Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Second person was added to work at night. Recording in progress. Thank you and welcome to the April 10th, 2025 Lewisville Planning Commission meeting with a roll call, please. Commissioner Mahaley, present. Commissioner Bangs, present. Commissioner Choy, here. Commissioner Hunt, here. Commissioner Basket, here. Christian Molain here. Chair Braise here. Thank you. Uh with that, a motion to approve this evening's agenda, please. So moved. Second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? I I hearing no dension and we're looking at uh approval of minutes. We'll just do them each individually. Uh, does anybody have any uh changes or corrections to the February 13th meeting

minutes? Seeing none, a motion to approve those minutes. February 13th. And a second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? I I. Motion carries. Uh, the February 27th minutes. Any changes or corrections? No. Seeing none, motion to approve. Moved. Second. All in favor? I I noting that I'm an abstension on that one. And and I as well abstension. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And then March 13th um meeting minutes. Any corrections? Seeing none, motion to approve. So moved. And a second. I'll second. Thank you. All in favor? I I motion carries. And I'm abstaining on that one. And Commissioner Troy is abstaining on the March 13th. All right. Uh now we open it up for public comment for items that are not on this evening's agenda. If anybody's here to speak on something that's not on the agenda, then can somebody check the online universe? Seeing none. All right. Um, we will then move into our first item of new business. Um, I will now open the public hearing on the request for a planned unit development at 517 South Arthur Avenue. The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence regarding the application um materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there will be presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. Next, we'll have a presentation testimony by the applicant, followed by questions from the planning commission to the applicant. After these two presentations, members of the public who

have joined the meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star 9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pool their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public hearing testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant and staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve approve with conditions tabled and deny or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and address. Does anyone participating have any objections to this procedure? Seeing none, welcome you to present. Uh, great. Thank you. Notice has been satisfied as well. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Matt, do we have any disclosures? No. Great. Thank you. Great. Uh, good evening, Matt Post, senior planner. Uh the item before you tonight is resolution number four series 2025 recommending approval of a planned unit development amendment to allow the construction of a 16,294 square ft industrial flex building with associated site improvements at 517 South Arthur Avenue. Um so we'll begin with some background here. The site is currently

vacant. You can see the aerial highlighted on the slide. Um there are existing existing industrial developments north and south of this site. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line right ofway. To the west of this site, obviously the east of the site is the South Arthur Avenue right ofway. Uh it is located in the CTC or the Colorado Technology Center. Uh the site is 86 acres in size or just over 36,000 square feet. one of the smaller or smallest lots in the CTC just based on overall size. This property was originally platted um as part of the CTC or Colorado Tech Technological Center filing one subdivision in 1979. A little typo there on the screen, I apologize. Uh moving into the proposal, this slide uh depicts an image of the site plan presented for review tonight which includes landscaping. You can see the building as proposed favors the north side of the site. This is to accommodate an access point on the south side. Uh but also because that access point is conser is concurrent with an existing 30foot sewer easement that's on the south side of that site that runs east to west from CTC across underneath the rail line into the St. Louis Parish Boulder Innovation Campus. It's just on the other side of the rail line. So the entire south side of that site is encumbered by a 30-foot sewer easement. The proposal includes a 16,290 foot industrial flex building. Again, that industrial flex or that industrial flex rather is a warehouse space with ancillary and supporting office uses. Uh the applicant has indicated that roughly 14,700 square ft of that space will be utilized as warehouse area while the remaining roughly 1,600 square f feet will be utilized for office and support.

Uh as I believe the commission is aware, detention and water quality is required on every site in the CTC regardless of size. So this site at 86 acres still has to provide detention and water quality. That's a standard engineering practice of ours. That detention and water quality area is located on the east side of the site between the building and South Arthur Avenue. There's an existing detached walk here and you can see the applicants proposing an internal walk directly adjacent on the south side of the building with a plaza space at the entrance um uh pursuant to industrial design guidelines. And that walk connects to the existing detached sidewalk on South Arthur Avenue. Uh south side of the site occupied by parking, vehicle access, and circulation. Um and a fire turnaround lane. You can see that fire hammerhead turnaround depicted on the uh in the central portion of the parking lot there. That's also how you access a recessed uh service area. Uh that's on the south side of the building. The main entrance is that southeast corner of the building. Again, you can see that impervious surface which is uh reflective of the required plaza space. That entry is designed with a storefront system. We'll see um some elevations that depict the architectural detail on that a little bit later on in the slides. Uh as part of this development proposal, the applicants requesting a number of waiverss. We'll get into those waivers in detail. Uh but 14 parking spaces are proposed. Uh pursuant to the industrial design guidelines uh with the proposed use of office and warehouse, this use would require 23 parking spaces on site. Again, the applicant is proposing 14. Uh and they are making a formal parking reduction request. We'll get into that more detail. Uh but the applicant um is confident that based on their

experience with similar uses and developments along the front range that the parking that they've provided and proposed is sufficient to serve the use. We'll get into that in more detail. Uh moving on to the architecture and design. The building will be constructed uh of a concrete tiltup product or concrete tiltup wall panels which will be designed with varied patterns, form liners and accent colors uh including additional articulation. The primary storefront system you can see the top elevation on the slide on the screen would be the South Arthur Avenue elevation or the primary street facing elevation material. Um the middle elevation is the south elevation and the lower elevation is the north elevation. I didn't provide the west elevation. It's directly adjacent to the BNSF railway but it's generally just um a reflection of the concrete tiltup product here. The elevations include variations in parapit height and articulation in the building facade which when combined with the variation in materials uh generate the design required by the industrial design guidelines. Applicant provided a rendering of the building. Uh this would be that main storefront uh style entry system from an architectural perspective. Uh and again this would be the view from South Arthur Avenue. You see the plaza space depicted there. If you take a closer look at the site plan, there's some seating requirements associated with the plaza space along with additional landscaping requirements that are reflected on the actual site plan. So just hopping in or further furthering the proposal um here approximately 24% of the site is landscaped. That's just below the 25% that's required by the industrial design guidelines. Um, additionally, 22

trees are proposed here. The design guidelines would technically require 24 trees on this site. Those are wrapped up in some of the waiver requests. So, there's a waiver for both landscape coverage and tree requirements. Again, we'll cover that in additional detail. Uh, 22 trees on site, but the applicant is also proposing 136 lowwater shrubs, perennials, and ornamental grasses. And there are no there is no turf proposed as part of this proposal. So from a quick analysis perspective here, the proposed use of the space is again a warehouse with that ancillary office use. The warehouse is a use by right uh in the CTC. Um a use that would be a fully office use is actually a special review use in the CTC. However, I think common practice has been when the majority of the space is utilized for a byite use. We obviously understand that an ancillary piece of that would be an office or support system. So again, just a use by right here with a warehouse flex space as the applicant has indicated. Uh there's a detailed analysis um in the staff pack and staff report as to how this proposal uh conforms to the industrial uh uh design guidelines. And we've found it to generally conform to those standards with the waiverss as proposed tonight. And so we'll hop into the reduction and waiver request. So again, the applicant's requesting a parking reduction with this application. As stated, 23 spaces would be required with per our industrial design guidelines to park this particular space. Uh the applicant has requested a reduction to um 13 spaces or actually 14 spaces, I'm sorry, including the ADA space, the required uh handicap space that's there. So it' be 14 total spaces with the ADA space. Uh the primary justification for the request uh is the minimal amount of office or support space proposed with

