City Council - Regular Meeting

schoolhouse in memory. Recording in progress. Good evening. Um, it's a regular meeting of the city council of the city of Lewisville, Colorado on March 24th. Um, may I get a roll call. Council member Kern present. Council member Hefner here. Council member Fehey here. Mayor Prom Hamilton here. Council member Dickinson here. Council member Coopermanman here. Mayor Lei here. Right. If you'd stand as able and join me with in the pledge of allegiance, please.

Thank you. Um, do we have a motion to approve the agenda tonight? So moved. Second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Right. The next item on the agenda is public comment on items not on the agenda and items on the consent agenda. Please tell us your name uh when you come up to the podium to speak and whether you're a Lewisville resident. Um if you want to speak, fill out a card on that's on the back of right on the other side of um the glass um to the entrance of the chambers. Fill it out and give it to the clerk at the end of the dis. She'll call your name and you can go up there. Each speaker is limited to three minutes or six minutes if you're pooling time with another person in attendance either online or in person. All opinions are welcome. Please be respectful of speakers to ensure everyone feels welcome to share their comments. Please refrain from any cheering, clapping, booing, or otherwise disruptive behavior. I appreciate that. to be considered at everyone's time. If your views have been expressed by somebody else, you're welcome to come up and just say that you agree with that person or somebody who has gone before and that's fine and you don't have to speak for the full 3 minutes or six minutes if you don't want to. Um, finally, the city council considers written comments that have been previously received with the same weight as we do comments that are made here. So, if you have already pro provided written comments, know that they're going to be considered. You don't have to um state them here. You can if you want. Um but you don't you can know that we're

going to consider them regardless. All right. So, can we get any public comment on items not on the agenda or the consent agenda? There aren't any. All right. Okay. Can we get a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor? I

I. Any opposed? All right. Um, city councilformational comments and committee reports are next. Do council members have anyformational items or committee reports they would like to give? Okay. Uh, pretty quiet tonight. Um, the city manager report is next. Nothing to report. Thank you. Nothing to report tonight. All right. Moving right along.

Resolution uh 28 series 2026 is next. That is a resolution approving the 2026 Lewisville comprehensive plan. Um, and just quickly what we're going to do on that is the staff will have a presentation. Um there will be one round of public comments because it's a resolution. Council will discuss um the resolution and then at the end we'll ask for a motion and take a roll call vote. Um so um Director Zakaro, take it away.

All right. Uh good evening, Mayor Lei, members of city council. Rob Zucero, community development director. I'll be making the staff presentation on the comprehensive plan adoption which we have the public hearing this evening. Um we're very pleased to present this final draft of the comprehensive plan after two years of of work and incredible amount of community engagement. Um I wanted to start with some um just thanking Jeff Hurt, our planning manager. Um he wasn't able to be here tonight. He's on a very well-deserved vacation with his family. He was very disappointed not to be here, but he did an amazing job really thoughtfully considering all of the input um that we've received over the last two years and putting together and finalizing this draft for consideration. I also want to uh thank city council planning commission, all of our city boards and commissions who engaged with us multiple times. Um, and last but not least, all of the community members who spent significant time um, engaging on this effort, putting this plan together. Um, some overarching comments before I get into the staff presentation. Um, as you know, this plan will guide Lewisville's path for the next 10 years and align city policies with the vision and core values that are established in the plan. We spent a lot of time um vetting and focusing on those guiding principles which are the vision and core values. So everything springs up from those to create these policies. Uh it's important to note that this plan supports maintaining established neighborhood character and the historic character of downtown Lewisville and Oldtown which are vital to keeping Lewisville's unique character, quality of life, and charm. Um, the plan promotes new development in

select areas of Lewisville that will add to the city's vibrancy and promote new economic develop development opportunities needed to maintain the fiscal health of the city. I believe this plan will have a much larger focus compared to our existing comprehensive plan on several important topics to the community, including being a more inclusive and equitable community and having much more focus on community resilience and environmental sustainability. So th those were some of the things we really focused on with the plan development. So here we are with the adoption draft um before you. Um, as you all know, um, you saw a 95% draft back in January, and so we've been working pretty diligently, um, with a community openhouse and a, uh, further engagement, further, we've really been making refinements all the way through last week based on input to get the, um, plan in front of you. Uh, the planning commission did review this and have a public hearing. uh on February 26th they voted unanimously for approval um and get to the next slide. So this presentation this this is going to be the focus. We're going to give a quick recap of the process and then we're going to talk about the future land use framework um how it works, the purpose um and then we're going to talk again about the the housing capacity and some of the changes we made to the language around the land use framework since the last draft that you saw. Um we'll we'll give a a high level summary of um recent community input since the 95% draft and then changes since the 95% draft that have been made. We've made quite a few edits um coming out uh you know based on the January input that we received from

planning commission and city council as well as the uh planning commission hearing that took place in February. So again, we'll I I know you've seen this multiple times, but we'll talk about it a little more. What is a comp plan and what isn't it? It it's really our 20-year vision with a 10-year plan with policies that are to guide decision making on land use and development. Uh but it's broadreaching, as the name indicates, a comprehensive plan. Um, we really touch on all aspects of not just private development in the city, but making sure that as we uh as we try to uh you know reach our goals over over the next 10 years that we're also looking at um you know parks and recreation and transportation and utilities and planning for that to coincide with our vision for the city over the next 10 years. It's important to note this is not a zoning document. All of that's going to come later. I'll talk a little bit more about that. It's it's not budgeting. It's not requiring any regulatory mandates. It's really just setting the high level policy aspirations for the city to consider over the next 10 years. So, this will replace the 2013 comprehensive plan and the South Boulder Road and MacASM Boulevard small area plans which were annexes to that 2013 plan. Um, there's lots of other city plans existing and um in the works um that will provide more detailed guidance and strategic direction for the city within specific topic areas. So, this doesn't replace any of those. it's informed by those and it will inform future planning efforts as well. Um, I think it's also important to note that the city council, even though we do this exercise every 10 years on a formal

basis, city council has the opportunity to update this plan periodically over the next 10 years if priorities change um and and you feel like there's need for different policy or new policy alignment. Uh again, the the planning commission um and city council reviewed the 95% draft. We heard a lot about the housing capacity estimates. Um again, these these are planning tools. These aren't targets or caps or anything like that. Uh but we heard a lot of community input and input from the planning commission to really emphasize um what those numbers are in the opportunity areas that I'll talk about and also emphasizing manage incremental growth over time to make sure that infrastructure and quality of life um is maintained as the city grows. Um they also had some comments about strengthening affordable housing priorities um and some other more specific comments. Um we then engaged with city council right after the planning commission hearing and that really reinforced all of the planning commission's comments. Um they were very similar. So there were a lot of edits made based on that. The planning commission then again as I said had their public hearing for this adoption. They're recommending approval. We had quite a few in attendance um at the meeting. We had 15 speakers. Um there was both support and concerns raised about the um the capacity and the residential development. Uh but they did um unanimously recommend approval. They didn't recommend any specific edits, but we did make some edits based on their overarching input in the document. So to get into the uh future land use framework

um so again this is not zoning it's not regulatory it is intended to guide future decisions there's a lot that needs to happen after this plan to implement the vision and we'll talk about some of those specific efforts um as you know a couple of years ago we adopted our first housing plan based on a housing needs assessment that identified around 2500 units of additional housing need. This was based on projected county level growth. Again, this wasn't a mandate to um uh to build 2500 units. But if we if if we absorb our proportional share um and try to meet the needs identified in that housing needs assessment, um that's what that plan was calling for. It also uh talks a lot about how we could get more, not just housing, but more affordable housing and trying to align with the county's 12% affordable housing goal. So, there's a lot in the comprehensive plan that builds off the housing plan, including the land use framework. Um, I also want to note that the framework isn't all about residential development. The residential development certainly has the opportunity to revitalize areas and support businesses, existing and new business growth. Um but the you know the land use framework is also intended to support and enhance our commercial areas as well. So the land use framework as you know really focuses you know of course it covers the whole city but it focuses on four what we call opportunity areas. So these are areas of the city where there is vacant land or or land that may be more um apt for redevelopment opportunities. Um 90 so when you look at those housing opportunity numbers in the plan 90% of the potential for new residential growth

is within the opportunity areas. So, as I mentioned, you know, one of the purposes of the plan is to um, you know, generally preserve established residential areas of the city and focus new development within those opportunity areas. So this plan is also intended to consider um balancing new development in the future with infrastructure needs, fiscal health, um making sure city services are um maintained at their current level of services and also focusing more on sustainability um more than than our last comprehensive plans have had policies related to. Um there's also a lot in the plan about neighborhood compatibility and transitioning between neighborhoods. Um I also want to mention that um you know this is a just a planning tool like I mentioned and we're going to have to follow up with actually development code rewrites, design guideline rewrites. um the opportunity areas that we've identified, if they were to really just focus on residential growth, there's an opportunity for 4,000 to 5,000 residential units. Um again, 90% in the opportunity areas. Um and then citywide. Um we expect that the actual housing growth um would be well below that. And the intent is again to align with the housing plan. um if if we only planned for 2500 units, it's very unlikely we'd get to that level in the next 20 um 10 to 20 years. So, some some of the reasons um you know, if you just look at the vacant land in those opportunity areas, it's much more likely that the vacant land would be developed. It's much less likely that existing development would redevelop. Um so if you just apply our

methodology to the vacant land, it's around 3,600 units. Um most of these land use categories in the land use framework. Um allow they're they're not just res there's you know they're not just residential districts. Um most of them allow a mix of uses including commercial uses. Um, so we do expect some of the properties will develop as commercial and as new residential development and neighborhoods come in, the intent is it will spur new supporting commercial development as well. Um, and we're also looking at some of the higher density areas when we did the capacity calculations. Um, looking at those as being multifamily. you know, certainly a lot of those or some of those could be more duplexes or town homes or lower density even single family development. So, that would bring all the numbers down as well. There's also a lot of challenges with, you know, we're a landlock city and infill development has a lot of challenges. So, that could also impact that growth. Um, when you're looking at trying to zone um you know, for new growth, there's uh something called a zoning buffer. So if you want 2,000 or 2500 units, you really need to look at your land use policies um to kind of overshoot that when you look at the maximums to try to get where you want to be as a community. It's also important to note that again this is just a policy document. So any, you know, following this as we look at where we want to foster new development and residential neighborhoods, um those are all publicly reviewed processes for reszonings. There will be public hearings, additional evaluation and community input and city council um you know will be guiding that development as it comes in. This document doesn't

reszone all these properties. Um, I also want to note that there, you know, there's been a lot of questions about, um, you know, trying to set a development cap. I know we've had them in the past. Current state law does not allow um, residential development caps. Um, we can't state that there's a a maximum threshold for development. So, we are trying to fine-tune this plan to reach all of our goals as a city, including our housing plan goals. I think um on this slide I'm just going to emphasize that you know part of what we're trying to do is you know we're just trying to you know one of the mayor's favorite terms is to set the table for de for development. Um we need to provide flexibility um and let the market respond to what the city's policies are. So you know we aren't the developers. We need to set our policies to align with what we want and then work with um the development community as they come in and um you know work with them cooperatively to try to achieve the city's goals um as you know they're the ones coming in and building and um you know making the plans not the not the city in most cases. So again, just emphasizing that this is supported by existing plans, the housing plan, the transportation plan, the sustainability action plan, several other plans. Um those will be updated from time to time, maybe even updated before the next 10-year um update, but those all inform this plan. And then there's many upcoming projects, including the prost plan, the development code update, um our utilities plan. I know you received a

presentation from director Coher um on the utility plan recently. So and then of course our development impact fee um which the contract was on the consent agenda this evening. So that project is underway. So um again emphasizing that this just sets the high level policy. There's much more specificity to come. there's much more public process and you know council will drive the ultimate decisions on that. So, so here's just uh kind of a flowchart of our major projects that we are anticipating coming out of the comprehensive plan um that are specific to implementing the land use framework. Um the big thing is our comprehensive land development code rewrite which we are we actually have that um request for proposals out and we'll be reviewing consultants to start that project. That's a pretty big project. Um but that will be a major part of implementing this plan. Our impact fee project which I just mentioned um preparing new design guidelines for all elements of the city. you know, we have several different documents that regulate how development occurs. We'll be refreshing all of those as part of this project. And then there's numerous other plan updates like finalizing the utility plan and the pros plan just to to name name a couple. So, um on public input, as you know, um we've had several um different phases of public input. Um, and we started with a survey where we got nearly 2,000 responses, which was an amazing turnout. We've had really great turnout of at all of our open houses. We've had a lot of popup events and there's been a lot of themes. There's certainly concern about residential growth and, you know, a need to have measured growth that ensures that we are preserving character and

