Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Never.

Okay. Good evening and welcome to the December 11th, 2025 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting with a roll call, please. Uh, recording. Oh, right. Yep. Thank you. Recording in progress. Chair Brown Eyes here. Vice Chair Basket here. Secretary Choy here. Commissioner Bangs here. Commissioner Mahaley here. Commissioner Hunt here. And no. Commissioner Molen. Right. Uh expected very soon. Yes. Thank you. Could I have a motion to approve this evening's agenda? So moved. Second. You all in favor?

I. Motion carries. Do we have anybody who wants to make public comment for items that are not on this evening's agenda? Seeing none, um, I'm tempted to actually just pause again. Who's going to be presenting on this? The first item of business is well the the first item is is Oh, okay. You want to Yeah. Well, we can address that. Doesn't require any discussion. All right.

So, I mean the basically the first item is that the applicant withdrew it. So, there's no that's not moving forward for planning commission at least. All right. Um, and there are staff I think in yeah in the audience if there are any questions about that and Emily can answer any questions but my understanding is they're going to meet the underlying sign code for the art center sign and not require any planning commission approval at this time. Okay. All right. Chair just to bring note didn't uh address the midance the minutes from the November meeting.

All right. Yes. Thank you. Uh, how about a motion to Well, first, does anybody have any corrections for the November 13th minutes? Seeing none, a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Uh, I need to abstain just because I Yes. recuse myself. All right. Abstension. Thank you. All right, then. Not really. Generally frowned upon, but

you could vote to change the order of the agenda certainly in the beginning of the meeting, but I don't know that you want to do that. At this point, no. No, not at this point. Yeah. Um,

oh, something like Yeah. Right. Yeah. Just to let people know, we're expecting Commissioner Molen is going to be joining us any minute. We'd like to have him here for all of these issues. So, uh, could take a recess. Yeah. Two minute recess. Thank you. Okay. We don't need a motion. That's good. We'll just break right now then.

All right. Thank you. Certainly. We'll rec recording in progress.

All right. Reconvening the meeting here with our second item of business, nonfunctional turf zoning code amendment. I will now open the public hearing on request for an amendment to the Lewisville MU m Municipal Code. 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. After this presentation, members of the public who have joined the meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star9 if calling by telephone. Please your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present 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 and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff in this case the same will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, deny, table, or continue to a specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented. After stating your full name and city of residence, does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing no objections, do we have notification?

Yes. All public notice has been met. Thank you. Do any uh planning commission members have disclosures regarding this item? Seeing none, enjoy.

Good evening, commissioners. This is Emily Klein Gibson, planner 2 with the staff presentation. This application is for resolution 19 series 2025 recommending approval to city council of an ordinance amending title 17 and the development design standards to prohibit non-functional turf, artificial turf, and invasive plant species for certain new developments and redevelopments. The proposal tonight is in response to Colorado Senate Bill 24-5 and House Bill 25-113 that relate to the prohibition of non-functional turf, non-functional artificial turf and invasive plant species for new non-residential development and redevelopment as well as new multif family residential development with 12 or more dwelling units. The proposal includes amendments to the commercial development design standards and guidelines. the industrial development design standards and guidelines, the mixed use development design standards and guidelines, as well as a minor amendment to the sign code and a new section in the zoning title 17 uh of the municipal code. To provide a little background, Senate Bill 24-5 prohibits the installation of non-functional turf, artificial turf, and invasive plant species starting January 1st, 2026. This prohibition applies to new commercial, institutional and industrial properties, new common area properties maintained by HOAs, street rights of way medians and transportation corridors, and redevelopment projects when over 50% of the existing landscape area will be disturbed. The bill allows turf to be planted in areas of functional recreation such as athletic fields and playgrounds as well as for storm water purposes. The bill also allows for continued maintenance of existing non-functional turf, artificial turf, and invasive plant species that were planted prior to

January 1st, 2026, and allows for the planting of native or hybridized grass species. This slide just provides a little bit of an image behind the terms non-functional turf and functional turf. Um, if both of these grass species, I guess assuming both of these grass species in both photos are non-native and non-hybridized species, then the image to the left, which shows a grass lawn planted up against a road uh that serves no purpose other than for ornamental landscaping, would be considered non-functional turf. The image to the right, which is grass that's planted in the city park near a picnic and a play area, serves a recreational purpose and would be considered functional turf. Since the grass in the left image has already been planted, it is allowed to be maintained um under this new update as long as no site redevelopment occurs that would disturb over 50% of that area. House Bill 25-113 was adopted a little over a year after the Senate bill and further expands on the Senate bill by extending the same turf prohibitions to new multif family developments that consist of 12 or more units. The House bill also clarifies that artificial turf can also be used uh for recreational purposes and establishes the same enforcement deadline of January 1st, 2026. The bill also requires local governments to adopt regulations that address the installation of turf in all new residential developments by January 1st, 2028. However, this section of the bill is not included in tonight's proposal, and staff anticipates addressing this in the future, possibly during the development code update, which will begin in 2026. Both bills impact the adopted development design standards which in which all include a landscape design chapter in them that outline landscaping

requirements for site developments and include references to turf, sod, lawn, and grass. Outside of the design standards, there's no other location in title 17 of the municipal code that references landscaping or water efficiency standards. The sign code also references turf as an allowable plant material at the base of freestanding signs. And this is the only section of the sign code that's affected by the bills. The proposal tonight includes amending the three design standards, the mixeduse, commercial, and industrial to remove language like turf, sod, lawn, and grass. and replaced the terms with language that clearly states only grass that's native to Colorado or hybridized for aid conditions may be used for landscaping purposes. The proposed amendment does not fundamentally change the landscaping requirements on development sites. Um but it's rather intended to just clean up the language to align with the state bills and provide clearer instruction for implementation. The table below on the screen uh provides the exact page numbers in each design standard that show those proposed changes as strike through or underlined. And the screenshot to the right is an example of what that language might look like in the design standards in that attached ordinance. And it's comparable, this level of change is comparable to what you would find in all three design standards um for all the proposed changes. Also proposed is a new section 1716370 in title 17 of the municipal code. This proposed section references the state definition of turf, which is grass that is not native or hybridized for aid conditions, and outlines where turf and artificial turf may be planted, as well as which types of new developments and redevelopments this would apply to. An amendment to remove the term turf from the sign code is also proposed. Staff has analyzed the state bills against all adopted design standards in title 17 and finds that the proposed

amendments align with the requirements of the state bill 24-5 and the selected sections of house bill 25-113. The proposed new code sections provide a central location outside of the design standards where the requirements of the both both the state bills are laid out which will provide clarity for both the applicants and staff in administration of these new requirements and standards. Staff also find the proposed text amendments to the design standards and sign code act as complimentary updates to the new section in the mun municipal code by removing the term turf which is now specifically defined as non-native non-hybridized grass species and replacing them with language that specifies which types of grasses would be permitted for landscaping purposes. Proposal also is supported by Lewisville's sustainability action plan and drought management plan. So with all of this, staff recommend approval of resolution 19 series 2025. This concludes the staff presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Great presentation. Questions? I have a clarifying question that I just don't understand. So, um, Senate Bill 2405 says the purpose is to conserve Colorado's water resources and it also includes prohibiting artificial turf. Yes. So, Senate Bill 24005 initially prohibited artificial turf. It was the House Bill 25113 that later amended that and allowed artificial turf for recreational purposes.

A and in the proposed changes to the the Lewisville codes, we don't want to allow artificial turf. Artificial turf uh would have the same allowances in the proposed new section as um functional turf. So for recreational purposes, that's that's what we're proposing. Is there a reason why artificial turf is also prohibited in nonfunctional areas? Uh it's I believe it also consumes water. That's um the main reason behind the staple. I know it's also made of plastics just from an environmental standpoint. That may make it a little less favorable.

Okay. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. I think there's a lot of rinsing that has to go on that artificial turf. Washing uh in certain areas, huh? Um can you bounce back to the slide that had the proposed LMC language on it? Um

sure. And also for the definition of the hybridized grass species, is there like a performance level on that? Right. I mean, um, all there are currently available Kentucky bluegrass that's hybridized that we wouldn't want to be allowing uh that that's hybridized to reduce water consumption. Um, but

yeah. Um so the language follows the state bills um which really just allow grasses that have been hybridized for aid conditions. I think in implementation we would refer to landscape architects that may know the exact species. Um Colorado state might also have a list of specific hybridized grasses that are allowable.

Yeah. I mean, I think at some point we're going to have to get that right so that you all can interpret that in in a way that would be consistent with that. Um, I think part of the issue there too may be that uh I mean our goal is to reduce water. So maybe the language should say something about species that don't require additional irrigation. Okay.