this particular development combined with the low employee density and limited visitor traffic that are typically associated with the proposed warehouse use. The facility is designed to be light industrial in operation with a small administrative component uh based on the applicant's justification and their experience developing similar uses along the front range. Um and our observation of similar uses in the CTC specifically north and south of this site that we know to be generally overparked. Staff support the request for the parking reduction uh for this development. Uh in addition to the parking reduction request, there are seven total waiverss that are attached to this particular PUD. Um we'll start with the first waiver, which I think is a common one. We see a request for a reduction in overall parking space size. As you all are aware, the uh industrial design guidelines require uh individual vehicle spaces of 9 ft by 19 feet. Uh the applicants requesting 8 foot6 by 17 foot6 staff has generally supported this waiver consistently throughout the industrial areas. The 9 by19 is again a bit outdated. We see that the 8676 space size is generally sufficient. That also allows for a 1 and 1/2 ft bumper overhang at the sidewalk. You can see we have parking spaces that are directly adjacent and perpendicular to the walk that's associated with this particular site. Uh the sidewalk is actually 6 and 12 feet wide which allows for a one and a half foot bumper overhang and then an unobstructed 5- foot pedestrian path. So this has been a pretty common practice that we've applied so far uh or on recent developments in the industrial district. Um second way waiver request again I think commission has seen this before. This is for the two-way drive a width. Our industrial design standards require

a minimum of 28 feet for a two-way drive aisle. The applicant is requesting 24 feet. Uh the Lewisville Fire Protection District has signed off on this particular application, including the hammerhead access uh in to the central part of the site, indicating that the 24 foot drive aisle width is sufficient to serve the use. Staff feel similarly and support the request for the reduction in drive width. Here, um the third waiver request is for a driveway separation. There is a provision within the industrial design guidelines that state that private driveways to to individual sites shall be separated by 75 ft, a minimum of 75 ft. Obviously, if you refer back to the aerial, these are relatively small sites along the west side of CTC. The south side and the north side are already developed. So, the applicant would have to um or is limited rather by the existing driveways. Um, so a 42 foot spacing center line to center line is proposed from the access point on the south side of this lot to the access point of the lot just south of this. Public works staff reviewed this and identified no operational or safety concerns. Uh, and so staff support the request based on the site constraints and the existing development patterns both north and south of this particular site. Uh the moving on with additional waiverss. The fourth waiver request is to the required 10- foot wide landscape buffer between properties in the uh industrial zone district adjacent to similar in the same zoning. So on the south side of the site, the applicant is proposing a reduction in the 10-ft buffer to 2 feet 2 1/2 in and 7t 6 in or 7 and 1/2. That two foot two and a half

is at the very southwestern corner of the site where the access drive hammers out. That seven that seven and a half is the south side. Your staff packet actually indicates a 4 foot wide buffer and a nine and a half foot wide buffer. That was put together after we got additional information uh from the regarding fire department access. Uh and so that is reduced now to 2 feet 2 and 1/2 in and 7t 6 in. as reflected in the PUB application materials that were provided in the staff packet tonight. Um so the applicants requesting this waiver due to sight specific constraints uh and the um uh the fact that again the uh the easement exists and the site is relatively small and the property has an odd configuration. And the purpose of the 10-ft buffer in the industrial design guidelines is to buffer the same uses. It's an interesting provision. We've talked about it before. Uh in an attempt to mitigate uh the impacts, the applicant has provided a dense row of mid-height shrubs in this location that when at mature height will be five to six feet tall. uh staff have determined that based on the applicant's um uh willingness to plant that area with with dense shrubs and then also the same use that's directly adjacent to it. Um in conjunction with the site conraint constraints of this particular property, we do support the request for reduced buffer on the south side only. The buffer still applies to the west side and the north side. uh and trees are included in that buffer area as well. Um on the west side where we have the two foot two and a half inch reduction obviously you have a 100 foot BNSF rideway right there and then just beyond that is the St. Louis Parish Boulder

Innovation development that's currently under underway right now. So staff are um are uh positive that uh there will not be a significant negative impact on the adjacent properties based on uh just again similar uses to the south and then what amounts to a buffer on the west side of that site. Uh the uh fifth waiver request is for a reduction in the rear setback to the property. That would be the west side setback here. Industrial design standards require a 15 foot setback, a 15 foot rear setback. Uh you can see just based on the oblique uh view or rather the the odd configuration here that uh the the the west side of the lot is not totally square. Um the it creates a pinch point at that rear lot line where it converges with the building footprint and uh as a result maintaining a consistent 15t set back all the way down given the size of the site and the requirement for detention with the easement that's on the south side. Uh it makes it difficult for the applicant to include that uh or meet that setback requirement. To be clear, the through the review process the applicant actually presented us significantly more a sign a more significant encroachment than what we've agreed upon here. So, they've uh there's they've agreed to a small portion, a 1 foot6 inch encroachment that's just on the south side of the building. There's actually an an image in your staff report that kind of highlights where that is. It's difficult to see on the screen here right now, but you can see it highlighted in green. That's the that's the extent of the encroachment of the building into the rear setback on the west side of the site. that's also in line with the 10% deviation allowance

that would typically be permitted under administrative waiver processes. Um so again based on the the lot size configuration of the lot uh easement detention requirements and the fact that again that BNSF railway is to the west side staff feel uh that this is a minimal encroachment and that negative impacts to the adjacent property are minimized because of that. So we support the reduction in rare setback and again the applicant worked with us to reduce that encroachment as well through the review process. Um the uh sixth and seventh waiverss are for landscape coverage and trees. So as mentioned TW the industrial design guidelines require that 25% of the overall site is landscape. The applicant is proposing 24%. So just 1% under that requirement. Um, additionally 24 trees would technically be required here. The applicant is proposing 22 trees. And as we've mentioned, the request arises from the physical constraints of the site. Um, and the applicant's uh desire to reasonably develop and and market the use that is similar to other uses in in the CTC. Uh despite the reduction in in the landscape area, uh we feel that the applicant has prioritized a high quality landscape design uh throughout the site, which again includes 22 trees on a site that's less than one acre in size, 136 lowwater shrubs as we mentioned, no turf, and then also um satisfying the requirements for on-site detention and water quality. So, as as you know, staff reviewed this for compliance with the Lewisville Municipal Code, specifically PUB review criteria found in section 1728120. We also reviewed it for

conformance to the industrial design guidelines and with the waiverss as they've been proposed. uh this and the parking reduction request uh pursuant to the Lewisville Municipal Code. Uh this request does meet the standards of both of those codes. Uh, and that would conclude staff's presentation. And our recommendation is approval of resolution 4 series 2025 recommending approval of a PUB amendment to allow the construction of a 16,294 ft industrial flex building and associated site improvements. So with that, happy to answer any questions. Does the applicant have a presentation? Thank you very much. We we will open it up for commissioner questions for Mr. Post. We'll check online there. Uh Jeff, I Commissioner Molen, uh can we unmute him, please? Thank Thank you, Chair Brown. I just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Post. Thanks very much. uh planner post. Um I guess one of my questions is u when when reviewing the number of parking spaces, is there thought like through the review process, is there thought to subsequent businesses, let's say after this um business would leave and we'd have this building in sight. Is there a a concern that we've left it underparked, so to speak, I guess? and and how does how does the staff review that? I would say that's a valid concern. That wasn't necessarily part of our review. Uh only because we we considered the entitlement uh directly related to the warehouse use. I I I would say that any new use that came in and or a PUD amendment staff would uh have to take a close look at at any

review um for a new use that would be there to ensure that it meets our parking standards which is a typical practice for us anyways. Well, okay. I think I'm particularly important in this case where there's no on street parking allowed that I has potential to be but we also know that there's a rich history of overparking. Yeah, I would just note if it's okay, Commissioner Bronnise, that um so the city city street you technically you can park on the streets in the CTC. However, the owners association I believe there's covenant agreements that state no parking on the street. So regardless of that though to your point they cannot satisfy off- streetet spaces with on street parking. So yeah. Thanks. Okay. So, I I had a question related to yours to clarify. Um, and and so if if a future business comes in and they renovate the interior and change the ratio of warehouse to office space, does that trigger another PUB amendment or is that within the current zoning? I I that would staff would have to be diligent in reviewing that because if they change the amount of office space that would change the the the allowed entitlements because as I had mentioned office is technically only permitted in the CTC as a special review use. And so if the amount of office space in that in in that building is changing, then we should as a staff be taking a closer look at that to determine whether or not a PUD is amendment a PUD amendment and special review use are then required to ensure there's no negative impacts. Yeah, because I I have the same concern as Commissioner Molen, you know, specifically for the case I mentioned where some future owner of the building decides to renovate and our assumptions on the ratio of actual, you know, office users to warehouse changes and then, you know, suddenly we've adopted a parking issue. Right. Right. Thank you,

