Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. If I can call to order the February 26, 2026 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting with a roll call, please. Um, Commissioner Banks, here. Commissioner Basket, here. Commissioner Brownise, here. Commissioner Choy, here. Commissioner Hunt, here. Commissioner Mahaley here. Commissioner Richie here. Thank you. And I'd entertain a motion to approve this evening's agenda. So moved. Second.

All in favor? I carries. Um I will now open it up for public comment. If you're here to speak on something that's not on this evening's agenda, um you are more than welcome to express yourself at this time. If somebody can check on the online. No. Okay. Thank you. Seeing none, um we will now move into our first item of business. Um I will now uh open up uh the public hearing on a request regarding the city's municipal code changes uh to not actually not to the municipal code. Big big difference here. That's actually very important to understand. uh a discussion regarding our comprehensive plan. Um the purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interests of parties who wish to comment on this. Um the procedure of the 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. Um and then we will discuss it amongst ourselves and then we will also open it up for public comment. Little bit different than our usual but follows that. Yeah. Is that better? A little bit. Yeah. It it doesn't sound as loud to me as it does usually either. So um we don't have any controls. There we go. Yeah, we don't have control over volume here. So, um, so if we can, uh, invite city staff up for the presentation, please.

All right. Well, uh, good evening, Chair Bryan, members of the commission. I'm Rob Zuko, community development director for the city. I'm going to give a brief introduction before I turn it over to planning manager Hurt for the full staff presentation. Um so staff is pleased to present the final adoption draft of the city's comprehensive plan update. This is coming to the planning commission um after two years of work and extensive community involvement in the development of the plan. There was uh amazing community input and involvement that exceeded our expectations. Um this plan will guide Lewisville's path for the next 10 years and will update many of the city's policies to align with the vision and core values established in the plan. This plan supports maintaining established neighborhoods um and established neighborhood character throughout Lewisville and in the historic uh downtown and Oldtown areas which are vital to keeping Lewisville's unique character and quality of life. The plan promotes new development in select areas of Lewisville that will add to the city's vibrancy and promote new economic development opportunities needed to maintain the fiscal health of the city. This plan will have a much larger focus compared to our existing comprehensive plan on important topics to the community. This includes being a more inclusive and equitable community and much more focus on community resiliency and sustainability than our previous comprehensive plan. I also want to touch on some of the information circulating in the community about this plan calling for 46 to 67% housing growth over the next 20 years. We understand that there was some confusion based on the previous draft of the plan. We have made several updates to the plan

between the last draft and this final draft that's before you this evening that clarifies the purpose of the housing elements of the plan. This includes edits to the plan that provide clear policy alignment with the city's housing plan and housing needs assessment. The housing needs assessment concluded that Lewisville would need to add uh about 2,483 units over 20 years to meet anticipated housing needs. This represents tw% increase in housing over that 20-year period, significantly below the 46 to 60% 67% number. Adding housing opportunity to strategic areas of the city is needed to support the city's economic vitality goals and is needed for the city to be a more inclusive and equitable community that supports affordable and workforce housing opportunities. Planning Manager Hurt will be going into more details in his presentation on the housing issues and other aspects of the plan, including the changes that were made to the plan since the last draft was presented to the planning commission. We're looking forward to the planning commission's deliberations this evening. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to planning manager Hurt.

Thank you very much. As we move over, do any planning commission members have any disclosures? Excellent. Thank you. And Commissioner Bangs, uh, can you update us on Oh, yes. Um, so I was absent from the January 8th meeting where this was discussed extensively and there was substantial public input. I have watched the entire recording of that session and I have read the full packet in all 390 pages in detail. So, thanks for the prep and um hopefully I can contribute to this session as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're happy to have you here. Okay. Okay. So, again, Jeff Hurt with Community Development. Uh Rob teed up the request for tonight. I'll just start by reminding planning commission that you reviewed the what was titled the 95% draft now about six weeks ago. So, this is about building off of that. So, I have about a 10- 15 minute presentation here. The topics that I'm looking to cover are first just a quick recap um and some context setting. Second, I'd like to do a deeper dive into the future land use framework, which is really the foundation and kind of the baseline for the housing capacity estimates that are uh in question right now. So, explaining sort of the purpose of it, how it works, and a lot of clarifying uh information as it goes um as relates to that. Um want to summarize the recent community input we've heard since the last planning commission meeting. And then I've got a few slides summarizing at a high level the changes that were made specifically to the 95% draft as reflected in the adoption draft before you tonight. So the first sort of context setting is important. I know you all have seen this several times but important for the group just to clarify what a comprehensive plan is and isn't. So again this is a long range long-term policy document um that has about a 20-year horizon. We update it every 10 years. It guides decision-makings that the the city does um and a range of topics mostly related to the built built environment. It is important to note that it is not regulatory. It is not zoning. It's not a budget document. It doesn't have any sort of regulatory mandates. It is a policy document sort of 30,000 foot document. So regarding the last discussion that planning commission had on January 8th. So these are just some of the key themes that we heard from that discussion. There's more detail in your packet in

terms of the specific comments and how they were addressed. Um, first big theme was with regards to the housing capacity estimates to really clarify in the plan that those are not goals or targets or specific policies. That's really a planning tool to understand the universe of possibilities in terms of future housing capacity. Um, the second was to make sure that the plan emphasizes if there were to be residential growth that would be managed and incremental and responsive to uh Lewisville's unique quality of life. Um, third, to make sure that there's stronger affordable housing policies in the plan. Um, and then last, there were several other refinements uh on a range of topics and we'll get into that. I think it's also important to note that 5 days later, city council had the same discussion based on the same draft. Their comments very much aligned with planning commissions um in terms of overall theme. So, there's not really a need to separate the two sets of comments. They're very close together. City council certainly had your comments relayed to them and added some refinements as well. So, getting into the future land use framework, this is, I think, the the topic most um of concern in the plans. So we wanted to spend some time on it. Um so first and foremost the purpose of the future land use framework. So that's the future land use map that's in the plan and sort of the policies around it. Um first and foremost again it's not a zoning document. So it's not a zoning map. It's not regulatory. It's part of this long range planning framework. Um it does guide a lot of the city's decisions in terms of development proposals that come in future development code updates. Um so it acts as a guidepost for a lot of those decisions. infrastructure planning. One of the primary purposes of the future land use framework is to, as Rob said, implement and align with the housing plan and the needs assessment that was part of that. And I think it's also important to note that that 2500 roughly number that's in the housing plan is

also not a goal or a target or a policy. It's really an objective look at if we were to maintain our share of Boulder County's population for the next 20 years, what would our increment look like? And that is where 2500 comes from essentially. And so sort of an underlying purpose also of the future lanes framework is to figure out okay we have this housing need of about 2500 units where can we create opportunities for that residential uh opportunity to be addressed. So in terms of how it works the nuts and bolts of it again it's a policy framework and document but one of the big things it does is identifies opportunity areas in the city. These are very deliberately chosen for a variety of reasons. one, they're distinct and separate from the existing single family established neighborhoods. Um, they also have the highest concentration of vacant land, underutilized land, um, and for the most part are adequately served by existing infrastructure or planned infrastructure to accommodate future development. And the plan does contemplate that about 90% of this future potential residential growth would be concentrated in those opportunity areas. I do also think it's important to note that this is one piece of the overall puzzle in terms of the policies that we look at as a city uh in the comprehensive plan and other policies. So there's a lot of focus on this understandably because it's very tangible. But any development proposal, any regulatory change, etc. really is the city's job to look at the balance of policies that includes this, but there's lots of other policies in terms of things like sustainability, resilience, equity that are looked at on balance with this. So, getting into more into the nuts and bolts. So, um first off to clarify and reiterate that this is about having a planning tool and an estimate range for future planning. Um, it is actually, and I'll get into this in a later slide, it is actually illegal for the city to have a growth cap of any kind in a

comprehensive plan. Um, so it is by law really only can be a planning tool. Um, the analysis in the plan is basically taking that future land use framework, developing a model with a lot of assumptions, and then seeing what that model sort of spits out in terms of the future maximum potential residential capacity. And that's where that 4 to 5,000 unit range comes from is from that analysis. And so I think it's really important for us to note as staff that that range will be from our perspective or we're confident in saying this a lot lower than that. Do it a variety of factors. So one look at the factors that would take that number lower. First, we reran the analysis and looked at what of the residential unit density was assigned to vacant property versus already developed. And so that number brings it down to about 3,600 of the units are on vacant land. And so those are the areas that are most likely to redevelop in the next 10 20 years. And so you think about the remainder of those units, those are on already developed properties that have existing development that are much more unlikely to redevelop uh over the life of this plan. Second thing to consider is that a lot of these areas that had residential growth assigned to them in varying levels are commercial existing commercial and they may stay commercial and they may redevelop as commercial. So that would reduce the number even further. Another consideration is um the plan supports multif family in some areas where it currently isn't but it doesn't preclude a single family development for example happening there. The plan allows that flexibility. So the densities will be really dependent on the market and what gets developed. And the last and we don't have to get time to get into this tonight but I think most of us know that infield development meaning development where there's existing infrastructure and development around it or even existing development is a lot more challenging than like green field development where you have kind of a blank slate. So the densities achieved are typically going to be lower

um on a lot of these lots with a lot of these challenges. This is important to note that there is a state law that explicitly in a very recent state law that explicitly uh restricts any city from having a growth cap of any kind in a conference of plan or any other regulatory document. So for example, we can't in the comp plan legally say we want to see 2500 units and stop there or we want to see x% growth over these number of years and have that be an explicit policy. It is prohibited by state law. Planning Manager Hurt, can I ask you? You skipped the last bullet on the previous slide, and I think it might be important to the discussion this evening.

