Planning Commission - City of Lafayette

Planning Commission - City of Lafayette

To: Planning Commission From: Jon Hoffman Date: May 18, 2017 MEMO Subject: East Lafayette Addition – Replat A / Vacation, Minor Subdivision, S...

3MB Sizes 2 Downloads 4 Views

Recommend Documents

planning commission - City of Medford
Aug 27, 2015 - ORDER granting approval of a request for tentative plat approval for Nobility Village Subdivision. WHEREA

planning commission - City of Kearney
Jun 19, 2014 - Commercial District and described as Lot 3, Archway Village, an addition to the ..... of the microwave to

Cleveland City Planning Commission
Sep 17, 2004 - Deion Levy and Bruce Jackson. 2. W&W Developers. Willy Trowsdell and Melina ... Jack Bialosky, Jr. 1 Bill

city planning commission - City of Middletown
Jun 8, 2011 - Mr. Brickey entertained a motion by Mr. Marconi to approve the minutes as .... Mr. Rich Bevis, 1701 Run Wa

PHILADELPHIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION - City of Philadelphia
Mar 1, 2016 - Duane Bumb, Representing Harold T. Epps. Christopher Rupe, Representing Michael DiBerardinis. Peilin Chen

Highland City Planning Commission
Mar 24, 2015 - DISCUSSION OF BASEMENT APARTMENT REGULATIONS AND THE. DEFINITION OF A FAMILY. Mr. Crane explained that th

city planning commission - the City of Pittsburgh
May 3, 2016 - Joy Burt Conti. Melissa McSwigan. Margaret Ringel Baker. Bill Kurtek. Francis J. Schmitt. Justin Greenawal

City Planning Commission - Los Angeles Department of City Planning
Nov 9, 2017 - James K. Williams, Commission Executive Assistant II [email protected] (213) 978-1295. POLICY FOR DESIGNATED

Lafayette Updated Cover.ai - City of Lafayette, CA
Feb 13, 2012 - 7. Ed Stevenson, Building Manager, Lafayette War Veterans. 8. Chris Dodge. 9. Mel Epps. People registerin

CITY of HOLLADAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Feb 16, 2016 - Nettie's Place Condominiums – Rezone Proposal, located at 2165 E 4500 S. Request ..... His long range p

To:

Planning Commission

From:

Jon Hoffman

Date:

May 18, 2017

MEMO

Subject:

East Lafayette Addition – Replat A / Vacation, Minor Subdivision, Site Plan and Architectural Review, and Planned Unit Development Applicant/Owner: Verbeck Design Studios / City of Lafayette Location: Lot 1, 2, 25, 26, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition. South side of Baseline Road, east of Foote Avenue, and north of E. Geneseo Street. Previously the Lafayette Feed and Grain Store (816 E. Baseline Road). Land Use Designation: Commercial Current Zoning: C1 (Regional Business) Total Area: 31,073 square feet/0.713 Acres Vicinity Map

Baseline Road

Reschedule: This application was originally scheduled for the April 26, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Neighbors within the 750 square foot notification radius voiced concerns that they had not

received the proper notification for the Neighborhood Meeting that was held on March 23, 2017. The applicant requested that the application review scheduled in April be postponed until May to give the applicant the opportunity to have a neighborhood meeting and discuss the neighbor concerns. BACKGROUND The former Lafayette Feed and Grain Store site located at 816 E Baseline Road is composed of Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26, Block 1 of the East Lafayette Addition Subdivision (recorded December 29, 1947), the east to west 20 foot alley between the lots, and a portion of the former railroad right-of-way which was acquired by the City of Lafayette. Improvements on the site had included a storage building and six short silos on the western side of the lot, the store, a warehouse, the grain elevator and three tall silos on the eastern portion of the site. Some of these improvements were constructed within the former railroad right-of-way, now the “City’s trail property” and the now removed storage building had encroached into the alley right-of-way. A lease agreement was in place for a portion of those improvements that are on the City trail property. The Feed and Grain Store site deed, transferred in 1971, included the alley right-of-way and a portion of the Geneseo Street right-of-way. These right-of-ways were not vacated and are stilled owned by the City. In August 2016 the applicant received a demolition permit for the six short silos, tin shed, and retail structure and subsequently those buildings were demolished. In October 2015 the previous property owner brought forward an application to Planning Commission to vacate the alley located between Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26 Block 1, East Lafayette Addition. That application was unanimously recommended by Planning Commission with City Council approving the vacation. The vacation ordinance conditions of approval were not met and the ordinance expired. Prior Agreements: On March 7, 2017 the City Council approved an agreement where the owner of the Lafayette Feed and Grain Store site desired to clarify the ownership interest in their property as it relates to the City trail property and alley right-of-ways in exchange for a maintenance easement for the Lafayette grain elevator and the three tall silos on the east side of the property. The agreement contemplates the vacation of the alley right-of-way subject to conditions outlined further in this report and the conveyance of the City’s interest in a portion of the City property trail right-ofway to the property owner. Public Notification & Comments: A neighborhood meeting was held on March 23, 2017 and a subsequent neighborhood meeting was held May 11, 2017. The applicant has stated at that the initial neighborhood meeting the attendees chose not to sign-in or leave comments. The second neighborhood meeting was better attended and the sign-in sheet and comments are attached to this report. Per the public notification requirements, letters to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property have been mailed, a public notice has been advertised in the Colorado Hometown News, and public hearing signs have been posted on the property. To date, staff has received both supportive comments from adjacent property owners regarding this proposal and property owners with concerns on the project.