Commissioner Millian. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Um just one more question uh planner post and that is I guess and then and it's sort of related to the the parking issue too is just through the review process it sounds like there was you know a little back and forth and stuff between um staff and the applicant and I'm just wondering um you know you you a number of the waiverss could probably be resolved with a smaller building on on the site and I'm I'm just wondering how and maybe this is a question for the applicant too but I'm just curious ious from a staff perspective how how that went or how that part of the review went. Yeah, I would I would encourage you to ask the applicant that question as well. Uh but we did that was that was part of the original review process. The the building size has actually been reduced from what was originally uh presented to us. Yeah. So Okay. All right. Thanks. That's it for me. Thank you very much. And this may also be a question for the applicant. How do you do detention without turf? Uh well, we could we could take a look at the plans there. There there may be low low I probably low water seating in there. So I should I should clarify my when I use the term turf, I think I'm referring to the more traditional sense of like Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So I apologize for being ambiguous on that. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Any additional questions? Commissioner Basket, did you have any? You can just shake your head now. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Uh, seeing no additional additional questions, can we invite the applicant up? Hello, my name is Caleb Seal. I'm a project coordinator with the Beck Group leading the design and uh construction

of the building that's being assessed today. that. Thank you. No formal presentation, right? We do not have a formal. So, we'll just open it up for questions of the applicant, I guess. Yeah. Can I ask? Yeah, please. I I'll ask what was the original requested size prior to this being reduced down to 16 some thousand square feet. Originally, it was closer to I think 19,000. So, the reduction has reflected about a 3,000 4,000 like square foot reduction. Um, the owner wanted to make sure that they were maximizing, you know, that balance between warehouse and office. And so, we understood that it'd be a very tight and delicate balance, trying to make sure uh we kind of adhere to their wishes, but also be, you know, reflective of what's required. Um so that's where we've kind of ended up today is at this particular size. Um but you know based on the feedback based on what your thoughts are you know we can easily u reopen that discussion about maneuvering the size. Okay. Thanks. I have a bit of a follow. Yes please. Um, so just to confirm, there's nothing programmatically specific that is driving the 16,294 square foot number. Correct. As of right now, there isn't a specific tenant that has been identified. Um but the owner who has a long history in working with warehouses and industrial properties um does understand or has a pretty good perspective of the ratio and needed. So that's what we kind of used as a baseline in kind of configuring that warehouse portion versus the office. So as of right now there's not a specific

driver of that but again that could massage based on uh the identification of a tenant. This is a question kind of joint for the applicant and staff as well. Was there an evaluation during the um development process that identified what thresholds were what thresholds corresponded to where additional um variances came into play. For example, I I think you talked about the west side um the 15t setback. It's only 13 feet at the bottom maybe 10 20 feet of the of the building right on the southwest side of the building. Um just knowing that there wasn't a specific programmatic definition around the 16,294 square ft of built space. Was there a threshold that that was identified during there that would have said, you know, one more square foot means now we have to ask for these other variances or, you know, I I wouldn't say that we identified a threshold. I I would say that we um discussed uh um addressing some of the waiverss that were requested and ways in which to do that. uh you know a um a a a minor reduction in building size. Well, I don't know that it would called a minor reduction. I don't want to speak for the applicant, but a reduction in building size would likely allow for two or three of the waiverss to drop off here, right? Um, however, you know, I think part of the part of the consideration the staff took into this was again the overall size constraint of of the site in and of itself and

recognizing that in order for uses of this nature to be viable, uh, there's a certain there's a certain space type that's necessary. Um, we also have additional uh I I guess I guess I'll just add that if if the building size reduced without actually having anything to review. There may be a scenario where we would actually actually have additional uh waiverss that would pop up for example our parking areas have the same setbacks as buildings. So even if this building were to decrease significantly in size, the same site constraints um are are present or or some of the same sight constraints are are present. I think so so that was so so to answer your question commissioner that that did that did factor into our decision and okay how how much can this building be reduced how much parking can actually be added here at this point and then does that significantly impact the request for waiverss that would be coming before you all tonight. So, sure. And and I understand that's an iterative process, right? And I I think based on the ratios that are required with the 1,600 square ft of office and 147 of warehouse, that's, you know, 21.3 parking spaces, right? We round that up to 22. Um, but but it just it does beg the question, right? If the overall programming was reduced by 300 square feet and then you're knocking that off and taking advantage of the site, does that also knock off the the parking count? You know, when you do those things, but understood that that there wasn't that iterative evaluation by staff. Um, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, I have question for you. So, this drop in the landscape coverage from was it 24 to 23%. 25 to 24 roughly. How many square feet is that of the just of the landscaping? Yeah. So this 1% drop represents roughly how many

square feet of landscape area. Didn't know we were going to everybody do math today, did we? Just uh it looks just under 400 square feet it looks like. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. Um, any considerations to dark sky and lighting the parking and building? Yeah, so the majority of the lighting um is going to be uh wall mounted along the exterior of the building. So, there wouldn't be any um direct lighting to above and there wouldn't be any like lamp or post lighting. Um we we're trying to make sure that we take that into consideration and not over light or over light pollute the area and the building. Um so we've been very selective about the uh energy efficient fixtures that are going to be on the exterior of the building. Um making sure that it meets the uh foot candles that are required for like um highlighting and illuminating the pathways. uh but not doing it to an excess. Do you have any do you have any low-level lighting for the pathways at them? I mean, typically wall packs are pretty horrible on light. We do have some near I believe the front entry area kind of that that kind of marks that from the sidewalk to the entry of the building. Um but that's only kind of in that kind of east side front pedestrian area. Any additional questions particularly as they surround any of the waiverss is anybody um yeah just with regards to parking that how many EV spaces are there and are they full EV EV ready? What's the So, there are four um I think one of which will be EV ready at the

completion of the building and then the three other spaces would be um EV um it's actually EV ready is the the ones that are not fully energized you're talking about one is going to be energized right one will be energized and three will be energized like capable okay right yeah and how's that as a ratio I mean that sounds like a high ratio for 14 spaces it is yeah So, one one EV installed, one EV ready, two EV capable spaces. That's in line with our recently adopted, you know, we recently came in line with the state model ordinance, but that that meets that standard. Yeah. Okay. So, we didn't compromise on the EV requirement, just the parking. Okay. Thanks. Additional questions of the applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Um, I'll now open it up for public comment. Do we have anybody online at this point? We have one person. Is there any hand raised? Is that hand raised? No. Okay, great. Thanks. All right, then. Uh, seeing nobody who wants to comment, um, do you have any closing statement you'd like to make? Just that, you know, we're normally do very large commercial buildings and we had an opportunity to kind of dive into this world of kind of light medium industrial, you know, construction. um utilizing that tilt up, but we wanted to do something that was, you know, not just a gray shell that's thrown up, but something that has some design intent and that's something that's reflective