Yes, you're right. Sorry. Yeah. So as part of that discussion of uh future housing um estimate ranges. So it is important to consider that we expect to continue to have the system in place where basically any multif family residential development and anything of any scale or size will continue to have a public process of approval in front of planning commission and city council. So there'll be additional public hearings and public process and an evaluation of any such projects against the balance of comp plan policies. Um that's another kind of important context as part of the the numbers there. Thank you David. I covered that. So, this is gets to kind of the pointed question, which is if you if you look at a lot of the recent public comments and the comments we've received that throughout the project, um, a lot of folks are certainly savvy in this community and know our housing plan and know that there's a 2500 unit needs assessment in there. And so, the question then becomes, if you really kind of cut to the chase, why not develop a future land use framework that says 2500 units? And so, to get to that question, um, there's a few things that are really important to note. Um, first the 2500 number uh unit number in the housing uh needs assessment part of the housing plan is very different than that 4 to 5,000 unit metric in terms of its purpose. So the housing number is about need and the 4 to 5,000 is more about both housing need but also a range of other factors. So future planning around infrastructure capacity which you want to be conservative on you want to look at the higher end of that to make sure your infrastructure and services are being adjusted for that. So that's the first point. The second point is again this is a theoretical capacity range and for a lot of the reasons I just mentioned the number is likely to be a lot lower. Um really the purpose of this framework when you look at it through the lens of that that number that big number is to provide flexibility for

residential opportunity to occur. Not to say we want 4,000 5,000 units. Certainly not saying that. It's about how can we best align or support that 2500 unit goal in the housing plan. Another factor to consider is if we did rerun the analysis and change the future land use framework so that it basically spit out something around 2500 units that would significantly reduce our chances of actually achieving 2500 units because of all the factors um that we just talked about. So the analysis done was very high level and very conceptual and has a lot of assumptions baked in it. Um but from our perspective due to the market realities and a lot of the other factors um building a framework and an analysis that spits out 2500 um we have low confidence that that number would ever be achieved. Um and then last but certainly not least the state law cap on the um state law on the unit cap.

And Mr. Mr. Hart, if you can reiterate, you already said it once, but I want to make sure people really understand that that so-called housing need is is based on if we maintained our current percentage within the county that it's not we ever stood up and we concluded this is what we need. So, the the language there is can be misleading to people if they've hearing it for the first time. If you can just repeat that.

Yeah, it's very important and I know it's confusing. There's a lot of nuance, but as part of the housing plan, it was a decision made by council and others to deliberately take a very objective look at our need and not really have it be so much of a policy statement, but an objective look in the sense that if we based on our current percent of the overall Boulder County population, so the state should back up. The state doesn't do projections by city like population projections. They do it by county only. And so based on that, if we maintain our share of the Boulder County population 20 years out, based on the state's projection of Boulder Countyy's population, our increment would be 2500 units. Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Haley. Yeah. Yeah. I just want to summarize to make sure we're all on the same page here relating these documents, the housing plan to the comp plan. You know what I think I'm hearing and what we've, you know, understood or at least what I've understood is that there's a target in the housing plan based on the analysis you just described that says this much. The comp plan, namely table one, you know, with the capacity numbers that that we're talking about that is not saying we want to be at this level, which is what the housing plan is saying based on the the factors you just described. the four to 5,000 is if we did put units somewhere, these are the places we could put them and the amount we think is possible.

Yeah, that's a that's a good way to put it. Another way to look at it is is you know we iterated with council and planning commission not not what they starting point of 2500 and let's work it was more what makes sense in what areas from a sort of land use and density standpoint and then run the analysis to see if that range kind of where that lies relative to our housing need right there. Um so there's a couple of different ways of looking at it. The way you summarize it is accurate. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And I have some questions on the numbers in appendix D, but I think I'll save those for discussion.

And I actually on that discussion I pushed even a little bit further where if um yeah, I'm I'm not sure why this is so quiet this evening. Um if if as a community we had decided we wanted X number, this is not how we would get there, right? From a planning perspective, these are not the tools we would use to to get there. Is that accurate?

Yeah. And again, we can't we can't say we want x units in the plan legally, right? Um that's that's kind of a baseline, but there's a variety of tools um to support, you know, getting somewhere around that number. One of them is policies that support future decisions um which is this um and another one that we'll talk about is subsequent efforts that we actually get into the regulations and the rules where we're actually getting more specific about things like that. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Yeah. So, we also wanted to highlight um there's a lot of other things going on in the city and how this kind of connects to that trajectory and the sort of continuum. It's all part of this um kind of overall system related to a variety of things, but one of them is residential growth management if residential were to occur. So, a lot of concern about how does our infrastructure, how do our services address or keep up with any residential growth. And so this is an example of um how we as a city are are pretty well equipped to start addressing those things based on wherever the comprehensive plan lands. So right now you may be aware that the parks, recreation, open space and trails long range plan is underway that is sequenced well to incorporate the outcomes of this into that analysis and that planning. So that's rec center services, trail maintenance, things like that. Um the development code update is where a lot of the regulations that implement a lot of the um sort of policy high level language in this plan gets implemented in the development code and the nuts and bolts of what the rules actually are. That is scheduled to start right away really and is already budgeted. So we have confidence that's beginning right away right after this. Um our utility system plan folks, we've been working closely with our public works folks who manage the water supply for example. um they are teed up and ready to update the utility system plan to respond to this comprehensive plan, build in any of the assumptions they need to in their analysis. That work is um about to be

underway. Um the last but not least is um our development impact fees is one of our primary tools to ensure that development is paying its way. So we currently have a system for where we assess fees on new residential for like libraries and transportation and parks and trails. that effort to update those fees and make sure that they're calibrated and aligned with wherever these policies in the comp plan land um is underway as well. I think we are starting the procurement process already on that one. So there's a lot in motion to implement the plan kind of wherever it lands and this is just a high level graphic just to show a lot of folks understandably confused about levels of granularity uh between policy and regulation. So basically this top bar here is saying comprehensive plan is policy sort of intentionally flexible considering it has a 20-year life and you want it to be evergreen to an extent. So it's intentionally broader um with the idea that these subsequent planning efforts the development code update is where you get into that more granularity and the regulations those each have their own individual public processes. So public hearings, the parks folks have a lot of community engagement going on right now and ultimately city council are the ones that vote and decide on what the specific rules are to implement these policies that drive a lot of some of these unanswered questions that we have. So public input has been amazing throughout as Rob said um we had over 2,000 responses to different surveys and open houses throughout. That's all summarized in the plan and detail in the appendices and the plan before you heavily reflects that input. So, this is about what we've heard since your meeting on January 8th essentially. So, we've had about 180 comments at open houses and emails um that are all in your packet. Um but at a high level, some of the key themes from those comments are uh one again the concerns about residential growth and how that relates to our ability to maintain our quality of life that we have in

Lewisville, infrastructure, city services, things of that nature. Second, we've heard support for addressing our housing affordability issues and diversity of choices in the community. Um, and then last, there's just a grabag of various comments in terms of things like sustainability and resilience and a range of other topics. Did also want to mention that within the last few days, the open space advisory board did issue an official memo that reflects their perspective as a group. Um, that is in your packet as well. I think it made its way as an addendum. um and a lot of their comments are really about reinforcement and refining um the language around open space to make sure it reflects their priorities. So, a few slides on changes from 95% draft to adoption draft. So, first and foremost regarding the residential growth um the quality of life concerns, that's the biggest thing we've heard. Um certainly um so some of the changes we made we made extensive changes to the narrative in the text just clarifying again these are not targets or goals or mandates um these are planning tools to understand the universal possibilities in the future and also a more explicit stated intent of the future land use framework to align with the housing plan. And so for example, the table that's hard to make out on the screen that had previously a little less information u we added some more context in the form of some caveats and footnotes just really further clarifying there's stuff like that throughout the plan that sort of clarify the intent specific strategies that were added to address the concerns. Um, one, there's an explicit strategy which is official policy uh, when adopted that says that we as a city should monitor residential development as it relates to infrastructure quality of life. It's up there verbatim right now if we wanted to read it. I know it's hard to read, but we could pull that up if we would like. Um, a second policy that um, directs city council to periodically review the comp plan um, to ensure that any

residential growth is occurring in a managed incremental manner. Um, and then third, there's a very clear and kind of distinct policy statement. It's a quality of life commitment statement. Some of the other um adjustments that were made to the plan. So, as it relates to neighborhood compatibility and housing affordability, those kind of a bucket of comments. Um, there's some additional policies and language in there addressing building height specifically. So, in particular in those like transition areas between areas that might redevelop and existing single family areas, explicit policies throughout saying building height should be lowered to two stories at most. Um, we added some policies in there to acknowledge Oldtown residential area as distinct and unique from the other lowdensity residential areas. And then we added a couple policies related to affordable housing. Uh, more explicit statement of a preference for on-site affordable housing with any new residential. um and a clarification that we're updating the inclusionary housing ordinance as a follow-up item which was planned but needed to be clarified. That's where we as a city have a requirement that for any new residential development 12% of the units are set aside as permanently affordable deed restricted housing that's slated to be updated. So there are a whole host of other uh edits that were made. All the edits are in your packet in an addendum so you can see all of them uh line by line but some of the key ones to highlight from this group and city council. We added policies related to Excel Energy uh evacuation routes and emergency planning. There was a particular trail future trail potential connection the good hue trail uh that was shown on the previous draft. We clarified that as conceptual um open space folks had a big concern about that. Um and again all the edits are included in your packet. And so that concludes my presentation. This is the just the criteria for reference on the code that uh we as a city look at when making updates to the comp plan. I'm not going to go through

each one of them, but staff does find the adoption draft consistent with these criteria. And happy to answer any questions.

Thanks. As we move into questions, I realize I maybe skipped a little bit over too much of the of the uh script that I meant to read to explain and there's a few new people in the room, too. So right now we're going to move into questions from planning commission to the staff and then we will open it up for uh public hearing. So people who have joined in person by computer or telephone may speak regarding the application. Uh if you're here in person, you'd like to speak, please fill out a speaker card which is available outside of the door here on the table. Um, use the raise hand function if you're participating by computer or star9. If calling in by telephone, uh, 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 six minutes. The purpose of the public comment is to receive public testimony. It's 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. Um, the applicant and staff will then be well staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. Excuse me. It can we ask for quiet while we're in the meeting? If you if you're welcome to step outside if you want to chat further, but um I will then close a 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 condition, 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 name and city of residence. Does anyone participating in the hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none, thank you. And we did confirm notification as you came up.

