creek Village? They can not go west or north out of their neighborhood. No, it doesn't. Actually, what it does is adds another southbound exit. It doesn't add a westbound exit. It doesn't add a northbound exit. Asking those residents to use a planned exit would increase their drive distance by 500 yards because it only has to avoid a single block. I measured it on a map. So, what we're saying is, let's route 930% more cars down one block of our historic neighborhood because we don't want those cars to drive an extra 500 yards on the roads that were designed to handle larger traffic, Griffith and Highway 42. Additionally, the Steel Ranch development across the street also does not have access to the east or the north, two of the four cardinal directions, and it also only has two in andout access points. And so that's the same as Cole Creek would be if it was proposed without the front street connection. It's a little confusing that Steel Ranch went through and Cole Creek cannot. So then let's talk I'll I'll be brief here because I know Laurel just covered this really well but yes the thing that the traffic study says over and over again is the reason we have to have the connection and there's there's this 45%

increase in weave maneuvers number one and number two a gritted network is in the multi-use design standards and in and it creates redundancy and safer access for pedestrians and bikes and those things are all true they are absolutely true if you have a grid um if If you read the 740 page traffic study, it uses the same paragraph of results four separate times. And those are the only two reasons that it advocates for this front street connection. And this is not a grid. Right? If you look at um PUB's planned is not grided. Look at the PUD for the new development. Cole Creek is not grided. DLO on the other side is not grided. Little Italy is a 1.5 city block neighborhood between 42 Griffith and railroad tracks. It is not a grid. So there are no grids. We are not discussing grids. It is unreasonable to use that as the justification for a 930% increase in traffic on a road used primarily by middle school students, especially when you present those numbers in totally different apples to oranges ways to the public. Um I'd like to address some of the things Cameron shared tonight um about a few other reasons that weren't in the traffic study that he was advocating for why the connection is helpful. Um he said tonight again the um grided network thing that's only true when you have at least three full grids. Um otherwise the emergency access right which you mentioned Cameron as being improved by grided networks is actually reduced by um having this connection open because if you have emergency access only and there's uh less traffic on Front Street then you have a way for emergency vehicles to very quickly access the new development and access the Little Italy neighborhood. So you're actually increasing access for emergency vehicles by closing that connection. Um he mentioned that the connection would increase pedestrian safety on South Boulder Road. Again referencing the

weave maneuvers, but there was no acknowledgement of the impact on pedestrian and bikers on the 930% increase on Front Street. And so I don't think those were compared apples to apples for your benefit either. Um, I'll just close by saying that we have been advised by the city planners that if the preliminary PUD is approved tonight by you, then the Front Street connection would be almost impossible to change at later stages of this planning process. Um, and so I really urge you to walk the five house length of Front Street, look at the numbers in the traffic study, and ask yourselves whether asking cars to drive an extra 500 yards is worth disrupting the historic neighborhood. the students and all the other reasons that residents have said tonight. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. That's a wrap then. All right, seeing no additional members at this point who want to speak out. Um, we're at we're at a a turning point here ourselves. 9:35 p.m. I think it's unfortunate. Obviously, a lot of people have had to go home for any number of good reasons. Um, I'll kind of pull the commission to see what thoughts are at this point, whether we continue through. I'm good to keep you. Yeah, I'm good.

Um, I'm okay with Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks. Uh, with that then I would uh invite the applicant up for a response and closing statement, please. Yeah, I'm Jason Markel. Uh, reside in Boulder and I represent Markel Homes and um, yeah, wanted to hear and answer any questions you might have before closing statements.

Great. Thanks. And if we do have questions uh for him at this time or the applicant team is wide open for us. I've only got one question that a business owner Snoffs in particular expressed concern about business access. Do you have any comment on their concerns?

Yeah, we worked with them. Um Matt went over some of the considerations that we put in place. Um, you know, I think it was a a matter of, you know, turning access uh from uh Canon, but we've moved the um curb cut so that it allowed full access, you know, like they have currently. Actually, I believe that is one one of the conditions, right? That's correct. Yeah, it will be a condition.