I don't know. Uh I'm not sure what where what the state language is at or how we've kind of arrived at the point we have with the language that we do have, but uh if that's the goal, then maybe we need to just cut to the chase. I don't know. Um or where they're headed with that, but um oh, so here uh that one actually. Yeah. So landscaping areas shall not consist of more than 25%. So native grasses, we've scratched out turf there. Where do where do these hybridized grasses fit into this language?

Yeah, I I staff could definitely include um native native or hybridized grasses. This was really just a very minor elimination of the term turf and then using the existing language that was there. More than happy to include native into that language. May be easier to enforce or hybridize. Yes. Okay. So, all right. Sorry, I just had one more question and I don't want to belabor this too much, but the single family residential element of the House bill is not included in the proposed amendment that would that correct requires that element for January 1st, 2028. Correct. But it's intended to be included in the code rewrite next year.

Um potentially. Yeah. So that's I think staff just wanted a little additional time since that's would have a bigger impact and wider you know area um we have a little bit of extra time because of the implementation dates not till 2028. So um staff was thinking as we're updating our uh municipal code that would be a good time to incorporate that. Okay. and the other elements related to the non-s single family are included because the effective date is January 1st 26. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Banks.

Yeah. Can I So to on the single family residential, so potentially from January 128, if somebody builds, it's not a development of multiple single family homes, it's an individual single family home could be prohibited from artificial turf. Um so the language in the house bill is allows local municipalities how basically how much restriction they want to put on single family houses. So it's not a complete prohibition of artificial turf or non-functional turf. Um but it it could be it's really just what the mun local municipalities want to do. the overall purpose is just to reduce water demands and the house really lets local jurisdictions kind of have control of that.

Okay, that's good to know. Um, one other question. You had a picture of sweet cow and lucky pie. So, they can keep their artificial turf because it's pre-existing. They could or they could if it if it didn't exist today and they wanted to put that in as long as it's considered recreational that would be okay. Yes, both. Yes, since it's existing it may remain and be maintained. If they wanted to install it after January 1st, 2026, uh it's a picnic area, it's a eating area, it's serves a civic purpose, it would be permitted.

Okay. Thanks. Similar on that line of questioning though, so the pictures you showed of the landscaping functional versus non-functional, what how comfortable are you with those definitions and their interpretation moving forward? Those definitions are pulled straight from the Senate bill and the House bill. Um, and they further define, you know, exactly what is nonfunctional turf and what is functional turf. Did you have Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm curious like so what if they bumped that out and put a picnic table on the left side?

I think that would come to staff's review and maybe a little bit more analysis on whether that would qualify. Okay. But but you're comfortable with it. Yes. So also I mean they also if this turf on the left image was made of a native species or hybridized then it would be permitted just as it is now. It's really only if someone wanted to come in and use a specific non-native species and they you know didn't want any other option that that might be a problem.

Great. Thanks. Any additional questions? Commissioner Molen, wave your hand if you want uh if you have any questions. Seeing none. Okay. All right. No additional questions. We'll now open it up for public comment. Anybody in the room want to talk on this one? No. And if I see two participants online and I don't see any hands raised there. Seeing no participants for public comment. Um, did you have a closing statement? No. Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and 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 can um I mean it seems pretty straightforward. So, let's just work our way down then. Yeah. So, so, so no concerns from me, although I think it will potentially potentially contentious with regards to single family homes. That'll be an interesting discussion. Y otherwise I'm I'm all in. Makes sense. Great. Thanks. I'm in support of it and I appreciate the additional perspectives on the artificial turf as well. Those impacts. Thank you, Commissioner Mullen. I'll put you in the on deck circle. Commissioner Basket, I'm in support of this. It's long overdue.

Thank you, Commissioner Molen. I I share share the views of the previous commissioners. Yeah, I'm I'm glad to see the state moving to something like this and and I'm thankful that our staff has crafted a um a a way that our uh so that our code is compliant. So, I'm going to be in support. Thank you, Commissioner Mahaley.

I'm also in support. I think it's fairly straightforward. I I resonated with your comment about, you know, definitions of native and hybridized. I think for enforcement, I' I'd encourage staff to think about that. I don't know enough about native grasses and we we throw that term around a lot. So, if there's like a a centralized list that's obvious that we can all point to and like, oh yeah, that was this this is native to this little corner of Colorado. It counts. I'm not sure what's native and what's not. So, I I agree with your comment of, you know, we should probably have a list we can point to to make it easy to enforce and easy for people to understand what they can and can't install, but aside from that detail of implementation, I'm in support of this. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Hunt.

The benefit of going last, I am also in support of this and have nothing additional to add that seems reasonable and necessary to comply with state law.

Great. Um, I'm also very much in support of this. It really has been a long time in the coming. There was a point at which we actually had requirements for non-native turf and we still see examples of that in relative recent developments. So, uh I'm excited to see your embrace of this and bringing it to reality here. Thank you very much. With that, I will um call for a motion. Chair, I make a motion um to approve uh resolution 19 series 2025 recommending approval of the ordinance amending city council of the city's development uh design standards and title 17 uh in accordance with Senate Bill 2405 and House Bill 251113.

Thank you. A second. Second. Thank you. A roll call vote, please. Chair Brise, yes. Vice Chair Basket. Yes. Secretary Choy, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Maley, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. And Commissioner Molen, yes.

Thank you. All right. Motion carries. Thank you very much for your work on this. Um, all right. Moving into our second item of business this evening, Red Tail Ridge Kico Phillips General Development Plan Amendment. Uh I will now open the public hearing on a request for an amendment to the uh Canonical Phillips GDP. Um 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 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. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star 9. If calling in by telephone, please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull those 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 specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to

the procedure I have described? Seeing no objections, do we have proper notification? Yes, notice was satisfied. Uh, postcards were mailed within 750 ft of the affected parcels. The site was posted. Newspaper was posted. Agenda postings um around town as well. So, postings were satisfied. Do any planning commission members have any disclosures? Seeing none.

Okay. All right. Good evening, commissioners. Matt Post, senior planner, community development team. The item before you tonight is consideration of resolution number 20 series 2025 recommending to the city council approval with conditions of the Konico Phillips campus general development plan second amendment to allow the application of enhanced industrial development design standards and guidelines. uh this specific the summary of this proposal. The applicant is requesting um approval of the second amendment to the Kono Phillips campus GDP to allow for the application of industrial development design standards and guidelines in place of the currently applicable commercial development design standards and guidelines. Those the CDDSG have uh applied to the Kico Phillips campus um its original adoption in 2010. Uh part of this proposal would also include enhanced architectural standards to create a hybrid commercial industrial design on the affected uh parcel specifically for buildings uh whose uh primary facads face streets, private streets and public rights of way. Uh the site I think most folks are aware is more commonly referred to as the Red Tale Ridge or Red Tale Ridge development area. It's currently zoned planned community commercial and is subject to the Konico Phillips campus general development plan first amendment. That first amendment was approved uh by both the planning commission and the city council back in September and specifically affected the Porter Adventist hospital parcel that is on the east side of the site which granted additional height allowances for that particular parcel. If you all recall, uh the area that would be affected by the second amendment of this GDP is generally central to the overall Red Tail Ridge development area and totals 111 acres in size. It's made up of four

separate parcels and it is depicted in the exhibit on your screen with the parcels highlighted in red. It's important to note that those would be the only parcels where this request for amendment would apply. The blue parcels that are on the perimeter of the site would still be subject to the commercial development design standards. All the parcels that you see in green are parcels that have been dedicated as open space to the city and or or are functioning as drainage and detention areas for uh sitewide development. Uh long long history on this site. Um, I think we'll start with one of the more recent happenings again, which is the 2010 approval of the original GDP for the Konico Phillips campus. That included a zoning agreement, a preliminary plat and preliminary PUD approval. Uh that original approval granted 2.5 million square feet of development area, set a development cap, included a 12% minim minimum public land dedication, then also importantly established the requirement that the CDDSG apply to these parcels. Again, the underlying zoning is planned community zone, district, commercial. So that was the the standard application. uh more recent happenings here. Um in 2024, the final plat was approved which established the parcels that are under consideration for amendment as part of the second GDP. And then earlier this year, of course, that first amendment was was approved that affected the hospital parcel. Um, and then most recently in October of 2025, the applicant presented a concept plan application to the city council requesting consideration and non-binding feedback um uh to apply the industrial design standards um to the development

area that's depicted on the screen. Uh the city council was generally supportive of the uh move, but they did request that uh staff and the applicant work to establish a hybrid design um that would offer the added flexibility necessary but still preserve key design elements um to ensure that it remains a unique development area uh as I think was originally intended in the original GDP. So moving into the proposal again those perimeter parcels will remain CDDSG um as will the Advent Health site where uh the um again Porter uh PorterCare Advent Hospitals has has purchased a property. Uh an important aspect of the request from the applicant is um that the um the GDP currently allows for light industrial and research uses which again are permitted and entitled as part of that KIO Phillips campus general development plan. Specifically those allowed uses are research and development, fabrication, warehousing, technical manufacturing and processing. Those uh use types are generally not aligned with commercial oriented building design. Uh that uses of that nature typically require larger building footprints, boxier style buildings, higher structural bays, more mechanical screening areas, uh loading areas and service areas that take up larger portions of the site and larger portions of the overall building or development area. um our commercial development design standards are generally not supportive of uh developments of that type um and style. In the application of the industrial design standards uh with the enhanced architectural standards staff are of the opinion that it provides that additional flexibility