quality of life in the city. So that's come through very strongly. There has been a lot of support for addressing housing affordability and choice. So not just deed restricted affordable housing, but more choice for market rate housing as well, senior housing. There were a lot of other comments, especially addressing sustainability, resilience, open space, and a range of other topics. Um there was a memo recently from the open space advisory board. They had several recommendations. We just wanted to point that out, make sure, and I know council's aware, but just emphasizing they had a lot of specific recommendations. Um, you know, we've done our best to make some edits, but some of them are policy considerations that council would need to weigh in on. Um, so all of the edits that we've made, and again, a shout out to planning manager. He did an amazing job making the edits and also recording the edits. There's actually um a couple of logs that are attachments so you can see every edit that's been made since January um to try to address all of the comments. So some of the big things that were changed is to really make clear about these housing opportunity numbers that this is just the opportunity within each of these areas. Um, so again, we're expecting to work with property owners and developers as we try to achieve our goals, but we wanted to note based on the land use framework where we add different opportunities. Uh, so there's more language in the plan around that. We've added um several new strategies. So, I'll point out a few of them here um that we've talked about based on a lot of the comments we've got about measured residential growth and quality of life concerns. So, we've added policies around that. Really emphasize that city council, you know, has, you know, can

review and update the plan um as needed over the next 10 years. Um, we've added some more specific policy language around transitions between neighborhoods, especially transitioning from u existing established neighborhoods and having height and density transitions. Um, we've added some more language around um Oldtown residential considerations to further emphasize, you know, our intent to maintain historic character in Oldtown. Um, and then we've we've added several new policies around affordable housing. Um, to emphasize that we want more on-site affordable housing and that we will be updating our inclusion inclusionary housing ordinance. We are planning an interim update as well as our land development code rewrite will further address that. Um, other specific things that we called out, there was a lot there were a lot of comments including planning commission about Excel Energy Coordination. um evacuation route, emergency planning. There was discussion at the last city council review about the potential good Hugh ditch um so uh connection and so we really emphasized that this was conceptual um subject to future study. So we on the maps we've called that out differently. Um, again, I've I've talked about a lot of these, but I think it's really important that we've provided more context around the the land use framework. Um, and then really emphasize that we're intending to, you know, a lot of our policies are trying to further our regional goals of 12% affordable housing. Um we clarified in the regional center

about mixeduse expectations. Originally we had only vertical mixed use but a lot of development especially in our more suburban context. Um horizontal mixed use is more market supported. So we've added some language around that. We've added um some transit policies and um strength and sustainability and resilience language all based on the feedback we've received since January. So that gets us us to the last slide finally. Um so there are criteria for comprehensive plan amendments in um section 176470 of the city code. Um and so we've outlined them here. I you know I think we've tried to be really responsive to um again the the the the breadth of of input that we've got from the community over the last two years to put the plan together um and tried to be very thoughtful about aligning ma you know having measured growth that aligns with infrastructure and making sure we're planning for potential growth in the future and have all of those policies in place. Um so with that I would be happy to answer any questions or or move on to the next uh I'm not sure how you want to facilitate the discussion.

I think um I think we're going to take some public comment if you're finished with your presentation. Um some public comment. Okay.

First up is Joel Hayes followed by Andrea Daros. Thank you. I didn't expect to be the first person up, but u I'm honored to be here in front of the council and I appreciate your service. Uh I'm asking you to vote against the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan. Um I'm very concerned about the 40% or greater growth that's um baked in to this. Um I think it will uh result in uh reduced services to me and my fellow citizens. Um uh the rec center for example already pretty full. It's amazing. Um 40% 50% 60% more population. I don't see how we could possibly serve that. I don't see any fiscal planning here to deal with that kind of growth, that kind of demand for services. U I also disagree that small town character is just about downtown. To me, small town character is about all of Lewisville. And the proposed three-story buildings in downtown, the downtown area, north of South Boulder Road, uh or along South Boulder Road, uh to me are really not smalltown character. They're what you see in Westminster, which is great for Westminster, but it's not why we live here in Lewisville. Um and then finally, the public safety, which I think is probably the most important point. We know there'll be more Marshall fires. I I wish that wasn't likely, but u we have to plan for that. And we really haven't increased uh the roadways to leave when something like that

happens. And when you add another 40, 50, 60% uh of of uh housing here in Lewisville, I think u the chances of us having a really bad event go up. Thank you. Thank you, Joel. Next up is Aubrey Devaros, followed by Andy Johnson.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Langley. Um, appreciate the opportunity to give public comment tonight. My name is Audrey Deberos. I am a Lewisville resident and I'm a candidate for RTD district O serving Boulder County. I am really appreciate the connection made in the in the comp plan between expanding housing and investing in multimmodal transportation options in order to reduce solo driving and to provide more mobility options for all. House bill 241313 requires local governments to achieve housing opportunity goals within transit corridors. And so this further necessitates necessitates the city to integrate housing with multimmodal transportation options. A couple of the stats in the comp plan stood out to me. One is 94% of Lewisville employees live outside of the city and 90% of Lewisville residents leave the city to go to work. This means we have a major jobs to population imbalance. We need more. We need to allow more people to be able to live in Lewisville and we need to encourage economic vitality to achieve a better approach. Currently, we are forcing people who work in Lewisville to primarily drive in order to access housing, thereby significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This leads to the importance of the city investing in regional multimmoal partnerships to reduce vehicle miles traveled. I encourage the city to continue to be a partner in joint service and front-range passenger rail. Very exciting potential rail opportunities for our northwest region that could finally implement a downtown rail solution and give regional and interreional travel options. I also encourage the city to participate and

invest in corridors such as South Boulder Road, Colorado 42, McCaslin, and US 36 to create that multimodal network and make it easier for people to travel by all modes of transportation with and without a vehicle and thereby um yeah providing more mobility options for all. Um, the plan also identified funding opportunities to invest in multimmoal solutions such as creating business improvement districts, expanding the purpose of existing metro districts to include transportation, and considering a transportation maintenance fee. I encourage you to consider all of these bright, bold, I new ideas. Um, lastly, I just wanted to thank city staff and you all and the public for this um, just comprehensive work the past two years. um especially to director Zukero and his team. Um this is just a a com you know a really wonderful opportunity for the co community to come together around a bright bold future. So thank you.

Thank you Audrey. Next up is Andy Johnson followed by Tamara CR.

Good evening. I'm Andy Johnson, a Lewisville resident, business owner, and a local architect here in downtown. Um, I'm here tonight because I am genuinely hopeful. This plan, um, isn't a roadmap to ramp development as some have feared. And in the architectural world, we understand that a plan is a set of values, a framework of what is possible, not a mandate for what is inevitable. To fixate solely on growth numbers is to miss the beauty of the broader document. As we look toward approval, I want to address some of the concerns recently circulated in our community. I believe the call to downsize this plan is based on a misunderstanding of our current reality. First, the comp plan is a vision, not a zoning code. Place types are not by right entitlements. They are a highle guidance document. To artificially shrink these areas now would prematurely choke off the community's ability to even discuss future zoning reform. Second, we must recognize the legal landscape, suggesting that we limit housing to a specific numerical cap effectively asks this council to implement illegal growth cap under 20 23 state law. Furthermore, under the newly enacted uh HB 1001 from this year, attempting to use the comp plan as a gate valve to block development invites significant legal and fiscal liability for our taxpayers. Third, the housing plan is a floor, not a ceiling. The numbers cited by the opposition are the minimum production needed to address regional demand. The comp plan's role is to provide the flexibility to meet those needs, not to act as a tool for capping our city's evolution.

Change is inevitable, but progress is a choice. For years, we have deferred maintenance on our housing needs. This plan is our chance to stop reacting to the ghosts of imminent growth and start doing the hard work to making our community's goals a reality. This is a massive document and to focus solely on land use concerns undermines the broader discussion of all the carefully discussed and outlined concerns of our community including land use and development. Open space, community spaces, economic vitality, environmental sustainability, recovery and resilience, transportation and city core services. To not to deny this plan now is a profound sign of disrespect to the thousands of residents who participated in its creation. This is a brave forwardthinking document. It is a testament to our collective labor and our bright future. Um and with my remaining 8 seconds, thank you to staff for uh your leadership. Thank you to council for your leadership. Um looking forward to this approval. Thank you.

Thank you Andy. Next up is Tamar Crance. followed by Jillian Malar.

Hi, my name is Tamar CR. I live in Lewisville. Thanks for taking my comment. Um, I just want to first say that I'm not opposed to this plan. I'm not um misunderstanding the numbers in the plan or anything like that, but I want to see some revisions to it. Um there have been many improvements to the plan and I thank you for your feedback that led to those improvements. Um I have one main concern and that is that you're overshooting the desired number of housing units in the opportunity areas and in the place type descriptions. Um the future residential development opportunity table that um director Zukaro put up um shows 4,100 to 5,900 new units. And the footnote does make it really clear that this is not a goal or a clap cap. And it also makes it really clear that these numbers are ma based on the midpoint and reduced by a potential factor, a development potential factor. But if you take the highest density numbers multiplied by the areas of the parcels, that still results in well over 100% growth for the city. And that's you you don't only you can't find that until you get an Excel spreadsheet and multiply the numbers the area by the maximum growth. Um I'm really glad that the plan explains that these numbers are dependent upon many factors but still there are hard numbers um and a fairly clear map. Our development code will require that you consider compliance with this plan. If the plan envisions 40 units per acre, you are going to be the ones who have to explain why this particular development isn't entitled to that density because obviously we can't have more than 100% growth. It's harder to say no later than to put reasonable numbers into the plan now. So my first request is that you remove the place type density numbers. For your information, the Boulder Valley comp plan doesn't include hard numbers, just the description such as multif

family or town homes. and they say that's because they want to avoid conflict and unintended consequences later. Um, for example, something that um, Audrey Daro just mentioned was that we might have to comply with House Bill 1313, which is going to require density in transit oriented areas, which and we've put most of our density in this comp plan at Red Tail Ridge. And my second request is that you add language to the future land use framework section to let the public and the developers know that par parcels re will be reszoned only when there's a viable development application. I really do appreciate that Director Zakaro pointed that out and and reiterated to us that this doesn't change zoning, but we just want to make sure it would be really nice to just have one sentence in there that says that we're not going to be reszoning and and mass because this will protect us from increased land prices and sales to speculators after upzoning. Um, it could be a single sentence. Please help us make Lewisville more affordable by keeping room for incentives and preventing land land prices from going too high. Thank you.

Thank you. Tomorrow, next up is Jillian Mar followed by Peter Stewart.

Hi, good evening. Um I'm Jillian uh from the Looseville Local Resident and the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. Um I'm here uh this evening on behalf of the Downtown Business Association, the Lewisville Chamber Advocacy Committee, and the Lewisville Chamber board of uh directors. Um I'd like to share our support for the Lewisville comprehensive plan adoption. We'd like to thank the city staff, planning commission, advisory boards, and I believe as you mentioned earlier as well, thousands of residents who contributed to this multi-year effort. The level of engagement and analysis reflects a thoughtful work uh to guide Lewisville's uh longterm future. We appreciate the plan's clarity about its purpose. It's a strategic community-driven guide book for city policy decisions and priorities, providing direction for the future whilst preserving the public process for individual projects. From a business and community perspective, we believe the plan is balanced and future focused. It pro it prioritizes supporting a thriving economy, fostering a businessfriendly environment and supports existing businesses whilst also attracting new ones. Um, it promotes highquality mixed use redevelopment in key opportunity areas, allowing businesses and residents to coexist in a thoughtful and well-designed manner. We support the housing framework and the staff recommendations. The plan acknowledges key trends including the aging population, shrinking household sizes, fewer school age children, and rising househ housing costs. Expanding housing opportunities to meet the needs of residents and the local workforce is an important step towards fostering a healthy multigenerational community for the future. Thoughtful reinvestment and managed growth are essential to sustaining Louisville's long-term fiscal health. A strong and balanced tax base allows the community to continue to receive the first class services residents expect, including public

safety, infrastructure, parks, and schools. The plan provides a framework to guide that work responsibly. And in summary, we support the adoption because the plan aligns with the priorities of our organizations. Balanced and thoughtful growth guided by community values, a strong businessfriendly local economy, housing options that support our current and future residents along with our workforce, and mixeduse redevelopment that strengthens commercial areas, as well as long-term fiscal stability that sustains our important and respected city services. This is a clear framework that guides policy without predetermining specific projects. We respectfully support its adop adoption. Downtown Business Association, Louisville Chamber Advocacy Committee, and the Looseville Chamber Board of Directors. Thank you.

Thank you, Jillian. Next up is Peter Stewart, followed by Katherine Smith.