Any other thoughts on the additional conditions? Staff has proposed the conditions. Um, yeah, you know, we've, you know, like you heard from a lot of the residents, we've worked really hard to try and, you know, get that win-winwin. And so, you know, the, um, the private drive and, you know, that, you know, chops the two rightaways so that, you know, the apps can't funnel cut through traffic. I really do think that when you look at those numbers and you look at, you know, that twothirds of that traffic was coming from that cut through traffic that that is going to, you know, heavily mitigate, you know, the concerns and the I just want to point out that the traffic reports that you were seeing with and without Front Street did not factor in that new, you know, revelation that we came up with and the new you know change in plan. So when you looked at those numbers that you know Sam presented that would be cutting down those counts that were in the official traffic report because we worked with the neighbors and we came up with that idea, you know, pretty recently. And so, you know, I think staff was trying to, you know, facilitate a good idea that, you know, I think everybody realized um would be, you know, beneficial for everybody. And so, um, those counts that you're hearing and, you know, some of those percentages, those are coming way down because, you know, twothirds of that was coming from cut through traffic. So, I feel like um you know that that is the win-winwin is that you know everyone's concerns while incredibly valid and why we're working with them and we're completely sympathetic with all that you know we are trying to bring those

numbers down substantially with the twothirds reduction in the cut through traffic and you know I was talking with my traffic engineer and not only is it just eliminating the cut through traffic because of, you know, ways and Google Maps, but when people look down and they're stopped and they're, you know, thinking about taking a right into the neighborhood off of South Boulder Road and and there's sort of a chicane movement and it's not a clear cut path and they see a lot of landscaping and it, you know, you know, it's not a inviting direct route. I feel like, you know, it it it'll eliminate further cut through traffic, not just from apps, but from people who know that taking a right and a right, like UPS and FedEx know, is faster than trying to navigate through a, you know, a smaller residential neighborhood.

There's no questions. I've got one. Um, do you care to comment on the the land owner that sounds like they're surrounded by your land to the in the northwest corner?

Yeah. Yeah, I'd love to touch on that cuz, you know, we definitely have been in talks with him for the last, you know, three, four years. And so you know basically you know we have a HOA and we have a document you know that we are to provide you know two parking spaces and access and we have gone so far above and beyond and um you know we've presented four different plans with him and you know we've probably met with him you know four times face to face and had a lot of emails and a lot of touch points and at this point you know I think Elizabeth was here before Matt and she was working on this with with us and Matt has you know is very privy to this situation as well but you know we have presented you know more deed landscaping everything to um increase the visibility and increase the success of his you know business or his tenants and we've guaranteed access. We have a sidewalk going from the parking lot that has his dedicated spots to his, you know, um, you know, establishment. And we have another sidewalk that's on South Boulder Road that connects to it as well. So, he has, you know, two access points. He has multiple parking spots. You know, these, you know, these plans, every time we meet, it seems like the goalposts are moving. And you know, to be honest, it it, you know, it's starting to feel a little bit, you know, like a shakedown cuz, you know, it's gotten to the point of, you know, guaranteeing him two residential units and, you know, a whole new building and all this stuff. And so it's kind of ridiculous to state that we haven't been in touch with him because we've been, you know, very, you know, bending over backwards to try and

accommodate him and make sure that, you know, his business is a success. Um by all reports you've been successful in building uh neighborhoods people like in North End uh particularly with the single family homes. Why not that here? You know, I think when we looked at, you know, the, you know, sub area plan and, you know, we look at the density that the, you know, Matt touched on it, you know, there's a minimum density here that needs to be met. And when we look at the housing crisis and we look at the unaffordability of, you know, Boulder County and Lewisville, you know, we've we see it firsthand because we have a lot of people who call our sales offices and they're saying, "Hey, you know, we want to move into North End." And you know, we have to say, hey, you know, all of our, you know, you know, our single families might be out of your price point, but some of our condos, you know, might be in your price point, but we've taken it a step further and we wanted to guarantee attainability. And so that's why we have the micro houses, you know, and the micro towns. And then we have you know the multiffam the town houses and we have town houses in multiple configurations to attend to you know a larger segment of the you know economic population. So we have three bedrooms, two bedrooms, we have affordables, we have the micros, you know, so those are, you know, if you think about it in a multif family setting, you know, we have, you know, studios, we have one bedrooms, we have two bedrooms, we have three bedrooms, and we have, you know, affordable units as well. So deed restricted on-site built affordable units. So, we're trying to, you know, hit this product segment that, you know, we've identified as sort of the missing,

you know, link here in Boulder County and Lewisville. So, you know, we firmly believe that, you know, if you if you get units, you know, smaller, it naturally gets more affordable. And so, that's what we're trying to attend to.