needed to establish those use types that are permitted by Wright as part of the overall KIO Phillips campus general development plan. Um and would generally be um sorry guys, jump forward here a little bit. Trying to find my mouse on this. Um but again those um the the the the hybrid design would again allow for the flexibility to establish those use types that are allowed there. Uh but when in applying the enhanced design standards again I think the intent there was to establish a district that is separate from what we see in the CTC right where we have the industrial design standards that that apply outright. We we approached this uh with the intent of um establishing a a noticeably different uh district where we could apply measurable and repeatable design standards uh with in addition to the industrial design standards. Um so uh beyond just the application of the industrial development standards um which again apply sitewide uh and and include standards like overall building height, sighting, building orientation requirements, screening standards and landscaping. Again, those enhanced standards um are now tied directly to this general development plan. And they include items like transparency requirements. So more specifically um the the the standards would ensure that uh buildings present an active and pedestrianoriented frontage that faces streets both public and private which again are those standards are generally absent from our industrial design guidelines. We have specific measurable standards um examples of which include at least a 50% transparency for the areas between 2 and 10 ft above grade on the building facade that face a public or a private street. We also included additional transparency standards for the areas of a facade that

are between 12 and 30 feet above grade again that face a public street to give the overall appearance of what would be a second story. So we we implemented this. If you look at tiltup concrete, it's again reflective of those high structural interior bays. So you can you can tell that there's not two stories in it. We worked with the applicant to get that second level look of transparency that would apply uh sitewide. Um couple other key features here uh for the overall enhanced design um would be uh enhanced entry features. We felt that this was an important feature to add. Um so those enhanced entry features again uh entries are required to face a public street. Uh depending on the overall length of a building, a certain number of entry features would be required. So for example, if a building is um I'll just read from the staff report here, greater than 200 feet in length, a minimum of two primary entry features would be required. Greater than 400 feet in length, a minimum of three primary entry features. We've included a number of design standards for all entry features. First and foremost, entry features have to um occupy at least 20% of a building facade in which they are located. and they have to be a minimum of 10 ft wide. Um in addition um they need to include uh glass vestibules or or facades, metal canopies, porticos, things of that nature. They need to be proportional to the height of the overall facade. Need to include additional materials um and accent materials that vary from the overall um materials that are proposed in uh in in the building. Um and then we also included material and texture standards to introduce again required and measurable variation in the actual uh materials that are proposed on the building. So that can be achieved in with materials or different textures um or different colors and we included a

limit um that no single material or color may occupy more than 75% of an actual facade. So again, the intent here with these enhanced design standards is that they will uh be in addition to what is in the industrial design guidelines, but then they are repeatable and measurable and they reduce some of the ambiguity that's present in our actual commercial design guidelines right now and then also in our industrial standards. And so here are some examples of the renderings that are proposed. You'll see this on PUB1 which is coming up after this. But this these are examples of those enhanced entry features where we have um recessed entryways. We have uh glass storefront systems that um present a first floor appeal and then a second floor appeal as well. You can see there's a projection. There's a variation in materials and colors. Um there's enhanced corner features as well. I neglected to mention that we did include enhanced corner feature requirements on the buildings. um depending on the way the building is oriented when it's facing a public street. Uh so you can see uh this is this is an example of elevations provided by the applicant that would satisfy the enhanced industrial standards that would be part of this second amendment. Uh moving into the analysis I think as the planning commissioner are aware there are no specific review criteria for general development plans in the planned community zone districts. Uh so they will follow the same process by which they were originally approved. Um there are purpose statements however for the planned community um districts and uh GDPs are intended to encourage preserve and improve the health, safety and welfare of the community through contemporary land planning principles and coordinated community design and more importantly recognize the economic and cultural advantages of an integrated planned community development to provide for various uh uh land use types um including retail service activities,

recreation, school offices and or other land uses. uh staffer of the opinion that this general development plan amendment allows for the appropriate um economic use of the site based on the land uses permitted under the general development plan which would again align with those light industrial use types. Uh considering this amendment, staff took into account the fact that the 2010 GDP again allows those light industrial uses, the research um research and development processing and with the enhanced building requirements and more appropriate design framework um uh was was was established with the enhanced standards that would allow for those use types. staff also find that the enhanced standards um uh that uh working with the applicant uh to enhance those standards um we were able to work to elevate what would be the overall architectural quality um as opposed to just straight application of the IDSG again that was um uh also uh proposed by the city council again that hybrid standard approach. Um the other consideration here is that the amendment applies only only to the centrallylo parcels within the overall Red Tale Ridge development. Um, so although there will be new local rights of way constructed, Rock Crest Drive, Surell Avenue inside Redail Ridge, the primary arterial roadways that surround the development which include 96th, the yet to be completed campus drive, highway 36, all visibility from those arterial roadways um will uh be subject to those commercial development design standards as well. Um also in considering we have some pretty significant open space buffer on the northwest side of that site. Uh so staff find uh that this general development plan maintains compatibility with future surrounding development based on the centrally located nature of where they are um and that the enhanced design standards

aligned with the intent and applicability of the community's own district and the overall general development plan requirements. And so with that, staff recommend approval of resolution 20 series 2025, which recommends to the city council approval of the Conle Phillips campus general development plan, second amendment. Um, on the condition that the applicant address all administrative, technical, and formatting staff comments contained in the attached KICO Phillips GDP second amendment and that all such revisions be addressed prior to any city council hearing on the application. And so with that, uh, the applicant is here. Um, I don't believe they have a presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions in the interim.

Thanks. I'll open it up for commissioner questions. Commissioner, um, just curious about the the height difference between the industrial standards and the commercial standards. I was thinking about these being interior. Are they going to be higher or are they kind of comparable to the commercial buildings that will be on the edge? Uh well, if if we're consider I think the first thing is to to call out is the hospital parcel which is pretty significant, right? We we permitted a height increase there of over 100 feet.

Um but from commercial design standards, I think maximum commercial height is 40 feet if I'm not mistaken. I'd have to look in there, but I'm relatively certain it's 40 to 42 feet. In the industrial district, it's actually 40 feet with a max height of 50 feet with a mechanical screen. So the industrial standards take into account use types and allow for a 50ft maximum height for mechanical screens. So we'll measure that 40 foot height limitation from average grade to the top of a parapet um in those in those tiltup scenarios. So from a height perspective relatively in line with um what would be required of the commercial design standards. I will expand on that just a little bit if that's okay. Part of the requirement of our commercial standards requests varied building forms or roof forms rather right? So a square box like uh structure wouldn't necessarily meet our commercial design standards. So from a from just an overall massing perspective, I think there would there would be a bit of a difference. We would probably look to see um some variation in roof form and the commercial standards to whereas that's not required as part of our industrial standards.

But just as far as the overall like you're not going to have these giant buildings sticking up in the middle, right? That's correct. Comparable at least. Yeah, I would say I would say they'd be comparable. Yeah. Not they're not asking for these standards don't have any aren't asking for any height changes in the No. Yeah. So we would apply the the way the GDP reads right now is the um the the IDSG would apply um in lie of anything else that's specifically on the GDP and so the height of of the industrial district would apply. I have a quick question. Yes. Go ahead. So just trying to understand the process. This IDSG as it stands applies to this GDP only.

Um well as it as the amendment is proposed it would apply only to the affected internal parcels those one that 111 acres interior. Yes. So where I'm going with that so you're proposing an enhanced IDSG. That correct? Could that be applicable elsewhere once we were we to approve it here? Yeah. It it would not be it would only apply and so the so so the GDP will be very explicit on the area in which that applies. will actually have a legal description. So lots one, two, three, and five of block one would be the only the only properties where this would apply. Okay. Thanks. Yeah.

Couple of questions. Thanks for the presentation. There's a lot in there. Um I know that this property and the GDP have gone through a lot of scrutiny over the last 15 years. Um, and we just approved the first amendment to the GDP recently. H, if you were to make a guess, how many amendments in total might we expect to see on this GDP by the time we're done with this development? I would defer that question to the applicant if Okay, that's if that's appropriate.

Okay. Um, second question, the fenistration ratio that's required for the transparency. Um there are a couple of elements within the package that reference it. Um and I just want to clarify. You say 50% for the first 2 to 10 ft above grade and then 18% 12 to 30 ft. Are those exact numbers or minimums? Because it's kind of conflicting in what the package says. Yeah. If there if there is any if there is any ambiguity there, the intent there was for those to be minimums. Okay. Okay. So we can so if you feel there's any ambiguity I think it's appropriate to address it and indicate that they would be minimum requirements. Yeah. If it is approved I think that we need to make that clarification.