of the area and that is a bit more progressive when you think of warehouse. So, we're hoping that this kind of does that, especially with how much we've worked with the landscape architect to make sure that we maximize as much as possible that footprint so that it's both a combination of kind of that articulation with the building and then that vegetative sense that kind of surrounds it. Um, so we've really enjoyed working on this project and we're hoping that, you know, it can be something that future developments within the CTC can refer to. So we're definitely wanting to make sure that we hit those high marks and standards. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And do we have a staff closing statement? Uh, we don't. All right. Thank you. Uh 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. Um could I ask you to pull up the the uh the list of waiverss? You got two two slides with the waivers. Great. Yeah. Thanks. So maybe as a commission if anybody wants to address any of these. Uh otherwise um yeah the I will just say that these these waiverss that are identified here are the ones that I don't have any issue with and I think are purely um demonstrative of the limitations of the site and the proposed building. So I don't have any issues with these waivers. Cool. I I think I agree with you at that point as well that they're they're kind of uh some of these older standards um and we're just kind of comparing it to that and I feel like kind of increasing the density the use

of the site is highest best used. Um so I can appreciate that. All right. How about next page? Any thoughts on here? And I guess I'm kind of at a similar point at that too is well let's it's it's not going to be any prime habitat. I I think going Zurich makes it increases the quality of potential habitat out there um as opposed to turf grass and the required pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers that to maintain that suburban industrial look and feel. Uh so I'm encouraged by that. Curious what other people think though. That's a I I I completely agree. And you know, 1% reduction in landscape cover. I would I would say this is a high quality of of landscape cover. Um so I'm I I I think that's fair. It's a good trade for Lewisville. And you know, same with the tree with trees versus shrubs. I mean there there's certainly vegetation here. Um and they do a good job in the design of of using that to separate things. Um the setbacks I think they did a good job. I'm less worried about the really small one um because it it goes up to the easement for the the rail. Um but yeah, I I'm I'm curious to hear what others think, but I think they did a good job with landscaping is really the the crux of my comment here. Great. Yeah, I'm totally fine with the setback. Any other Yeah, I I don't know. I have a I have a little bit more difficulty with these ones just from the not hard and fast interpretation of exactly what the um requirements are. But these ones seem slightly more arbitrary to me um just based on the

fact that there is no programmatic definition for the building size as it stands. um that it's just more of a spec based on, you know, spec past use and Right. Yeah. Um where, you know, to to Planner Post's comment about maybe 400 square feet more of non, you know, hardscaped or built area gets you that that percentage, right? A percentage is a percentage, but maybe 5 percentage or 6% or 7% like where is the threshold, right? Um and it and it to me it's just a little bit harder to to be comfortable with the idea that without a programmatic definition for the space 400 more square feet of built environment triggers you know four more waivers or not not having done the math right it might be two more waivers or three more waivers um and I'm not saying that especially in an instance or application like this in CTC for a light industrial that this is going to be, you know, the showcase project that highlights why we've really failed on on some of the requirements. Um, but it's just a little bit harder for me to accept these ones on on face compared to some of the other ones that are a little bit more difficult to comply with like the parking space size or or things like that, right? Um, so that's just No, and I I appreciate your concern for the tradeoffs of why, right? Um, it's being built on spec and couldn't they shave that off. Um, that said though, uh, back to my thought though on what's the highest best use of the space out there. And if if we're looking at it from an economic perspective, then potentially and I

guess When I look at most of these um requests, they're pretty small for the most part, right? So, um they don't make me feel like, hey, you know, we're letting a lot out, you know, letting a lot kind of go away with it. So, I I I agree with you. And yeah, I mean, just to play the devil's advocate, right? No matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. So it's, you know, why not two more trees, you know, or if it's that small of a thing, why isn't it, you know, uh, it just, it seems like an arbitrary hurdle that that the statement is that it's just kind of too hard to get above. Yeah, the trees one is a funny one. I'm with you there. Other thoughts? No, go. Yeah, I was I was say we could demand two more trees. I'm sure we can squeeze them in somewhere, but let's not obsess about that. And I think the fact that the west is the rail line probably I'm more comfortable with it because of that. But yeah, you can rationalize this every which way. Yeah. Yeah. And and similarly, you know, that is the largest variance like two and a half feet versus 10. But I I would argue that we're trying to maximize parking spaces. And if you allow that that's a better egress for for that last parking space. So, you know, I I would rather have that be usable space for parking than it would be for, you know, having a less egregious uh waiver against, you know, the 10-ft setback that's against the rail line. So, I I think that's I think that's okay. Great. Commissioners Molen or Basket, any uh thoughts you want to chime in on? All good. Um, I put my hand up. Great. All right. Um, so, um, I'm generally comfortable with this. I've gotten to spend a little bit of time in the CTC and observe the combinations of buildings that are there. So, this will be a nicer building

than a lot of the buildings that are there. And I think it fits the space. Just she warns it in there. But that's how big the lot is. So, I'm comfortable with the variances that have been requested. Great. Thanks. And and I don't have I'll just say I don't have much to add. I've appreciated your uh the discussion that you've had um and that we've had about the waiverss and variances and I'm also at the point where I'm comfortable with the requests. All right. Yes. Yeah. I I would just add on to Commissioner Basket's comment that yeah, the the aesthetics I do commend you for something that's better than better than average. So yes, thanks for making the effort on that. Thank you. Any additional Yes. Yeah, if if we're moving off the waiver discussion, I guess the the one concern I did come in with I still have but has been eased a bit, you know, was the case I asked the question about, you know, building off of Commissioner Molen's question about if the use case of the interior changes and they renovate, sounds like that would trigger a staff review because that, you know, if we, you know, it sounds like based on the experience of the builder and staff that the parking ratio is acceptable, so we can go with it. But if there was a change, that would be my concern. But from what I'm hearing, it sounds like there would need to be review for a use case renovation type type down the line. And that would be the case for any building out there. But in this case, they're parked slim to start with. Yeah. Right. So that's where it would potentially be a future issue in particular. But anything additional? No. No, not really. I mean, I I agree with what everyone's saying and in particular that the context of where this building is is important and how it fits into the other uses. I think um the staff did I mean I think more persuasive in in um providing

that context and looking into that. So last call in deliberation seeing none I would entertain a motion. I'll move uh to approve resolution number four series 2025 for an approval of planned planned unit development uh at 517 South Arther Avenue. Do we have a second? Second. Great. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Haley, yes. Commissioner Bangs, yes. Commissioner Choy, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Basket, yes. Commissioner Molen, yes. Chair Brown ice. Yes. Thank you very much. Next stop is city council. Certainly. Thank you. All right. Um let's see. 720. Why don't we take a five minute break? Recording stopped.