Uh, good evening, Peter Stewart. I'm a local architect and resident in Lewisville, and I appreciate all the work that u everyone has put into the plan. I think it's a great plan. I strongly support adopting the proposed uh plan and urge your approval. Um there was I know there's a lot of community comments about growth and growth caps, but that's not what a comprehensive plan is. To me, a comprehensive plan is about how the city matures over time. And in that in that goal, we need to have the flexibility to adopt and to change as changes are necessary. Um, I sent you a um I know there's also been comments about downsizing the densities in the in the opportunity areas and in the uh place types. Um, I looked at I sent you an email with some examples of downtown like the live work town houses over here and then the uh the residential over the optical shop down there uh on Main Street. Um and that gave me some confidence that the numbers and the range in the plan were about right. Um because I think those projects uh exemplify the kind of thing that are are that's we find acceptable in terms of the quality of a place and that it fits in terms of its mass and its uh scale. Um, and I also think those ranges are necessary when we get into regulatory documents. Uh, you know, like the zoning and and small area plans and overlays and those kind of things. Um, what it points out is that, you know, zoning is a more complex than just the number of units per acre because there's units per acre and there's, you know, building height and lot coverage and floor area ratio. And you can have the same building envelope with the same height limit, lot coverage, floor area ratio. And within that, you can have a lot of small units or you can have one or two

big units. And so that unit range can be huge. like for for these examples, it could be anywhere between, you know, 12 and 30 units per acre within the same building envelope. So anyway, I thought that was uh important to point out and appreciate your time and and recommend approval and uh look forward to the next steps which is getting more specifics in terms of the zoning. Thank you, Peter.

Next up is Katherine Smith, followed by Laurel Daniff. Hello, I'm Katherine Smith and I am a Lewisville resident. I'm here tonight not in flatout opposition, hell no. I'm here tonight just to say that there are changes that I would like to see and to advocate for those changes. Um my concern is that I see the character of the city changing and I see us becoming something that's densely populated is undifferentiated sprawl in which our community is not even separated from the communities that are around that surround it in kind of character in tone in feel. And um I I know that without any growth right now, we face challenges at the rec center, at the library, and that our city provides wonderful services that we all appreciate, which is why I'm here advocating for the continuation of the services and amenities that we have as we grow. In terms of the density of place types, I have focused on it in a way that is more similar to the way Tamar CR has focused on it. And I'm concerned about development that overtakes um our ability to digest the growth. Um, and I am feeling like in the past there's an

argument that we didn't allow enough growth and that we are going so far on the other side to encourage growth that we're missing the middle point that golden mean. And that is what I would like to see us shooting for is growth that we can absorb and growth um that brings us to a balance point. And that is why I'm asking to conform to the housing plans growth projections. Um in terms of how to grow, where do we need guard rails? I really do hope that as you talk about the housing the comprehensive plan, you have a really robust discussion about whether you've got the right guard rails in place and what those should look like. My written comments include my suggestions. Um, I also think that from a bargaining standpoint, it's fine to say in a highle document like the comprehensive plan, we will allow five stories, but when we get to the next phase of this and you're writing the implementing rigs. If we actually do the zoning first, we are just giving up so much bargaining power that could be used to provide um services to

I'm sorry, your time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Katherine.

Next up is Laurel Dana followed by Dustin Sigrillo. Hi, I'm Laurel Danf um resident of Lewisville in Little Italy. I have um watched this plan, the evolution of the document. I'm pretty pleased with how it's gone and I understand how difficult it has been to uh make such a a a wide planned thing. Um I understand it's trying to balance the needs for housing in Boulder, Colorado, in Boulder County, in Colorado in general, in Lewisville. Um balance state recommendations and then also all the public concern around density and character and um growth or not growth and water and emergency evacuation worries. All of which worry me, but all of which I think um can responsibly be addressed. Um my experience in the last couple of years is that growth is pretty slow and the development takes a long time. And um it feels clear to me that that you know 25 or 2,800 units as a goal is going to be difficult to achieve even that it seems like to me. So, um I understand that even if we hit the total amount of growth possible, which would take so long and so much work, Lewisville will still be a relatively small town. I mean, it's a city, but it will be like a relatively small town even if we built to our edges. So, um, you know, understanding that this plan is this overarching

sort of vague plan about what we're up to and it's not all about growth. Um, and all the other things are important as well. Um, my message is to please uh take into account the small town character which for me um means inclusivity. It means a vital downtown. It means open space and trails. It means safety, everyday safety, the police force and all of that working well, but also emergency evacuation stuff, um, larger scale safety, but it also means community involvement. And I am really hoping for more community involvement, a focus on getting the community involved because that's what small town character means for me. Um so as we go through each and every conversation going forward about zoning, about each development as it happens, um please consider what it what Lewisville stands for and what what we are um continually working to build and and keep the character while we responsibly grow. Thanks.

Thank you, Laura. Next up is Dustin Sigrillo, followed by Matt Jones.

Hello, Dustin Sigrillo, small town character uh from Little Italy. Um Andy Johnson said that growth is inevitable. Change is inevitable. Was that right? Did you say that? I wish that were the case for Wildwood Guitars. I was I was uh I moved here in 1989. That place was thriving. And I can't remember the last time I saw that open. I don't know when it's ever gonna change. I hope that changes. I hope Empire Restaurant gets filled up. I hope uh Steve TBO's quadrillion dollar investment gets filled up. Like at some point, somebody's got to bring some people uh to bring some money to bring some Oldtown back. Um that's not what I'm here to talk about, but that did come up for me. The plan should say 20,000 new houses. Um because the number doesn't matter. Andy Johnson's not a builder. Rob Zukuro is not a builder. Chris Lay is not a builder. What we need is a builder who's going to come in and be willing to do the things that we have to do to actually build these these houses. And the comprehensive plan doesn't really address any of that. They're not saying 25 or 10,000 or it doesn't matter what it says. What it's going to take is creating a plan that the state wants to see, which is, hey, we'll give you some money if you want to build sustainable housing, which is what we want to do, which is I think what's going to happen. And at the same time, we all get the opportunity to stand up here again anytime a plan comes to the table. So, we can talk about the small town character and what he wants, and we can talk about the growth and what they want. But you know something that really bothers me today. Somebody told me, "Did you hear they're closing Lewisville Elementary?" I was like, "What are you talking about closing Lewisville Elementary? There's not enough kids to go to Lewisville Elementary. We're going to close it down." Took me by surprise. I sell real estate in the town. It was

my client who bought a house that backed up to it. And I was like, I didn't know that. But if we go the way we're going where we don't have affordable housing, we don't have families that can live here, we won't have the students uh to go to the schools. And and it's going to be I mean that's going to change it way beyond that. But I'm not saying pack it all in. I'm not even saying build a bunch of houses at Red Tail Ridge. If you ask me, that's Lewisville Light. It'll never be Lewisville. It'll just be that thing over there that has an 8027 zip code. kind of like how uh oh what's that neighborhood in Lafayette by Exempla. Um it's it's not very memorable I guess but you have to get in your car anyway anytime you want to go anywhere you got to get in your car and the city of Lafayette approved that. It's crazy. It's insane. We want trail connectivity. We want um open space. We want rec center. None of that's going to happen in in Red Tail Ridge because it's just outside of what Lewisville really is. Anyway, I didn't really prepare anything. I'm just sort of reacting to what I've heard so far and what I've been listening to for this whole time you've been creating this. Keep up the good work. I think you're actually doing a good job. Thank you very much.

Next up is Matt Jones who's pulled time with Jan Pro in for six minutes. Yes. Sorry. My name is Matt Jones. Um, I live here in Lewisville, proudly so, and I'm going here to talk about downsizing and incrementalizing. Baked into this plan are place types of at least 50% increase. Staff says as much, it could be 50%. You look at the place type in table one, it's more like 60 to 70%, if you look at uh, what was it? The attachment D, it's even higher. Turn the volume.

It's It's even higher. Okay, I'll

I'll get closer to the mic. And I I understand everybody says, "Don't worry, it's just a planning tool." Well, if you're going to do it, if you're going to plan it, are you Why? You're going to do it, right? It doesn't make much sense to me. Or alternatively, you're not going to do it, and you're going to buy a bunch of expensive water and not use it, and expand the rec center, not use it. Yes, it's a planning tool, but it's a very real thing. Um secondly, we a lot of what's driving this is housing affordability and I think we do have a affordability problem. I think this plan falls far short. And here's why. There's a frustrating truth in our town that it's very very popular. Demand is very high and you can build all the houses you want and it won't make any difference in cost. Previous councils thought it would help with dowo. It didn't. North north end steel ranch all the prices went up when the houses went in. It didn't matter. And so it the market rate solution to this is not going to work for affordability and we need to find a bunch of other ways to to help with that. I think we need to strategically downsize the plan. Most important place in my mind to do that is downtown. This is the golden goose that we're lucky to be here in. It's our unique asset. We we should protect it. I think we should probably have four to 10 dwelling units per acre here, not the larger number and also 30 stories or two stories or something like that. Otherwise, you're going to end up with a street with tear downs and threetory buildings. And that's true of the neighborhood area to the north as well. So, I think that needs to be downsized. I also think Davidson Mason needs to have a buffer off of it down the hill and not have houses above the ditch. I think that's a smart move for not only

open space but for the views that people enjoy in this city. Um Red Tail um oh and David the open space advisory board said as much on the Davidson Mesa issue. Red Tail Ridge that is such a gym for us as far as commercial activity. You can get to the airport easy. It is like a hub and we're talking about putting residential out there after public vote that rejected the plan that was out there. So those that I think you need to strategically downside. I'm happy that the 24,483 units from the housing plan is put in the plan. That's an improvement in my mind. But what the housing plan says is 2483 over 25 years and 960 over 10 the first 10 years. I think you should put in this plan 960 if you're going to use that housing plan to inform your decision-m you incrementalize staff recently added the term the words implementation measures to ensure that residential development is occurring in a managed and incremental manner. I couldn't agree more to do that. Do not make zoning changes wholesale. Only do it when you have a viable project coming in. Otherwise, you lose your bargaining power for the constituents you represent. And the developers are like that because it's easy for them. But what we want is quality development. I think we all agree on that. Oh, the checking in. I think that's a good addition to the plan, but you should say every three years. I've been in government for a while. Everybody says we'll get back to that and it never happens. And you should look at housing affordability when you do that. And finally, the Goodyear trail. The language that has been changed in the plan, as far as I can tell, is it now says instead it says do,

it says potentially do. That is a bad trail. It's bad environmentally. It causes environmental damage. It will disrupt agricultural operations and make them very difficult to maintain. It's a safety issue across Dylan. It's expensive if you want to do an underpass and it's redundant. 96th is going to have a trail on it already. I think you should just remove it from the plan and say that's not what we want or list all those negative things that make it a deal killer in my mind. So to summarize, um, downsize, incre incrementalize, protect downtown, clarify that it's 960 houses over 10 years in the housing plan, and finally, not change zoning until there's a viable proposal, and I didn't use all the six minutes. I'm going to give your time back.

Thank you, Matt.

Next up is Tom Rafferty, followed by Jorge Ramirez. Tom Rafferty, Ward 3, Lewisville. Thank you, honorable mayor, city councilors, and city staff for considering our citizen impact our input. Thank you for working hard to make more housing available and affordable for those in need who want to be firsttime home buyers. Thank you for doing this in a reasonable incremental approach that balances the benefits with the costs so as to comply with the law and yet provide for the needy while preserving our small town vibe and quality of life without being divisive. Wouldn't revising this plan to match the 2378 units in 20 years be a reasonable start? This would still afford a revisit every 5 years to adjust as the parameters change. Wouldn't doing a financial analysis to responsibly support such adjustments be a non-deivisive approach? There are thankfully many very dedicated citizens who have studied all of this material and have offered astute input. They are not advocating no growth, rather responsible, modest, incremental growth. Historic preservation of our so-called golden goose downtown. Can you please retain the wisdom of the 1998 downtown design guidelines? These guidelines have helped preserve our unique charm of historic downtown and Main Street. Many of these, though they are 28 years old, are still appropriate and adaptable for the future without having to start over.

We have a sense of place now. That is from Oldtown Lewisville 125 years ago. Please do what you can to preserve this. And please, please preclude modernized Cherry Creek or Boulderstyled intrusions that would dissipate our valuable place. Please use the current required application review process in lie of a blanket revision to use by right. Thank you for keeping the 2019 transportation master plan that clearly indicates the vitality of the complete streets concept of multimmodal means which is in keeping with Lewisville's heritage. Please do not close our vital streets. stay with the 12% affordable units and communicate such success to we the public so we can actually understand what we are that we are doing our part and that there is success with affordable housing. Five stories to me seems too tall and more like all the other towns who helped ruin the once buolic older turnpike. Please consider or just please vote to revise this comp plan in alignment with the housing plans 2483 units over the next 20 years. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. Next up is Jorge Ramirez, followed by Bob Muckle.