Great. Thank those are my questions. Great point. Thank you very much. Commissioner Basket.

I think a couple of times in your presentation you use the expression hybrid. Can you expand on that? Yeah, I would say that that is probably a hold over from our city council hearing where we were trying to come up with terminology for what we were intending to do. And so we um settled on hybrid industrial approach, right? Where you know in a typical tiltup uh product uh which is uh you know typical of industrial development, you wouldn't see the fenestration um uh designs on there. You wouldn't see the articulation, you wouldn't see the additional materials. And so what what I was saying by hybrid is that it's an industrial use. It's a tiltup building, but we're we're we're applying those enhanced standards and I guess what we would call a hybrid form where we're looking at some of the commercial features that um uh that that really highlight like pedestrian scale development specifically that 2 to 10 foot piece. So when I say hybrid, I was pulling some examples from our commercial district. I was pulling some examples from other use mixed use districts where I've you know worked where we can achieve measurable standards and so that would be the long answer as to why I use the term hybrid is in there. Yeah. So yeah

and just to confirm I think it was in the pack but um walkability and bikeability is not impacted by the hybridization. It's it's not. So the industrial design standards, our industrial design standards actually have relatively strong circulation requirements. I would say if you look at some of the uh some some of the sites that are developed in CTC right now under straight IDSG, there's some there's some pretty significant some of the newer ones. I would say there's some pretty significant walkway requirements from a circulatory perspective. Um so I would say no, they're they're not impacted in this in this particular scenario.

Great. Thanks for clar confirming that. Any additional questions? Seeing none at this time, uh, we can invite the applicant up. Do we have questions? If you can introduce yourself and your commissioners,

I um, Marshall Wheel, director of development for Sterling Bay, overseeing the Red Tail Ridge Project. And uh, no, just to Adam, Matt did a great job walking through uh, everything we've been through on this. Um, you know, I guess just from our perspective, very designforward group. Um, we are not trying to come in here and put up a bunch of um, FedEx type warehouses, just blank concrete walls, right? Tilt up tiltup construction. That was not the intent of this in a very design forward um, delivery. and you know hearing what city council was concerned with of any future developments, future developer we were to ever sell off a parcel, anything like that, they'd want these hybrid design standards to stick. I think the biggest the biggest point that we've been going back and forth on is that there the current GDP under the CD CDDSG allows for industrial warehouse storage type units and these uses their allowed uses on site and these uses just don't align with with that commercial design guideline standard really well. Um and it's just not going to you know makes it unfeasible to answer your question. Um, this is the only one we were we were going after in terms of an amendment. The reason being is that center zone. We wanted to keep these industrial buildings down in that center center valley of the site. Really, when if you were out on site, there's mounds along um 88th. You're never going to see into this. There's going to be buildings along the 36 corridor and, you know, the hillside goes up, you're never going to be able to see in towards these buildings. Um, and then once the hospital's up, you're never going to see it along Northwest Parkway as well. So, that was the intent. Great. Thank you. Questions for the applicant. Seeing none, thank you very much.

Um, I'm now putting it up for public comment. I don't I see we have two participants online but if you want to participate please use raise your hand function. Okay seeing no public comment um do either of you have a closing statement Mr. Post closing statement. Okay. Thank you. I will now close the public hearing and the planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to chime in?

Yeah, maybe we can start. Am we down here on this end this time? Yeah. Um I I'll just say I'm going to be supporting this. Um seems like it's been well thought out. It's consistent with city council's direction to find a way to incorporate these industrial uses and I appreciate the thoughtful approach to trying to make it what may be the most attractive industrial park um around. So, um I will be supporting this. Yep. Also in support uh I I think for for an industrial park it is quite nice. Um I think a lot of thoughts been put into it. Um, I think this one's fairly straightforward. I'm in support. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Basket.

I'm also in support. This seems like a practical approach to the buildings and the type of use. Thank you, Commissioner Molen. I'm also going to be in support and and uh building on what people have said already. Um I'm I'm wondering if maybe we're seeing the beginning of the concept plan uh process sort of working here and giving a giving the the the council being able to give some direction to our staff and an applicant to kind of work through an issue. So, um I'm encouraged by that.

Thank you, Commissioner Choy. Thanks. I uh applaud the attempt to de-industrialize the industrial area by creating that hybrid approach. So, I think it's a good idea. Um I appreciate the applicants acknowledgement of not trying to rewrite the dictionary a word at a time um by you know not not continuing to feed through amendments. Um I think it's a good use. I appreciate the activation of some of the, you know, non-traditional elements like the the building corners for entryways. So, I think that's a great nod to moving that forward. Um, I'm in support with uh a clarification in the language to clarify that the fenistration ratios on the first and second level areas in air quotes um are minimum.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Bangs. Yeah, nothing to add. I'll be in support. Thanks. Great. Thank you. I'm also in support of it at this time. Um, I do think it does strike a nice balance and I'm happy that we were able to work with the applicant on massaging something that some might dismiss as kind of an architectural detailing issue that maybe we shouldn't be meddling in, but uh, nice to have you all on board to be able to do that with. So, um, as far as the minimum goes, you got that. Do we we don't need that as a condition? Legal staff will take care of that. Absolutely. That's that's an uh easy fix can be part of the overall conditional package. Yep.

Great. Thanks. And you're comfortable with that. Is that Yeah. All right. Great. Thank you. Um, all right. Uh, call for a motion, please, chair. I will move uh make a motion to approve resolution 20 series 2025 recommending to city council approval with conditions of the Kuk Phillips campus GDP second amendment and a second second. Thank you. And a roll call vote, please. Chair Bronnise, yes. Vice Chair Basket, Secretary Choy, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Maley, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Molen, yes.

Thank you. The motion carries. Uh we'll now take 5m minute break reconvening at 7:36.

Hey Jeffer, should we wait? Are we waiting on Matt to Yes. Okay, sounds good. There we go. Hello. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. nose off. Recording in progress.

Okay, welcome everybody back. I will now open the public hearing on the request for PUD number one for the Red Tail Ridge Planned Unit development. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. Procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there will be presentation 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. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star 9 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 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 specific future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and whether you are a resident of Lewisville or not. Does anyone particip participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing no objections, do we have notification?

Similar notice to previous case. Uh, postcards mailed, site was signed, um, notification of daily camera agenda postings around town. Yes. Thank you. Do any planning commission members have any disclosures? Seeing none, Mr. Post.

Hey, good evening again, commissioners. Matt Post, senior planner on the community development team. The item before you tonight is a request for approval of resolution number 21, series 2025, recommending to the city council approval with conditions of the Red Tail Ridge Planned Unit development number one south to allow 236,993 square ft of industrial development and associated uh site development at Redail Ridge lot one block one filing one I believe. Um uh so the applicant Sterling Bay is requesting approval of the first PUD at Red Tail Ridge. They are uh titling this PUD PUD number one south. Uh the affected area is in the exhibit on your screen highlighted in yellow. As mentioned, the proposal would include two light industrial buildings totaling 236,933 square feet and that is on lot one, block one of Red Tail Ridge filing number one. No address has been assigned to this particular parcel yet. Um the overall property size is 21.6 acres. Uh so this is one lot in that overall uh uh newly um applied industrial enhanced design standard area that we discussed in the previous case here. And so this is the same exhibit that's on the screen that was presented in the last case. This shows where the enhanced industrial standards will apply. Um of course the zoning did not change with the GDP amendment. Um and this is still subject uh to the GDP. Of course, it hasn't formally been adopted, but with your recommendation of approval, staff did perform this review under the assumption that uh consideration would be given for the IDSG and enhanced standards. So, um again, the review was performed under

the IDSG and the enhanced standards that were considered uh previously. You saw the uh history here. Again, of course, the important item on this one is the 2024 final plat which established the overall lots uh for development and the existing GDP. The second amendment will now apply. So, this planned unit development will allow for two buildings on the site. Building B, which is the eastern most of both buildings, is proposed at 142,658 square feet in size, 39 feet 6 in tall, which is under the 40ft maximum prescribed by the industrial design standards. Building A is on the west side of the site and is proposed at 94,335 square ft. That building is proposed with an average grade measurement of 38T 6 in tall. Those measurements are taken from average grade to the tallest point of the highest parapet on the structure. Uh in addition to those two buildings, the site includes parking for 555 vehicles uh between the two buildings and a total of 40 bicycle parking spaces, 20 at each building. It's important to note that there is no maximum parking requirement that exists in our municipal code, in our commercial design standards, or in our industrial design standards. uh minimum parking requirement, I'll cover that a bit later bit later, is somewhere just below 300. Um so I'll let the applicant expand on um on the number of parking spaces that are that are proposed here. A total of 34 electric vehicle charging stations will be provided between the two buildings along with 36 EV ready spaces, 45 EV capable spaces, and 45 EV capable light spaces. The latter three of those types are all to support future EV charging. in addition to the 34 EV chargers that are proposed on site. That