Yes, notification was met. Yeah. All right. Thanks. Appreciate it. All right. So, questions of the commission to staff who would like to begin.

Maybe I'll I'll begin. Um so thank you very much for the comprehensive review of the latebreaking inputs and concerns that have been expressed and addressing those proactively. I think it would be helpful for all of us if you would not to belabor the point and not to zero in on just one concern around growth, but if you could perhaps set the context of comprehensive plan as opposed to housing plan as opposed to the review and approval process for any future development that may be requested or submitted to planning commission and council

and zoning and code rewrites in that list. Yes. Yeah. No, that that's um it's important. Yeah. And I'll do my best. You can steer me another direction if I'm not quite getting there, but um the housing plan again had a needs assessment component. That's a basic component of any housing plan. And did that objective look at what our number would be, right? 2500 units over the next 20 years. Um and so the future land use framework is about addressing that need and figuring out where in the community might we meet that opportunity and providing flexibility for that to happen based on market realities and whatever conditions may be again 10 20 years and sorry to interrupt there is it possible we could even pull up that map at some point? Yeah.

Just so that we the future land use map. Yeah. So people understand the actually got I've got a slide here and again there if you can kind of restate how this is used as a tool.

Yeah. Yes. So the um again a policy document not zoning but if you look on the screen here so the image on the right is the future land use map and so it's colorcoded based on the place type as it's called in the comprehensive plan and so um I think there's a total of about 10 place types to keep it pretty simple um and so each place type has its own sort of description of what the community character of that area should be. So it addresses at a high level what are the types of land uses that we typically want to see there both primary and kind of supporting what are the residential density ranges that might be appropriate in these areas what are the building heights that might be appropriate um framed as a very flexible framework deliberately in the plan you'll see language saying that this is not a hard and fast like parcelbased map like a zoning map would be it's intended to be have some flexibility uh within the framework and so um kind of to get to um the point of how this gets implemented. So um in a number of ways uh if we're talking about development proposals for example which is a predominant agenda item for planning commission. So somebody wants to come in and build a new multif family residential development. You look on this map among other factors and you say okay what does this map say? What does that place type say? Are the density ranges in that general range that is called for? Are the building heights consistent? are the land uses consistent? Um, that's one of several factors that we would look at in evaluating a development. So, you have a whole host of other factors in the plan. Um, depending on the nature of development, if there's open space considerations, adjacency or something like that, got open space policies to bring in and look at sort of the balance of issues. Um, housing policies certainly. And so, um, you have this as the policy touchstone for that evaluation. Um, but then you also have the zoning, which is the actual specific rules that say exactly what land uses are allowed and exactly what your

density allowances and building height. So there's a lot of layers and a lot of bureaucracy understandably, but this there's sort of a a a hierarchy of let's what does the policy say, what does the range of policy say, what does the code say, and then that's part of the decision-making framework for a specific development proposal. and and and I just wanted to add a couple things just to conclude that um you know when you see all of these land uses a lot of them allow commercial as primary uses as well. So, you know, we talked about how a lot of these and in in the capacity estimates, they talk about, well, how much residential could you have there? A lot of these land use place types also allow commercial as primary uses. So, we don't know what's actually going to go in that could be market driven. Um, you know, we can't make anything go in, whether it's residential or commercial. All we can do is set the table with the regulations. Um, so even when you're looking at those housing capacities and what our process is, we don't know what's going to come, but the the idea is to provide market flexibility for what comes. I would also say the majority of the areas that call for potential new housing development to get to that those housing plan goals aren't currently zoned for residential development right now. So there would be a whole process of either a general development plan amendment or a zoning amendment to the zoning map that would be necessary to add housing capacity to to the majority of these areas that we are talking about which would require public hearings before planning commission and city council and uh evaluation of the policies within this plan.

Yeah. So then hearing all that just to clarify adopting this future land use framework and this comprehensive plan doesn't create any new regulatory rights or expectations that anybody can say I get to build a a particular thing because this future land use framework has been adopted. Is that correct? It does not. It's it's guidance. It's decision-m guidance. Yeah. So I think that's important to state. the comprehensive plan, the housing plan, none of those, whether they're possible growth goals or arguably probable growth goals with regards to the housing plan, none of those relax any existing zoning requirements or approval process.

Correct. Yeah, that all stays um intact as is pending a future soon to be developed process to update those regulations, but that'll be a public process as well. Thanks. Thank you. appreciate that. Additional questions for staff at this time. Uh, yes, Commissioner Many.

So, been, you know, digesting this since January. I, you know, before we go into comments, I just want to make sure I'm understanding um the capacity estimates, which I think are explained in appendix D. So, based on reading appendix D, that seems to be really just a space assessment, right? You say, "Here's the acreage of this area. Here's what we think the density could be. Multiply that together. Step three, you know, with all due respect, it looks like a fudge factor of, okay, we think it might be high or low. And then step four is, you know, the answer. And so that does not, and you even said this in your remarks, you know, that does not factor in infrastructure or, you know, that's part of the process of deliberation later like we just talked about, but appendix D and table one is really just a it's this big. We think we could fit this much based off of the density assessment. Is that is that correct?

Yeah. Yeah. It's based on there's not one like magic number in the planning world that says this is this is what your factor should be. Um and so it was pretty granular how we did the analysis. There were some blanket assumptions, but we looked at so if there's pending developments, for example, we looked at what those proposals were, um recently approved developments. Um but yeah, it's it's essentially looking at what space is available on a lot. take into account factoring in like you'll have constraints like a storm water area, parking, things like that. Um, but they're generally assuming a lot more density than like this. So, for example, not to get belavor this, but the state of Colorado as part of a lot of these laws they passed recently developed some density assumptions based on um some of their analysis. They call it a density buffer. Their percentage of like how much you would max out your density is way lower than what is in our model. Um, so we feel pretty confident in it. Yeah.

Thank you. Yeah, awesome comments. I just want to make sure there wasn't something I was missing. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none at this time, thank you very much. Appreciate the presentation. Um, I will now open it up for public comment. Um, as we open it up for public comment, uh, I would entertain a motion to addendum one to this evening's record. So moved. Second. All in favor? I

thank you. And that that in well yeah those are the information that's been posted. Um uh so as we ask you to come up and share your thoughts um first of all thank you all for coming out um and from the many emails we've received. It's such an important part of the process. Um, uh, please limit yourself to three minutes and begin with your name and city of residence or if you're a resident of Lewisville or not. And we'll we'll alternate between the online people and the people here in the room, but let's start out with people in the room.

Call our names or Yeah, we'll we'll call out the names. Yeah, she has the cards here. Yeah. And again, if you don't have a card and you want to speak, the cards are just on the table outside of the door there. Yeah. 3m minute time. And can we use the timer? Oh, it's on it's on screen. The timer. There's a timer behind you. We're not So, the audience will see it and we'll monitor it, but I don't think Okay. It'll come up on here. So, all right. I'll need you to help monitor it then. Thanks. That'll be a little different.

Our first speaker tonight will be Helen um Moshak. And apologies in advance to everyone if I mispronounce your name. Um, and then after Helen, we will have Billy O'Donnell. Ready, set, go. Okay. Uh, my name is Helen Moshack and I'm a Lewisville resident of 20 years. Um I I think it would be more fair to say that while this plan doesn't require these changes, it lays the groundwork and foundation for f for future growth and significant development. It's a strategic plan and then you do operational plan, you do zoning, you do rags, you do policies, practices. We are laying the foundation right now for this future growth. So, in conversation with neighbors and community leaders, I keep hearing the same thing. This draft comprehensive plan needs a lot more work in order to truly work for Lewisville. This current draft isn't describing an ideal future. It's aspirational with aggressive growth projections and it risks prioritizing profit over people. We need a plan that gives us a real foundation for the community we want to become over the next 20 years. To get there, the plan must be strengthened to set firm affordability requirements so that people who live and work here can be part of Lewisville's future. We need to lay the foundation for adopting clear, progressive green building standards for all new development. We need to plan for and in the future zone for moderate strategically located growth laid out in the housing plan at 30%. And we also need to spell out how we will scale and fund infrastructure

including water, transportation, parks, and my personal favorite, open space and public safety. What I hear again and again from neighbors is a desire for future diversity across age, income, and background. We want an inclusive community where young adults can get started, families can put down roots, and seniors can stay connected, where people who work in Lewisville can afford to live in Lewisville. And growth that protects our environment and the quality of life through strong green building practices. That vision is our goal. Let's revise this draft comprehensive plan. We have time. This is our plan. So that it has the heart and backbone and I would say teeth that it needs real affordability requirements, sustainability standards, and moderate strategically located growth to build a bright, diverse, and healthy future for Lewisville. Thank you. Um, Billy, you're up and then Andy Johnson after that, Billy O'Donnell. on my street

so you know I live here. Uh my name is Billy O'Donnell. Come on, start the clock. My name is Billy O'Donnell. I've been a resident for 38 years and in full disclosure, I'm a retired engineer, also lead accredited, and I've been on several boards here and actually done work for the city. Um first thing I would like to start off negative. I respectfully ex disagree this does set expectations. I I understand the legality of it. I've done plenty of planning etc etc. But once you put a number out there unfortunately in our universe becomes a factoid. So I just respectfully disagree like that. Also the word likely is another challenge. It's right up there with the word should. So I want to bring that out. You had a detailed plan for the housing understanding the differences. I'm not sure how we managed to get twice as much. So I'm not sure that I realized from what I've read how that got transposed. The other thing is infrastructure and we talked a little bit about it. Obviously I'm concentrating on the housing and the infrastructure. Let's talk water. Let's hope we can get the water and I know Lewisville is in decent shape. Let's hope we can get the water fur the infrastructure to treat it and distribute it and the ever populous sewage making sure we can get the infrastructure for that. So putting a number out there obviously sounds ethereal but the fact of the matter is people are going to look towards that. people are going to go towards that and I realize it's a plan and I realize the theory is that we're not supposed to take that as an expectation but the

reality is experience brings that out. So again I strongly suggest this 95% be relooked. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. And now I'm going to Sweet Cal. um Andy Johnson and then after that we'll have Mark Diane and for the people who are online if you'd like to speak uh if you press the uh raise your hand button.