Thank you. It'd be it'd be really easy to do, you know, 50 single family homes or, you know, whatever, you know, met that, but it's a it's not meeting, you know, the city's guidelines and, you know, the city's sort of wanting this, you know, like when we look at, you know, the new housing plan and the housing shortages, this is attending to all of that. Thank you, Commissioner Hunt. I don't see if doesn't look like you have hand raised. No. Okay, great. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant?

I guess um it's a it's a traffic question. Uh and I don't know who's qualified to answer. A lot of the concern has been about what's been described as cut through traffic um as opposed to traffic from the actual residents in the development. I'm I'm guessing the traffic study didn't distinguish between potential cutthrough. Not that I read.

Oh, yeah. It it definitely distinguishes between the two. Um, you know, we we do have that nice chart that, you know, looks at, you know, the traffic coming, you know, emanating from the um Yeah. Yeah, we can pull it up here. Um, but yeah, you can Oh, I don't know if it's There we go. Okay, so we highlighted the diverted traffic just because that's what we were mitigating with our private drive concept. But if you look at some of the, you know, uh, residential traffic and the retail traffic, those are, you know, found within our subdivision. So you know the the yellow and the uh dark green. So that that's my understanding is that's you know our subdivisions you know contribution but then you know the other slice of the pie which is over 60% you know would be you know some of the other uh ancillary you know traffic coming from you know what's there today like what's there already on on front and what's coming through as cut through. Okay,

great. Thanks. Thank you. Anything else? No. All right, then. Thank you very much. Yeah, appreciate your time. Thank you. And I really appreciate you guys time. I appreciate you staying late and hearing everybody and hearing us and we really appreciate it. So, thank you for hearing everybody. Staff response and closing statement. Yeah, just uh we appreciate everybody's comments tonight. Um, and I don't believe we have any closing comments. Happy to answer any additional questions, though. Additional questions for staff.

Um, the applicant characterized it understandably like looking at our housing plan and looking at the comp plan as being a city push for increased density and housing types. Um what what's your reaction to that assertion? I mean it does fit as we've all heard it fits with those plans. Um how much of a push is it by the city to implement that in this way? I I would say that we have a a pretty extensive framework of adapted policies that include the housing plan that include the comprehensive plan that include that include the South Boulder Road small area plan that will eventually include our new comprehensive plan which you all are aware is um is currently still under works. um combined with our uh mixeduse overlay, the revitalization area plan, and then also the mixeduse design standards that all call for uh density in this area. And um and then again, I think it's important to note too, obviously, we we appreciate all the neighbors concerns, but um and not but but and we as a staff are administering policies that have been adopted um by uh your predecessors and of course elected officials here in the city that call for those levels of densities in this location and that call for that level of connectivity as well. Um, so I would say that what the applicant put forward there is is accurate based on our adopted policies and plans. And as it regards the Front Street connection, um, really it does come down to those those U-turns, the dangerous U-turns that would have to happen somewhere to allow people to go in the direction they want to go. I would I would say that the the traffic study indicates that without the Front

Street connection, there is a an undesirable condition that that occurs on South Boulder Road. Um but I would also assert that again based on those policy documents, there's very strong policy support for connection in this location. Some folks refer to it as a grid. That may not necessarily be accurate. Uh but I will say that those policy documents continuously call for connection. um whether that be to an existing neighborhood or existing trails or existing arterials, there is a there is a continuous theme of connection in our mixeduse residential districts uh that um I think finds its way into most of our adopted policies and again and and the mixeduse district guidelines. So I would say that would be the from a planning perspective that would be the uh the um again how we would administer this our adopted policies and and and provisions when an application like this comes through in this location.

Thank you.

Okay. So so the last time this came before us, one of the concerns expressed by another commissioner was emergency access and the benefit of having the front street connection for emergency access as much as anything else. Um, I guess I'm I'm a little less and one suggestion from one of the residents this evening was to have the connection but to have it restricted to literally emergency vehicle access only, not to general public access. So with with I'm less concerned from what I've seen and heard about the cut through if if again everybody has an opinion so I'll be careful. But you know conceivably if people are trying to avoid the South Boulder 42 challenge they could cut through Main Street today. Creating a cutthrough at Front Street is just yet another cut through to achieve the same aim. And I'm not asking anybody to assess how much of a cutth through activity occurs on Main Street today down to um the middle school, but I know the city has a strong recommendation here for the for the connection. What if it was emergency access only?