standard is in line with the recently adopted Colorado model EV code and then also uh satisfies um this PUD's requirement to achieve fit well certification over the over overall campus and we'll cover that a bit in later slides as well. Uh the site will include a relatively large portion of open space on the west side. You can see it. Um it's bisected by on on the exhibit on the screen here. It's bisected by a path and then a pedestrian plaza space. Um although those trails are on private property. I do believe the applicant has indicated they will be publicly accessible, but I'll let them expand on that uh a little more, but they are on private property. That's not part of the overall open space dedication uh of the original final plat. Um and again the electric vehicle infrastructure satisfies our code requirements in the fit well certification piece. We'll cover that a bit later here. The development will include plaza spaces with seating uh differentiated by patterned concrete on the north and south side of both buildings. That is actually a requirement of the industrial design standards and guidelines. Internal walkways are proposed which will connect uh the parking areas to building entrances and the broader sidewalk network and then in turn the larger open space and trail system that's proposed as part of the overall Red Tail Ridge development. I'll go back to this screen here uh quickly. This um all buildings so the the west side of building A includes appropriate width sidewalks. There's uh connections through the parking lot and then there will be sidewalks proposed on Rockrest Drive which is on the south side of this particular building. Rockrest Drive is a public right of way and it's in blue. What's on the north side and in green is a private street uh which will be built and maintained by the applicant. Uh but that will also include um sidewalks as well. Three access points are taken off of that private street. Each parking lot has an access point and there's a shared

access point in the center where you can see the service bays and loading areas are away from public streets and sharing that that centralized access. Um, building B's primary facade. Building B is actually reflected on the bottom uh rendering here. Building B's f primary facade faces east and is shown again on the lower elevation here. Building A's primary facade is the upper elevation on this exhibit and faces west. Uh so again you can see this is um the the the 2D uh um architectural elevations are hard to see the detail in. These are very long buildings. Uh but you can see the transparency standard is satisfied. The applicants actually exceeding that 2 to 10 foot transparency standard that 50% that we established. I think it's somewhere in the in the realm of 60%. They're also exceeding the 18% requirement uh that we came to agreement on here as well. Um but this is a this is a good example of again that that 2D rendering of what those enhanced standards would would look like. And here are those renderings that we saw on the previous GDP amendment. again, you know, really highlighting corner entries, um, enhanced entry features that take up the entire height of the building facade, which was a a major feature of those standards, including recessed entries, um, projections, awnings, material variation, and that enhanced transparency. Uh continuing with the proposal here from a landscape perspective. Uh there are more than 3,000 lowwater shrubs, grasses, and perennials that are proposed on this 21 acre site. 317 trees of various species are also proposed within the internal landscape area within the parking lots as we have parking lot landscape standards that would apply from the IDSG which this plan satisfies.

Um and then those trees around the building perimeter as well. uh street trees and perimeter plantings are not shown on this PUD. The reason for that is because those an overall master landscape plan was originally approved with the 2024 plat and the over and the construction documents that are associated with that. Um so they're not reflected on this PUD. They will be installed as part of the overall horizontal construction package which is actually ongoing right now. So that includes an additional 40 perimeter trees around the site and an additional 300 shrubs. Um I do believe the applicant is um uh has honored our the nonfunctional turf piece here. There will be no non-functional turf in the ride ofway, but those trees will be uh required as a condition of final construction acceptance of all the overall rideway build that occurs throughout Redail Ridge. So that's on Rockrest Drive and that's also on the private street. So, uh the uh previous approvals included those full landscape plans and collateral for all of that uh those improvements as well. Um areas not planted with trees and shrubs will be landscaped with native short grass prairie seed mix and then low water buffalo grass uh to promote long-term water efficiency and then reinforce the compatibility uh with the surrounding uh open space that's provided in the overall Red Tail Ridge development. uh additional items here. So, as part of this proposal, uh the applicant is required to meet several unique commitments uh that they agreed to during the 2024 final plat uh application and the subsequent subdivision improvement agreement that accompanied that final plat. Now, the commitments that are relevant to this PUB include the requirement that all buildings in the entirety of the Red Tail Ridge development area achieve a

minimum lead silver certification. Uh that solar power generation be provided at a rate of one watt per building square foot with a minimum 2.5 megawws provided campuswide of solar power generation and that the project obtain Fitwell campus certification. Uh for those that may be listening and maybe some on council that are I'm sorry on commission that are unaware lead stands for leadership in energy and environmental design. It's nationally recognized uh rating system uh that measures house sustainability or house how how sustainable a building is designed and constructed. And then to achieve that lead silver designation a project must meet a set of required standards. uh those standards uh help them earn points across a number of different categories when it comes to overall site design andor building development. They relate to things like energy efficiency, water use, indoor air quality, uh materials used and then again overall site design. Uh the the applicant has indicated that the majority of their lead points will be addressed through the building permit stage. So p primarily their overall build out their MEP package um which is relatively common from a lead perspective. So uh we have requested that the applicant include a note on the cover sheet indicating that this development will achieve the minimum lead silver standard. Um and so just if if you're curious about how we'll enforce that from a final uh planning review perspective, we would look to ensure that that lead minimum standard is achieved. Um and we we've talked to the applicant about this prior to a CO issuance. I know they have a core and shell plan. We can talk about that a little bit more. There's a certificate of completion for core and shell. Then when a tenant actually occupies a space, it's a certificate of occupancy. So, as a condition of uh one of those final features, we'll ensure that we have that final lead scorecard that shows they've

achieved minimum silver status. Uh fit well uh the Fitwell designation here, just again so that folks are aware of what Fitwell is, it's a nationally recognized building rating system. Again, uh but it's more focused on supporting the health and wellness of the occupants of the building, the people. Um so again while lead focuses on environmental performance uh that fit well designation um evaluates how a campus promotes uh physical activity, safety and overall well-being of the people that use the campus. Uh fit well campus certification means the development incorporates features such as connected pedestrian networks, bicycle facilities, access to outdoor spaces, um appropriate building design and policies that encourage active and healthy lifestyles. And so part of that note that the applicant is including on the PUD will include a requirement that a fit well scorec card which is uh required for overall campus certification be submitted uh to verify conformance. It's important to note that that fit well certification applies campuswide. So the lead certification will apply to each individual building. The Fitwell certification is a campuswide certification process. So, in order for the applicant to achieve that, we'll need to um essentially memorialize a scorecard, a fit well scorecard at the end of every development prior to or concurrent with issuance of a certificate of of occupancy. Um the the the last one here, the solar piece. Um so that note that I'm mentioning that'll go on the PUD will also tie directly to solar requirements. Uh we're we're agreeing to allow that note because solar uh is generally a building permit process that comes well after right the building has been completed. I'll let the applicant talk about that a bit here but essentially what we'll need is at the time of CO again not corn shell completion but at the at the time of tenants occupying the

space we'll need some sort of evidence that the solar commitment has been satisfied. And so from a planning perspective when we sign off I know we've talked to you about this before. when we sign off for final CEO is we'll look at our original entitlement documents and so we'll look to ensure that the solar commitment has been achieved um on this particular property. Now what I will say is I don't the in in the SIA piece I think there's some ambiguity as to whether solar is actually required on every building. There's there's there's a minimum standard for how it's achieved. So the applicant could pursue an alternative to that. If they do that means they just have to hit the next PUDS harder with a whole lot more solar. So, um, it's kind of their choice on on how they do that, but we're giving them that flexibility by adding that note to the to the PUD. Um, I'll add a little more about the fit well score here because might might be a little bit new. So, the components that are incorporated into this PUD that contribute to the overall fit well score um include things like electric vehicle charging stations. So, there's a green vehicle component to the Fitwell certification. And again, those bicycle facilities also contribute to their fit well score. Low water landscaping and solar power generation also contribute to the fit well score. Um, and then uh the the the pedestrian network that's proposed and dark sky lighting. So there's actually a category for dark sky lighting. Uh the lighting that's proposed here is full shield cutff or full cutff lighting all at 3000 Kelvin which is of course the low uh the a low warm temperature. That would be the minimum standards for uh to meet some of the dark sky point requirements for the Fitwell campus certification and those are proposed as part of this PUD. Um yeah. So, so, so as because the applicant requested the GDP amendment, which of course you all recommended approval here uh prior, we the review was done under the IDSG and under those