recording in progress. Thank you. We'll now reconvene. I will now open the public hearing on a request for a planned unit development for 380 South Taylor Avenue. The purpose of the hearing is to request receive evidence regarding the application materials and provide a public forum for all interested parties who wish to comment on this request before the planning commission. The procedure for the public hearing will be as follows. First, there will be a presentation and testimony by city staff, followed by questions from the planning commission to staff. Next, we'll have a presentation and testimony by the applicant, followed by questions from the planning commission to the applicant. After these two presentations, members of the public who have joined this meeting in person, by computer, or telephone may speak regarding the application. Anyone who would like to speak in person is asked to complete a speaker card. Use the raise hand function if participating by computer or star 9 if calling in by telephone. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Two people present at the meeting may pull their minutes to allow one person to speak for up to a total of six minutes. The purpose of public comment is to receive public testimony and not a forum for debate or dialogue. Commenters are encouraged to raise pertinent issues and may ask questions for clarity. However, these questions will not be directly answered during the public comment period. The applicant staff will then be allowed to make a closing statement. I will then close the public hearing and no further testimony or other evidence will be received unless the commission decides to reopen the hearing. The planning commission will discuss the matter and may approve, approve with conditions, table, deny, or continue to a future meeting. Public hearings are recorded for the public record. All testimony must be presented after stating your full name and address. Does anyone participating in this hearing object to the procedure I've described? Seeing none, do we have notification? Notice has been satisfied. Thank you. Do we have any disclosures from planning commission? Seeing

none, Mr. post. Great. Thank you. Right. We're having some technical difficulties this evening, so give me just a minute here. Sure. Go ahead. Yeah. Apologize. We're forced to use click share tonight and it's not not picking up my I got it last time but apparently it's not going this time around. See if we can get it to work now. Okay, I am going to um do this a little bit differently if that's okay. Um yeah, take I mean take your time if you want to try something again that's fine too or uh I think the main thing is so that we can see the presentation going out you have the slides but you're not able to share them. Is it a sharing issue? So, it lets me do this and it shares mine. And interestingly enough, I was able to do this on

Got it. I apologize for that. Our normal way of sharing isn't working tonight, so I have to use the click share, and I've I've never done that in council chambers before, so I apologize for that. Um, okay. Good evening again, commissioners. Matt Post, planner, community development team. The item before you tonight for consideration is resolution five series 2025 recommending approval of a PUD amendment to allow the construction of two industrial buildings and associated site improvements at 380 Taylor Avenue or 380 South Taylor Avenue as it's commonly referred to in our system. It's 380 Taylor at the moment. Starting with a bit of background here. Again, we're looking at a property in the CTC. Uh this property is vacant uh as well as the last one. Uh 1.2 acres uh in size. So a little bit larger than the last one. Uh more in line from a size perspective I think which is generally what we see in this in this particular part uh of the CTC. Uh so 1.2 acres just over 53,000 square feet in size. The property is bound on uh the east and the north by existing industrial development and bound on the west and the south by south Taylor Avenue or Taylor Avenue and Cherry Street respectively. Uh this property was also subdivided as part of the Colorado Technological Center plat filing one in 1979. Uh the property uh is subject to an existing PUD which was approved in 2001. uh it was intended to be built out with the building and property to the north. Uh that never happened as part of that phase. They are two separate properties. So this uh property has has been vacant. Wasn't able to find any history of uh permits on this particular property. So moving into the proposal here, uh site plan is is depicted on this slide. The development includes uh

two industrial buildings. The building to the south is 7,150 square feet in size and the building to the north is 7,000 square feet in size resulting in a total building footprint for the site of 14,150 square ft. Uh water quality and detention are provided on the east side of the site between the building and the property boundary. uh parking is uh internal uh with that uh fire required hammerhead uh turnaround extending through the site. Two two plaza spaces are included. The main entrance to both buildings um are at those uh corners directly adjacent to South Taylor Avenue, although they do face internally. There are some storefront systems there and some additional entry features uh that identify those as main entrances. uh 26 vehicle parking spaces are provided on this particular site including uh four vehicles parking spaces and this uh project is in compliance or this proposal is in compliance with our EV standards uh as adopted. Um moving into the proposal here. So uh the buildings are proposed to be constructed using architectural metal panels that would feature varying texture and color. There are two two different ribbed panel uh two different ribbed metal panel uh features here in two colors. Both buildings incorporate variations in roof form and pitch uh with uh again the discussed building entries. You can see the um uh the top elevation would be the south elevation of the south building adjacent to Cherry Street. That middle elevation would be an oblique view of that south building. You can see the main entrance and then some additional uh fenestration or transparency on what is the west elevation. And then the uh the the the

bottom graphic there is the north building uh that would be proposed on site. Um the south building varies in height from almost 16 feet to just over 25 feet uh while the north building is just over 23 feet tall. As part of this application, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the industrial design guidelines which prohibit the use of metal as a primary facade material. The applicant's also requesting a waiver from the design guidelines requiring varying building setbacks when a multi-building uh development proposal comes in front of us. Uh we'll discuss those uh waiverss in more detail. The applicants provided some some renderings here of their uh building. That top rendering again would be the south building uh as viewed from the west. Um the middle rendering would be the site as viewed directly from the west from uh Taylor Avenue. And that bottom rendering is the north building which would be viewed from essentially a southwest view again from Taylor Avenue. Uh regarding landscaping, 35.2% of this site is proposed to be landscaped while as you know 25% is required by the industrial guidelines. A waiver has been requested for street tree plantings. However, uh this site is heavily encumbered by easements on the south side and some easements and utilities on the west side of the site as well. We'll we'll discuss that in later slides. Uh with with the requested waiver, the applicant is still proposing 37 total trees on the site in addition to preserving uh preserving two mature cottonwoods that are at the south uh west uh corner of the site there. Or I'm

sorry, southeast corner. um 151 lowwater shrubs are proposed uh while the lowwater grass seed mix um is included in the easement areas on the south side and some on on the west side as well. So again, no traditional turf as part of this particular proposal. Uh formal analysis of conformance of this PUD is again in your in your staff reports um and and packets. Uh we'll go ahead and go over um some of the initial waiver requests here. There are four waiver requests with this particular proposal. Uh the first waiver request is for relief from uh the industrial uh design standard that mandates varying setbacks for developments that include multiple buildings within the industrial zone district. This specifically applies to the west side of the site and and Taylor Avenue. Uh the applicant has proposed both buildings to be set back the minimum which is 30 feet. The 30- foot setback applies to both Taylor Avenue and Cherry Street. Although Taylor would be the primary frontage, Cherry, the non- primary or side street frontage, the 30-foot setback applies because those are both considered local streets. Um, the applicants made this request uh based on the corner lot configuration and again what was just described as the two 30 foot setback requirements on both the south side uh and the west side of the site. Um the the overall building uh frontage on Taylor Street for both buildings is right around 40t. So, this particular proposal would uh amount to 80 feet of total building frontage on a on a lot frontage uh of total building on the Taylor Avenue frontage that's just about 198 uh feet long uh in total. Um so staff find that based on the lot

configuration being a corner lot in this particular scenario and the existing easements um on the south side and then again the requirement for detention here um including the fact that 32% of the site is landscaped. Uh we support the request for um waiver from the varying building setbacks in this particular scenario on the West Taylor Avenue frontage. Uh the second waiver request is specifically to allow the use of metal as an exterior uh cladding material. The industrial design guidelines explicitly state that metal as an exterior material may only be used as an accent material. So not as a full building facade. So the applicant again has proposed two different ribbed profiles um and two colors. So after further review on this particular item, uh staff have concluded and there's this has been an application before me as well that the metal cladding materials have become increasingly architecturally appropriate, considered durable and sustainable option. Um I'm sorry, durable option. Uh and additionally, they provide fire resistance and they're easily maintained. Uh we're seeing the metal popup is a more practical choice um when done appropriately. Uh further the city has permitted architectural metal cladding on two other buildings in the CTC actually just east of this site specifically what is now operating as John's table and the climbing gym the spot. Um uh so again uh based on the fact that the adjacent sites have successfully incorporated metal cladding into their facade design and the widespread use at this point of metal cladding uh staff find the request in this particular case to be reasonable uh as presented. Third waiver request is for relief from the uh design standards that require one street tree for every 40