Good afternoon, Jorge Ramirez, resident of Lewisville. Um, I'm originally from Austin, Texas. I have been traveling from my job for about a decade. Um, I watched Austin grow rapidly over time. Uh, it used to be known for keep Austin weird, a place with character, community, and identity. Today, it's a very different city. Growth brought opportunity, but it also brought congestion, rising costs, and a loss of what made it unique. When my family and I decided to settle down after over a decade, like 12 years of having to move them around New York City, Puerto Rico, I work for disaster recovery, so I have to go where the disaster is. And my son said he wanted to hang a painting without having to take it off. So, I decided I had to pick a home. And I found this really amazing city uh just on the map by looking at it. Um, we were intentional. We didn't want more of the same. We came to Lewisville and within a week I knew that we were home. Um, this place is special. It has a sense of community uh this hard to find. And I'm serious. I traveled here uh by just looking at a map and spending a week here. Um, that's why I'm speaking here today. When I look at the current plans, I don't see development. I see the early signs of what I watched happen in Austin. Growth is inevitable. I'm not here to argue against growth. But there's a difference between growth that's managed and growth that simply happens to a community. In Austin, growth was wasn't intentional intentionally guided to preserve what people loved. It just

simply accelerated on its own. And once those changes take hold, you can't reverse them. I mean this sincerely that Lewisville is a gem. I'm new here one year. Maybe some of you have stopped looking at the mountains or running the trails or looking at the empty just the sky. It's it it really is amazing. The question isn't whether it will grow. It will. The question is whether that growth will protect will protect what makes this place place worth living. I choose to be here because of what Lewisville is today. I'm asking that as you plan for the future, you do it in a way that preserves that, not replaces it. Thank you.

Thank you, Marie. Next up is Bob Muckle, followed by Gary St. an sorry.

Hi everyone. Bob Muckle. I live in Louisville. uh uh uh victim of many comp plans. Um so um uh I want to really thank the staff and all of you and all the citizens and the boards and commissions that have reviewed this document. I think it's a good document. Lots and lots of good stuff. I think it proposes uh well I I I'm a uh I I'm kind of embarrassed that I don't have the keep uh or the small town character hat uh because that's kind of my like my hat. That's my origins in politics in Lewisville. So it's really important to me that whatever happens that we don't kind of mess with this small town quality of life that we have. I I I'm I would be um fully supportive of this plan if we were proposing the amount the number of houses and the rate that's proposed in the housing plan. Uh so I don't think there's any reason to hurry to get beyond that. And I also don't think there's any reason to hurry about this process because you know it's it's it's inevitable. Um, but I think you could incrementalize it in a way that would be very acceptable to to the community. I mean, um, I wouldn't build houses at Red Tale as my first priority since the citizens have actually voted twice that they don't like that. Clearly, what was said earlier more artic articulately than me is that that is not going to be a part of the town that feels like, you know, our community. It's going to be a neighborhood of Broomfield, basically. So, if I was going to pick, I would I would pick Centennial Valley

where you could actually really connect communities that already exist and the university's new property to our old our neighborhoods. I mean, I think there's so much opportunity there. I would do that first and I would express that we're going to do that first and then um and and then move on. I heard Peter who I really respect Peter Stewart I think the downtown I'm a little nervous about down the downtown development numbers because if you increase the values of downtown properties which I think that would do you're going to be directly conflicting with one of our other priorities as a city which is historic preservation. So I'm I'm nervous about that but say I respect Peter's view. I would not build vertical construction above the ditch on Davidson Mesa. I think that is a you know the that open land coming down that hill is beautiful from beautiful beautiful from above and below and I would preserve it. I think you could build trails or parks and anyhow I really appreciate all your work. I hope you'll take the public comments into consideration this evening. Thanks.

Thanks Bob. Next up is Gary St. An. Yeah, St. on a tough one. Followed by David Pomeroy. So, thanks to to all city council mayor.

Um, so I am a resident for seven years, so not as new as Jorge, but pretty new. My wife and I followed our daughter out here. She went to school here and never left and never will. Uh, and when we started looking at real estate, she said, "You can look around all you want, mom and dad, but I can tell you you're gonna end up in Lewisville." And she was right. And we built there. We didn't build. We bought there. and then we have subsequently built there over the last four years. Um, so I'm in favor of growth, but like a number of speakers before me have said, starting with tomorrow CR, I'm quite nervous about the plan saying that we're going to have upwards of 100% growth. Right. When it's called a plan as opposed to an upper limit, um, that makes me quite nervous. And I agree with Jorge that the character would change dramatically. Uh, I've lived um through significant growth in other areas and that makes me nervous. I do want to see the vacant businesses filled, but I don't think we need to have anything approaching what the upper limit would be to do so. Um, so I just want to say I'm seconding what I've heard from a number of residents. So I'll leave the remaining time for others. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is David Pomemeroy. followed by Joy Brooke.

Good evening. David Pomeroy. I'm a Louis Mooseville resident. I've been in the comp plan involved in the comp plan since the beginning of this process two years ago, and I've seen how thorough and diligent the development of it has been. I want to thank the team for all of their hard work in putting this together. The comp plan isn't only about housing, but many of the concerns I've heard are about housing. Personally, I think it doesn't go far enough, but I support the plan the team has produced. So, small town character. I have some thoughts about what that means. I believe the character of our town doesn't come from the style of the homes or really even from the density of them. What makes Lewisville special is the people and our community. The character of our town comes from the characters in our town. I love the hat. A city that looks like Lewisville, but doesn't have the same people wouldn't have the same character. Lewisville is great because we have the kind of people who show up for their neighbors and who care so deeply about our community that they show up here on a Tuesday night to make sure that we get it right. If we want to keep Lewisville's characters, we have to be brave enough to accept some challenges, some changes, we need to remember if we reject this plan and if we reject new housing, the city doesn't stay the same. Forces outside of our control will change it anyway. If we don't build more homes and more types of homes, prices will keep rising and property taxes with them. It prices out our most vulnerable residents to be replaced by millionaires. Our schools will keep emptying out as young families are forced out further into the exerbs. If we don't build smaller, accessible homes, our seniors have few choices to downsize and often face a choice of remaining at home in a big house that's

hard to take care of or moving away to somewhere that has what they need. If we don't add density, transit remains unviable and we stay car dependent and stuck in traffic. And we now know that suburban sprawl comes with enormous unfunded infrastructure costs that will eventually come due. If we add jobs but not homes like we're doing at Red Tale Ridge, the roads in and out of Lewisville will be jammed with even more commuter traffic. The way that we reduce traffic is to build more homes near where people live and work. We need to do better. The comprehensive plan charts a course. In 2026, we've seen what works and what doesn't in America's suburban experiment, and we know how to build better cities, healthier cities with better quality of life. That's what this plan does. I urge the council to approve this plan. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Next up is Joy Brooke, followed by Cindy Bedell. I've been having a really hard time hearing and nobody seemed to care. Can you guys hear me? Yeah.

So, the the work on whoever's doing the volume, we need some help. We need to be able to hear and I'd like you guys to hear because we had an election because you didn't take our petition. The petition told you what we wanted. The election told you what we wanted and now this is what we're looking at. Ridiculous amounts of growth. What are you going to do about the traffic on 96 at South Balder Road? What are you going to do about the fact I can't breathe a lot of days because of the air pollution? Where are you going to get the water? Have you thought about that? I asked somebody about that once. They said, "Oh, we don't worry about that. They'll find the water somewhere. Well, in case you haven't noticed, we got too many people and not enough water. And you need to be taking care of the people that are here. I moved here in ' 04. And this is not getting better. And recently, it's not gotten better. It's gotten way worse. the densification, the making things taller, whatever happened to be able to see the mountains. I don't want three stories. I sure don't want five stories. I want a small town, nice place to spend my retirement. I don't want to move. Yes, my house keeps going up in value. Am I supposed to be happy about that? No. There's nowhere else to go. And my taxes keep going up. Am I getting more for that? I want clean water. I want to be able to breathe. I want to be able to drive my car without running into an F down there where they say it's going to be when they build all that junk in Red Tail Ridge. I want to be able to have open

space. I mean, to be able to walk, ride my bike. There were some other things people said that were really great that I want to go back to. I want to be able to move into an accessible onelevel townhouse. If you're gonna build something, build that. We need that. No construction along the ditch. That's a no-brainer. All this stuff around the railroad is crazy. Who are those poor people living there with those trains? Our downtown. Are you kidding me? You're going to trash that? We got nothing else left. Protect our town. That's your job. The other question I have for you is, have you been taking dark money? The council is not acting like it used to. Something's a little weird here. Ever since the Red Tail Ridge story started, you quit listening to the citizens. It's time to think about not your pockets, but our best interests. We need to breathe and we need to have clean water. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Cindy Bedell, followed by Wei Yan. Oh, hi. I'm pulling my time with Mike Putney. So, I have six minutes, I think. Oh, can I start at already started?

Okay. Okay. I'm Cindy Bedell. I live in Ward 2 and I'm asking you tonight, I know you put a lot of work into this And I think you're all very careful and considerate about what you think is good for the town. So I'm asking you please vote for what the majority of Louiswis Hill residents want for our town. And this comp plan version is not quite it yet. I'm very concerned that this current version allows primarily for speculative development that benefits investors instead of the community. The proposed upzoning of large tracks before a developer even comes to the table with a proposal automatically increases the value of the land, making future open space purchases far more costly and seeding bargaining power before negotiations even begin. And I'm quoting somebody else who wrote in about this. Most residents want reasonable growth that maintains Lewisville's exceptional quality of life, accessible amenities, and charming downtown. What makes our town charming? Mass scale, friendly people, a place that's safe for children, low traffic. As one previous planning commissioner said, the quickest way to reduce quality of life is making people sit in more traffic through more traffic lights. I support affordable housing. Let's welcome newcomers into our existing housing stock as naturally occurring turnover occurs, which has happened in my neighborhood. I have lots of wonderful new neighbors. Expand affordable housing programs like down payment assistance and deed restrictions. Build a reasonable amount of new housing that's at least 12% affordable. The number of housing units in the housing plan would still be a big change at 2500 new units, say over 25 years, but it's certainly more reasonable than the 5,000 or more laid

out in this draft comp plan. We all really know building massive amounts of market rate housing is not going to reduce housing prices. It will only make our traffic as bad as Boulders. It will only make it impossible to get lap lanes at the rec center or get into an already crowded yoga class. It will further degrade our parks and open spaces as we exceed the carrying capacity and and cause higher maintenance cost. It will make evacuation during an emergency even more dangerous. It's time to think of housing sustainability as the maximum number of housing units and population a while maintaining community character. not destroying the community. We maybe we just can't accommodate everybody in the planet who wants to move here. We do the best we can. We want to maintain what's sustainable with our infrastructure and amenities. What I'm hearing is don't worry, even though this plan sets the table for maybe up to 5,000 or more additional housing units and maybe 47 to 67% population growth, don't worry, we'll never get there. Let's just adopt this and see what happens. But that is not really accurate. For one thing, city council passed an ordinance last year, section 17.72190 yard and bulk requirements that refers new development to be consistent with the comp plan or other adopted plan of the city. Therefore, if you adopt this comp plan, you could actually be allowing this amount of density or there could possibly be a takings. So, in my last two minutes, here's my suggestion. Downsize the place type densities. Reduce the heights allowed by right, especially five stories and certain types. And don't allow three-story downtown by right, only by SRU. Maintain an architectural review design guideline for downtown. Rightize

the downtown place type to 4 to 10 DU per acre with the current height limit of 29 ft. and expand downtown place type area to include the east block north of Pine Street to Highway 42. Historic Oldtown is our gem. In addition to our open space, the plan as it is now could incentivize demolition of historic buildings in direct contradiction to our historic preservation goals in order to build higher density residential. So, I'm just saying balance and don't change the zoning with a broad sweep. Let's evaluate on a case-byase basis and incre in incrementalize is that a word incrementalize new buildings so it happens gradually over time. And with Red Tail Ridge, you know that area currently in the Kico Phillips 66 special district does not allow residential. And there's a reason for that. Number one, we need our commercial for our tax base. Number two, if you put this many housing units in that location, you'll essentially create a satellite city center. So, are we planning on building another rec center for these residents? Will these residents be part of Lewisville, or will they more likely identify with nearby Broomfield where they will likely spend their shopping money? What will traffic be like on Highway 42, Dylan Road, and nearby roadways? And finally, I want to say I support RTD. When I worked at CU, I took the bus and I was one of the few people in my department that took the bus even though we had a free bus pass. So, how many of us take the bus to the grocery store to drop our kids off at daycare to get a 2x4 at Home Depot? So, transit oriented development is great concept, but let's be realistic. These people are going to need to drive for a lot of activities. And RTD is in trouble. If you've read the paper lately, they've got some big

financial problems. Anyway, thanks for your consideration. Thank you, Cindy. Next up is Wei Yan, followed by Juan Woo.

