It really irks me that under point "4.3" about wildlife habitat there is NOTHING about preserving space for wildlife habitat. Nothing is mentioned at all about wildlife habitat. Why is there no concern about balance?
I am irked about that too because I and many others keep highlighting that corner where the wildlife hangs out. They kept adjusting the plans and each new version was a bit better. Now this description is just like the first version. I am quite ticked off. 😩 They don't care what the community thinks.
How much money are we on the line for the "improvements" to allow for the supposed coming transit system? The trains in Denver are already well underused even with a higher density profile. How much is "affordable housing" dragging the ROI for the taxpayers, meaning we cover the value of such with higher taxes? We may only need 3-story buildings.
Good questions. Regarding the building height I wrote this in answer to a previous comment.
They quote the comprehensive plan a lot. However, the comp plan says this for adaptable commercial which is the designation for this property and which I pointed out in my email to the city for their first plans.
"Generally, building heights will be limited to three stories with transitions to surrounding contexts. Additional discussion around the strategic use of height in exchange for public amenities or affordable housing may be accommodated, but further discussion with the community needs to occur during the update to the city's Development Code."
Something else I wrote that hits on your comment about the trains in Denver was about House Bill 24-1313 passed last year. I have a new post in the works with an update. But basically the bill required more density along transit corridors. It said the density was needed to increase ridership on underused buses. It said hey we put all this money into transit but people aren't using it so we need to build next to the routes to provide more customers and if you don't do it we will withhold your highway funding. They backed of on the highway funding punishment in the final bill. But the density they want is 40 dweling units per acre in transit corridors. Our city staff estimated it would add 72,000 more dwelling units to Lafayette. Yes that many. We have 12,700 now. Staff is now estimating that number will be lower but still eye-popping. I keep trying to work on my lastest post about it but this Kensington project is taking all my time!
Vicky Uhland here, commenting as my alter ego. As Karen pointed out, this letter was dated Nov. 15, about a month before the neighborhood meeting. Why didn’t the city or Kensington share it then? This lays out a pretty complete vision but we were told at the meeting by both the developer and city staff that there wasn’t any vision yet. This is very concerning. Did they lie?
When this project was first presented in 2022 when Jeff Brasel was our planning director, the narrative letter and illustrative plan were both put on the city website at the same time. That's how I got them, I downloaded them from the city site. Did the developer send a letter describing this project without a drawn plan? This letter clearly explains what they want to do.
Also at the neighborhood meeting the developer's rep Edgar said they had taken previous community input and it was reflected in this new version. But this new narrative sounds more like their first one.
They pulled that before with 4 stories. They quote the comprehensive plan a lot. However, the comp plan says this for adaptable commercial which is the designation for this property and which I pointed out in my email to the city for their first plans.
"Generally, building heights will be limited to three stories with transitions to surrounding contexts. Additional discussion around the strategic use of height in exchange for public amenities or affordable housing may be accommodated, but further discussion with the community needs to occur during the update to the city's Development Code."
I'm not in favor of this proposal. Way too dense and out of character with adjacent land uses, +/- 465 units, 3/4 story buildings, traffic impacts at CO 287/Arapahoe intersection, water acquisition. Looking forward to the public meeting on this.
It really irks me that under point "4.3" about wildlife habitat there is NOTHING about preserving space for wildlife habitat. Nothing is mentioned at all about wildlife habitat. Why is there no concern about balance?
I am irked about that too because I and many others keep highlighting that corner where the wildlife hangs out. They kept adjusting the plans and each new version was a bit better. Now this description is just like the first version. I am quite ticked off. 😩 They don't care what the community thinks.
How much money are we on the line for the "improvements" to allow for the supposed coming transit system? The trains in Denver are already well underused even with a higher density profile. How much is "affordable housing" dragging the ROI for the taxpayers, meaning we cover the value of such with higher taxes? We may only need 3-story buildings.
Good questions. Regarding the building height I wrote this in answer to a previous comment.
They quote the comprehensive plan a lot. However, the comp plan says this for adaptable commercial which is the designation for this property and which I pointed out in my email to the city for their first plans.
"Generally, building heights will be limited to three stories with transitions to surrounding contexts. Additional discussion around the strategic use of height in exchange for public amenities or affordable housing may be accommodated, but further discussion with the community needs to occur during the update to the city's Development Code."
Something else I wrote that hits on your comment about the trains in Denver was about House Bill 24-1313 passed last year. I have a new post in the works with an update. But basically the bill required more density along transit corridors. It said the density was needed to increase ridership on underused buses. It said hey we put all this money into transit but people aren't using it so we need to build next to the routes to provide more customers and if you don't do it we will withhold your highway funding. They backed of on the highway funding punishment in the final bill. But the density they want is 40 dweling units per acre in transit corridors. Our city staff estimated it would add 72,000 more dwelling units to Lafayette. Yes that many. We have 12,700 now. Staff is now estimating that number will be lower but still eye-popping. I keep trying to work on my lastest post about it but this Kensington project is taking all my time!
Here are the posts I wrote about the bill.
https://apoliticalhobbyistinlafayetteco.substack.com/p/are-you-kidding-me-72000-more-housing
https://apoliticalhobbyistinlafayetteco.substack.com/p/questions-about-hb-24-1313-no-wonder
The developer is a horrible writer, I'll say that.
Thanks for making me laugh!
Vicky Uhland here, commenting as my alter ego. As Karen pointed out, this letter was dated Nov. 15, about a month before the neighborhood meeting. Why didn’t the city or Kensington share it then? This lays out a pretty complete vision but we were told at the meeting by both the developer and city staff that there wasn’t any vision yet. This is very concerning. Did they lie?
When this project was first presented in 2022 when Jeff Brasel was our planning director, the narrative letter and illustrative plan were both put on the city website at the same time. That's how I got them, I downloaded them from the city site. Did the developer send a letter describing this project without a drawn plan? This letter clearly explains what they want to do.
Also at the neighborhood meeting the developer's rep Edgar said they had taken previous community input and it was reflected in this new version. But this new narrative sounds more like their first one.
They lost me at 4 story buildings. These developers are not local and have no idea how this blocks views again. No more out of state developers!!!
They pulled that before with 4 stories. They quote the comprehensive plan a lot. However, the comp plan says this for adaptable commercial which is the designation for this property and which I pointed out in my email to the city for their first plans.
"Generally, building heights will be limited to three stories with transitions to surrounding contexts. Additional discussion around the strategic use of height in exchange for public amenities or affordable housing may be accommodated, but further discussion with the community needs to occur during the update to the city's Development Code."
I'm not in favor of this proposal. Way too dense and out of character with adjacent land uses, +/- 465 units, 3/4 story buildings, traffic impacts at CO 287/Arapahoe intersection, water acquisition. Looking forward to the public meeting on this.
At first glance, I am not happy at all. It sounds like they went back to their original plan and heard nothing from the public input so far. Grrr
Where did you find this information? I looked under New Development Projects but didn't see it. 🤔
https://www.lafayetteco.gov/3961/Development-Projects Look to the left of the page
Thank you 👍
You are welcome!