linear feet. Um, as you see from the graphic on the screen, the property is significantly encumbered by easements on the southside. What you see in red on this screen is a uh is a 20 foot good hue ditch easement uh that strictly prohibits any improvements whatsoever. They don't even allow woody tree materials in there or any woody planting materials. Those two cottonwoods are naturally occurring in in that easement. So again, the applicant is retaining those. In addition to that easement um that is uh restrictive from a development perspective and a landscaping perspective, the green lines are representative of existing utilities uh on that Cherry Street frontage. If you if you look closely at the plans, you'll actually see a bank of uh mechanical equipment or a grouping of mechanical equipment and transformers. uh that those transformers are actually the start of a significant number of underground util utility laterals that run west from that site. If you look at the site as an aerial just east of this site, there are street trees right there. Again, that would be because these underground utility lines start at those transformer boxes and run west. So, this site is uniquely encumbered by those utilities and specifically that easement that that runs Oh. Okay. Okay. All right. Back to it. Um, the fourth and final waiver request is another one for the reduction of you the two-way drive width, which again we've talked about is common here. Industrial design guidelines require the 28 foot two-way drive aisle width. This particular request is for a reduction to 26 feet. Um again, standard Lewisville

Fire Protection District actually requires a minimum 26 foot for aerial apparatus access. This particular site doesn't require aerial apparatus access, but the applicant has chose to maintain that 26 foot uh width. Uh staff have no uh objections to this waiver request. And so as mentioned in the previous case, uh we reviewed this for compliance with PUB criteria 1728120 in the LMC or the Lewisville Municipal Code and compliance with the industrial design standards and staff have found this application to be compliant with the granted waiverss for metal cladding, street trees, the multi-building setback on the Taylor Avenue side and then the um the drive width waiver as well. And so with that, staff will recommend approval of this particular application with a condition that's not in your in your staff packets. So, we had some discussions with with the applicant about the um uh the feasibility and and and challenges of developing two buildings at once and really how our process works post entitlement process specifically from a building permit issuance uh perspective, certificate of occupancy perspective and certificate of completion perspective. And so after just some further discussion with the applicant, um we uh recommend approval of resolution 5 series 2025 recommending approval to the planning commission of a planned unit development amendment to allow the construction of two industrial buildings and associated site improvements with the following condition. And we are recommending that this condition be added as a note to the site plan. And it states the details of this planned unit development shall be fully implemented in a single phase. That would be a

single development phase. A core and shell certificate of completion shall be issued for one building on site prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the other building on site. And so with that, happy to answer any questions and specifically any questions about the condition that we recommend be added. Can I just two questions? One is on this on this just make sure I understand what that means because I'm a little new to this, but does that mean then that they can't they can't get a certificate of occupancy for a finished building until both buildings are basically done? Correct. Okay. Yeah. So the the certificate of completion is required prior to a certificate of occupancy. We issue that for core and shell completion. That means the exterior portion of the building is substantially completed. The CO or certificate of occupancy would be issued postcertificate of completion and post interior tenant finish improvements. So this is simply a method to ensure that both buildings on site are um uh substantially completed including all site improvements as they are presented on the PUD. That would be landscaping, uh, uh, trash enclosures, uh, parking, EV chargers, everything on the PD. And was was that added out of concern that they might lose steam or somehow not complete the second building or Yeah, there was I think we had some discussions with the applicant and that just how the process works with two buildings. Um and so generally uh I I would say that it would be staff's um desire when we have multiple buildings on a site that are not part of a subdivision and are on one particular lot that are all part of one PUD that we see a phased plan with that to ensure

that in the event that only one of those buildings is built, the site can stand alone without the second building being built. Um, and so it's uh I would say it's not uncommon for us to apply a condition like this. If you look at past PUDS again, multi-building sites, we've had similar concurrency notes andor uh certificate of completion and certificate of occupancy standards on there. Again, just to ensure the building is substantially completed. But I did give the applicant the opportunity to submit a phased plan with this. And again, that phase plan would have uh been a phase one, a phase two. We would have reviewed phase one uh to determine that that site could stand on its own in the event that phase two was not built out. It also gives the applicant additional flexibility, right? That where we could simply administratively extend the PUD because we have phasing plans that have been previously approved. In the event that we don't have phasing plans previously approved, um this we thought this the next best um solution. I will say it's also it also gives the applicant additional flexibility because we would our building department would actually require a certificate of occupancy for both buildings as would planning, right? So, when we're fining what we call fining a site, we'll go out to a site and we'll inspect it for um uh for uh final certificate of occupancy. We'll look to ensure that everything is completed and planning would require that both buildings are fully completed before a CO is issued to either building and both buildings would have to get a CO at the same time. This actually gives the applicant some flexibility where they can substantially complete one building, receive a certificate of completion um and then move into the the their primary building or their primary operational building with the CEO and begin generating revenue before they finish out the second building.

So does that mean conceivably that there could be two structures? One may have a CO, the other may be unfinished and have no CO. Correct. they would be unfinished on the interior at that point. They they could not use the interior until they received a tenant finish permit and a CO. Okay. From from an exterior perspective, you you wouldn't know. You'd have to go inside. Okay. But minimally, there will be two structures that appear complete from the exterior. Right. Okay. And the only other question I had just out of curiosity, what um why do the design standards why did they preclude the metal cladding in the first place? That's an interesting question. I I I'd pro I' you all may have some insight on this. I'd have to go back to the early 2000s or late 90s when the standards were initially drafted. I would have to say that just based on my knowledge of building materials. I don't believe that there was a wide variety of metal cladding uh uh materials available at the time. Right. So when you think of medical metal Yeah. And you can Steve correct me if I'm wrong. Sure. Right. Right. Right. I mean, well, I guess my question is, are the materials are the steel and different kind of metal materials sort of aesthetically different now than they would have been when this standard was put in place? We just just a a quick point. We can't hear Steve. I can't anyway. I don't know if Deborah can. He didn't have his He doesn't have Thanks, Michael. Sorry

about that. Okay. Thanks, Steve. Yeah. Um, using two different uh types of panels makes the look a little bit different also. Um, and that historically, you're right, you just put it up a wall of of steel. Um, and it was fast and less expensive. um at the time and why you see some of this out there with the concrete tilt up and that's why the earlier application this evening was quite a bit different because it has more variation to it. So what you saw out there which exists now is really plain concrete tiltup flat walls. Um so um yeah I'm surprised actually. So uh was there much discussion internally regarding this waiver in particular? Yeah, we did. Yeah, there there was quite a bit of discussion and there was quite a bit of discussion with the applicant as well um about the metal exterior here and um again I think what we saw was prior staff have supported uh metal buildings that are that are actually just just down the way from this um total. Yeah. Actually, Commissioner Molen, I'm curious to see if you remember when we approved what's now the Spot Climbing Gym and what's now John's Table Restaurant Adjacent. That was one project. Um, I don't think those are ever approved as 100% metal. Um, we can I I I do have a slide or that that has a a street view of it. If we want to look at the slide real quick, it might be it might be beneficial just to see what has been Sure. previously. I'd like to see that. Yeah. No, let me let me share that. And I'll just interject that. Unfortunately, I don't recall that. Um, Chair Bronn Ice. Yeah. I mean, that would have been the first one in decades at that point. So, um, Right.