You know, I would I would um posit that that would um not be in line with with adopted policies for full connection. I think there's just a a recognition that a lot of folks are in their vehicles. Um if we were a more transit oriented, denser community um that was less reliant on vehicles, that may be um a valid approach. I believe I've had I've worked on approaches like that in other jurisdictions here on the front range that are more urbanized and I think that's been an appropriate solution. Uh but I but I do believe that that would not necessarily be in line with the intent of the connection policies. Obviously, it would provide that pedestrian and multimotal connection for bicycles and which is fantastic. But again, we just we have to acknowledge that um a large uh uh population of folks will will be utilizing motor vehicles for for that connectivity as well.

I I just wanted to add a little bit to that and I know we've talked about this again and again and again, but yes, having the safety access for fire, police, and all that is great. Um, but I think what we're what we're saying is that there are safety issues without the front street and then there's practicality issues of people wanting and needing to go westbound on South Boulder Road. Um, so I think it creates that need that this development would generate and there it's not all of the development, but there's a significant amount of the development that's going to want and need to go westbound on South Boulder Road. and if their only option is to go out and make U-turns for the reasons described, that's going to create a dangerous traffic situation. So, um, so those are the reasons just to reiterate them one more time. It's not just became the policies exist for a reason as well, trying to create that connectivity. Um, you know, I would reiterate too that a lot of these policies were created on this side of the railroad tracks in order to facilitate transit oriented development in support of a future commuter rail station and and so the commuter rail station plans are uh have ramped up and we're working with the state and C do DOT and RTD to have a rail station by 2029. There's a lot of momentum. there's funding identified. So, this development is also in support of the rail station. So, all the policies that we've been talking about in the Highway 42 plan, the mixeduse overlay, they're all also um important to develop a transit oriented neighborhood in and around the rail station,

right? I I guess I'm at risk of getting into deliberation mode, but um I guess there's I'm wrestling with policy versus reality of that particular area. That's the concern. So, but maybe that's for deliberation. Uh I don't want to challenge director Zakara. you know, it's it's fine and you know that the

the planning commission can have a different recommendation and certainly individually or as a group when you get to deliberation. Just to reiterate, and I think I've told all planning commissioners this before, it is okay not to agree with staff's recommendation um at any time and that's fine. We're not we're not offended. We're just trying to implement the policies and all of these interests and there's broad interests that we're trying to implement here as well as trying to balance the issues of the neighbors. And so I think hopefully we've demonstrated that there uh the applicant and staff have been trying to find solutions. Clearly they're not the solutions that have garnered clear neighborhood support, but hopefully we're demonstrating that we are trying to work towards that as well.

Sure. Yeah. No doubt. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for adding that. All right. Any additional questions? Ah, yes. Commissioner Hunt, please. Don't forget me. I've been here so long. Um, and I want to just apologize. I think you mentioned this earlier, but it's been a long night and I just want to make sure I understand. Um, I thought you mentioned there's in the works in addition to the transit oriented redevelopment happening along that area. There's is there also plans in the works to be fixing the Highway 42 South Border Road area, the road there? Is that part of the plan? not part of this

it's not part of this plan but the city's um been um you know and the city engineer folks can talk more about it but we are we've uh adopted the highway 42 vision plan I forget the exact name so we've and then we're going into design right now um that would actually improve those intersections and improve capacity on Highway 42 um again that could happen in five years, maybe 10 years, we don't know. But there is a significant amount of money and effort and planning um with C DOT and others, city of Lafayette to make those improvements on Highway 42.

Thank you. And I I'll just add um Director Zakaro um hit that on the on the head there. Um you know, we had the discussion previously, but uh funding is currently not available, but we're going through a process right now with Dr. COG to kind of get in a master plan for funding for future dollars for that. Again, everything's kind of unknown here, but the, you know, thought with that is to improve improve intersections, improve multimodal connections for vehicles, pedestrians all along the 42 uh corridor, which includes this South Boulder Road and and Highway 42 intersection.

And actually, from a state perspective, that's been simmering on the back burner for over 10 years, at least at this point. So, um, yeah, ongoing. Thank you. Any additional questions? Seeing none, 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? I'll start if you want me to. That that'd be great. Thanks.