Good evening uh chair commissioners. Uh my name is Andy Johnson. I'm a longtime resident of Lewisville. I'm a business owner. I'm also a local architect. Um, I'd like to start again by thanking city staff, um, specifically, uh, Jeff and Rob, uh, for their work on this final version of the comp plan. Um, it is a forwardthinking, um, community-led document that represents a vital shift in how we envision Lewisville's future. Thank you. After that presentation, I I kind of can't believe that I'm going to say these things, but um I want to directly address concerns raised by some in our community regarding the amount of growth supposedly predicted by this update. Some have taken a literal interpretation of the plan's capacity as a fixed prediction or road map for certain development. To be clear, that interpretation takes this con this document entirely out of context. As a plan itself explicitly states in its opening, this is a policy forward guide book, not a crystal ball or a mandate for rampant development. It outlines potential capacity within a flexible framework. It does not dictate that growth will happen. Conflating long-term capacity with eminent growth ignores market reality and the rigorous public process that every single project must navigate before a single shovel hits the ground. Regulation sets expectations. The comp plan is policy. to ensure that the uh plan receives the best possible guidance for our future. I

had four recommendations. I crossed three off my list after that presentation. My only recommendation would be um talking about incremental growth. Incremental growth is inherent in a comp plan. Um possibly a recommendation would be to define what that means more specifically. Um, this comprehensive plan is a strategic tool for a vibrant, resilient future. I urge commission to recommend its adoption and move past the fear-based narratives that misrepresent its intent. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, Mark, Diane, and then after that, we have someone online, Betty. Good evening uh everybody and thanks to the planning commission. I know it's a thankless job and you've all contributed your time. Uh I've uh we purchased here in 2004. My kids grew up here. Um I'm a Marshall fire survivor. I'm going to give you my direct feedback on the three years to get back here. We spent time in Boulder. Um, but first and foremost, uh, a question I'd still like it answered. Um, and it's directly to the planning commission and the presentations, which is, so we're at 40 to 50% or something around there. Why in the past was 20% acceptable? I fear that we're paying lip service to the quality of life. Everybody throws around quality of life and Lewisville and this and that, but to be honest and and I'm not some stuck in the mud, you know, I'm retired now, but I realize we have to have growth, but where are the concrete guard rails for the services that we need? I work out at the rec center multiple times a week, every other day at least. It is full to the gills. You can't even park there. And the January rush is over. It's now almost March. So, what are you going to do about the rec center? What are you going to do about water? We've been paying we shrunk our lawns. Everybody that you talk to in the fire zone shrunk their lawns. We're still paying like $150 a month that you're paying lip service to the developers, not us. So, what are you going to do about that? What are you going to do about the the green space? What are you going to do about the traffic? I can't even make a turn at the corner of Dylan and Maclin anymore. You going to fourlane that? Threelane it? What are the plans? How are you going to get the developers to pay their fair share? I want to make it

clear, I'm not anti-growth, but when I see numbers of 40 to 50%. How are you going to make the developers make this the Lewisville quality of life? And to the other presenter or commenter was like, when you stick it out there that we're going to have up to 45 or 50% growth, that's what sticks in people's minds. That's what sticks in people's minds. Okay. Uh, we lived in Boulder. We hated it. I'm under no illusions, and I hope none of you are, that Boulder is working. Boulder is a failure. Drug addicts, homeless, traffic. I will move out of the state before I move back to Boulder. Lewisville, we were so happy to come back to Lewisville. It's sanity. And now I see this plan now where it used to be 20%. I'd like that answered again. 50%. I'm like, we're going to be Boulder here pretty soon. And that just doesn't work for me. So again, I'll reiterate the challenges with the infrastructure. We need absolute guard rails, on everything, on schools, on infrastructure. Yeah. Okay. So now you've got Red Tail and you've got a fourlane there. What about 88? What about

Sorry to interrupt, but your three minutes are up. Okay. The last thing is I don't trust developers and neither should you. I went through three years of this and I'm going to be honest, there's a very small percentage of developers that are actually ethical. Most of them are incompetent and most are unethical. And I'm sorry to say that, but if you ask your constituents, you'll find that out. Thank you. Thank you. I actually can I ask that people do not applause after we speak. Um, we're just trying to keep the level playing field for everybody here who wants to share their opinion without the pressure of applause or worse yet something other than applause. Thank you.

Next, we'll have someone online, um, Betty Solic. And you you should be able to unmute now. Okay. The last time I tried this, it didn't work. So, can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, great. Um I want to say that I think this comprehensive plan is well organized and visionary. I I think the uh changes that have been made to this 95% draft is has made it even better and I think it does give us guard rails and limits. Um, I think the land use designations proposed in this comprehensive plan will support local businesses and create a better use of the South Boulder and McCaslin corridors. I do think environmental policies could be strengthened by specifically calling for reduction of urban heat islands as part of green infrastructure recommended in the policies. I addressed those specific area uh policies that I thought could be strengthened in an email I sent to the planning commission um for this meeting. Um as a city we need to address regional growth issues such as rec center crowding. Um but I don't think this comp comprehensive plan is the tool for doing that. I think what we experience in the rec center and our libraries and as as some of the examples is it's regional growth and um that can't be solved by our own comprehensive plan except through regional cooperation. So I appreciate all the hard work that the planning commission and the council has done to get us to this point and I thank you for listening to my input.

Thank you very much. appreciate your participation. Next, uh Jen, uh Janette Kotichas and then after that, Katherine Smith.

Hi there. My name is Janette Kotigis and I live here in Lewisville.

Oh, and I want to thank you for opening this up to public comments. I'm concerned about too much growth too fast. However, I'm going to address only one consequence. My fear is attempting to evacuate 30,000 residents versus the n the 19,000 we have today. During the 2021 fires, it took residents up to 90 minutes to get out of town beyond the four arteries surrounding us. those being South Boulder Road, Mccasan, Dylan, and 95th. While I'm glad to see a strategy to work with other communities to ensure accessible evacuation routes, this is just a strategy and it isn't tied to residential growth. So, sorry, I'm nervous. So as you plan for each new development, we need a commitment to evaluate the capacity of evacuation routes. In your slide regarding infrastructure and resilience, it says you added a policy on evacuation routes. I don't see it. I see goals and strategy. Before you approve the comprehensive plan, please add a specific commitment to a detailed policy to ensure updated routes of evacuation for every new de for every new development or specific increments of population growth. Or maybe consider it's just too much growth. Thank you so much for considering my comments.

Thank you very much. Catherine Smith and then after that we'll have Tamar CR. Good evening. I'm Katherine Smith and I'm a Lewisville resident. I'm going to add my name to the group of citizens who remain concerned about growth and the rate of growth. I think that uh the comprehensive plan is calling for roughly at least double the rates in the uh housing plan and I don't understand the reason for that. I know that everyone in this room knows that there are various ways in which we can limit the growth in the city without citing either a specific percentage or a specific number of units. the um densities that we are talking about I think are part of what is driving the growth and for me they also drive a concern that the comp plan isn't taking into account the 2026 um city of Lewisville wildfire in conflration risk assessment. That risk assessment really looks at density as a driving cause of the spread of fires. And if we're going to go towards density, I think we need to do much more careful planning than we have done so far. If you look at the comments that Matt Jones submitted, you will see a a very

good and more comprehensive explanation than I'm going to give about why the potential maximum residential unit calculation that is showing the much quoted uh 47 to 67 roughly percent increase is uh flawed and I do think that in terms of transparency for the community, having calculations that people can follow, having assumptions which are clearly stated is important. A number of the speakers have talked about quality of life. I am one of the people. I love living in Lewisville. I I wager everyone here actually loves living in Lewisville. What concerns me is that I don't think the plan is doing enough to preserve what is great about Lewisville. I am concerned about traffic, rec center, library, the overcrowding, the pressure on our open spaces, the issues with the electric grid. And I do want to see something that's really concrete. I think we need to be setting standards and um taking measures that we know will preserve the quality of life in the community. And finally, I want to say that I um am a huge supporter of affordable housing and I don't see how we can continue to build market rate housing and think that we're addressing the affordable housing issue. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up, um, Tamar CR and then after that, Cindy Bedell.

My name is Tamar CR. I live in Lewisville for over 20 years, and thank you for taking my comment. Um, let's see. I I really do appreciate the changes that have been made and the changes to the narrative that um, Jeff went over are really fantastic. Um, I like the idea from somebody else that it would be great to define um what we mean by incre incremental growth. I think that's an important thing. But um as usual in in my three minutes, I'm just going to talk about something that I really do want to see change. I think that this plan is going to open Lewisville up to too much growth too fast. And um I am I do not feel confused about where the 47 to 67% growth number came from. I could see the table that if you add up the different numbers in that capacity limits one is 4,100 goes up to 5900 if you add that up and that if you calculate that based on the present growth that you can come up with 47 to 67% growth. I'm not really confused about that. Um, what I am confused about or I should say or what I disagree about is how this model spit out these numbers which were about 5,000 units for growth. And I would hope that the planning commissioners will ask to actually see the granularity in that model. I did. I asked for the Excel spreadsheet that shows all 7,000 parcels and how they envision the future of that. And as um Commissioner Mahali, you know, explained, appendix D shows the fudge factor of how we reduced it from what the maximum would be to 5,000. If you actually look at those numbers and you take the um opportunity areas and you take the densities um for those parcels, you will end up with well over 100% growth. So we've so if you um so I understand um that there is text in the plan that says we'll follow the housing

plan but this doesn't guarantee the growth or limit it still these are hard numbers and it's a fairly clear map. Our unit our development code requires you to consider compliance with this plan. If the plan envisions 40 units per acre and five stories, you or a future planning commissioner is going to be the one who have to has to explain why this particular development isn't entitled to that density. I agree with the other speaker who mentioned that there's going to be expectations set by these hard numbers. It's harder to say no later than to put reasonable numbers in the plan right now. Um here's an example. Um the data shows that there's a parcel planned as a rest a restaurant pad currently planned as a restaurant pad that's occupied by Rocky Mountain Tap and Garden that's going to become that's envisioned to become neighborhood center and that would allow 19 units per acre and up to three stories. If you imagine that parcel, it seems like it would be great for a restaurant, but I don't really imagine 19 units and three stories going in very well there. However, if the current land owner sells that land to a new landowner saying, "Hey, look, are sorry to interrupt you. Three minutes are up.