Yeah. So, on the on the north is the spot. Yeah. You can see you got full full facades. If you look at the back part there, I don't think the back that wedge that builds up may be steel necessarily. Or maybe it is. It's just a different color. Yeah, it is. Okay. It's a it's a it's a it's it's a different color. Yeah. But it's a it's a corrugated, right? It's a corrugated I'm not sorry, not a corrugated, a ribbed product. Not corrugated, but ribbed. Yeah. So, is my interpretation that the that the uh proposed building is similar in sheet metal design as the spot? It looked like it from the renderings, but yeah, I'll let the applicant uh speak to that, but yeah, it would be uh ribbed metal exterior panel application. Yeah. And was it a was it a consideration that they had sort of the varying roof heights and the different elevations to break it up aesthetically? Yeah, we did. We went through multiple iterations of the elevations. Um requesting additional transparency uh some articulation in the facade on the south side. Um f more um asked for additional uh entry features to highlight some of those entry features that were there. Uh and then again some of that variation in in overall roof height. So that was part of the the review process here that we tried to work through to get to the point that we are tonight. So it ends up being less of a box than what we're seeing there. Less of a metal box. Well, I will go to Yeah, let's um I'll go to one of the elevations. Very different look and feel. So these would be Yeah, the color elevations presented. Well, there's I'm sorry, three two color elevations here. Two grayscale elevations. Um but again, yeah, variation in in roof height and then some additional

transparency. Okay. I have one one additional question if that's okay, please. Um, and as usual, this might be a question for the applicant as well, but I'm curious if there's still an owners association and whether or not um a lot builders out there have to get architectural approval of of all the buildings that are out there from that owners association. So, Commissioner Molen, I'm seeing some nodding heads when we have the applicant up. I'm sure be happy to speak to it. Great. Thank you. We also, Commissioner Merlene, we as a staff refer every CTC project to the owners association for review as well. Additional questions. Yes, Commissioner. So, is the I think in terms of the aesthetic, I think I would feel better, but I I feel differently about it if it was one tone versus two tone. So, and my understanding is color isn't a part of the approval. So, is there anything that actually holds it to like the two-tone metal application or could they come back and just build a one tone later? So, I Well, we would um for the C this would be part of the CO process, right, that I kind of discussed. We would they have it has to match what they've presented to us on the PUD here. So, it' have to be a two-tone. I believe there's there's also two different uh ribb profiles uh that are part of the PUD packet there. So the lower portion is one profile. The upper portion they're they're both substantially vertical, but they're they're different widths on the rib. So they would be we would they would have to be multicolored. We would look at the elevations before we issue a CO or a certificate of completion. Yeah. Thank you. Question, Mr. Banks. Yeah, just a

point of clarification. Uh one of the waiverss is the varying setbacks. So I just need to be educated that it would mean the requirement is to vary the setback of the two buildings. And so we're they're asking to have them essentially in line and Yeah. Exactly. Thanks. And there's no requirement on footage percentage. No, not not in the industrial district. No. Yeah. Great. Thanks. Any additional questions particularly as they relate to the waiverss? Seeing none, I'd like to welcome the applicant up. Yes. Wonderful. Yeah, let's not pass those ones around. But uh I appreciate I appreciate the size. It's actually much more illustrative. I will myself in a moment, but this is the real stuff. Caners of the commission see this clearly? [Music] Can you get your slide of the I got yours coming up right here. So, commissioners Molina and Basket um you are missing out right now. You'll be able to see it once we get to a podium shot uh of a couple of uh large 3 foot by 20 in 22 in 3T by 20 in 18 in sample sizes. There we go. Yes. Thank you. There picture is worth all my words. They're fulls size samples, right? Yes. Bear with me. We're sure to get the other one up here. Well, members of the commission, thank you. Actually, let's wait. Um, yeah, we have to get you in front of the microphone

so that it goes on the audio feed out. Use my computer. Well, it's this. It's not It's It's this right here. Yeah. Does that device ever have to be recharged? No, it doesn't. Oh, okay. But we are running low on our computer battery unfortunately because has to go in this they go in the same same input. Um, uh, Ben, you don't have to give me access to share right now, right? Are you? Oh, can we leave that right there? That was it. Yep. And then you can control. Am I in the PowerPoint now? I can do without it. If you can just leave me the This This will be fine. Thank you, ma'am. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, my name is Don Russell. I'm the architect for this project. I have also together with me uh this evening Mr. Dmitri Kalchic who is the owner and general contractor of the project. Um I just uh have a few comments. Uh I brought some full-size actual color samples. The gray sample is the lower or if you will uh using a a historic architectural term the way Scott of the building and also the emphasis on the uh spandrels above the windows and I'd like to just talk I'll I'll kind of come over here if you can still can you still hear me? Okay. So, we needed to be on the

microphone for the sake of the audio to cable TV and I'll do the best I can. I just would like to talk about the overall uh concept of this project and and how we've treated the the the articulation of the two buildings. And so I I have this streetscape which is the middle middle rendering here looking kind of down between the two buildings because you can't consider it just one building and just the other building. It has to be considered as the overall whole project and how the whole project looks together. How everything kind of complements everything else. U the emphasis on the design of the two pro buildings has to do with uh uh how everything is placed on the site. We have a tremendously uh confining site. We have the ditch on the south side which takes a tremendous part of the site. We have the whole west side in the utility setback and off of Taylor Avenue is full of utilities. We've got cable, we've got fiber optic, we've got telephone, we've got electrical. Uh just as as I was getting involved with this project, Excel has come along and put another transformer cabinet just a little bit to the south of the ones that have been there probably since the CTC was built. So all things together we have to consider I considered as the architect for the project how everything relates not only to the community the surrounding comm community at large but relates to one another on the site within the site and both buildings need to be considered together so that they kind of are a homogeneous composition. The building design concept was evolved to focus everything to the internal part of the site and not out to the streets. We have we have obviously

our main access off of Taylor Avenue, but the main main uh philosophical approach that we took in developing this site was to focus towards the inside and kind of use the perimeter of the site to kind of shield all the utilities and the parking and the driving driveway and and and everything that occurs on the inside, loading, overhead doors, one thing or another. Um the over the offset roof uh uh offset roof designs are kind of uh come from me uh uh was born here in Colorado and and actually brought up in in the mining communities in the mountains and and I've always been very partial to the sloping roofs. I know sloping roofs have become so ever so popular, but they really are a big part of my history as a Colorado and my family's history in Colorado. Um the uh offsetting colors is is uh just to conclude here my discussion and and invite questions from the commissioners. Uh uh we felt that this building should not jump out at you. I make reference in my narrative on the PUD submitt that uh I have a great deal of respect for the site. This is an important site at the intersection of Taylor and Cherry. It's a very important site. A lot of a lot of traffic. Everybody to that end basically goes by it one way either going east or west or north and south. Was profoundly influenced in this neighborhood by the special I call it the specialized building. I believe it was originally built. It's it's up to the north of us where Taylor curves around. Uh, it was built by Pearlizoomi, I believe, when Pearlizoomi owned it and then they leased it for a number of of years to the Specialized Corporation. And I don't know who's in there now, the pros closet or some other people. I think it's a

