Planning Commissioners send Silo developer back to the drawing board: part two

What they want to see

In part one I got a bit ranty over the misuse of the term open space during the Planning Commissioner’s meeting. Let’s get back to the nitty gritty of this development. I had quite a bit of work done on this report, but something got glitchy, and I lost everything. Argg. I’ll try again.

The original project was touted as something very special. The property owner, Susan Weems, wanted to create a development with a rural, agricultural feel that provided a way for people to age in place, moving through the housing stock in the development as their lives changed. It included a Community Supported Agriculture farm (CSA), a restaurant to feature the produce, and a Central Park.

I checked out the Silo website. It says it’s "Boulder County’s First All Net-Zero Energy Community”

Here’s a screenshot from the Silo website:

A couple of slides from the applicant’s presentation to the Planning Commission with my annotations to show some of the changes. The CSA is gone, replaced with community gardens. The Central Park has been redesigned. The multi-family apartments and commercial area is gone.

Chart from the city staff’s memo explaining the changes in dwelling units.

Remember the screenshot of Silo’s homepage? “a modern farmhouse design aesthetic that compliments and retains the rural appeal of Lafayette.”

The Silo website says:

“Premium Homesites

The premium homesites in phase 1 abut to protected open space and eight lush acres of horse pasture on the far west side of the neighborhood. These lots offer unobstructed snow-capped mountain views of the Indian Peaks mountain range and Boulder Flatirons. The land directly west of the Silo site is private farmland, part of a wetlands conservation easement. Because of this, the surrounding rural landscape and views will be preserved in perpetuity.”

I am not aware of this wetlands conservation easement, is that with Boulder County?

There’s a video on “the vision” page that features the design team and they talk about the CSA and restaurant. One person says they want to move into the first home. This text accompanies it:

“Perspective from Sun Studio, Horizontal Design and Planning

At Sun Studio we specialize in sustainable urban neighborhood design. So when Sue Weems asked us to help her envision a net-zero energy neighborhood with a CSA Farm at the heart, with intertwined natural systems, and design focused on aging in community, we were absolutely thrilled. Our approach puts a premium on marrying ecologically based and climate smart site planning, high performance architecture and landscapes, and environments that foster healthy community and sustainable living. We are honored to work on this neighborhood with the Weems family and Cornerstone Homes, and will strive to design what we hope will be a new benchmark in environmental and social sustainability.”

HOUSING

Here’s a screenshot of one of the slides from the applicant’s presentation to the planning commission showing a housing style Lennar is including. They are calling it Next Gen/ADU. The ADUs are counted separately in the number of total units even though they are part of the house.

Again remember the screenshot of Silo’s homepage? “a modern farmhouse design aesthetic that compliments and retains the rural appeal of Lafayette.”

PUBLIC INPUT

Traffic issues were raised.

One person who lives in Silo explained she bought her specific house in Phase 1 so she could see the park, and now it’s townhomes. She felt like it was a bait and switch. She was not the only member of the public to use that term.

She said she bought due to the proposal that is still on the Silo website, citing a barn, farm-to-table, farm share, community plots, an ag community, and gathering places for the community. She said it’s alarming what’s considered park space, like the detention pond and the areas between buildings. She urged the commissioners to look at what was promised in Phase 1 and what was delivered. She said they are not getting what they were told they would get and that it’s still being marketed by Cornerstone as timber frame construction. She does not see the connection to ag in phase 1. The network of promised trails are incomplete and end with signs that say do not enter, private property, or stay off, and she can’t walk through the neighborhood in a loop, she hits dead ends.

Another Silo resident pointed out that the promised Central Park was now partly townhomes and asked for that to be changed.

Someone else said the home designs don’t fit with the homes in the surrounding area, which are ranches and horse farms. The detention ponds that had been throughout the development provided water for wildlife, and now they were all combined into one spot near Arapahoe.

One speaker said he wanted to show photographs but was told he was not allowed to have access to the screens in the room. His wife held up photographs of what was originally approved and recent photographs they took of the houses now built, pointing out they were nothing like the originals promised.