Okay. I'm really sorry. Let me just finish and say that um the numbers in the maps need to be changed and um thank you for taking my comment. Thank you. Okay. Um next we have Cindy Bedell and then after that Matt Jones.

My name is Sorry. My name is Cindy Bedell. I live in W 2. So, what I'm hearing tonight is don't worry. Even though this plan sets the table for up to four to 5,000 more housing units and up to 47 to 67% population growth, we'll never get there. Let's just adopt it and see what happens. But that is disingenuous. The actual comp plan details have not changed, just the way it is framed. City Council passed an ordinance last year, section, I think it's section 1772190, yard and bulk requirements and it says a yard and bulk requirements under a planned community zone district shall be specified on the general development plan for the different areas of the district. Such yard and bulk requirement shall be consistent with the comprehensive development plan or other adopted plan of the city and desired character of the district. Therefore, if you adopt this comp plan, you are actually allowing this maximum amount of growth or as you know, future development applicants could start saying it's a takings. We can work on zoning all we want after this comp plan, but the rights will be in the comp plan and the ordinance. The majority of Lewisville residents do not want this massive of a change for Lewisville. This is too big despite references to the housing plan residential number of 2483. Unless the place type densities are downsized, it is still a plan for 5,000 or more. So, please downsize the place type densities. The height and density in the plan do not fit Lewisville. Allowing five stories in certain areas and three stories used by right downtown are not a good fit. So, please reduce the heights allowed, keep SRU, especially for downtown. Many residents,

including myself, are concerned about quality of life, traffic, the rec center. So, are you going to is the city going to put in another satellite rec center down at Red Tale Ridge if they put in thousands of new units, which will actually be closer to Broomfield than city? Um, and I'm running out of time, so I just want to say I support affordable housing, but break adding this many market rate housing units will not bring us affordable housing. Let's expand our affordable housing programs within our existing housing stock and add a reasonable amount of new housing units. And finally, during the Marshall fire, it took us over an hour to get a few blocks to South Boulder Road. At one point, I was ready to grab my dog and run. So this amount of new housing density is going to be very dangerous on our existing infrastructure. So in summary, please adjust the future land use map, lower the maximum density for each land use type so that the maximum number of new units is at most similar to the housing needs assessment. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt Jones. After that, we'll have Laurel Danif. Good evening. Uh, can you hear me? Yes.

Thanks for uh, listening. Uh, and I'm Matt Jones. I live in Mighty Ward 3 in Lewisville. And I want to talk about three things. What I think people in this community want as far as growth. They want reasonable, responsible, modest growth. I'm also going to talk about how this plan is massive in growth size. And then I'm going to talk about if I were a planning commissioner, what I do and a suggestion maybe it might be helpful in your thinking. So, I think people in town uh want reasonable, responsible, modest growth. And I think that based on thousands of conversations that Mayor Bob, former mayor Bob Muckle and I have had with people over time, emails, whatever in elected office, they want they love Lewisville for its scale and size that it is, and they want a little bit of growth so they can help with affordable housing. That's basically what they want. The citizen survey, I think, backs that up. If you look at the citizen survey, there was a small growth and two large growth categories. No modest growth category. 25% wanted the smallest growth. 40% didn't say either ones of the three. They said, and they wrote in letters like mine said, "No, I want modest growth." That's what people wanted. I don't know why it wasn't portrayed that way in the plan, but it wasn't. So, I think that's what people want. They want reasonable, responsible growth. I think this plan is massive. Massive. And I chose that word specifically that the 46 to 67% from that number. If you look at appendix D, it's basically a quarter of the maximum that you could build. If you run through the stuff, and I can do that if somebody has a question after this, but I got to move on. Um, and when people talk about, well, this is just a policy document. I used to write policy documents. They drive most everything. all these things you talked about that you're asking constituents to

show up in tedious hearings and say, "Don't worry, it's going to be fine." It'll this will drive the all the growth in this community for years. And you know that and we all know that. And I think what that needs to happen is that this plan needs to be modified. Now, we didn't know these numbers until a few weeks ago. This plan's been going on for two years and I'm sure the planners are tired of working on it and want to move on. But had we known these numbers last year or even last fall when you guys were looking at it previously, I don't think we'd have come out the way we did. I think we'd have be in a very different place. So if I were a planning commissioner, what I would do if somebody makes a motion to adopt this plan as is, I would say, I cannot vote for this plan. I'm voting no and this is the plan I could vote for. I can vote for a plan for 2500 similar to what the housing plan is and change the place types to make that happen and not expect constituents to come in and tell us over and over again later on that it's too much and get their get this right in the first place. That's what I would suggest you do to do. So, thanks for listening to me. Please keep Lewisville the special place it is.

Thank you. Next up, Laurel Danif. And then after that, we'll go online to Elizabeth Wetzel.

Hi, I'm Laurel Danf Sigrillo. I live in Lewisville in the Little Italy neighborhood. Um, felt weird to be up here in a hat, but I am rocking my small town character hat tonight because I there it seems to be a lot of us in Lewisville are really concerned about losing that. You've heard it tonight. Um, I heard that, you know, folks from the town call it special quality of of living. That's that's fine. You know, my husband and I moved here because we wanted our kids to be able to ride their bikes to the rec center and walk to school and walk to their friends houses and go to the library without us. And we want to be able to continue to leave our back door open and not worry about getting robbed. Um, I too am not opposed to growth. I am opposed to irresponsible growth. I am opposed to these extremes that have taken place in Lewisville. You know, there was that sort of sweep for a while where it was very anti-growth and that didn't work. That got us where we are with not enough housing. Um, but I'm also worried that where we we we have like boomerang to the other side of, you know, progrowth without um responsibility and without the, you know, the moderation. I really think that most people in my in my talking with the with the city, people want moderation that helps them worry less about safety. It helps them worry less about the sustainability. And I also want to say that, you know, the inclusivity of um the small town character message, I I come at that with the most inclusive intentions and I think most people in this city do. So I appreciate the clarification around the numbers because yeah, it's been a huge confusion for people. Um but I also want to say that what is the point of a plan if you're not putting numbers to paper? That that

that is what a plan is. it's a goal to work towards. It's a plan. And so to say that, oh, it's just a plan and we're not going to necessarily hit those numbers is that doesn't work for me. Um I'm aware that as we move forward, the vagueness of the comp plan is going to be worked out in um you know, case by case, project by project, development by development, uh zoning thing by zoning thing. I'm looking forward to the conversation about the height restrictions, maybe going to hire, but my ask is that you really consider what is responsible and what is for the good of the residents. Keep that on top of mind. I know that you all can do that. We just went through the Cole Creek Village thing and you really reflected what the residents asked for and needed and put that condition in place to help keep Front Street closed. Um, so as we move forward, please please keep doing that and listening and and I appreciate so much that the job that you're doing um, you know, follows the values of the residents of Louisville. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, next we will have Elizabeth Wetzel. You should be able to unmute now. Good evening and and thank you very much, chair, planning commissioners and city council. Is are you getting a echo? No, but we can hear you.

Okay, I'm echoing on my end. So, um my name is Elizabeth Wetszel. My husband and I just moved here recently. We've been uh spending two years building here because we love the quality and the feeling of Lewisville number one small town. I am here to tonight to formally state my opposition to the current draft.

Unfortunately, um you are kind of cutting in and out. Why don't we give you a chance if you want to to try something different with your audio, whether it means logging back in or back out, and we will certainly we can we can try it again here if you'd like to, but we're just kind of missing some of your message. So, okay.

Do you want to try speaking now? Okay, great. Yeah. All right, we'll let her back in. Okay. Um, next we'll go to Oh, sorry. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead, please. Uh, next we'll go to Larry Crowley. Gene Morgan has yielded her time. Um, so you'll have six minutes.

All right. Um, let's try Eric Reed instead then.

I'll go. Yeah, great. Thank you.

Eric Reed, resident of Lewisville, Colorado. Also the president of the Chamber of Commerce. And I'll be reading a letter representing the Downtown Business Association, Lewisville Chamber Advocacy Committee and the um Lewisville Chamber board of directors. First, I want to thank the commission um and city staff for all the hard work the many years have been going into this plan. Um the level of engagement and analysis reflects years of thoughtful work to guide Lewisville's long-term future and that has had a lot of input from the residents and businesses as well. We appreciate the plan's clarity about its purpose, its strategic community-driven guide book for city policy decisions and priorities. It is not a zoning or regulations. It does not establish growth quotas or automatic approvals. It provides direction for the future while preserving the public process for individual projects. From a business and community perspective, we believe the plan is balanced and future focused. Prioritizes supporting a thriving economy and fostering a businessfriendly environment that supports existing businesses while also attracting new ones. It also promotes highquality mixeduse redevelopment in key opportunity areas allowing businesses and residents to coexist in thoughtful and well-designed manner. We support the housing framework and the staff recommendations. The plan acknowledges key trends including an aging population, shrinking household sizes, fewer school age children, and rising housing costs. Expanding housing opportunities to meet the needs of residents and local workforce is an important step towards fostering a healthy multigenerational community for the long term. Thoughtful reinvestment and managed growth are essential to sustaining Lewisville's long-term fiscal health. A strong and balanced tax base allows the community to continue delivering

first class services residents expect, including public safety, infrastructure, parks, schools. This plan provides a 10 to 20 year framework to guide that work responsibly. In summary, we support the adoption because the plan aligns with the priorities of our organizations and our community. Balanced and thoughtful growth guided by community values. A strong business and friendly local economy. Housing options that support our current and future residents along with our workforce. Mixeduse redevelopment that strengthens commercial areas. long-term fiscal stability to sustain our important and respected city services and a clear 20-year framework that guides policy without predetermining specific projects. We respectfully support this adoption. Sincerely, the Downtown Business Association, Lewisville Chamber Advocacy Committee, and the Lewisville Chamber board of directors. Appreciate your time. Thank you guys.