Hi. Um, my name is Wayan Chen. I'm resident of Louisville for last 15 years. So first I want to remind you some of the fires since January 2026. So January 5th 26 there is a fire between Louisville and Broomville. It's e one within one mile east of us. Uh February 7th is Highway 93 and Co Creek Canyon Road. That's about eight miles to Louisville. February 25th is Thortton fire near I25. I25 was closed since I work for Cedab. So I know everything what's happened for that fire. Um February 26, Golden Gate Canyon fire. Physical distance is 15 miles. You all know we if we drive there probably 20 some miles. But the fire doesn't follow highways. They directly straight out. So actually today there is a fire in Broomfield Jung Park which is 8 mile east of here. This is five fires within 15 mile circle to Louisville. So based on the comprehensive plan you're going to add 6,000 plus houses in Louisville. If the Marshall fire comes back again, people will die here because there is no way for double the population to get out here when the fire is here. So Louisville is in the fire zone. We simply cannot add that much houses regardless how high, how uh dense,

people will die here. Period. There's no argument for that. And just within this not even three months, we have five fires within 15 mile circle to here. So secondly is the population of Colorado. According to the public uh Colorado public radio report on January 29 26 2025 population growth rates is 04% which is the lowest since 199 uh 1989 quote thousands more people move out of Colorado than into it end quote. So we we should be respon all of you should be responsible for the future. You build that many house in 20 years who will live there. And the last I want to say every time I walk in the open open space I don't know the former council member's name. I don't know former mayor's name. Sorry ma'am, your time is up.

And uh I always appreciate their respons. Please do the responsible things for the future of Louisville. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Juan Woo followed by Tanya Samaru.

My name is Chang Wu. uh living in this town and uh um yeah you know uh I personally I feel comfortable without growth here you know what what's wrong with without zero growth here and uh uh you know thinking about building so many houses looking at the current situation in our neighborhood you know in superior people are worried about fire dangers you know telling too many houses there you know we cannot evacuate when there a fire going on looking at other places in in in Colorado like a little you know for the rejected larger development over there and recently uh people in Douglas County rejected the Castle Pine uh annex for development. So voters are are really waking up you know that uh uh against large development in their neighborhoods and uh uh we should take into that into consideration here and uh uh you know we don't cannot support that many people here you know the uh this is a small place you know the uh we like to keep this place like this okay I just stop stop here

thank you

next up is Tanya Samaru Hi, Tanya Samaru, Lewisville resident. Um, I would like to speak a little bit about my experience owning affordable housing for 13 years in Boulder, Colorado. Um, as a person in my 20s who started out my career at the university and an aerospace lab, I did not want to own a house with a yard and all that garbage. I just wanted a nice condo in a community full of people who are kind of similar age and similar life stage as me. And I thought I bought a new condo in Iris Hollow. I thought it was wonderful. I look around Lewisville and I think we really don't have that kind of thing here. You know, there are people in their 20s who would like to live here. Um, my neighborhood was originally built in 1991, I think 91. And a lot of people who were our original owners and their kids are in their early 20s, mid20s, and a lot of them would like to live in Lewisville, and they cannot. I would just like to point out that when you talk about community character, you know, my house, my house burned down. My entire neighborhood burned to the ground and we rebuilt it. And I recognize my neighborhoods. I recognize my neighbors. I see my my the community is the character. It has nothing to do with the lot sizes, the setbacks, the heights, none of that garbage. It's looking around and seeing the people I love. I moved to that neighborhood. I was lucky to get my foothold in it because it's a certain kind of community. It's really lovely and there's tons of kids and I couldn't be happier there. And um none of that has to do with the setbacks. It would be the same to me if it was condos, if it was apartments, if it was town homes and if they were duplexes, whatever. I want to say that a lot of the tenor I've heard about this housing, it's been very classist and sometimes it strikes me as whiteflight

syndrome. Oh my gosh, we have to stay in our suburb with all of our houses and and barricade ourselves in. You probably have some idea how I feel about that. um about the lack of diversity that that brings on. Um but yeah, I I also don't want to hear any garbage about excuses about fire to not build new homes. We need to build the homes that people in Lewisville need to to maintain this community. People who live here now need these homes. Young people to get started. School teachers a lot. You know, there's like three school teachers in my neighborhood that are who were raised there who are 25 who can't afford to live here. So, there you have it. Um, I don't want to hear any garbage about fire danger. We all know you can build these neighborhoods without fire danger if you follow the new code that you're about to pass. So, anyway, thank you very much. Um, the last thing is if you want to bring the temperature down on this discussion, you need to stop talking about density per acre, unit per acre. You need to change the way you talk about density because you have you're creating a tax on small units and then you're giving a bonus to people who build McMansions. It favors McMansion building the way you talk about density. So I hope when you amend the code you will think about that. So thank you.

Thank you Tanya.

Okay. All right. Um I've got some kind of preliminary comments. we sort of figure out how we are going to to have this discussion. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. Um and others have as well. Um provided good good comments. Um I want to start by saying thank you um to so many people. um to the residents, those residents that are here now, residents who participated in one or more of the um activities that the city um staff put on and we put on um seeking input, very different kinds of activities. the boards and commissions, members of the community that are focused on particular issues, had a lot of input into the comp plan. Staff I just can't say enough about. Um this this kind of um effort is a huge huge lift and it's not just for uh the planners. It is for all of the departments because there is input and um support and people have lively discussions within staff over a lot of these topics and of course the writing and the evolution of the document which has been you know two years in the making. planning commission uh has had a great

deal of input. They're not elected. They're appointed and they spent time and effort providing their expertise and holding hearings. Council um members, I I can't say enough about the people on the dis here. Very thoughtful people who've been wrestling with um all of the information from staff and the residents. Um, and I I really appreciate that. I I think that is part of what makes Lewisville's character, Lewisville's vibe what it is. Um, is that incredible civic commitment and civic engagement. It can be exhausting for all of you, uh, sometimes for us, sometimes for staff, but it's what makes us tick and it may be different here than other places in some ways. Uh, I think because people care so passionately about the city. And I I want to really start with that thanks because I think it's worthwhile to say that as many disagreements as there are and there are plenty over different parts of the plan, um I think the people in Lewisville who've had input into this come at this with a deep devotion and love for their city and for their neighbors and for the future. And even, you know, for the people who are not here yet, which is part of what comp plan really does is it's speaking to what kinds of decisions are going to be made in the future up to

20 years out is kind of what we say. Um, that's a daunting kind of task. It's also something that for council and we as decision makers uh can be pretty humbling and ought to be pretty humbling. Um and that's um because we don't know what the future's going to look like. We do our best. We've got really good people advising us and we do our best on that and we have great people in the community telling us a a lot about how that works. So appreciate all the public process. appreciate the last two years of going through this. The democracy that we care very much about in this community is I think very much embedded in that process. It's not about the people who showed up at the very beginning. It's not about the people who necessarily showed up at the very end. It's the people who showed up all the way through at different points to provide their input. And we appreciate that. Um, when I think about uh the differences between this and previous comp plans, I've only had the opportunity to be involved with one other comp plan, the tail end of of the last comp plan. And just a couple of quick things. It's a much more extensive public input than I have ever seen and that I think we have ever had in Lewisville history on any kind of project. Um, that's something to really be proud of. I think there is um an evolution in the way we think about housing in this. no matter what um people um what take they have, it's this draft is very flexible. It's not it's not as

prescriptive as the last one. There's no question about that. Um so, as we start our discussion, um I've got some some kind of principles or ground rules I guess I was going to suggest. Um there may be and there will be some suggestions to changing the plan and and I think there are policy issues that we may want to address and I'll get to those in a minute. I think there are questions about that really are more questions about regulatory processes, how fast we develop, how we do zoning, how we do general development plans, how we do uh PUDs. Um there are even issues of budget um that that come with this territory but really aren't appropriate for um a comp plan. Uh there are drafting issues, people liking or not liking certain words. I think we're going to have to uh decide whether that's something we really want to get into. Uh there are a lot of plans that the city has um that are reflected in the comp plan document and I believe um very early in the document there is a list of all those plans a transportation plan there's a housing plan there are uh sustainability action plan these exist and are reflected in this document but they're not restated. This uh comp plan is meant to encompass them. So, in many ways, it's not

necessary to restate what's already in there. Um, what I'd like to do tonight in specific is I I think the best way to do this is probably through straw polls on different aspects of the comp plan. And I think there are really two kinds of straw polls that I'd like to be doing tonight. one is even to have a discussion on a topic. Um I think we need um a a good uh solid um three people at the very least to be um to be interested in pursuing that uh on a topic that we haven't talked about before. um if there's a topic we've already discussed um you know we've spent a lot of time on those kinds of topics and there are some that um that are like that um and I think I would you know the the kind of burden that I think somebody should have to bear there is that we ought to be having four people who can say yeah we want to talk about that before we go and revisit an issue that we have already spent a lot of time on. Um, and then um, you know, we can potentially resolve most of the issues that may be out there. What I'd like to do is, you know, we try to form consensus and my bet is we'll have consensus on plenty of things. I'm not necessarily striving for unonymity. We didn't have a unonyimity the last time. Um, we do the best we can and I don't have any idea sitting here what the what the end vote is going to be on the plan that we finish with. Um,

but what I'd like to do after all of the discussion is finished, um, is to have a motion, um, and then for each, you know, we got a second, um, uh, either yay or nay, but the motion being yay or nay, I suppose, and and then everybody can have an opportunity to say something sort of summarizing their views if they haven't spoken. in before that and I guess I want to know from council members um whether that is comfortable way of proceeding whether you'd like to do something different um but that's how I propose to go through this I' I'd propose to talk first and or not talk first but ask whether anybody has any major policy decisions that they'd like us to address here and then we can talk about whether we um you know whether we want to talk about that uh set of decisions and then we can go forward but I'd like to try to get a sense of what people are going to want to talk about right at the outset. So a thumbs up is fine or thumbs down is fine too. All right. Okay. Good. Um, you're just being we're just being more more dramatic than the rest of us on this one. All right. So, why don't we start with uh what I'd say is is sort of major policy issues. Are there um and you can define that how you will and the rest of us will sort of decide whether we want to go into that or not.

Yes. Council member Coopermanman. Thank you. Um I'd like to raise two um two issues around the future land use map. Um so the first one is I don't know if staff wants to bring that up or not but um why don't you Yeah.

Sure. Um so the first one is about um at the intersection of 96th Street and Dylan Road. Um the northeast corner there is currently sorry currently labeled as neighborhood center. Um and I would like to propose that we change that to probably to mixed employment uh but maybe something else.

Yeah. And then the second one is um so in the Centennial Valley where at the intersection of Centennial Parkway and uh Mccasan um at that corner or the south west corner there's a child care center. Um right I I guess that but right below that as well is currently designated residential mixed use. Um, and I would like to propose that just the portion of that parcel right on Mccasin be changed to commercial. Um, others terms of policy issues that you'd like to raise.

Um, okay. Would I mean I have

Why don't we do this? Why don't why don't we go through those two and then we can we can move on. Um because it sounds like at least for the time being those are two. Um on the first one you were talking about reclassifying the parcel at the northeast corner of 96 and Dylan Road. Um on council uh raise your hand as to whether you'd like to talk about that. Okay. Um, and then how about the uh part or the parcel on the west side of KSON Boulevard at the southwest corner of the intersection with Centennial Parkway? Okay. Um All right. Um, are there other um um and one of the things that I think is in the packet is that um uh Council Member Coopermanman did have a number of of um uh items on that that are listed in the in the packet. And I guess the question is um whether uh first of all whether council has had a chance to look at that document. It's been out there for the public to look at and for us. But um are there um is there any interest in in a particular one of those? I think there are a total of I want to say nine of those just raise which which ones and it and I can read them if you like but I'd like to see if there's any interest in any of any of those.

Sorry. Would you like us like to bring up his email and look through the each of the points and then tell you which ones we would you like? Yeah, I'm a little little confused how to move forward. No, let me why don't I read them? That would be probably be helpful for the

uh the body too and you can um write them as we talk about it. Um one the first one is reading including duplexes a pime as a primary use. The second is um uh including a bullet point on residential development and and uh uh sort of adding additional language regarding the 12% uh affordable housing goal. Um another is uh addressing transit considerations in the transportation considerations subheading. Another one is addressing multimodal connections from regional centers. Um, another is um prioritizing development of lots of interior to the city over lots of the city edges. Another is uh uh adding a strategy relating to

Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I I think I don't know that council I mean does everybody want to read through all 15 or can we look I think council member Dickinson had a comment there's there's 15 there are items it's a lot and so I'd love to have a discussion and just hear if anyone wants to talk about them rather than give all 15 air time right now the the the challenge is that the public may need to know a little bit more about these when we do talk about them but want to Council member Dickinson, are there some that you're interested in talking about?

Well, I think I can be a little bit more universal. Um, just in that, you know, I think from a from a 30,000 foot view, I think this is a great plan. I basically agree with all of it as presented. Um, I really appreciate all the feedback from the the community. Um, you would think it was a housing plan tonight with the feedback. It's it's a comprehensive plan about a lot of things. Um but certainly the housing is is a really big deal. Um and I think it it's a really uh a really good indication that that the last 20 30 years have gone really well. Uh and that here we are in 2026 with um great open space, great schools, great roads, great bike paths, a great rec center, library, golf course, uh great Oldtown Main Street, a hospital, we're getting a new one, a tech center, all these amazing amazing things. And so we're not having big huge conversations tonight about should we build a rec center?