Get out of the way. Um I I really appreciate the the passion and the the hard work that everybody's put into this and including the neighbors and coming and giving their comments. Um I mean obviously this is raising a lot of valid concerns and I I I totally understand and appreciate again all the involvement. I think my what I'm concerned about is is um it sounds to me like this connection is necessary. The city has determined it is necessary. Um and that as Commissioner Molen uh asked earlier and got an answer that even under the current zoning the entitlements here that's going to be necessary. So, if we reject this, what we're basically saying is that there's no there's no way to develop this property. And I don't think that that is consistent with all the plans, the comprehensive plan, the housing plan, all of the the plans that we have that the city has for this area. And so, you know, I am sensitive to these concerns. I this is not the last time. I think I hope um we will see sort of the plans and how they develop. Um there will be more reviews to do, but I just don't see given the the the way it complies with all of these plans and complies with the zoning and the intent of our plan of our remaining documents. I just don't see a a way to um to reject this at this point without basically telling the owner of this property you can't develop it. Thank you. Yes.

Yeah. Uh boy, I appreciate those comments, Commissioner Hunt, and and again, I appreciate everybody being here and and um the work that's gone into this. And I think at least for me, this is striking me as one of those situations where there's some serious trade-offs here. And um I'm I'm excited that a development that we're that we're um listening to a development that could uh kind of move the needle on some of our affordable housing goals. And I I just feel like we're not going to get, you know, that that the city is not going to get everything that it wants out of this. And I am really stuck. This is a this is a tough one. I appreciate very much the comments that we've heard tonight and I'm I'm feeling really uh that that if we approve this development that allows for that connection in Front Street, I really feel like this development is going to have a really detrimental effect on the adjacent neighborhood to the point where I'm struggling to consider approving it. And so I guess I'm I'm wondering if there, you know, if there is a solution that would allow in this particular instance and and again having to set aside some of our policy um that would allow for some development but not allow for the the traffic to go through front. I'm not I I'll just say that I'm not compelled that um and and I again I appreciate the staff recommendations, the the questions that we got, but I'm I'm hopeful that we could find some other way to uh connect this development into the into the the road system. And maybe it may be part of this too is you know we've got existing

roads that are and and signals that are not meeting you know they're failing already. And so I'm I'm also compelled by like can what's the responsibility of approving something that's that is going to contribute to some of those issues. Maybe maybe there needs to be a wait till some of these things get um you know till some of the the intersections are improved. So anyway, I'm I'm that's kind of where I'm leaning. I I'm not really I'm I'm I guess I'm deliberating but also just sharing some of my thoughts with you at this point. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Additional thoughts, deliberations.

I appreciate Commissioner Molen breaking the ice on this hard topic. Um I am persuaded by the neighbors that this is an an untenable situation to have the connection go through. So I it is I think I understand that it is possible to do the development without the connection and I would like to see that direction pursued um for future plans. Okay. Um yeah, without over over obsessing about the connection, um I think you know the rest of the resolution was also about the development itself. So in general the the waiverss requested, the drainage concerns, the setbacks, the parking, the uh reszoning for use. Um I'm personally generally comfortable with all of those at this stage in the process. Obviously there's more definition to be had. So um you know thanks to the applicant for all the work over the last year to come back at our request and conduct the traffic study and um make some of the changes to the to the application. So um I'm certainly comfortable with that. the um a lot of comments this evening as well about the viability of the development and the affordability and opinions about density. Personally, I'm comfortable with all of those. And to Commissioner Molen's comments and and other comments, you know, it meets what the challenges are for the city in terms of the comprehensive plan, the housing plan, um trying to meet the affordability initiatives. I don't think it's our place to judge whether um that there'll be too many renters who might be transient for for use of a

better word that was used earlier. Um I think we welcome renters as much as investors as much as owners. So I'm not concerned about that in terms of the mixed use. Um yeah, I think I'm leaning towards uh the the the connection. I understand policy but and I'm I'm I respect the concerns of the neighbors. I'm equally concerned if not even more concerned about the school and the impact of the school and the limitations we have in general in that area um for traffic. So I am seriously conflicted in terms of what the best outcome is here. I almost want to find a middle ground compromise which is have a connection but for emergency access only. Dare I say the elephant in the room would be there that at some point in the future someone might determine that the emergency access only designation could be changed and it could become a through street and a connected street. Um but uh yeah at this point I'm struggling with having the connection uh as part of this particular request and recommendation. Um, I would say that I'm right there with you on all of those points. The the accommodations that have been requested seem all doable for any number of reasons. I I really do like the housing mix. Uh, it's unlike anything else we do have right now in Lewisville. Um, and yet it comes down to this location and the traffic and the traffic impacts on the on the existing neighborhood. Um, it will forever change that neighborhood if it goes through as currently proposed with the connection. Um, and that's where I'm stuck. It's the same exact spot we're all stuck, I think.