He continued to say the project was originally approved as “unique” not a “traditional project”. He talked about the original project saying it focused on “back to nature” “timber framed homes” “modern farmhouse designs” and “the gem” in the project was the CSA and an organic restaurant.

A VERY INTERESTING PIECE OF INFORMATION

One of the commissioners asked why the multifamily units were eliminated. Al, the developer’s planner, said they understand that multifamily units are planned for the Tebo property to the east (the potential “Range at Lafayette” project at the corner of Arapahoe and 287), and they wanted to provide additional for-sale products via townhomes in a more attainable range than the large custom homes in the Silo development.

Al said the multi-family market has slowed dramatically along the front range because so many multifamily units have been built and approved in different municipalities that construction has taken a significant pause.

City Planner Rounds agreed that market conditions are changing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

‘Staff recommends approval of the Sketch Plan recognizing that during the Preliminary Plan phase, the applicant and city staff can address outstanding issues. Staff finds that the Sketch Plan provided by the applicant can be found to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the PUD Sketch Plan criteria in the code but recognizes that the underlying zone districts must also be updated. Staff has highlighted the specific changes involved in this PUD amendment that merit additional attention and direction from Planning Commission. Again, Sketch Plan review are conceptual in nature and the purpose of this review is to review the appropriateness of the design, identify major problems and assess overall feasibility. The Planning Commission will also review the Preliminary Plan at a public hearing in the future and the public will have additional opportunities to review the proposal as it is refined through an additional neighborhood meeting.”

PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION

This lasted around three hours. If you would like to watch you can see it here.

Some main points:

• Concerns about the lack of affordable units and the removal of the multi-family buildings which takes away the lowest price point units.

• There was a desire for more diversity in housing, pointing out only two products were included, single-family homes and townhomes. Points were made about rows of the same type of houses instead of having a mixture, such as moving some of the townhomes in with the single-family housing. (Remember that possible code change to allow more of a mix of housing). Having different sizes of houses was mentioned.

• Concerns about the cookie-cutter appearance.

• Concerns about the “hell strips” between the housing not being usable space. Could some reconfiguration occur to create a small courtyard or to expand the park?

IN THE END THE COMMISSION WAS NOT WILLING TO APPROVE

As I reported in part one, the commissioners had four options: deny, approve, approve with conditions, which means they could list what they wanted to be changed, or refer it back for further study.

Since there had been considerable discussion they felt the applicant should understand what they wanted to see. The split vote of 5-2 happened because five commissioners wanted to refer the plan back for further study, and two wanted to approve it saying if the applicant came back with the next step (preliminary plan) and it did not reflect their concerns the commission could vote no. Adding conditions would mean the developer had only to address them, sending it back for study gave the commissioners more leeway.

WHAT IS IN NEED OF FURTHER STUDY

The commissioners went through a list provided by the city staff. They voted to refer the matter back to the applicant for further study with concerns specific to the PUD and sections 4, 8, 12, and 18 of the staff’s list.

4. Recreation.

Silo Phase 2 includes both public and private open spaces. The public open space includes a multi-use trail connecting to a future trail proposed to extend along Arapahoe Road. The trail network will connect to Silo Phase 1 as well as to the future sidewalk and trail network east of the development. This may include connections to future transit improvements along US Highway 287.

One significant alteration from the originally approved Silo development plan is the “Central Park” feature. This area has been reduced and the park space redistributed throughout the parcel. While the loss of the central area may change the nature of the use of open space, the redistribution of that space means that the value is not lost.

8. Community housing needs.

As noted elsewhere, the proposed development provides fee-simple (for sale) housing options but in a variety of styles that should appeal to different segments of the public. There is no proposal to provide designated affordable housing within the development.

11. Community amenities.

The developer has proposed a community center to serve the residents of the Silo development. The open space within the development, both privately and publicly maintained, will be open to the public for daily use.

18. Diversity and quality of development.

Silo Phase 2 would include a more limited diversity of housing types (townhomes duplexes and single-family detached homes), but is located adjacent to existing retail, future proposed retail, higher density residential, and recreational opportunities. The property is well situated to take advantage of plans for transit development on Arapahoe and on US Highway 287.

Want to offer more support? Awesome!