Should we have bike paths in our town? Should we right like we're not having these really big conversations about direction and who we are as a community. The big conversation is size. How big do we want to get? How much do we want to infill? How tall we want let buildings. So I think that's why we've had so much focus on that and I think that is important. I like what we have in front of us. I agree with Josh's two uh spots. Um I think housing at 96th and Dylan seems very out of middle of nowhere. Um and I think commercial along Macaslin uh between two commercial spots makes a lot of sense. I wasn't super in support of it stretching all the way to um uh Centennial Parkway, but that's not the suggestion. It's the the west side of Maclin, not the south side. So, I agree with his two uh desires there. And then in all of the other 13 points, you know, I've I've said it to Josh privately. I'll say to it publicly, I basically agree with all of them. I don't have an issue with any of them. I also don't think they substantially change the document. I don't think they they I don't think they fix a problem, but I don't really have a problem with any of them. And I think you've done a good job looking at things. And a lot of them are literally one-word substitutions or additions. Uh, so generally speaking, I'm in support of all of them and I'm not it it's not super important to me that any individual one is in there. The only one that I would speak more on to is is adding maybe duplicative statements around the affordable housing target of 12% in our development areas of the of the document. So I I especially like that one, but the other 12 are fine as well. Um, but that is not to say we must have these and I will be voting I will be voting no if we don't add these. Um, but I I like them all. I like the document and I think that's really all I need to say tonight in totality. So I don't plan on speaking a second time.

Are there any other uh issues that have been raised that need to be discussed? the the ones that Josh has talked about are those two or that he's raised and they're we should talk about for just a second uh are the two re kind of reccharacterizations reclassifications and then you mentioned size. Um I think it's probably worth at least uh passing discussion about that um at least but I don't know whether other folks agree that that's true or not. There's been some discussion about how much growth um um the plan uh permits, authorizes, suggests, encourages. Is that something anybody wants to talk about? Doesn't look like it. Um any other topics on that. Okay. Any of the others on the list that Josh provided to us? Yes,

you actually um this might be even a question um for staff. There's a comment about um allowing in our lowdensity residential duplexes. Is that already advised? Is it already allowed under that or is it something that isn't part of new state legislation?

No, I'm not aware of any state legislation mandating duplexes in single family zoning. Um, so the the the land use category, residential lowdensity land use category in the framework allows duplexes as a supporting use. And so I my understanding of the comment is to make that a primary use. Um, that is what's being proposed for council's consideration to make that change. Okay. So, so but if somebody were looking at this, they would see that our sentiment is that in single family areas to not disallow duplexes in those zoned areas.

That's correct. I think the way it's structured now is if a plan came forward um you know for a new development area and that plan included some duplexes, this plan supports that. Does it also support it in infill areas that are already

um I think it could depending on the scope of the infill. I think I think the the distinction is is if you have a single lot within a established neighborhood. Um I think the question is is do you want to allow someone to um potentially tear that down and put in a duplex? because I think once once you make it a primary use the what's implied is that you know if you if you've got a lot and it meets the regulations right again this is policy so we you'd have to adopt a zoning code and there's lots of different ways to do that but um you know the the potential is that a single lot in a current single family zone neighborhood could then build a duplex um so I think that's potentially the intent which is different than if you're planning a new neighborhood and including duplexes within the concept of the new neighborhood is the clarification I would want out of that.

Okay. So, um so that's that that's probably a bigger discussion than we've had. I think we did bring it a little bit of it up when we talked about the housing plan. Um and I think do you want to bring it up and then we'll find out. I guess we could just ask I mean it's a straw poll. I mean, how many people are in favor of making that part of the primary so that it can be used for infill throughout the community? Great. That was easy

clarification. We can update that as a primary use then for duplexes. That would be one of those items. That's awesome. Um I actually there were just a was and and and to a certain extent I agree with council member Dickinson that um a lot of the conversation we've all been having and um especially the incredibly thoughtful nature of our community members um whether it's please reduce the total amount or love what you're doing just you know really think it through. Uh, I think some of these are some finer points, but we haven't had a ton of opportunity as a council to look at some of those fine points or have a discussion on them. So, I I actually appreciate that I'm sitting here overall maybe a month ago, not loving this policy, but I think our staff did such an outstanding job, and I I really want to make sure the community hears this. They did an outstanding job listening to you, all of you, everybody with your points. We've been unfortunately hearing from community community members that staff is not listening or that we're the council members you've elected are not listening. I assure you, we are listening. We are reading every single email and we are striving to do our best to incorporate and as one resident mentioned find that balance as best we can. So, I will tell you there are some conversations that that not everybody gets to hear where there's like real extremes and this is a good creative way to balance our future together with all of its glorious characters to maintain our character. And this has not been an easy struggle. Like I said, a month ago, I really wasn't on board and I wanted some help. and everybody stepped forward who works for this city and they did it.

I'm really excited that I am now in favor of supporting this policy moving forward. I'm proud of you, all of you for for taking the time and the energy to do this and that includes my fellow council members and some of the detail. Um there was a one point where uh Josh is talking a lot about bikes and and bike language and I I thought about this and I went why don't we anytime we talk about parking and that we're supporting some type of parking efforts in public areas especially why don't we just say multimodal parking so that it's bikes it's scooters it's ebikes you know I see lots of people bringing like different buggies and child carts and stuff in places so it's a simple word and I know it's word smithing which is one of the things we talk about not doing, but I was like, it's super easy and I really don't have another opportunity to bring it up. Um, and anything that is in here where we are missing specific consideration to um trail connection or or uh pedestrian access like to transit. That to me was an important piece that I I would agree was sort of lacking and not being redundant. Um, I do think it's redundant to add more conversation on the affordable housing piece.

Would you like So, you're wanting to have a discussion around transportation connections. Yeah, I I think that that's worthwhile bringing those up on council that would like to have that discussion. Okay. Doesn't look like there's only two two of us. Okay. No problem. Um, all right. Why don't we I mean unless there's um uh

others let's move on we to the two that we have uh before us the reccharacterizations or reclassifications of the partner of the two parcels. Let's talk about the parcel at the northeast corner of the intersection of 96th Street and Dylan Road from neighborhood center to mixed employment. Did you you wanted to pull up a Did you want to pull up a slide or have Rob pull up a slide on that or no?

Probably be helpful for the public. So, it's the it's this property here northeast of Dylan in 96 that is colored pink.

Rob, can you um blow that up a bit? Sure. So that it can be seen here. And can you sort of describe, you know, which Yeah, I mean I guess it does have them written on there,

Josh. So, so, so this here, it's this pink area here. So, mixed employment is the blue and I'm just gonna I'm just going to slide over and you can these are all the land use categories. So we have it as neighborhood center um which includes commercial uses but also includes residential uses. Um so I think the question is um you know should that just be employment and commercial verse allowing a mix of potential residential and commercial. So that would change that um to this me from the neighborhood center.

Can you show what the definition of neighborhood center is? So we have that too. Uh I'm sorry, not neighborhood center, the um mixed employment employment. You do that one. Yeah.

So again, it's um again there there are kind of multiaceted definitions, but um let me go find the neighborhood center here. Are sorry you wanted mixed employment. Yeah. So mixed employment is the blue color and it calls primarily for office and light industrial as the primary uses um with you know retail as secondary other public uses potentially. Good. Thanks. Council member Coopermanman. Do you want to suggest what change what the reason for the change is? Um sure.

Advocating for. Mhm. Uh I mean the the reasoning is quite similar to what council member Dickinson said before. Um I just think that you know housing at that location would be quite disconnected from the rest of Lewisville. It would be it wouldn't be near to much in the way of amenities or services. Um, so, you know, if we're not thinking sort of more broadly about um how we would support housing at that location, I don't think it's a good location at the moment to consider for housing.

Others on council. Okay, looks like we've got four thumbs up. Five, six, yes or no. Okay. All right. Um, so that one I think is resolved. So we'll change that. Um, the next one is the wreath classification along the west side of Mccasin Boulevard parcel at the southwest corner of the intersection of Centennial Parkway from RMX which is residential mixeduse to coom which is commercial. So that's that is this um brown area here. It actually generally covers three different parcels, two vacant parcels, and then the daycare center. Um and so the proposal is to change that from residential mix, which could allow commercial but also allows residential, to the commercial district, which is the red district, which would really only allow commercial.

Okay. Can you blow that up just a little bit? So, I could try. Let's see if if it goes if it allows me to go more than 400. No, I think I'm at my maximum here for for zooming in. Unless Are you allowed to bring up a Google Maps because it's pretty um You want to you want to see it on Google Maps? Yeah. It's just it's just quite clear.

Yeah. So, I I would I would say also that um these colors aren't intended to be parcel specific, but we're looking at them parcel specific. It's just kind of general areas. It's supposed to be a little bit movable. Um but in any case, let me pull this up here. um suggestion. So, it's basically this area here southwest of Mccasin and Centennial Parkway via Apia.

Okay. Um Mayor Prom, then Council Member Hefner, and then Council Member Cooperman. Um so, I I thought the suggestion was like part of it facing Mccasin would be commercial and then the back part residential still. Is that right? Can that can that be done? Yeah, I think we if if council would like that, we can indicate that um on the map here. Um I think we'd have a I mean that he can right is a short answer. I just didn't know it was possible.

He can. I just I just want to point out though, I just want to point something out on that is that um for kind of continuity here, you know, we'd be taking the front of this and and making that the red commercial. So, there would be a small area of residential mixed use here. Um which which is fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that that's kind of an isolated parcel, although there is residential mixed across Centennial. Thanks for that clarification. Yes, Council Member Raftner.

Yeah, I I'll just say I mean I think we we did have a lot of discussion about this area previously and picked a picked a designation that's pretty flexible in terms of what can go there. And I I worry that we're getting down into sort of parcel specific decisions and and slicing the the land use baloney a bit thin here. Council member Coopermanman. Oh, I was just going to clarify. Council member Kern,

thanks. Um, I actually agree. I think that, um, for the continuity of the commercial spaces that are there, the inn-outs along Mcaslin, I think it would be, um, an inappropriate location necessarily for housing unless there was better access. I think that it does flow naturally. And you can see we talk about like splitting that area, but in the back parcel, the west parcel being residential. It's similar to Continental or um Centennial Lofts behind the Walgreens. It's commercial front-facing to mass. There's access and then there is an individual residential unit there that can still work at this space should somebody want to do it. It makes more sense. I also think if we're continuing some of the commercial space in there, um there's a lot of concerns, not just about the the additional traffic that would be on and off so close to the intersection, but it also has like height limitations. Chances are somebody's going to continue more like a singlestory commercial, which is sort of what's in there now, and not want to put a, you know, two-story um apartment building right at the right along Macaslin there. and it would just it it does seem like a more appropriate continuation use of that commercial space. Lamar Donuts is on the other side for reference for people. So that's that's where that parcel is. It's an empty plot of land. It's kind of elevated above Macaslin um and seems like a really just simple can grow a space of for commercial. So I I basic mullet zoning.

Well, but then it's allowing for something party in the back. Yeah, there you go. Except for the fact that we're not designating that it could be bottom and top. So, and I think we since we can't designate it, right, Rob, we can't designate that it has to be like we want the land use facing mccasin to be commercial and then to the west can be mixed. We're not able to designate that with this.

Um, so I I'm not sure I fully understand your question. I think when I think when we get to the regulations at hand that we could be a lot more specific, but are are you asking like how we change how we um designate the land use? Right. So for this map, so where the the daycare center already takes up the whole little corner, isn't that commercial? Yeah. So I think if you wanted to, you could do I mean you could run that commercial strip all the way up and you can still keep the back strip as residential mix. And that's what I'm saying. I think would be appropriate for that location. Yeah, you could do you could do that here. Yes. Uh, Council Member Han,

sorry, but I just want to clarify one of the when you brought up the Google map, one of the concerns is that if you make the front commercial and the back still have the residential opportunity, then it's an even smaller island of residential surrounded by flex. And is that what you were saying earlier?

It's it's a smaller parcel. Well, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of of that. But I also, you know, the flex district, although it has existing development on it in the vicinity of this, um, you know, there's residential allowed there. So, again, I I think the concept is that all of these land uses have flexibility in their use. So, if you kept it as residential mix, um, I'm not saying you can't do it or there's an issue with it. I um, you know, it could still allow commercial as well. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, any further discussion on that item? Yes.

I think the last thing I'll say to Dedrick's point is I don't want to get on like spot zoning. I think this is not about that lot. It's about mccasin. So, I think you know that strip having commercial on the on street facing and mccasin all the way up to via centennial that part makes sense to me. Um, and it's not about the one lot. It's about that continuity of the whole street. So, that's why I'm okay with it. I'm also not going to not going to fight it.