enhanced standards. I can tell you that this PUD has been in review um since early 2025. Um we've got a pretty significant list of conditions here. I I wouldn't say it's significant, but we we have our we have a red line document that has some outstanding technical items on it. One of the reasons why we're bringing this forward is because um the applicant and I have been going back and forth for quite some time about the application of design standards. So the CDDSG they they can tell you I was a movable for quite some time on on the CDDSG piece which is how we got to this point where we're at right now. So in our review of the overall plan unit development both planning public works fire other agencies you know we felt we were in a comfortable position to bring this forward with the conditioned red lines that we have with the understanding that there are no other major items beyond just technical and formatting requirements that'll that will occur primarily through the CD stage. I just wanted to note not note that real quick. Um as as as a um what what we'll talk about a little bit later here. But um so the review occurred again under that Kico Phillips campus general development plan. We talked about some of those standards that already apply which include setbacks. Those are applied by the GDP. Use restrictions are again applied by the GDP. Uh parking requirements are also set by the GDP. 1.25 25 spaces per 10,000 square feet for research and industrial use. That's applied by the GDP. And then of course the new enhanced design standards in the IDSG. So um staff find that uh for that as proposed uh this PUD satisfies uh with the second amendment um all of the standards of the proposed Kico Phillips campus GDP which would include the industrial development requirements. Uh the GDP uh just for a bit of additional information here, the GDP also establishes a minimum floor area ratio or F of 0.15

sitewide that applies through the entire campus. That equates to 2.5 million square feet of overall developable area for the Red Tail Ridge campus. Um this PUD is proposing 236,000 just under 200 or just yeah just under 237,000 square feet which is of course well under the remaining F cap because they are the first PUD that's coming in. It's important to consider future development though as I know the applicant is so considering the hospital parcel know you all uh considered the hospital parcel previously. You'll recall that uh a density um uh transfer occurred there from advent the the original advent health GDP that was moved over to the red sail rich PDD GDP that was part of that first amendment. So considering the the F that was um that was given to the hospital parcel right now um and in consideration of PD number one there's 1.8 8 million square ft remaining of developable area uh for the entirety of Red Tail Ridge. So again that number so 2 we start with 2.5 take out the hospital take out PUD1 1.8 million square ft of developable area is remaining uh for um uh for the GDP. Um and then again just a quick note on the uses here. I know we've covered this quite a bit, but the GDP does allow research, development, manufacturing, fabrication, processing, assembly, and then associated warehousing and storage uh uses. So, the proposed uses that are or the uses that are proposed on this PUD do align with what's allowed in the GDP. Um the proposed building heights again 38' 6 in and 39T 6 in. I have some exhibits on the screen here. We can see that that's measured to the top of parapet or uh within the industrial design standards. Parking is required at 1.25 spaces per 1,000 square ft. That would equate to a minimum of

296 parking spaces. The applicant's proposing 555. Again, we have no maximum um in in our code, just a minimum. Uh on the items relevant to this GDP, the applicant meets or I'm sorry, the application meets or exceeds those standards. Uh we've covered this here, but the proposed design of both buildings comply with the enhanced standards that were considered as part of the second amendment. Those include the street fell facing elevations with significant pedestrian level glazing. Uh they exceed the 50% transparency requirement and 2 to 10 ft above grade. They also uh exceed the 18% require requirement on the perceived second story and the building entrances uh do meet the proposed enhanced entry standards. Uh so again with the newly adopted GDP the site is subject to those industrial standards. 38% landscaping is provided where 30% is required. Loading service and trash areas are fully screened and provided at the back of house. Uh which is also a standard vehicular circulation on the site is achieved through three access points. Uh and fire has um uh signed off with some additional requirements for um uh fire hydrants to be located throughout the site. That'll be part of the overall conditional package that we take forward. They'll have to show us those fire hydrants. Uh architectural design meets our standards. Uh those service and mechanical areas again remain out of sight and internal. Uh there are some large retaining walls actually on the south uh east portion of the site. I bring that up because they're really significantly large. There's a big grade change there. And so we do have some design standards that apply from the industrial development requirement where we have long expanses of walls. They need to be first and foremost terrace if they're too tall. So we have three terrace retaining walls and then they're actually broken in height as well all the way down with some additional I think a split face CMU is what's proposed there to provide additional architectural uh interest. So uh the the

the retaining walls which can be missed sometimes on on PUDS. I've seen that happen during final inspections. This they they were covered here um as part of this review. Uh lighting full cut off 3000K LED fixtures. Again, we talked about that that meets the fit well standards and is generally generally aligned with some of the most basic dark sky principles. And then the PUD criteria under LMC 1728120 are um satisfied and they're addressed in the appendix of the um of the staff report. Uh so we we analyzed this uh PUB again in um in light of that subdivision improvement agreement which I mentioned uh which requires those additional um uh commitments for lead silver fit well and solar. Uh I think we we talked about how we we are uh ensuring that that is achieved with with a note on the PUB. Um and then another important note here is the overall um in that SIA and as part of that plat and the construction documents associated with it, a transportation demand management plan uh was submitted for the entire site at Red Tale Ridge. So part of the SIA requirements actually show that uh the applicant has to um indicate in some way, shape or form that they're meeting the minimum commitments of the transportation demand management plan. There's also some um analysis to be performed with the original traffic study. I'll take a note here. An original traffic study was approved um for the entire site. There was no other changes to that were required as part of this PUD. But um as far as the transportation demand management plan is concerned, I'll just provide some additional information here. So, the metro district that was established as part of the overall final plat um will be contributing um uh and and and operating a shuttle service that's actually going to provide uh shuttle service from the Flat Irons RTD station in Broomfield that will serve the

entirety of the Red Tale Ridge District as part of their phase one approvals. So, this site will be um uh serviced by that shuttle from that RTD station. And I think as you all are aware there is no RTD service at Red Tail Ridge. I think we you know approached RTD and they said we could pay for a stop and pay for the service or the applicant could pay for a stop and pay for a service. So I think a a solution was found here in the Metro District with the shuttle piece. The other the other item that the Metro District will um secure secure fees for from property owners uh would be for eco passes um from RTD for um when when uh when buildings are actually occupied. Um again in part of that phase one development which PUD1 is here they'll be able to um uh take advantage of eco passes through uh RTD. So um that those are those are standard TDM uh strategies that will be applied to this particular development. Um and so with that um that'll conclude my presentation here. So, we recommend approval of resolution 21 series 2025 recommending the city council approval with conditions of the Red Tale Ridge planned unit development number one south to allow 236,933 ft of industrial buildings and associated site development. Happy to answer any questions you all may have about the conditions uh that we have here. We felt it was appropriate based on where the PUD was at to bring it forward tonight with the understanding that uh what we have remaining are generally technical in nature. So,

thank you very much. Talk about drinking from a low water water hose. Sorry. Yes. Thanks. You need a minute. That was a lot. I'm good. I'm good. Yeah.

Just want to make sure. Okay. Um, yeah, that was that was a lot. A question on the process clarification. So understanding that obtaining lead silver is at the discretion and approval of USGBC, how has planning and public works come to an agreement with the applicant to hinge a CO on the certification of the building that's dependent on a third party determination? Yeah, I mean we've we've uh allowed we've um allowed the applicant to uh provide us a pathway which they have indicated they're they can achieve. Um so I think that's that's that's the take.

So that that's the core and shell certification. Is that what we're looking at? Well, we can ask that of you when you get up here too to clarify it a little bit more. Um so right within lead there's a core and shell certification that you can achieve as you know before occupancy as opposed to lead for new construction uh which would be post occupancy at some point along the way. Yeah. And then I'll I'll just add too we'll likely engage a third party on our side when it comes to lead review to ensure that they're compliant with with all lead certifications. I think we have we have a third party right now that I think will perform lead reviews for us. So that'll be part of this review. there. We'll we'll we'll we'll engage a third party. Thanks.

Any additional questions for staff at the Commissioner Haley? Questions about the east side of the property? Um there's a So, what do we know at this point? What's going to what's planned for the east side? There's a smaller parcel that appears to be between this eastern boundary and a street that I don't know the name of yet, but do we have any sense of what's going to go there? Yeah, I I'll defer to the applicant on there, but I I will say that that's part of a different lot. Um, so it's it's actually a different property boundary. Um, I know on what was presented previously by the applicant, it was shown as an overall open space area, not dedicated to the city.

I But so I'm saying that because they're it's it's not it they're not required to keep it open space because it wasn't dedicated. So I'll defer to the applicant. Sure. Sure. And and where where I'm going with this is drainage because the eastern side is parking lot. Um, so could you also comment on I think I see where the retaining wall is, but could you point that out and you you referenced some some steep grade changes. If you could point those out, I think that would be helpful. Jeff, can you get my screen back up? Thank you. So, it's it's almost just off screen here, but you can see that bottom right. Yeah, that that would be the series that the series of the retaining walls. I know there's a sub

and that's terrace. That's terrace. That is terrorist. I would say it's it's such a large site this this scale, it's hard to see that it's terrace, but that's what I'm getting at. So, yeah, it it is terrace. Yes. Okay. So, that that edge is fairly So, the edge of that parking lot is fairly above the parcel to the east of it. It is. Yeah. And there's a full obviously subsurface storm water conveyance system that our, you know, our engineering team is reviewing at the time. And that's what I'm getting at. So, like, you know, paved land next to a next to a a high high uh grade change, where's the water going to go? So, just want to make sure we're we're thinking through that. Thank you.

