Strap in, petition signers, because we've got a long but important update!
At its Aug. 18 meeting, city council voted unanimously (minus Councilor David Fridland, who is on paternity leave and had to leave the meeting before the vote) to approve the draft land use code (LUC) containing OTX 3 zoning. But, as Councilor Adam Gianola said: “This isn’t the end.”
Council is planning to discuss the OTX zoning, and potentially the 35-foot building height limits on Public Road, at a joint workshop with planning commission on Sept. 9. Planning commission already voted against OTX 3 in a non-binding straw poll at their July 8 meeting. Also, at some councilors' insistence, the land use code working group (which hasn’t reviewed the latest version of the LUC or OTX 3 zoning) will meet to discuss the code on Sept. 2, and their conclusions will be presented to council.
Both of these meetings are open to the public, but there will be no opportunity for in-person public input. However, you can contact city council at any time to share your thoughts on Public Road and OTX zoning.
Second reading, or final approval, of the LUC ordinance is scheduled for the Sept. 15 city council meeting, although some councilors suggested that can be changed so there 's time to incorporate planning commission and working group feedback. This meeting does allow public input, so I’ll keep you posted about how you can participate.
At their Aug. 18 meeting, very few councilors mentioned public feedback, including this petition, on OTX zoning. So PLEASE consider contacting them directly. I had hoped the petition would be enough, but apparently it isn’t. I know it’s a pain to reach out to council directly, but it's important. Here’s how to contact council as a group or individually.
Here’s what each city councilor said about OTX zoning at their Aug. 18 meeting, before voting to approve the new land use code containing OTX:
Councilor Kyle Beaulieu: “Regarding OTX 3, we’ve heard robust feedback from the public, so I would recommend that we fold OTX 3 back into OTX 1 as original. I disagree with some of the other ideas that were floated on reducing the height limit. Keeping it at 35 feet … makes perfect sense, but simply killing OTX 3 and moving forward. I think OTX 1 by and large gives us the flexibility up and down Public Road to do pretty much what we need to do, so for me the juice is not necessarily worth the squeeze for OTX 3, but I’m happy to have the conversation with the planning commission before second reading. But I think the near universal opposition to OTX 3 counts pretty heavily for me. I really like the presentation we heard [from staff/the consultant] about the 35-foot, up to three stories—I think that’s where we need to go.”
Councilor Adam Gianola: In my thorough review [of the code] and the 56 questions I had, I had many questions about OTX 3. And the conclusion I came to is it’s not ready in the code. Maybe it was typographical errors or oversight, but [OTX 3} wasn’t there. I wasn’t satisfied that someone could look at it and say ‘I know what to do with this.’”
Mayor Pro Tem Tim Barnes: “That [proposed OTX 3] area has so much history and energy and culture. The pocket park is going to be right in the middle of that. I’m going to try to come in at 40,000 feet. If we’re looking down on that energetically, it feels like the next place we could welcome into redevelopment, and it feels like we didn’t consider the cultural aspects as much as the standard way of bringing in business. It seems like more of an economic focus than a celebration of the culture and history of the city. I just struggle about why we went from OTX 1 and OTX 2 to OTX 3 in that one area—that's my feedback. It feels a little tone deaf when we look at what’s actually there right now, because there’s so much history of Lafayette that’s there.”
Councilor David Fridland: “The fact that we have a lot of specifics that we have questions about, that we maybe have comments about, to me demonstrates that this [land use code] is not ready to be passed on first reading today. We have the [planning commission] meeting coming up with us—let’s have that, let’s talk about OTX 3, all these other questions—and listen to our experts to inform us and then make changes. I think [the code] should also go to the working group again and we should get their expertise—that’s why we have them.”
Councilor Annmarie Jensen: “I was thinking that the [workshop with the planning commission] on the 9th was to … talk about OTX. I would like to understand more of the elements of OTX 3 and if we keep it as OTX 1, would there be some elements of that that we would also want to fold into OTX 3. For me it’s a bigger conversation [than what council could discuss at its Aug. 18 meeting].
Jensen also asked if height modifications to the land use code can be considered by council on a case-by-case basis. “What is the process if somebody wants to build in OTX 1 and they want to put up 40 feet, how would they bring that to us?” she asked planning staff. Staff said this would be part of a site plan review, and council would need to review any changes to height not allowed under the code. Jensen added: “The reason I ask this is because with OTX, if we have flexibility to do something outside the boundaries of the district anyway if we really think it makes sense, then some of the arguments over what all should be in any district are moot because if we really wanted to, we’d have the authority to do something about it—and that’s what I’m trying to get at.” Planning staff responded that according to the draft LUC, plans for any building over 5,000 square feet in Old Town have to go to planning commission and city council for approval.
Mayor Saul Tapia Vega: “OTX 3 to OTX 1—for me, this is something we’re going to talk about with planning commission.”
Councilor Crystal Gallegos: No mention of OTX zoning. (Note: She joined the meeting late, after public comment, due to taking one of her children to college.)