I do. City of Louisville. Yes. Thank you. Um Larry Cwley,

can you tell how many more cards do you have?

Okay, great. Thanks.

Hi, I'm Larry Crowley, Lewisville, Colorado. This is a science lesson. I'm a ex-science teacher. An ecosystem is a physical place and all the living things that are in it. A carrying capacity is the amount of living things an ecosystem can support. They are in balance. If you exceed the carrying capacity and put too many living things in a ecosystem, it becomes out of balance and is injured. If you continue putting living things in and over exceed the carrying capacity, it injures the ecosystem and gets out of balance. If you cons if you continue adding living things, it can destroy the ability of the carrying of the ecosystem to support those living things. I would submit that Lewisville is an ecosystem. I would submit that we have exceeded the carrying capacity as as is demonstrated by water shortages by our having to import food by less loss of soil by um not having enough food that produced here that we have to import it that uh we're already in trouble. We cannot continue unlimited growth in Lewisville. Um, unlimited growth in human beings is cancer. If you have cells that get out of control and continue growing, they will eventually destroy the human body. If you have unlimited growth of humans in an ecosystem, they will destroy the ecosystem. In 1870 the it took till 1870 for the human

population on this planet to reach 1 billion people. It took till 1930 to double that population to two billion people. Today we have over 8 billion people on this planet. I submit that we are already way over the carrying capaci capacity of this planet as shown by wars, by famine, by all the problems that we're having now. We cannot continue unlimited growth. I see our plan that says the state of Colorado will not allow us to set limits on the number of people that come here. I think we need to set limits on the number of people to come here. I think we need to think about the people that are already here. I came here 32 years ago. It was a small and charming town. I came to Boulder in 1954. It was a small and charming town. I don't think Boulder is a small and charming town anymore. I don't think Lewisville is going to be a small and charming town in another 20 or 30 years. I think we ought to think about that. I hear us planning for who knows how much growth. I think we ought to think about do we owe the people that are here something or do we owe the people that want to come here something. Um I'm not too articulate about this, but I think we need to plan better. I was on the open space uh advisory board for three years. Um, we were very committed to trying to make Lewisville a better place. We did try to consider development, but we can't just continue to add more people to continue to infill, to continue to go higher.

It's been pointed out that we did have a fire. It was very hard to get out. It took me a long time. I just went ahead and cooked my supper before I left. Uh, what was the point? I couldn't get out on South Boulder Road, so I might as well stay and cook my supper before I left. We have problems already with too many people. If we double the population in the next 20 years, we're going to have a lot more problems. I think that's all I need to say. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Linda Galley. And then after that, Owen Lee

and then we'll go online. Yeah. Great.

Hi, I'm Linda Gleos and I live in Lewisville. Um, I'm not going to take a lot of time because pretty much everyone here has already said anything that I want to say and probably said it better than I could say it. Um, I do think the planning commission, Rob, you're great. Always appreciate all your help during the Marshall fire. I'm a Marshall fire. um survivor and you know when someone mentioned getting out of the neighborhood we literally had our backyard on fire just in time to sort of creep down to Macaslin and get stuck in traffic. I felt at that time city services weren't quite city and county services weren't quite up to snuff. I mean none of us got a warning. So I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned about when I lived in Denver years ago, it in a three-year time span, it exploded with development. And having grown up in Denver, I can tell you those roads were not made for all that traffic. And for every development they put up, they provided parking, but those cars had to go somewhere. And then the same thing with Lewisville. We may have tons of um, you know, units, and we're counting the units, but we're not counting the vehicles. And right now we're already going to have this humongous King Supers go up on Mccasin. I can only imagine what you know the traffic on that's going to be. Now I do understand we need growth and I understand the chambers comments. Absolutely. I don't understand on the planning commission's page where they say we need to increase downtown growth for 18 to 24hour, you know, service. I hope Lewisville doesn't become that. I've lived bar bars before and they're not any fun. Um, I just think that we do need to be super careful. I'm afraid afraid that if we do approve this now, we are not going to slow roll it and um, we're not going to think about, hey, where are the cars going to go when they leave these units? Where are the people going to go? Where are the services going to go? I just I don't think we're

set up for that yet. And we had another evacuation warning not too long ago and I didn't get a notice. It was um right over off Dylan Road. the hay bales were on fire and they were issuing somebody called me and said, "Hey, guess what? There's a fire two miles from your house." Nothing. No city services. Nobody notified us. So, I feel like we need to do a little bit of cleaning up on that because I can't imagine what those roads would be like if we had more people and all had to evacuate. But, um, guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Okay, Owen Lee. And then we'll go back online to Elizabeth Wetzel. See?

All right. Uh, you can start the time. Hi everyone. My name is Owen Lee. I was uh I'm born in Lewisville. I was uh born out of this hospital and I was raised here. The only time I've spent outside of Lewisville was I studied four years at Kraton University in Omaha. So, I um I've lived in Lewis for for a long time and I understand that a lot of you guys are very against growth and I do think that is important to be responsible about growth in the city. But I just did want to highlight that uh per one of the plans that Lewisville is one of the fastest aging communities in Boulder County. The medium home value reached 896,000 in 2023. That's 132% increase over the past decade, well above the Boulder County average. and household needs 200,000 to comfortably live in Lewisville. And I wanted to say that I think that growth is important in Lewisville and I do believe that as a community we will be responsible about growth in the future, but I think it's is important to be a progrowth city. Most of the things from this map uh particularly the regional center, I know there's a lot of complaints about that. those are located on the very edges of the city. Other things such as the mixeduse developments such as flex are also more on the outskirts of the city that I believe wouldn't have a huge effect on a lot of the single family homes. And yeah, I think that Luso is a good city and I think that we will always have this small town character. But if we continue to go against growth and be a city against more people moving in, then we will price out people like me from ever being able to live here without having some assistance from their parents or something like that. So, I I think that it's important for us to be a city that

is is pro growth and be very responsible about that and that's why we have public things like this. But I think that saying that we're going to have these 47% growth is a little bit ridiculous. You guys very clearly stated that this is just kind of a precautionary measure that you were kind of going on the higher end just in case as a theoretical thing. And obviously we're not going to reach 47% housing increase or anything like that. So I think that being worried about that is something that we shouldn't be worried about. And sorry I wasn't the most articulate today. I've never done one of these things before. But I did want to put my voice out as a young person here, probably the youngest by far, that if we're a city against growth, housing prices will continue to rise and people like me will not be able to live here. So, I just just want to state that and thank you guys all for your hard work and I appreciate everyone coming out here and thank you so much. Have a rest.

Thank you. Okay. Well, we go online and then we'll come back to the um Elizabeth. Yeah. Okay. Is this working this time? Yes. No, no echo on your end. Hopefully. No echo. Great.

So, u I'll say it again. My name is Elizabeth Wetzel. Uh my husband and I just recently moved here after spending two years building a home in the Marshall Fire area and we moved here for the character of this town which is a gem. Um I am not here for no growth. I understand the need for some growth but I am here to formally state my opposition to the current draft of the comprehensive plan. The proposed to increase our housing units to by 46 to 67%. It's not just a stati stat statistic. It represents a fundamental shift in the identity of Lewisville. The scale of growth would surge our population by up to 60%, pushing us toward 33,000 residents. This is an unreasonable departure from the city's previously approved target of 28% increase. We need to be realistic about what this level of massive growth means for our daily lives. Number one, the infrastructure strain. Our roads, the Lewisville Public Library, the recreation center are already feeling the pressure. Adding over 13,000 new residents will lead to chronic crowding and traffic that our current infrastructure was never designed to handle. Second, water security, which many have brought up. We are living through a climate reality of diminishing snowpack, committing to thousands of new units, plus an unsustainable demand on our water resources, a resource that is becoming more scarce and expensive every year. And then number three, the character of this town. Per people move and stay in Lewisville for its small town feel. If we abandon the 28% growth target in

favor for this extremely dense city, we will be risk losing the very quality of life that makes this city the best place to live. So I urge the council to reject the current draft and return to a more reasonable, responsible, sustainable growth target of 28% or lower. We should be prioritizing smart, managed growth that respects our resources and our current taxpayers. Thank you very much for letting me speak my mind. Thank you. Thank you.

And um David Palmer, you're next. Hey everybody. Uh good evening. David Pomemoroy. I live at 112 Vista in Lewisville. Um, I've been involved in the comp plan since the first open house, which was nearly two years ago. And this has been a long and thorough and open process. And I want to commend the city and the staff and the the comp plan team for very diligently listening and seeking the input of all of the residents of Lewisville. As I understand it, thousands of residents, more than 10% of the population of the town have contributed their opinions to the comp plan and made sure that that feedback is incorporated. You know, Lewisville, like so many in demand suburbs, is at an inflection point. We have to make a decision. Do we go the way of PaloAlto, California, and decide that our town is full and become a gated community for only the rich where everyone else has to drive in? or do we make room for some new neighbors to come and live and work among us? When I talk to my neighbors, I hear the concern often that changing the physical character, physical nature of our town will change the town's character. the the character which is so important, that small town character where you see people that you know every time you go out, you bump into people downtown,

you have these interactions that let you feel like you're part of a community. But what happens if we don't build new homes? Home prices keep rising. They will keep rising and rising and we will price out all of the characters who make up the character of our community. And when our town is no longer full of all those characters, we will have lost that small town feeling even though it may look the same. And so I would invite all my fellow residents of Lewisville to please think about this. think there's there's not an option here to do nothing. The option to do nothing or I mean even if we if we slow down the growth to a very minimal level, the home prices are going to keep rising and they're going to keep pricing people out. And it's important that we make room for our seniors to have a place where they can downsize in a walkable neighborhood. It's important that we make room for our children. and it's important that we keep the people here who make our community great. Thank you.

Thank you. I think that wraps it up at this point. Um we'll take a five minute break and then after we come back uh we'll have a a discussion and questions of staff and then uh move on. Thanks. Thank you all. Thanks. Uh welcome back. Um so now we move into a city response closing uh statement. Um but does the applicant wish to address anything raised by the public comment or provide additional information for the planning commission to consider and then we will have questions additional questions for you. Not at this time. Um, but happy to answer any questions during the discussion.