I think I would I would I would defer to the applicant a little bit too if you guys may be able to speak a little bit about what the um what the drainage and uh uh storm water conveyance plans are. I can tell you that just we we have requested a full drainage report. So, we had a drainage letter, a full a full drainage report is currently under review right now um to ensure that we're that's being addressed. Acknizing um scrutinizing this a little bit, but it's also the first. So, here here we are. So, you know, I I don't think we need any more waterfalls in Louisville. Do we have any? Any additional questions for staff? None at this time. All right. Thank you very much. invite the applicant up.

And just to confirm, you are not a citizen of Louisville, right? I am not a citizen of Lewisville. Fun town. Um again, Marcia Wheel with Sterling Bay, director of development. Um if you wouldn't mind, would you mind pulling up the pe the overall site plan from the first presentation? I think I could fill in the pieces on the pond or uh the drainage question. Sure. If I don't be able to do that. Let me try. No, no worries. Um, or if we could pull up the current slide. You're famous. Just the current slide is okay, too. Oh, okay. Um,

well, there's also a good overview on page 170 of the PUD packet. May need Ryan's help here. Let's see. My computer's locked up. Can I share? Couple minutes to work on this. I think it'll be helpful for everybody. Do you have Okay. Can

Hey, we are back from break. There you go. There we go. Perfect. Is all right. Let me see this. Thank you.

Oh, no. Sorry. This laser pointer doesn't seem to be working either. Um, nonetheless, um, going back to the question about drainage on site and and what's going on in the general area, to the right of this retaining wall, there is a large park, not open space, but a large park that we put in, and there's a detention pond within that open space. This, we're naming this PUD1 south, but there's a PUD1 north. And that whole PUB1 is a is a five building complex and that area drains towards that pond along with the street storm. And there's multiple retention ponds on site or within our entire development that we've we've used to try and detain as much water as possible on site for reuse.

Additional questions? Yes. Can you speak to the parking why there's so much more than required?

We would we would love to do less always. Um yeah, it's there's market standards when we when we look at competition and and other properties that we're going to be up against and certain market, you know, market standards that we have to meet to be competitive with with other surrounding properties. And that's we come to those numbers talking to a lot of brokers, doing studies of existing properties, seeing what their parking count is. And um depending on, you know, life science, we can go a little bit lighter than office, right? Because you're either at your workbench or your or you're at your desk. And then industrial um can get can get a little bit less just because there's not a heavy office component to it. So this one's this one's probably our lowest parking count ratio, this this particular PD.

Additional questions? Yes. So when I look at the overall plan um you know I see the other future proposed buildings in the industrial district um just taking a a step back towards that conversation around the achieving lead silver at a minimum. Yeah. Um, you know, these are large buildings, right? As you acknowledged. Was there a reason why you didn't contemplate the overall plan with especially such large footprint buildings in the industrial district from an east west orientation as opposed to the north south orientation?

Yeah, we're trying to to keep the how they're oriented right now. You want as much sun trying to get towards certain faces of the building just because ice build up, especially with the delivery entrances. So, you want to avoid icy truck delivery bay, dock bays. Gotcha. Okay. So, that's why you went with the north south orientation. Yeah. Interesting. Okay. Sun enough sunshine. Sure. Um and and you know, a nod to the um overall I think for this square footage, right? 237 kW of installed solar PV. Mh.

Um I just want to get clarification. There is the campuswide requirement, right, of that watt per square foot of of built area. Um, is the intention to have sightspecific building connected solar PV for each district or are you planning an overall campuswide singular array that meets that watt per square foot? Yeah.

Requirement. So on on life science buildings traditionally like wet lab chemistry and biology there's so much uh mechanical equipment up on the roof and in plumbing equipment and all sorts of compressors everything we put up there that there's not a lot of room left over for solar. We're making them, we're making our life science buildings in particular, not this one, P PV ready and we'll put in as much as we can around the border outside of mechanical screen, but you usually can't gain a lot of space on those types of buildings.

This is definitely a candidate where we're going to put a lot of solar on this building as much as we can. um waiting to see, you know, kind of what what what type of tenant will go in here cuz most of these buildings don't need a lot of equipment up on the roof, but we've had one tenant ask about we want to put a bunch of skylights up on the roof, which, you know, so we we play around with it and that's why we want to usually submit that during building permit as a deferred submitt. So on the cover page of the drawings, we'll list, you know, lead and and um solar and anything else we need to submit. Okay. post permit

is I guess maybe speaking a little bit maybe to your intent for the whole campus is the intent to try to achieve direct building connected solar PV or is it going to be is the intention to have a campus installation that then you know provides essentially you know behind the meter reconciliation. Yeah, we were trying to do it per building in an instance where we'd have to go put a bunch of panels out in a field. I don't think visually I don't think anyone would would really enjoy that. So the intent was to put it on the building and support support each building as much as possible.

Okay. So on your current strategy for lead though, you're intending to pursue core and shell certification. Yeah. And have that ready by co.

Yeah. And so yeah, how how the lead process works a lot of times we we put together a scorecard and you know to get to lead silver is x amount of points, lead gold is 60 points and we'll go above and beyond. You know we'll overshoot 5 to 10 points um to ensure that we're always going to hit our certification when the building's finals and uh we we do need to go through a certification process with the lead team. So it's not necessarily aligned with building sign off. So when you you have substantial completion, you then submit your application to lead to apply to to grant certification. But I there shouldn't be any reason why we can't get lead silver in any of these buildings. It should be

very straightforward. CS certification at time of CO is the goal. You you have to apply at postco. It's not a so that's why I was wondering because lead for new construction you would have to apply postco but lead for coron shell you can imply in advance of that based

we can we can imply in advance but they're not necessarily always aligned day for day ahead of time in in my experience on that. So, how does this how is that going to work out with the city then uh as it relates to the the note we had in there said I mean I think it's something that we can explore more to ensure that we're um that we're able to guarantee lead s silver is is is achieved whether it's via the core and shell or or the new construction stage. So, um I I I think if the planning commission is okay with it, we may be able to craft a condition along those lines that will allow us some flexibility to to to ensure that we're that that the applicant is achieving lead silver and that we can verify that.

Just in in the note of transparency, I used to work for USGBC GBCI doing lead reviews. Um so I I understand the trickiness of all of this. That's where I'm trying to understand more about um if you're going to pursue core and shell. Yeah, that's one thing. If you're going to pursue NC, totally different animal. So, as landlord developer, we're going after core and shell definitely for every building. Okay.

If it's a build to suit scenario, this one, this one's built to spec. Right now, we've had enough people come on site and they're really interested, but want to see want to see more going. So, we're going first with this one. Um, and then we we would require, you know, our tenants to meet the lead silver as well. When we're doing a build the suit scenario, we'd be able to put all that information up front and you'd see the full mechanical system, all that. Something like this, it's um a limited mechanical, limited electrical, very straightforward to get approval on. Yeah. If you Okay. Um, so we'll definitely strive to to to align them with with CO, but um,

yeah, I mean at best you would have his CS at CO, but but the score the scorecard really tells the truth. You know, we have third party. It doesn't. No, no, we'll definitely get knocked off some points, but that's why we overshoot, right? We're overshooting quite a bit to ensure

Yeah. Is is there um I'm going to ask this question knowing sometimes how difficult it is to get a certification review past Steve Brown eyes cuz I ran up against that multiple times in a previous life, but is there is there is is is lead silver really what you're going for? Are you shooting above for lead gold or are you just meeting the requirements of what the agreement was with the city when the the original GDP was approved or you trying to strive for any more?

We're we're shooting for lead silver. If there's any scenarios where we can easily get to lead gold, we'll we'll absolutely go for it. Um you know, looking at this is a campus campuswide solution with the fit well certification, the whole trail system that's going all around the campus amenity spaces that we'll be putting in later. We're looking at that holistically as well. But

yeah, if there's any time where it's easy to go go get lead gold, we will a lot a lot of these buildings we're going shell and core now lead silver. We don't know what's going to be there at the end of the day at this moment. And you know GMP manufacturing type tenants, it's very difficult to go above and beyond. They use a ton of power and water and um where if it's a industrial aerospace, we might be able to easily up it a notch. especially considering some of the elements that you're including in in terms of trying to, you know, facilitate some of those mass transportation options. Are you also contemplating a lead campus certification for the entire development or no?

Um, yeah, we were contemplating I I mean it hasn't been thoroughly thoroughly discussed, but there's no reason why we couldn't get the lead campus. We've done a couple developments recently, just massive developments that we go for lead campus at the end of the day, but we we would need this whole whole space built out just not knowing exactly, you know, how it's all going to unfold. Thanks. Additional questions for the applicant or staff Commissioner Molen. Anything? Seeing none from here? Okay. All right.