very nice building for being a metal building. The evolution of uh metal, I call it cladding. I don't call it siding. I call it cladding is is quite um articulated and very distinctive now. And probably for about the last five years have been really uh the industry has really developed some substantial design profiles that uh really speak to the uniqueness of the material. U it's it's non-combustible. Um, it wears quite well and and uh I think it lends a lighter feeling to the architecture than masonry or tiltup pre-cast or pre-cast concrete. Great. Thank you very much. Open it up for commissioner questions of the applicant. Oh. Oh, did you? Yep. Mr. Calch, would you care to come up? Uh, Mr. Kalchek is going to occupy the south building. He's not in in absentia and he's moving his building. He's moving his business from um uh Denver to Lewisville. Uh good evening. Um we own Set and Stone. Uh we're slap fabrication company. We're in Littleton. Uh we've been there for many years. We've been renting and um it's been great, but we happened to find a lot uh here in Louisville that we liked and um we believe that we could fit well within the community. Uh we offer remodeling services um as well as lines of cabinets and tile work and just beyond slabs. Um we are planning to occupy the south building for our primary use um with potentially you know leasing out the north north uh building um um as well as possibly down the road um maybe even importing material as part of the growth

of our business. But that is going to be the primary use of the building within the community. Great. Thank you. Further questions from the commissioners? I I had one question on the metal cladding that you've provided. Uh in terms of what are the durable finishes that are applied to the metal? We have several. We haven't chosen a final finish yet, but probably kar which is a a machine applied baked on finish essentially. Uh I'm sure that your question arises from concerns about fading over the years and they have really really the industry has really improved that characteristic but looking at KNAR presently. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that was the question about durability and repairability where um the baked on enamels are easier to repair than a powder coat or being dust blasted and all kinds of other other things that could happen to the building. Actually, can we ask you get by the microphone again? Thanks. No, if you can be in front of the microphone when you're we've got two commissioners uh who are History uh history tells me that I probably talked too loudly, but I apologize, sir. Oh, great. Thanks. That's perfect. Thank you. Additional questions for the applicant. If I could ask somebody to put up, can we put up the the the waiverss requested on screen or is that going to be a mildly monumental technological We'll see. We'll see what we can do. Can I ask a question? Are these the actual colors you're proposing? Yes, sir. Okay. Thanks. As we work on that, do we have anything that comes to mind that people wanted to What's the the roof material is going to be similar? Same same stuff, but a standing seam 2-in rib standing seam roof, white.

questions regarding circulation, parking allowances, setbacks. Here we go. I have no questions. Okay. Thanks. All right. All right then. Last chance. Done. Okay. Um, thank you. Uh, I will now open it up for public comment. No. All right. Seeing none, um uh in closing, uh would you like to state anything uh about the project? Any any closing statement? Final statement you can I get my Can I get my elevations back that we just had? We're going to need these. You need this. Oh, all right. um for our discussions, but we've tried really hard, I believe, to have this project fit into the community of the CTC, who by the way has approved the project. Actually, they approved it the end of last year, as I recall, uh their architectural control committee, as I call them. Um I think we've made an excellent use of the site. We have an excellent landscape plan done by a local city town city of Lewisville landscape architect Carla Dacon of Dacon Design K Dacon Design been around for a number of years and uh I think that uh it's going to look really great when uh all the landscaping matures. Right. Thank you very much. You're welcome. and a staff response or closing statement. Um, no closing statement on this one either. Great. Thank you. Um, then as we jump into deliberations, so I'll now close the public hearing, planning

commissioners will deliberate on the evidence presented during deliberations. No further public comment or other testimony or evidence will be received. Um I would just begin that um it is a it is a big departure to go with a steel building um from what has been uh permitted out there in the past. Um and maybe we're ready for it. Maybe the future is now. Uh and these products have come uh quite a ways along with the architectural detail that's represented um with some eyebrows over windows and um other the sloping roofs uh that it's not your what used to be a typical steel building warehouse. So um with that though, curious what other people are thinking. I I agree with you. I I think um you know hearkening back to the the maybe the precedent for some of the um design requirements or limitations previously and you know referencing the Pearl building. I think there was u maybe an overuse of C10 for a certain amount of time. Um and I I do appreciate um the the finished elements of of the building of the proposed buildings. I do think that it provides a little bit of that depth of of appearance and variation um that I that I generally support. I also think that the uh the activation of the whole site with the different buildings and the varying profiles achieves some of the objectives like the uh varying setbacks for multi-buildings especially since there is no real definition of what that varying setback needed to be right um so I I think the the the planned approach to providing that aesthetic variation achieves the intent um and pulling on

that a little bit more. I think that again limitations of the site with the easements that are on the bottom or the south edge um limit the ability to comply with the strict letter of the requirements. U but the applicant I feel has done a good job of meeting and exceeding the intent of the requirement by going above and beyond got those two trees. Um, so you know, I think generally, um, I I appreciate what the applicant has done with the proposed design. Um, and I think that it will fit in well and provide a little bit of variance to the whole CTC area with some metal clad buildings thrown in with all of the concrete tiltup. Thank you. Appreciate that. Additional thoughts, Commissioner. Yeah, I I I completely agree with Commissioner Show. I think that's an eloquent summary of of how I was thinking like the variation in the design meets the intent for a lot of the requirements that we're waving. Um I think the design's great. Um I think in particular the the two-tone two different style column um metal sheeting I think mitigates some of the perhaps previous concerns about metal sighting. It's I don't I don't think it's going to look like a giant shipping container. I think they did a good job of avoiding that. Um so yeah, I'm I'm I'm I'm happy and comfortable with this. Great. Commissioners Molen or Basket, how are you feeling about the whole proposal? I feel Yeah, I think it's a good use for an, as it was noted, an important site that has two sides of lots of traffic going by. I like uh the design, the way the buildings are looking internally and the site is focused internally, but I think that the relief of the roof designs make it will make it fit into

the CTC in general um to add some architectural variety. Great. Thank you. And and I would just add I I um appreciated the elevation and the applicants discussion about um having the two buildings, the slanted roof. I think that sort of from Taylor that's that is an interesting look and it it does um and I appreciate that and I I it does look like it has more interest on the interior. I guess at some point I I think having a a nice um exterior presentation to Cherry would be would be fine as well. Um I'll just say that, but I'm going to be in support of this. Great. Thank you. Yep. Additional deliberations. I I agree with pretty much what everybody's been saying. I think this is a nice architecture. I appreciate the effort in the architecture. I appreciate um the maybe improvements in building materials. And you know, we've been seeing a lot of with all the rebuilds and the fences, we've seen more metal lately and I think there there's reasons for that that I app that I appreciate in particular. Um, and so, you know, I like this and I think it'll be it'll fit in well. Great. Thank you. Any additional thoughts? Nope. Nothing to add. I think it's it's well presented. Yep. All right. Uh, with that then I'd entertain a motion. Where's the language? I also find myself in support of it at this time. I appreciate the architecture. I appreciate the architectural detail uh within the site. A motion to approve resolution 5, 2025, plan unit development for 380 South Taylor Avenue. I'll move I'll move to approve resolution number five. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Mahaley, yes. Commissioner

Bangs, yes. Commissioner Choy, yes. Commissioner Hunt, yes. Commissioner Basket, yes. Commissioner Molen, yes. Chair Brown Ice, yes. Motion carries. Might also uh plant the thought of voluntary compliance with dark sky goals. Not a requirement. Thank you very much. Next step is city council for you all. Thank you. All right. Uh, with that then we will open it up for any planning commission comments. Did anybody want to have anything any bake sales coming up that you baseball? Baseball's always raising money, right? Yeah. I'll say it again next month, but just a reminder, I will not be here during the June meeting. Okay, great. Thanks. Yeah, I think I read that you're not planning a second April meeting, correct? Correct. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Yep. No problem. Thank you. Um and I do look forward to a discussion of minimum parking requirements. Ripe time for it. Um any staff comments? No. All right, then. Uh motion to adjurnn. So moved and seconded. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Thank you all. Recording stopped. See you guys. Yep. See you.