So, um, I'll all in favor of the, uh, reclassification of that parcel from RMX, the residential mixeduse to commercial. Looks like there are three. Pretty close. Okay. Um, any other any other changes, policy changes? Council member Mr.

Yeah. Um, I guess I just like to get clarity about whether there is interest in discussing certain ones that I proposed. And if there's not that that's fine, but um, as far as the others that uh, you have proposed, I think we we mentioned it, but we'll do it again. Um are there is there interest in talking about the additional u points that um council member Coopermanman has raised the number three through 15. Any other interest in that? Doesn't look like it. Okay. Sorry. What one clarification? I think three is the duplex issue. So I think we said yes to that.

We've already covered that. Yeah, we covered that. Sorry. Four through 15. Um so I stand corrected. It's four through me. Make sure. Yeah. 4 through 15. Any interest in those? Yeah.

I just said any of like five and six which are related to um transit routes and connections to transit. If it is not already if it's not overly redundant in the comprehensive plan, then I would leave that to staff's discretion. But I would like to see that emphasized. that seems to be pretty important. Um, as far as the other like number four with some of the additional housing things, I think we've clarified that through the piece quite sufficiently. So, um, anybody have any interest in talking about five to six. Okay. All right. Um, I think that covers those points. So, um, I think we can entertain a motion. Yes. Council member Afner.

Yeah. I go ahead and move uh we approve resolution number 28 series 2026 um with the two amendments that we've discussed. The first regarding uh 96 Street and Dylan Road and the second regarding duplexes as a primary land use in the RLD place type designation. Second.

Okay. um discussion. I'd indicated earlier that if you want to say something about the plan, you're welcome to do it now. You don't have to. Anybody? Okay. Council member Curtain,

I just wanted to um I guess make a comment to everyone here, but as well to the council members. you know, this is a document that it may not be the seven of us that are using this um as that we move on. It might be it might be other people who are here. And I think it's important and this is why I said I was so appreciative of staff's changes that we've talked a lot about the housing and the density issues that this references the housing plan. There was a lot of work and time and effort that's gone into that. And I I mean I personally would say that we have to be very thoughtful in the nature that we approve new housing, the timing in which we improve new housing. We have to have our infrastructure take pace with it. And I think that this plan clarifies that to developers that are in the process of wanting to um wanting to help us grow in a smart and thoughtful way. I don't want the community to feel that we pass this and this means we're trying to double the population of Lewisville. I don't believe that anybody here, but I'll speak for myself, do not feel that that is the absolute intention. Instead, what this is, and I we've said it before and we'll say it again, this allows for opportunity within our community to grow reasonably, smartly, sustainably, and most importantly, economically. Everybody talks about worrying about closed restaurants and closed stores. It takes people spending money to keep those things open. And this plan, I believe, is a thoughtful process to do that. And all of you are here and will hopefully continue to be. And if we're not sitting here, we'll be down there with you. Um, as many of the residents around you have once been up here as

well. And we'll be helping to make sure that those guardrails are in place and this community maintains its thoughtful nature. Thank you. Anyone else? Council member Coopermanman.

Thank you. um actually wanted to say a bunch um and I thought others might want to as well but in any case um let's see where I want to start. Um so yeah I want to share a bunch of thoughts on the comprehensive plan. Um I'm going to restate some things which I've said before because I think they're worth restating. Um I am for the most part in support of this comprehensive plan. Um for a number of reasons. Uh first of all um I think that it does reflect a general consensus um among the community um for what they would like to see for the development of our city over the next 10 years. Um, I'll come back to that maybe in a couple minutes. Um, you know, I think staff has done a lot of outreach, a lot of engagement, and they've tried to synthesize that into uh something that reflects a consensus as best they can. Um I also the other main reason I support this plan um is that I think it will really advance environmental sustainability in the city, housing affordability in the city and economic prosperity in the city. Um, for me in particular, um, you know, one of the ways I I really think about this plan is about neighborhoods. Um, so creating neighborhoods, um, and changing neighborhoods for the better. Um, so for instance, in the Centennial Valley, right, and we're talking about trying to

create essentially a new neighborhood there. Um and um you know I think the way we're trying to do it uh will enhance the environmental sustainability um housing affordability and the economic prosperity of that part of the city in particular right so we're trying to create a walkable bikable neighborhood in that area for instance um which will hopefully have you know amenities nearby services nearby employment nearby, transit nearby. Um, and people will be able to access those without getting in their cars. Um, and we're also looking to make that neighborhood somewhat more dense. Um, and you know, dense density and housing generally speaking, uh, is very good for environmental sustainability for a whole lot of reasons. Uh, not the least of which is so that we don't sprawl. um you know the the other opportunity areas in the plan um the story is very similar right so like in downtown uh around downtown and you know or you could say greater downtown if you're including the South Boulder Road corridor um we're thinking about adding more density there too for the same reason so that people can live near amenities and services and places of employment and transit so they don't have to get in their cars to to go places. Um, and you know, I at Red Tail Ridge, um, I would like the story to be very similar. I am a little bit concerned though, uh, with that part of the plan. Um, one of my suggestions was about, uh, emphasizing that neighborhood character of as of any residential

development at Red Tale Ridge. um and we didn't take that up. But in any case, um you know, I at Red Hill Ridge, what I'm looking for with residential there um is again so that people who are working at the hospital or working in um the various um employment centers that get built there, you know, if they want to, they can live near where they work. And I would really hope that we also provide some amenities and services for those people. Uh so again that they they have things at their convenience at their disposal uh but also so that people who live across the street across the Northwest Parkway would want to come there and spend their money in Lewisville to be honest. Um so the that's the sense of uh why I I largely support the comprehensive plan as it's been drafted. Um, I want to point out a couple specific things which, um, you know, I'm not entirely happy with, but I guess I can live with for the moment. Um, one of them is that that point about Red Tail Ridge, again, I think we should, uh, we need a little bit more emphasize to try to grow that kind of neighborhood there, um, which it it currently doesn't have. Um, I also think that, you know, um, as a few speakers mentioned, you know, the the land that is right up against Davidson Mesa, uh, is prime open space. Um, and I wish that we had uh maybe been bold enough to to just say that outright. Uh, marketing green on the map. um and you know not worry because it's not a regulatory document. Um but maybe we can work towards that in other ways. Um

a a couple other things that I'm um a little bit concerned about with the plan. Um you know I I do think this plan will advance housing affordability. Um, but as some people have remarked, I don't I don't think that just increasing supply is going to do it in Lewisville. Um, so the plan speaks to housing affordability in a number of places. Um, I'm not sure that it does enough though. Um, and so, um, I've been all along thinking about ways to have the plan speak more strongly about affordable housing. Um, and I'm not sure I quite got there. Um, what I what I what I've really liked is actually for the plan to be essentially built around uh the 12% goal that the uh that we have countywide. Um, in a similar vein, although I think the plan will do a lot for environmental sustainability, um, I I would have liked to seen it be stronger. Right, we have a climate goal of reducing our total greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2030. Right, smack in the middle of when this plan applies. Um, again, I think we should have built this plan around that climate goal. Um, all right. All right. Um, so I I want to say just uh well, a few more things. Um I think there are I've mentioned these before but um I think they're important to say again. Um there are some other shortcomings I think to the plan. Some of them uh were basically baked in at the outset uh before I was on council. Um so one you know we've done a lot of public engagement um with this plan but I think we should have done something

slightly different. Um I think we should have done basically iterative statistically valid surveying. Uh you know we should have started out with a very high level survey to get a general sense for what people want and then we should have done successive rounds that kind of drill down to establish details. Um it's my understanding that they're doing something like that with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Um the plan also um you know it it doesn't have really any concrete studies or plans for how we're going to provision services in the future. Uh so it certainly speaks to that and it speaks to that more than it used to which is good. Um but as I as I as I have said before um I think we should have included at least some kind of ballpark estimates um about you know what sort of pro provision of services would be necessary under certain growth scenarios. Um I think that would have enriched our discussions. Um I think it would have given confidence to our public that were actually thinking about those sorts of things. Uh very similarly, the plan doesn't have a fiscal impact analysis and I know that we chose not to do that for a very specific reason and that reason is valid in a sense, right? The models that we typically use for fiscal impact analysis leave a lot of stuff out. They don't capture things well. Um and so they don't produce good results, right? And so that's on the one hand that's a good reason for not doing it. Um, on the other hand, uh, as a scientist, when you have a model that doesn't work well, you don't just stop doing things. You make a better model that does what you that actually accounts for things that you want. Uh, and I would assume economists can do that, too.

Um, finally, I think one other shortcoming in the plan, um, is that, you know, it starts out with vision and values. And I would guess that a people who disagree about other parts of the plan probably agree quite strongly about the vision and the values. Um and so I feel like the plan doesn't do as good a job as it could of connecting the vision and values to the rest of the plan in particular the land use map. If you read through the goals and strategies there, you can see a lot of connections, but I find it difficult to understand, you know, how exactly did we get to this land use map based on these vision and values? And I think if we spell that out a little bit better, um I think our residents um might be more understanding of what the plan lays out. So, um, so I just want to reiterate, um, I I do support the plan. I think there's a a ton of great stuff in it. Um, and I I just want to sort of close by explaining how I think a little bit more about the plan and some of the concerns that people have about it. Um, so you know, we've heard a lot of concerns about growth. Um, and I don't know, that's that's not really how I've thought about the plan, uh, almost at all. Um, you know, I guess I've I've taken, you know, I haven't been involved with doing a comprehensive plan before, but I've sort of taken the plan as or how we develop a plan as, you know, what sort of development would we like to see in these different parts of town. Um, and like I was saying before, right, in especially in these opportunity

areas, we are interested in creating neighborhoods, right? and neighborhoods with certain characters. Um, and that was sort of the perspective I took to development of this plan. You know, what sort of development do I think would be reasonable to see in these different parts of town? And I wasn't so concerned with um, you know, how many housing units might that add or how many people might that add. It's rather what do I think would be an appropriate use in a certain part of town. Um um so yeah so you know moving forward um again I do plan to support this the comprehensive plan. Um, you know, my one concern, which is sort of a concern that I've had all along and even even before, is that um I I really want to see us grow up these neighborhoods that have these fantastic characteristics. And I do worry a little bit that, you know, is this comprehensive plan strong enough to direct uh that kind of development? And I I I really don't know. um you know, is it strong enough that we get the housing affordability that we want in these areas? Is it strong enough that we get the environmental sustainability that we want in the areas and so forth? Um I'm not sure, but um I will continue to work uh to try to see that we do get those things that we want um in these areas of the city. Um so I guess I'll stop there. Thank you for listening.

Others Yes, member Tim.

Thank you. Um, excuse me. I'm getting over a cold, so I might be a little bit snuffly on the mic here. I have to take a deep breath before I speak. Um, cuz I'm a little disappointed by previous comments just made. I feel like we've had a lot of discussion and I'm very very proud of staff and very thankful for staff and all the work that they've done. I'm very thankful for the community engagement. I think we've landed at the right spot. Um, and I would encourage council member Coopermanman to continue to have conversations with us as we move along with projects because while we started tonight with numbers 1 through 15, there were plenty of items before then um, and some of the items just mentioned were never brought to my attention until just now that it was a concern of yours. So, I'm pretty disappointed um to hear that when we're fourth and inches here because I would have loved to have the opportunity to discuss those as a council early on. um and as just a fellow council member and team member um rather than at the last minute here um because I do think we've done a good job and um I will be approving this and supporting it wholeheartedly because I think it is a solid plan that puts us in the right direction and is a happy medium between the concerns. I think council member um Kerna put it uh very nicely when she kicked us off with comments. This is a difficult situation to be in. There's, you know, opposing sides as to what direction we should head in. But I think we landed at a good spot and I have conf confidence that us future councils and staff will continue to uphold the values of this community and implement this plan in a responsible

manner. Thank you.

