Silo Phase 2 developer appeals Planning Commission's decision

Tuesday June 3rd

I’ve been reporting on the Silo Phase 2 development and the April 5th public hearing before the Planning Commission where the developer presented changes to the original plan. If you’re looking for a little excitement in city happenings, what we have coming on Tuesday, June 3rd, might be worth knowing about!

City staff recommended the Planning Commission approve these changes, they said nope, the developer/applicant has appealed that decision to the City Council, and staff has once more recommended approval. Will council back the planning commissioners and members of the public who spoke at the April meeting, or will they go with the developer and staff? I have no clue, stay tuned.

The meeting is at City Hall, 1290 S. Public Road, beginning at 5:30.

You can watch it live or later on the city website or on You Tube

WHERE IS THIS DEVELOPMENT?

For those wondering where this development is located, it’s to the west of the other project I’ve been covering, the Tebo property at the southwest corner of 287 and Arapahoe, where Illinois developers, Kensington, want to develop The Range at Lafayette.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION

The Silo developers want to change the plans for Phase 2. They received support for the changes from the city planning department and presented them to the Planning Commission where on a vote of 5-2 were told they were unimpressive and were sent back to conduct further study. Planning Commissioners send Silo developer back to the drawing board: part two

You can watch the April planning commission meeting here

APPEALING THE DECISION TO THE COUNCIL

This step in the process, called the sketch plan, normally doesn’t go to the City Council (I know, it’s weird, I hope changes to the process are coming) but prior to the planning commission hearing the developers had requested that they also present to the council via what’s known as a “call up”. Council can call up something from the planning commission if they so wish. The developers asked council to do this. However, I’m pretty sure they didn’t expect the response they received from the commissioners, and the request to present to council turned into an appeal of their decision.

THE ASK

From the applicant’s letter to the council:

“The applicant requested a call up to City Council on 3/11/25. The intention for this request was to ensure that the proposed amendment be presented in its entirety to ensure that the council fully understands the proposed updates, the purpose, and the reasoning for the amendment prior to the filing No.2 Amendment Final Plan PUD and Final Plat. This call up would allow the council the opportunity to provide feedback prior to the application of Filing No.2 Amendment Preliminary Plan PUD, which will help the applicant ensure that the more detailed plan to be brought forward is aligned with the City’s vision.

Per the Notice of Decision, the applicant has until 4/23/25 to appeal Planning Commission’s decision made on 4/9/25. We are requesting an appeal to reserve our right to present our amendment request to the City Council, in keeping with our previously requested call up. Planning Commission made the motion to refer the sketch plan application back to the Silo team for further study, based on the matters listed below. The appeal seeks to modify the decision to an approval, or approval with conditions, on the following grounds:”

At the bottom of this report is the list of items being appealed.

FROM A RESIDENT

On May 28th, I was sent this photograph as a heads-up about the meeting. Note, it says public hearing, which means the public can speak specifically about the project.

THE COUNCIL PACKET CAME OUT ON THURSDAY, MAY 29TH

THE APPEAL PROCESS

Note my bolding below, it’s important.

From the staff memo in the council’s packet for the June 3rd meeting:

Executive Summary

The developers of Phase 2 of the Silo Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) (Lennar Colorado, LLC, and Cornerstone Homes Development Company, LLC) are appealing the April 9, 2025, decision of the Planning Commission regarding their PUD Sketch Plan submittal. Lennar and Cornerstone are collectively referred to herein as the “applicant” or “developer.”

Appeals differ from Council’s usual review of land use applications in that Council’s review must be based on the record of the Planning Commission’s public hearing—the Council does not conduct its own public hearing in making its decision on the Sketch Plan. Instead, on appeal, the Council will receive a brief overview from staff of the Sketch Plan application and the Planning Commission record and will hear argument from the applicant regarding its appeal. The City Council may also ask the applicant and staff questions about the application as presented to the Planning Commission, but the Council cannot take new public testimony or receive new evidence in an appeal hearing.

OH BOY

So the current Silo residents, and anyone else who sees the sign, have been told they can speak at the meeting but hold on, according to the staff report, no they can’t.

When there is a public hearing, there is also a requirement to send a notification letter to everyone within 750 feet of the development.

I CONTACTED CITY STAFF WITH CONCERNS

Below is the email exchange, as you can see staff is aware of this. They have plans to let folks know they can speak at the beginning of the meeting during public input. As you see above, council cannot factor that input into their decision, but staff and the developer will hear it, so I encourage you to still take the opportunity to speak.

Good morning,

I was sent this pic of a sign at Silo a couple of days ago. When I checked the council packet last night I see it specifically says there will be no public input.