Thank you. Uh, so as we move into questions for staff, um, our last chance before we close public comment.

Um, I don't have any questions and I really am grateful for all of those of you that came to speak out tonight. And I do agree we all have one thing in common and that's how much we love our community. Um generally I think Jeff you did a tremendous job um taking all the feedback that you've gotten over the last four weeks since the last time you brought it in front of us and heard feedback from city council and planning commission and all the public and I think the plan did a good job and a and I think a better job of balancing um the concerns for infrastructure the concerns for um incremental growth and still allows for those things. I don't want to be disingenuous. I agree that this plan is a framework that allows growth, right? So I I we have to acknowledge that and I and I'm clear and um understand in you know that that is the intent of the plan. The plan allows growth. It doesn't require growth. It doesn't make growth happen all on its own, but it does allow growth. Um but I support the plan as drafted. I think we could all find things that, you know, we would change or nitpick or reward Smith, but um if it gets passed as is tonight, I will be pleased.

Thank you. Additional questions for staff. Any questions? Seeing none. Oh, yes. Commissioner, less of a question, more of a comment. I just want to make sure I don't forget it before we move into discussion. Um, you showed the graph tonight. It was the opportunity area map. It's figure 10 on page 36. Um, either I have late onset color blindness or it appears the Centennial Valley and the downtown colors are switched in the legend. So, I just wanted to make sure someone caught that. Noted. Thank you.

You seeing no questions for staff, I will now close the public hearing and the planning commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented. During deliberations, no further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Who would like to begin? And and I really do hope we can have some discussion on this at this point. Sure, Commissioner.

I'm happy to start with with a discussion point that may or may not go anywhere and be helpful. Um, so first off, also just acknowledging the tremendous amount of work. Um, and Jeeoff, I think you did a fantastic job incorporating feedback and, you know, all of us and especially city staff has spent many hours of the last two years putting this together. So, just want to applaud and acknowledge the the huge body of work um that it's taken to get us to this place. Um and and so you know comments and discussion here regarding the capacity which has been you know a focal point for discussion here and you know as a planning commissioner I I understand why it's presented the way it is you know we say okay we we've pulled the city you know I think we all want some growth at some level we have to address affordable housing okay so how do we do it right well here are the opportunity areas you know here's some zoning um suggestions and here's the space we think we have and and my my issue with it and and the way that the space assessment and the capacity is done is it's it's separate from from how we will do it in reality and you have added text to address this but I I want to go further down this road because you've gone through and like we asked about appendix D where you said okay just a space assessment right here's how much you know land we have here's the zoning we think we should do you know based on public discussion you do the math you apply some judgment calls in step three what I called a fudge factor um and then here's here's the capacity here's table one. And we tried to acknowledge that in reality as you're making land use decisions, it's it's systematic and you're taking things on a case-byase basis and you're doing things like evaluating water and capacities of other services. And so, um, my issue here is is that table one sort of doesn't acknowledge that. You know, it says, okay, here's here's the numbers, right? Here's what you could do just based on what's available. whereas in reality when you go to implement it it's different and I think there's even some disclaimers that in reality it will be you know a fraction

thereof and so um you know cutting to the chase here I I think we should just cut that section cut table one I don't think it is reflective of the actual process I think we replace table one and that section about capacity with the language that we've talked about of you know we should be managing growth we should be paying attention to these things which we do cover in in plan. We do reference the housing plan and that target. I I'm trying to get a sense of what the value is. What is the hard value of a planning to the planning commission of what that capacity table is? Because in reality, that's not how we're going to be looking at it. And I do resonate with the comment that we could be setting false expectation. A developer could look at us and go, "Oh, hey, Red Tail, there's 2500 units or if I forget what the number is in table one, I'm looking at the graph." Whereas, you know, five years from now, oh well, you know, let's for, you know, that doesn't mention, oh, we had a vote or there's other zoning configurations or or oh, since this is published, these other things went in. And so, for a a document that's going to live for 10 years, you know, we have published these numbers that are very separate from how we would actually do this. And yes, those processes will still be in place. We will still have the zoning discussions, future versions of the planning commission. We'll still have that. So, so with all that in mind, what what is the value of having table one and can't we just replace that with what are we losing if we take it out? We are identifying opportunity areas. We are having zoning discussions and we have this this goal of addressing affordable housing which we outline and we and we referenced the housing plan. So, why can't we lean on those things? Why do we have to include table one that has the potential for 10 years to set false expectations? And a lot of us would agree that you know we could not do that just just at the granular level. Yeah. No, we definitely can't do that without affecting a lot of things. And my line of questioning before also from PEXD is again it's just space you're not there's

nothing baked into that you know capacity discussion for infrastructure or anything else. So the question I'm you know and I wanted to start to to get this you know get everyone else's inputs. Do we really need this section? What are we losing if we take it out? Because the processes are still in place and we have stated our goals. I think and you guys have done a great job of saying, "Okay, affordable housing, here are the goals. Here are the things we want to manage." You added a land use strategy, I think it was like L18 to to manage the incremental growth and and evaluating. I think we can lean on that and take out that section. So, sorry to start with a throwing throwing a a bomb on the table. Sorry that throwing something possibly disruptive. Um, but the more I think about it, I I I'm not seeing the value of including that and I think it's more trouble than it's worth. I applaud the effort of trying to be thoughtful. Again, I understand the approach. We want to add some houses. Where do we put it? I would say instead of the numbers, let's just focus on the the themes and the opportunity areas. We could even add some language of why we think some areas are better than others. But the the the the comment I have for discussion is do we actually need

that? Commissioner Richie. Well, I just I guess I was going to ask you and then I think look to I guess I'm curious on staff's response, but I then also have a question for you about how that would relate to the the density and scale estimates in the land use types, right? Because I think you know table one I think is an estimate but the land use type places probably set those future decisions more. Yeah. And if I could if I could respond. Okay. Um briefly.

Sure. Yeah. And I think uh the commissioners were asking for some staff clarification as well. Um so the so the intent we had a lot of discussions about this and we wanted to be very transparent with everybody involved the public planning commission city council because we do have a lot of detail. So we felt that if not adding those capacity ranges um it wouldn't be transparent what the potential capacity was because nobody's going to really know what those densities translate into. I think um you know it'll be interesting to see if we want to I mean I agree because we have the way we have this plan set up it's really the land use map and the place types are the most important aspects of the plan and this just provides context for planning purposes. Can I?

Yeah. Yeah.

I think um the way I see it is exactly that. It's the transparency because we do have the the from what I'm understanding if you took the table out, we'd have the density in there, but we wouldn't have any numbers around it so that when we're making decisions, it's not that we want to do that. But we need to be had that number in mind so that we know when we're planning like where we are in that range. Like we like that helps us to be more responsible. helps us to be more responsive to know that the density levels that are in this plan could potentially lead to that higher number so that we know it's a matter of transparency. It's a matter of being able to, you know, to to serve, not hinder the ability to plan in infrastructure and water needs and all the other things people are worried about incrementally. We need to know what the possibilities are before, you know, for us to be able to plan. And that's why I would see leaving that number in there with the understanding and I appreciate the multiple clarifications tonight that this is not a growth target. Um it is just so we as we are planning and this and council and staff can understand with these density levels what the outer limits are so that we can plan accordingly and maybe not reach those outer limits.

Yeah. No, I wholeheartedly agree. Go. Did you Yeah. I I I think I I see where you're coming from, Commissioner Haley, where the table in and of itself puts numbers out there that unless you are as it's presented intimately familiar with how it was calculated present a level of ambiguity, right? And where there's ambiguity, that begets uncertainty. Uncertainty begets fear. And so you look at the table and you think, "Wow, 6,000 houses, that's crazy." Um and I appreciate and understand the uh effort at transparency at providing you know the boundaries of what the reasonable and defensible assumptions are that went into the analytics based on the areas the space types you know the the the different frameworks around what's possible right um I I I think there's maybe a little bit of a common ground I wouldn't necessarily neessarily, you know, throw the the baby out with a bath water just because there's a certain level of inherent ambiguity in the table. I think if anything, the table could benefit from an additional level of transparency and clarity where there's already the assumption of the, you know, low, medium, and high or unlikely, probable, and, you know, unlikely. I guess they're both unlikely if they're on the ends of the of the spectrum. Um, but but I think that there's there's a there's a potential to have additional transparency and clarity at the table, maybe providing just a a little bit more detail as to where the range comes from because each of those has a pretty significant range for those different areas. um based on again the reasonable and defensible assumptions of

what's likely to happen uh as opposed to just you know taking it out.

Yeah. to miss to Commissioner Hunt's comments. Um I think taking it out, especially at this point in in the development of it all, is kind of putting blinders on and it's pretending like if we aren't aware that this could happen, then uh then we wouldn't be as well advised during the decision-making process going forward. Um, and so it seems to me, I mean, it truly is a tool. I I think where a lot of the confusion came in as we see plan, comprehensive plan, and these initially looked like goals or targets or allowances. Um, and understanding that we can't put any caps on legally, uh, that we at least need to be realistic as to what could happen if when. um this doesn't assume that it's going to happen. So I'd be a little concerned about in the name of transparency taking it out at this point.

So and we can add I think we're all on the same page with transparency. I'm not arguing against that. And so we talk about the phase of the process. I think this is a relatively new addition as of the January. Is that I don't remember seeing the numbers before then. Is that when was the analysis done? The the this table appeared in the draft that was released like late last year. The 95% draft. there's just refinements to it. Yeah. Uh and and so acknowledging that it's a snapshot in time and you know, anything is you know it's not even a snapshot though really. Right.

Well, but but it is because we talk about capacity, right? We're talking about how many could how many could you add? And I would contend if you were to add 3,000 somewhere, right? We talk about capacity as a town. It's more to it. And we understand this as planning commissioners. I'm not saying you don't. In reality, my point is that in reality, it's more than just a space assessment. So, we're talking about capacity. We have to acknowledge that it's not just a space assessment. It's everything else that goes along with it. It's services and infrastructure. We hear that time and time again. And so, my issue with the table as is is that it's just a space assessment that that presents itself as capacity, whereas it's disjoint from how we would evaluate capacity. Well, but it doesn't take into account services or infrastructure.