So, can we make a request to amend? Yeah.

Yeah. So, I think you could make a mo So, when you adopt your resolution, you could make um in your motion, you could recommend adding to the resolution. This is what I would suggest that the front street connection um be changed to emergency access only. So that would in that would mean that we'd probably put ballards or work to put some barrier up. Um but there still be pedestrian and bike connections through there and that it be designated for emergency access only. So I think that would be your you could cra you could just state that that you're recommending approval of that resolution with that change. We could work on very specific language if you want or if you could probably come up with something. So that would be your recommendation to city council and then I think the options are um you know the application as is could go to city council or the you know that could be amended before it goes to city council and city council could be the final decision maker on that.

That feels pretty comfortable, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Commissioner Hunt, your reaction to that thought as a it would be a condition that we would add to it. That sounds reasonable to me. All right. Thank you. All right. Any additional

I think oh well so it'll be a condition and we'll let staff write the condition but that that that connection be as discussed where it provides ready pedestrian and um bicycle pathway but emergency access via and and like quite literally whatever means necessary at the expense of the developer to develop whatever these ballards are or whether they're the automatic ones you had spoke to previously or whether there's some type of a whatever a city would want. All right. So, that would be our condition. We can we can just add that now. And so, that would bring it up to five conditions for our roll call vote, please.

We need a motion. A motion. Yes. Let's start with that motion. It is getting late. I've been off last few months. I missed that little detail. Yes. A motion, please. I would move, but I might need to read the resolution. Yes. Um, let's see. Boy, I don't know if this is going to have enough, but let's try it. Um, I would move approval of resolution 15 series 2025 with a recommendation to city council for reszoning subdivision and planned unit development request for the 10.7 acre vacant property located near the southwest corner of South Boulder Road and um, Highway 42 with the

five conditions. Yes, four conditions in the packet and the one that we just added um, just now. So, five total. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. And a roll call vote, please. Okay. Um, chair brown eyes. Oh, I usually get to go last. Yes. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I do that? Fine. Yes. Okay. Vice Chair Basket. Yes. Commissioner Banks. Yes. Commissioner Hunt. Yes. Uh, and Commissioner Molen. Yes.

Thank you. The motion carries. look forward to some sort of amendable resolution. Um, we do have a few other details we have to take care of. So, if you want to discuss, please do take it uh outside. Otherwise, you are always welcome to listen. I would now entertain a motion to move uh the discussion of the Lewisville Center for the Arts sign to next November's meeting. Is that when we want it? If we could continue it to a date certain November 13th hearing, I'd recommend. Yeah, we may be proposing a special meeting with all the case log, but for now, November 13th is set, so that's a good choice. Okay, thank you. Uh motion. So moved. If I can second.

Second. We have a second. Yes. Second. Uh why don't we do a roll call just to make sure it's all clear that everybody understands? Um should I should I put you back? That's fine. Yes. I'm going to vote yes on that one. Okay. Vice Chair Basket. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Banks. Yes. Commissioner Hunt. Yes. And Commissioner Molen? Yes. Thank you. That motion carries. Do we have any additional planning commission comments? This is a tough one. Appreciate everybody's Yeah. And thought Yep. into it.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry all that I wasn't there in person. I'm in the middle of like a eight day trial and I just could not leave my house. Understood. Good luck with that. Yes. Thank you. And and I think we all would say and we already did. But thanks very much staff for, you know, working on this and and uh yeah, this was a tough one. Yeah, that thank you all. Uh funny how it works out sometimes. Uh staff comments. No additional comments. No, you got open mic.

There's a lot on the agenda coming up. Uh so like I said, we may propose a special meeting. Um and then a reminder on October 28th, I think most of you committed to the joint discussion with city council regarding development review process improvement. So a reminder on that. Yes. Y thank you. Appreciate that. All right then. Um motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you.