So, as you can imagine these folks are planning to come to speak based on what looks like a city sign. I don’t know if they received letters within the 750 ft area as well.

Thought I better let you know and ask what can be done.

Thanks~

Karen

“Good morning, Karen –

We are aware of the signs, which the applicant posted. You are correct, however, that this is not a public hearing. The applicant is aware of this fact as well, but obviously did not catch the change when they updated the signs they had previously used for PC.

No additional notice is/was required as this is an appeal hearing and is treated as a public meeting vs. a public hearing. On Tuesday, City Council will be reviewing the Planning Commission’s discussion and determination before making a final decision on Silo’s Sketch Plan proposal.

Additional notice of the hearing is not prohibited of course, but it would have been better if they did not refer to the meeting as a public hearing.

Because this meeting is unique, staff is already planning to ensure at the outset of the meeting that public comment will need to occur at the beginning of the meeting for members of the public who are hoping to speak on this agenda item.

Best,

Steven Williams Planning and Building Director”

OPTIONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING

Attend the meeting in person. City Hall Council Chambers, 1290 S. Public Road.

Submit written comments for Public Input to City Council. If your written comments are received by 1 pm on the day of the meeting they will be added to the meeting packet for that night. Written comments submitted for Public Input will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Participate by telephone. Call 1-877-853-5247 (toll-free). Once connected, you will be asked for the meeting number. The meeting number is 869 1163 2580. Press # after entering the number. To request to speak, press *9 during Public Input to raise your hand. When it is your turn, your microphone will be unmuted.

To request interpreter services, please submit a request at least two (2) days prior to the meeting.

ALL THE INFO IS ONLINE

Here’s the council packet for their June 3rd meeting. Scroll down to page 60 to find the documents for Silo.

WHAT IS BEING APPEALED ON JUNE 3RD

From the applicant’s letter to council:

1. “To update the application to better address paragraph (b)(4), “recreation”, of Sec. 26-18-5 (PUD review criteria): Planning commission raised concerns regarding both the reduction of open area within the “central park” area and the associated reduced separation originally planned between the first and second phases of this development, and asked the applicant to consider adjusting the density of housing types in certain areas so that open areas can be consolidated to restore some or all of the “central park” area that was included in the original PUD.”

Appeal: Applicant believes sufficient recreational opportunities are provided. In the proposed amendment some open areas were redistributed with a net loss of 0.57 acres, partially due to a 2.49 acre increase in right of way. Silo still greatly exceeds the 15% park and open area minimum requirement by providing more than 45% of its lands as open areas. The applicant will take Planning Commission’s comments into consideration and will study options for potential park improvement during the Preliminary Plan PUD review.

2. “To update the application to better address paragraph (b)(8), “community housing needs” of Sec 26-18-5 (PUD review criteria): Planning Commission raised concerns about the loss of multi- family housing and proposed reduction of housing types and asked the applicant to consider increasing the types and density throughout the development.”

Appeal: Applicant proposed this amendment as a redesign conforming to the products the two single-family home builders offer, continuing with the types of homes offered with phase 1 construction. Housing products include townhomes, duplexes, and two types of single-family home with options for future ADU use. This is compatible with surrounding similar density neighborhoods, and the townhomes on the eastern portion of Silo are a reasonable transition between adjacent higher density adaptable commercial properties. The applicant would like the opportunity to present the proposed unit mix changes and housing products/home types to City Council for an additional opinion before further study.

3. “To update the application to better address paragraph (b)(12) “Goal Fulfillment” of Sec. 26-18- 5 (PUD review criteria): Planning Commission generally directed the applicant to focus on furthering the goals of the 2021 Legacy Lafayette Comprehensive Plan.

   Appeal: Applicant believes they are meeting many of the goals within the Comprehensive Plan and would like to opportunity to present the council with that study. The applicant would like additional consideration and clarification from City Council on this topic, to help direct the plan moving forward.

4. “To update the application to better address paragraph (b)(18) “Diversity and Quality of development” of Sec. 26-18-5 (PUD review criteria): Planning Commission raised concerns about the more limited range of housing types proposed and asked the applicant to study ways to increase the types of density of housing in the development to provide more diversity of housing types and price points within the development.”

   Appeal: Applicant believes the proposed amendment represents a diversity of design.

   Townhomes, paired homes, and stylistically distinct single-family detached houses are being integrated, generating a variety of product sizes, price points, and attainability within phase 2. Additionally, "NextGen" suites provide space for potential ADU uses, extended family members, caregivers, housemates, artist studios, and home occupations within single-family homes, adding to the diversity and uniqueness of the Silo community. The applicant would like to present this to the council for consideration and opinion before further study.

Want to offer more support? Awesome!