Thanks. Um, if nobody else has got other things to say, I'll throw in my two cents at the end. Um, I've got three things that I want to just cover. One is why I support the plan and two is just to say a word or two about the concerns that people have raised and then finally kind of looking to the future. Um, I support the plan for about six different reasons. One is that it directs change in our community to the opportunity centers that describes um while supporting established neighborhoods. Um it directs that change to uh places in the city that we think um can support the kinds of changes that we uh are including. And it it expands housing choices and that's not just uh price points but types of houses. Um and I think that that's going to be terrific for um younger families. I think it's going to be terrific for u kind of the missing middle group of folks, teachers and firefighters and others that nurses that will um hopefully move here and work at the A Vista Medical Center that's going to be built. Um so that's important. It supports the schools and our demographic balance. Um I think there were some conver or there were some comments made earlier about the schools I think is a very serious issue about declining enrollments over the last 10 years. That's a big change since the last comp plan. Um the rising age of our population same way and this is um I

think this plan is going to help to balance that out a bit. Um it aligns uh with the transportation and infrastructure planning that we're doing. Um as I said earlier, uh we have a lot of different plans already in place. Um and they'll change a bit and there'll be new ones. Uh uh parks, wreck, and open space is doing one right now. That's a long-term plan. these will be reflected and I think nicely um um uh will fit nicely with this um with this plan. And I think the last point that leads me to support is it it it supports economic vitality and for the reasons that I think council member Kern summarized quite well. Um, we need people here to work where they um where they live, more people to do that. Um, that's going to be a sustainable way of um doing things, but it's also going to bring people who are consumers. It's going to be able to um you know people are going to be able to shop in our stores and um those are very very important issues for the future. Um a couple of things about the um the issues that people have raised the the numbers have sort of wildly varied in terms of how much growth we're talking about here. Um you know we have made the plan commenurate with the housing plan. Um that is it reflects the housing plan

and most um people that um have come forward have talked favorably about the housing plan. Not everybody but a lot of them. And that's reflected in here. But what I want to one thing I want to mention about that is that the state legislature has enacted a number of of requirements um that affect local communities. You'll remember the ADU requirement and the no parking minimums. Those are coming down from the state house. They're not ones that we necessarily would have come up ourselves. We cannot establish a numerical limit on the number of people who will live in Lewisville. We can't do that. So that's one of the reasons why that's not in there. It doesn't mean we can't plan and think about all these things. But just so you know, I think people worry about that. That's just something we can't do. Um, I think the the carrying capacity of the city uh um it's sometimes we think of people arriving all at once um and straining resources and so forth. They're not going to do that. That's not the way the market works. It's not the way housing works. It's not the way that the planning processes after the passage of the comp plan work. um it's a very very different um sort of issue. I think the other thing is that when people come and have new housing, there are impact fees. The impact fees are designed to offset the costs of people coming here. Um and that's the whole point. We're going to be studying that and making some changes

to the impact fees. And that's really important. And as far as water goes, that's what tap fees are to do. That's one of the reasons tap fees are expensive. Uh but part of the reason we have tap fees is to spend money on water that's going to be necessary to support new people, new housing. So I wanted to make sure to kind of cover those couple of things. I think we're in good shape. I think we have the kind of guard rails there. Um about the future is the last thing I want to cover. Um there was discussion and I think Mayor Prom just mentioned this um that you know we have questions of reszoning that are to come. We have questions of general development plans. We have questions on individual PUDS. All of these processes are very carefully calibrated to allow public input and to help us to properly and smartly plan for the growth that we're talking about in this plan. And uh the city's character is very important to each and every one of us up here. I have very little doubt that that's going to be changing and um I think those processes will be uh very helpful uh as we move forward. The final thing that I'd say is I am heartened um from the very beginning of this talking about gee we have a 10-year plan revisit this in 10 years it goes out 20 years but maybe we come back and talk about it beforehand 3 years 5 years from now I think that's we'll we'll have discussions like that there will be opportunities to to revisit some of these decisions um but I think this is a solid plan. I think it's worth supporting.

So, unless there's something else people have to say, um I'm think we should take a roll call on this. It's a resolution, so we can do it by voice, but but let's do it for as a roll call, please. Council member Kern, yes. Mayor Prom Hamington, yes. Council member Hefner, yes. Council member Dickinson, yes. Council member Cooperman, yes. Council member Fehee, yes. Mayor Lei,

yes. Thank you very much. Um, it's about 8:40 and we are overdue for a break. So, why don't we come back here at about 8:45 and we'll hit the next item. Thank you very much.

Please come back to the uh folks. Yeah. So, they're going to be council member Dickinson, Council Member Hafner, Council Member Cooperman. Who else? Thanks, Council Member

Kern is the only other one. Hi J. because you were there. All right. Um, we are back in session and what is in front of us is ordinance number 1918 series 2026, an ordinance amending title 15 of the Lewisville

Municipal Code concerning wildland urban interface. This is a first reading and a setting of public hearing. So, tonight we're going to be hearing the staff report for the ordinance. We will not be uh opening a public hearing or taking public comment tonight on this. Um council can ask questions and suggest amendments or instruct staff to return with additional information. So if we can have the staff presentation.

Uh yes. Good evening again. Uh Mayor Lelay, member city council, Rob Zucero, community development director. Um I'll be making the staff presentation. We also have uh Chief Milan, Chief Henderson here from the Lewisville Fire Protection District. We have Chad Rude, our chief building official, to help answer any questions that you have about um first reading on our wildland urban interface code. Um so I know you you all know this background, so I'll go over it very quickly, but we are doing this um to comply with the state law that requires local adoption of the state code um or a more stringent code. Um so you're all aware of that background. Um thi this is kind of an outlay of what the state code minimums are. Um so this there's the map that we talked about very recently that um defines different fire intensity areas. So if you're in the low fire intensity, these class one or the lower level regulations apply for structure hardening and your defensible space or sight and area standards. And then the the more restrictive moderate and high areas are the class 2 regulations. Um, and we've talked about the map and and we have the map that you gave us direction on as an attachment to the ordinance which basically um takes the low fire intensity from the west side of the city to Macaslin. Um, you've given us um you've done some pre preliminary feedback um both on the code itself as well as the mapping and you've taken some other actions which I've summarized here but I'll I'll go through that quickly. Um, we are recommending some strengthening amendments above the state minimum. And I I know I went fast through that, so if you want me to slow down and go over any of the specifics, we can do that. But the strengthening amendments to the state minimum code is for structure hardening is to require um right now in

the state minimum code for structure hardening for class one. Um it doesn't address um siding and eaves or gutter covers or decking at all. Um where our citywide fire hardening code for structures does address those things. So at a minimum we wanted to bring that code up to match that minimum. Um so that is included in the draft for you. Um the only amendment we're proposing on the site and area design is for class 2 is to um maintain dormant grasses and weeds to to help with that uh defensible space area for the class 2 standards. Um so we talked about those at a previous meeting. It was a few months ago, but that's that's the same as what's in the draft in front of you. Um the building code board of appeals, our advisory board on building code amendments such as this reviewed um re reviewed this code. Um they had one recommended chain well two recommended changes but both addressing decks. So one is to consider allowing class B um rated materials for decking. Right now we're class A for the citywide code. So that's why we put it into this code. there's concern over cost and availability and we've had past extensive discussions about this um and that there'd be a potential for improved compliance if we allowed either class B or other types of decking um just for context um you know we we've looked at so the state code does allow class B decking on the minimum so all the communities around us that will be adopting the state code um including superior they allow class B composite decking um within the state code. Um we've also done a little bit of additional research. We've had some preliminary discussions with the fire

district. It um it may be worth some further discussions um about allowing other classes of decking because of cost and material availability. Um, we did, uh, a couple things of note is the Boulder County WOOI code and the city of Boulder WOOI Code actually allow all the way down to a class C decking surface material within their WOOI codes. Um, so something to consider. We also looked at the city of of Loveland, which has had a WOOI code before the state code. They allow they just ban wood decks basically and allow composite decking without rating. So that might be something that we could bring back additional information on on second reading if council is interested and we can have further discussions with coun um with the fire district. Um but it probably needs more research um for you all to consider that. But that was one of their recommendations is to potentially allow class B rated decking materials. And then there's another decking um standard that they referenced that they um recommended also allowing. um we didn't include that in the code because it has to do with um fire spreading from under a deck up and it doesn't address the surface of the deck. Um so we weren't recommending including that, but our building code board of appeals recommended that other ASME2632 standard. Um so here's our map. So there's a a final formal map in the ordinance that again extends those uh class one regulations to mccasin which was the direction we had from council um at our previous meeting. So happy to answer any questions about that but that's what's before you this evening. Again, the idea was to focus our WOOI regulations within areas where we're anticipating new development, which is west of Mccasin and Red Tale Ridge,

which is already covered by the WOOI mapping to a large extent. Um, a little bit on permitting and enforcement. I think the big change with this is single family development. We would um any single family development um single family attached or detached. Right now we don't really do site development plans for that. So we don't regulate landscaping but this would be a change. Um so there would be additional permitting inspections and enforcement especially in that type of residential development. Um what staff is recommending is that we monitor workloads and that we consider um using a consultant as we start getting development in WOOI areas rather than hiring staff um as a potential starting point. We don't have consultant budget right now, so it might be something that we come back and talk to council about. We thought that was a good first step until we know what workload and what this would actually look like to implement for those residential developments. Um, so this is on your 26 work plan adoption of this code. Um, so we've got some alternatives for you here. Uh, adopting this as drafted on first reading. Um, another option is to um direct, you know, one or both of the building code board of appeals recommendations. Um, or the third option is to give us any other direction that you'd like to see on second reading or of course not adopt the WOI code is always a potential option, but we noted that would not comply with state law. So, we're recommending approval on first reading and setting the public hearing.

Thank you. Um, council member questions. Council member Coopermanman. Um, I had a question about fencing. So, if I remember correctly, our current fire structure fire hardening structure fire hardening code speaks about fencing within five feet of structures. Um, whereas it looks like the state talks about 8 feet. Mhm. Um, and I I not sure I noticed, but are we is that one of the things we're talking about strengthening or

um, so this the draft that's before you requires 8 feet of fire hardened fencing in the WOOI. So that would differ from our citywide code. So our citywide code would stay at five feet. In the WOOI it would be eight feet. We did change the material standards. the the base state code um allows different materials, but we allow we align the fencing materials with our citywide code. So, it would have to be um either a class A fencing material or a non-combustible material like metal um is how we've drafted it, but it would be 8 feet instead of five citywide because we have to meet the minimum state. So, we can't go below eight feet for the WOOI,

right? Uh, okay. No, that's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Council member Dickinson, you stated I think Boulder and Boulder County allow up to class C um materials for decking. Deck surfaces. Yeah, deck surfaces in in the WOOI areas. Correct. Right. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Anyone else? Yes. Council member Kern,

um, thank you for this. You did mention that if we were interested, um, you would be able to do some more research and have some more information for us. I I realize tonight is not the appropriate time, nor um did the chief get advanced notice that we would ask him questions. So, if maybe all of that could be had at second reading so we could better understand um possibly with excuse me, possibly with some uh visuals on what the differences between the materials are to help us understand the safety standards that we would be allowing if we allowed something other than class A decking. I think that would be a really helpful tool for us at the next reading. Thank you.

Okay. Um, do we have a motion? Okay. Go ahead, Council Member Fehee. I move that ordinance number 18. No, 1918. 19. 1918 series 2026 pass on first reading and the public hearing be set for Tuesday, April 7, 2026 at 6 pm. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? I.

Any opposed? No. Okay. Thank you. Um, next item is ordinance number 19/19 series 2026, an emergency ordinance authorizing the sale and conveyance of the city-owned property at 106 1016 Main Street. This is a public hearing. Um, we have an emergency ordinance tonight, which means we'll be holding the public hearing this evening, the night that it's being introduced. Twothirds of the council members need to vote affirmatively for the emergency ordinance to pass. Um going to open the public hearing. Are there any disclosures from anyone? Okay. Um ask for the staff.

All right. Um thank you, mayor. Um I don't have a PowerPoint for this one since it happened pretty quickly here. Um but um as you know, we fairly recently purchased 1016 Main Street um because it was uh up for demolition, but the owner offered to sell it to us for the purpose of landmarking it and then reselling it. So we used historic preservation funds to purchase the property for $1.4 million. Um we went through the landmarking process um and then put it up for sale just really just a few weeks ago. Um, and we did receive an offer that is before you this evening, which is to purchase it for $1.25 million, which is consistent with the appraisal for the property. It is $150,000 less than we purchased it for, which is um, you know, could be thought of as the opportunity cost for avoiding the demolition and preserving this property. It is a a fairly unique property. It's on the National Register of Historic Places um and um is a fairly unique um architectural type of residential structure for Oldtown. Um so we do have an offer and the reason for the emergency ordinance is that um the purchaser would like to close on March 31st and so um without an emergency ordinance we'd have to renegotiate that. So, um we've presented it to to comply with the contract um um for the purchase um we're asking for passage of the emergency ordinance which then would allow the March 31st closing to take place. Be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for the director? Okay, why don't we take the first round of public comment? Any public comment? No. All right. Uh, council discussion, questions. Any more questions? Okay, we'll take a second round of public comment. Doesn't look like we have any. So, uh, do we have any further discussion on this from council, then I'm going to close the public hearing. Um, can we get a motion? I go ahead. I'll move that we pass ordinance 1919 series 2026, an emergency ordinance authorizing the sale and conveyance of the city-owned property at 1016 Main Street.

Second. Any discussion? Okay, let's take a roll call then, please. Council member Kern, yes. Council member Fehey, yes. Council member Hefner, yes. Mayor Prom Hamilton, yes. Council member Cooperman, yes. Mayor Lei, yes. Council member Dickinson. Yes. Okay. Ordinance passes into our record books here. Uh, city attorney's report. I have no report this evening. Thank you.

Are there any upcoming agenda items or identification of future agenda items by anybody on council? Then do I have a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Recording stopped.