Uh, anything else? Yeah. No. All right. Thank you very much. Um, I will now we have no Oh, actually, do we? No, we have no other attendees online. I'm guessing you guys aren't here for public comment. Seeing no public comment, we will move through. Um, do do you have any closing uh statement you want to share?

No, we're um we're just really excited to get this one going. Um, like I said, we've we've had some pretty big tenants come look and they're they're mostly looking in multiple states and and seeing which site they want they want to select. Um, and just getting these early spec buildings up gives all the confidence in the world to anyone coming and looking um that this is going full speed ahead and we we we're just ready to get going. Appreciate your time.

Certainly. Thank you. Staff response and closing statement. Uh I I'll just add chair regarding the lead certification. I was just reviewing the um originally approved subdivision improvement agreement to see if there's any other information in there that we could potentially lead on and if um the the language just specifically states the project will achieve lead silver certification or better. So in leaning on your expertise and maybe with the developer experience if we want to craft an additional condition I think that would be appropriate if there needs to be a distinction between the core and shell certification versus the final construction certification. Um so just wanted to put put that note out there that we didn't have any other additional information the SIA. So and I have no other closing statements beyond that.

Okay. Um, I've I've been wondering about this one for a few years now. Well, actually 15 or 20 years. Um, there's no easy way to to make it enforcable kind of a thing. Uh, I feel like there's significant goodwill uh on the team's part. Um, I wouldn't want to restrict it to Corin Shell by any means. like you said, if there's a possibility of build the suit, you could go all way with new construction certification that's kind of more desirable. Um, so I don't know that we would be able to craft language that would tighten it up much from our perspective. We could I mean we we could say lead corn and shell at certificate of occupancy that that's a challenge. Um I can appreciate why that would be a concern uh for you all. Um so I've I've been wondering about this one, but I think we're probably best to move forward with it as is in the long run. though. All right. Excellent. Any additional closing statement? That's it. All right. Thank you very much. I'll 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. Do I have any volunteers?

All right. Fantastic. just going back and bonging back and forth here from the end. Um I think I'm largely in favor of this. I'm I'm encouraged to see um progress starting on on this parcel um beyond the hospital. And um the only thing I would just point out, and this goes without saying, you've mentioned it a couple times, we might want to just put a note on our approval if we approve this, um that obviously it is contingent on approving the the the amendment, the city council approving the amendment. um because all the analysis appears to be based on that amendment being approved. So that should probably just be made clear if we all agree to approve this.

Yeah. And actually on that note, do we do we have a count on the conditions? A total count of conditions. We we don't I applied the actual the the the red line set that we included initially. And so the the takeaway there is that those what's included in a redline comment set needs to be satisfied. Uh but but we can also include the you know a condition about the GDP amendment just just as a reminder uh that is approved by ordinance. So there will be a first reading in front of the city council. Um but yeah happy to add that uh absolutely as well. That makes sense as a condition. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for raising that one. Go back and forth here a little bit. How about on the far?

Uh yeah I I've I'm in support. Um, I think senior planner P post P post P post P post P post P post P post P post P post P post P post attempted to deliver the most comprehensive package possible and avoid any commissioner questions at all but um impressive but he failed so barely but that failed because of course Commissioner Troy have questions about but no um very impressive and yeah I think we're all eager to see progress and uh this This looks good. Great. Thank you. Moving back over here, Commissioner Haley.

Thank you. Uh largely in favor. Um nothing really to add what's been said. Although I do appreciate the um additional park or green space on top of what was already promised. So I think that that really enhances I think the uh the appeal of this project. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Molen. Yeah, I'm I'm also going to be in support. Um, it'll be interesting to see, you know, I I was trying to think, gosh, how many how many planning commission meetings have we approved, you know, through a through a this process, this evening's process, you know, almost a quarter million square feet of development, maybe not too many. So, this will I'll be it'll be interesting to see um this play out on the ground. And um I'm also curious to see how that uh grade at the southeast corner. That'll be an interesting treatment to see those um retaining walls, but I'm I'm going to be in support.

Thank you, Commissioner Choy.

Thanks. I'm I'm in support of the application. Um I do appreciate you bringing this PUD along with the GDP amendment together. It's helpful to see them and good to see that you're forward thinking in terms of integrating in some of those anticipated approvals for that um industrial um you know the industrial design standards um into this application. So uh you know good strong recommendation to continue to pursue as high certification as possible for this. I know big industrial buildings can't always be easy compared to office buildings where they're a little bit easier to achieve, but um I do appreciate it and nice job not using any nonfunctional turf with the native grasses. So, I'm in support.

Thank you, Mr. Mascet. I am also in support of this this uh proposal. Um I appreciate the EV charging stations, the dark skylighting, uh the landscaping. It seems to be setting the stage for the type of development that we hope for. Thank you.

Thank you. I am also in support of it. Um it's been a long time in the coming. Um yeah, lot one block one red tale red tail ridge filing number one. Um number one but so it's a beginning of of a lot of change out there. Um, with that I would uh entertain a motion. I think Commissioner Molen wanted to make a motion. Oh, okay. Commissioner Molen. Actually, I'm probably not a good choice tonight because I don't have the the agenda in front of me. So, if somebody else could, that'd be great.

I can feed it to you. It's going to be resolution 21 series 2025, Red Tail Ridge Planned Unit development number one for light industrial building. I can go on if you want me to read. with the recommendation of city council for a PUB for new light industrial buildings in the central area of Red Tale Ridge lot one block one of Red Tale Ridge filing number one with conditions with conditions including condition related to the enhanced IDDDSG and red tail red line document was that that'll that'll work wonderfully so moved all right do we have a second I'll second thank you with the roll call vote please uh chair Brena Ice. Yes. Vice Chair Basket.

Yes. Secretary Choy. Yes. Commissioner Bangs. Yes. Commissioner Mahy. Yes. Commissioner Hunt. Yes. Commissioner Molen. Yes. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all.

Okay. With that then, do we have any uh planning commission comments? I think I'll start with acknowledging that uh Commissioner Molen will be moving on from working with us. Hopefully you'll come back and visit someday after the meeting. Perhaps it'll be the best timing on that one. Um Jeeoff, I just wanted to thank you. I think it's been about 12 years uh of patient listening, of informed decision making, and always being open to agree to disagree. uh along the way. Um and I really want to thank you for your commitment and donation of your time and thought to the city.

I second that. Well, thank you. I I have if I could speak for just a if it's okay if I speak for just a second. I've um Thank you for

Thank you for that, Steve. I appreciate it. Yeah, it's folks, it's it's time for me to retire from the PC. Um, but I've really enjoyed my time. It's it's been a privilege to to sit on the planning commission. We've had incredible members um the whole time and including now. I've learned so much from the staff, from applicants, and from the public, from our neighbors. Um, I've learned so much more about the town than I ever could have hoped. Um, and I've been lucky to be on the board, uh, as we've worked through a couple of comp plans now, um, the housing study, the housing stuff, fire recovery. It's been a really exciting time to be on the board and and um I also really appreciate this opportunity to this is one of those occasions when you get to contribute to a community and you really feel valued, you know, like the the applicants, the the neighbors, um our staff, you you just feel like you're valued. And so, um I've really enjoyed my time and uh it's kind of sad to sad to leave, but it is time. and I will see you all around town. And who knows, maybe I'll even show up at some meetings now and then. So, yeah.

Great. Thank you very much. Do we have any additional comments? I just want to note one thing that was a lesson learned for a reminder for me in public comment periods uh last month. I think I could have done a better job. I think I owe an apology to Miss Bolinski uh for perhaps not kind of refocusing public comment on us so that it's not directed at any of the applicants whether they're city employees or otherwise. Um so just uh as a reminder to all of us that something I could have done better and we'll all want to be certain we follow through on that in the future. Uh other than that, uh we've got a couple possible things in January 8th meeting.

Yeah, we'll have the long- aaited comp plan public review draft coming your way. And we are aiming to get it to you early because it's a lot to digest certainly. So, um we're working on getting that uh wrapped up and packaged for you for January 8th with planned um public engagement open house kind of thing uh as soon as the end of January. um adoption possibly a special meeting in late February for planning commission to start considering that. So, it's moving along. It's moving quickly now, but it is nearly ready for your review. Great. Y thank you. It's been so much work for you all. Thank you so much. And we're looking at possible EV charging zoning code amendment discussion.

We we we're going to try to tack that on to January 8th because we think it's fairly targeted. If it needs to be continued, it needs to be continued and that's okay. But that's another state law that we need to comply with and it's a good thing. Um so that one's um uh pretty targeted. So yeah, maybe even put that first maybe. Yeah, I'll have to think about that. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Excellent. Uh with that then uh Commissioner Molen, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. We have a second. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Thank you. See y'all. Thanks, Jeff. Chef