That's my point, right? And it's not meant to but it's but when I see the word capacity you know what is the capacity at least as a plan I I think about it in that way I think I think about it systematically I'm not just looking at a plot of land saying how many you know based on the density of the the zoning we've done how many could we put in there you know and when we evaluate things we have criteria that considers things beyond just spatial density right but I I think maybe we're making this table to mean more than it is I mean it's it's it's we're loading it with all kinds of meaning when really it is just a here's the density we're putting in here's what is possible let's be aware of that so that we we're not again we don't have blinders on

and I and I and I completely agree with you but the problem is that we're saying that we're capacity and people are interpreting it that way I I understand that I think we could put some clarifying to Commissioner Choy's point I mean we could put some clarifying language in there but I would be opposed to taking it out because I think again I want to be transparent I want to make sure that and maybe it's important to put some language in that makes clear what the purpose of the table is that it's you know maybe been there already but see yeah perhaps to strengthen the language then u even before it goes to council

yeah so I think we just to summarize I think we agree on language of what capacity means right you know be and also in in the sake of transparency also you know and I think they do this if you read appendix D but if you're just reading the section on page 35 or whatever it is that table is is completely separate and that analysis is completely separate than public public input, right? I mean, we have I think it relies on some zoning discussion that public had input on, but that analysis is not something that we put out into the wild and said, "Okay, like would you guys be okay with adding, you know, 3,000 houses there?" You know, people comment on that. It's it's it was it was an analysis done based on the zoning outcomes of the discussion. Is that is that correct? Make sure um I'm not 100% following. Are you referring to the analysis and the the appendix the methodology that's in

so so I'm talking about talking about where so talking about transparency where the numbers in table one came from. Yeah. Which I think is what appendix D is addressing unless I have this totally backwards. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. Yeah. And so I I I think transparency is good but I think it's the capacity. We need more language describing where it came from, what it actually means. We we added the language on how it's to be used. I do like that. Thank you, Jeff.

Push back just a little bit on that. The the table itself is titled future residential development opportunity, right? And and to me, I think that's I think the table the the title of the table is correct in so far as it does identify a future residential development opportunity, right? And and there is a a footnote on that table that, you know, does say these estimates are planning assumptions and capacity ranges used to evaluate infrastructure and service needs. So, so I think that in and of itself does speak to the fact that if a number of residential developments within those ranges occurred that there would be associated additional services, infrastructure and facility needs that would, you know, be commenurate to to support that level of growth. Um, that wasn't necessarily what I was saying in terms of adding additional clarity. I was I was saying you know the ranges that that you know 200 to 300,000 to 2,000 2,000 to 2500 you know those ranges could be broken out if if anything changed on this to say why there is a range to begin with and what the assumptions are between the low medium and high end of that.

Yeah I I I do agree that we should have more detail as to the the genesis of these numbers. Commissioner Richie,

I was um I think Commissioner Choy said most of what I was going to counterpoint. I agree that that first footnote and maybe just a little bit of clarification might be, you know, these estimates or planning assumptions based on the density ranges, not capacity, but the density ranges maybe noted in the place types, right? And for further evaluation, look at appendix D, right? Like I think you could modify that first sentence a little bit to kind of connect where these numbers come from and then where the analysis is further if folks want to look at it. But I agree the table should be in there. I appreciate that the transparency. Um but I think and I think the infrastructure is baked in. So

thanks. Additional commissioner thoughts deliberation points discussion points. I mean I can an awful lot's been said already. So I I it's a comprehensive plan that covers economic vitality, sustainability, resilience, transportation, core services, open space. We're focused on land use. um and a table that some have interpreted to be goals or targets and have interpreted to be inevitable as opposed to opportunity or alternatively described as possible. Um I think we just need to be careful. We're here to review and approve the comprehensive plan. Um completely understand the emotion concern around what could be potentially interpreted as targets and inevitable growth. I don't think that's the intent or that's certainly not what I believe will be the the outcome. Um, and we do have an affordability crisis. We do have an economic vitality crisis. Um, and we have, as one of the public speakers referenced, essentially an accessibility crisis in terms of accessibility to live andor work in our community. And I think this comprehensive plan does a pretty good job of potentially addressing that particular problem. So I'm not going to comment further on the table or the or the source of the data.

Thanks. Yes, Mr.

Yeah, if you just want to make sort of summing up comments as we normally do. Um, you know, I do want to again commend staff and their um the consultant for the enormous amount of work that went into this and all the efforts for public comment. I know that it was a huge huge undertaking. Um I think that this is well organized. It has implementable goals that are easy to understand. Um that align largely entirely I think with community priorities. I know there's a, you know, room for individual disagreement, but I do think this aligns with community priorities at large, um, particularly around affordability, sustainability, commercial viability, um, small town character, which is no small thing, but I do think, you know, we can't be closing our doors to potential new neighbors who can help, um, keep this community, the vibrant community with young people and people of all types who can live here, which is what I always loved about this when I came here. nearly 30 years ago. Um, and what I missed when I had to leave for two years. Um, missed this town so much. And nobody wants to preserve that small town character, I think, than the people on this panel and our city council. So, um, you know, I I will be in favor of um recommending adoption of this plan as it's directed.

Thank you. Yeah. know to uh to your comments, Commissioner Bangs, I looking back, stepping back at the comp plan in in total. Yeah, I don't believe that is the the goal or intent is to prescribe a certain amount of growth um or even allow it. Uh I I don't if I thought those numbers were actually something we were staring at as a goal or something I thought was going to come true, uh I wouldn't be in favor of it. Um but understanding how the process works and steps going forward. Um I think uh we're in a good place with it actually. Um I do appreciate so many different pet issues. Uh some of them for me include heat island effect include water, water availability, water cost, carrying capacity of the land. Um and uh I I think we do address some of that in this and yet most of those issues they get addressed elsewhere within the process of the city. Um so it's not that we're ignoring them. Um it's that they they get addressed elsewhere. So um I think we're in good shape at this point with it and I'm ready to move forward with. But what other people comments? So, in my 40-year career in local government, I worked under comprehensive plans. And one of the first things you do as staff is look at the comprehensive plan. What does it say? And I think this plan will provide really good guidance to the staff and to the city council and to the planning commission as they go forward. Um, I'm not freaked out by the ranges that we might experience in terms of growth because I think they will be incremental and I think where we are suggesting they be located as place

types are very appropriate and is where the growth could be best accommodated. So I will be in support of this plan as well.

Thank you. There's no thoughts. So yeah, so yeah, generally I'm in support. So, you know, picking out one section. Um, and so I I think we have a lot of common ground on on the discussion that I put on the table. I would like to see more transparency into appendix D. I think adding the detail of where the numbers came from of okay, you know, line by line, okay, here's here's the acreage, here's the zoning, here's here was our assessment in step three, right? I think that would be helpful, right? I I did see the the footnote or the I don't know if you call it a caption in in I guess it's the asterisk in table one. I think adding more detail and on the spot I I haven't thought of exactly what to add but I'll I'll throw out I'll throw out thematically acknowledging the the distinction that we made about how in reality we are systematically evaluating this and you do touch on it with infrastructure and service needs but the evaluation here is you know leading into that this is a space assessment. This is just the math of here's how much space we have, here's the zoning we talked about. If you if you were to do that, here's what it is, which is different than the public desire of yeah, we want this much. You know, adding adding some distincting uh language to distinguish that I think would help. Um, and so, you know, I I I am happy enough with this that I would vote for yes. So, I do plan on voting yes, but these are the suggestions I would put forward to staff and city council to add for transparency and acknowledging the process for which table one was generated.

Thank you. I don't really have anything further. I think it's a well-rounded plan.

Hey, chair. I just want to add a couple of thoughts at the end. Um so similar to to some of my colleagues up here, I do want to thank um Rob and Jeff and the consultant team that had working on this to develop it. I know that most of the conversation, especially tonight, has focused around the land use and specifically the housing questions. Um, this is, as um, my esteemed voice of constant reason next to me always points out, a huge document with a ton of information. Um, such a substantive amount of work that went into so many different categorical analyses to really build up a future roadmap of potential for the city for the next 10, 15, you know, we'll stop at 15 years. Um, I it it it's a really great document. Um, I think that, you know, being part of this process and and understanding what we're looking at tonight, I think one of the biggest achievements is not necessarily the document itself. Um, but it's represented by all the people that have been here during all of the events, all the public outreach, um, and you know, all of the all of the participation opportunities where the citizens have taken advantage of that. And I personally think that it's great to see the diversity of opinions that are represented and spoken about at at opportunities like this. Um because I think it does really represent the diversity of the community and what the intent of this comprehensive plan is intended to be. This is not and nor can you ever have a single document that hits 100% of all the desires all of the time. And I think the effort, the herculan effort that went into this really does try to address from a utilitarian perspective the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. So I I want to acknowledge your effort, the document and say thank you

in particular to all the citizens who have been part of it. Um especially tonight, you know, and all the previous events just um having your voices heard. I think that's great. Um, I I I think that, you know, where we are, I don't want to have perfect be the enemy of good. I think that we've got a really really great document going forward. Um, and so in recognition of all of that, I I just want to say that I'm in support as well. Thank you. Uh, with that then I would entertain a motion,

a resolution for series 26. I am really pleased to recommend approval um recommending approval of the amended Lewisville comprehensive plan resolution 4. I'll second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Richie Richie, yes. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Choy, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Basket, yes. And Commissioner Brownise,

yes. Motion carries. We do look forward to ongoing discussion uh throughout the rest of the process. Um thank you all again. Seriously. All right. Uh moving into any board comments. Does anybody have any Actually, uh if you want to have conversations, can we can we ask you all to move outside, please? We have to wrap up the meeting here. A few little details. Um any board comments on any other items? Any staff comments? Seeing none. All right. Are we motion to adjurnn? Move to adjurnn.

Second. Second. All in favor? I