East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 2 of 17

Concerns detailed at the neighborhood meeting and to staff include; alley access traffic, noise from a commercial use, the outdoor seating area, cell tower (not part of this application), overall site access, and the zoning of the property as commercial. The majority of these issues are addressed throughout the staff report with the exception of the zoning/commercial use questions. The property has been zoned commercial since at least 1967, the applicant is not proposing a rezoning with this submittal. Procedure: The Planning Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Minor Subdivision, Vacation, Site Plan/Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development applications. The Commission may recommend approval of the application as submitted, approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the application based upon applicable code criteria. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION

Vacation Exhibit

In accordance with the agreement approved by City Council on March 7, 2017 the applicant and owner agrees to the following conditions of the vacation: a. A utility easement shall be granted for utilities currently existing in such alley. b. A private access easement shall be granted for vehicular and pedestrian access between the new eastern terminus of alley and either Baseline Road or Geneseo Street. Such access easement shall be a “blanket” easement over and across the currently unimproved portions of the site; however, the easement may be reduced to a 20’ wide easement at such time as the site plan is submitted and approved for the site. c. An easement shall be granted to the City for emergency vehicular access over and across the same property that is encumbered by the blanket access easement that is described above.

East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 3 of 17

Currently a sanitary sewer main and a gas line are located within the alley and overhead electric lines cross the alley right-of-way. Access from the east end of the alley has traditionally been through the Feed and Grain Store site to Baseline Road. Although there has never been an official easement provided for vehicles to travel across the site north to Baseline Road, many vehicles including trash trucks have used this access over the years. The applicant has indicated that an access easement will be provided from the east end of the alley, across the site to Baseline Road. The recording of the vacation of the alley right-of-way and the recording of the access easement and 20-foot utility easement will occur contemporaneously before the plat is recorded. As part of the submitted applications there is a minor subdivision request that includes the vacated alley and a portion of the City trail property to be conveyed to the owner. Recording of this minor subdivision will satisfy the conditions of the March 7, 2017 agreement. Per Section 26-14-20(c) of the Development and Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must find that a vacation is in compliance with two findings, if applicable: 1. That no land adjoining any roadway to be vacated is left without an established public road connecting said land with another established road; and 2. That the land to be vacated is no longer necessary for the public use and convenience. Staff has determined that no land adjoining the alley to be vacated is left without an established public road way connection because the Feed and Grain Store site has access to Baseline Road and those properties directly to the west will also have access to Baseline Road according to the site plan. Subject to the granting of an access easement from the east end of the alley to Baseline Road, alley access does not dead end at the Grain and feed Store site’s western property line. Staff has also determined that subject to the granting of the 20-foot wide utility and access easements, the land to be vacated is no longer necessary for the public use and convenience. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the alley right-of-way, subject to the recommended conditions, finding that the request complies with Code section 26-14-20(c) because no property will be left without a connection to a public street and that the right-of-way to be vacated is no longer necessary for public use and convenience. MINOR SUBDIVISION The application includes the Minor Subdivision of Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26 Block 1, East Lafayette Addition. The Minor Subdivision will combine the existing four lots and vacated alley into one 28,963 square foot lot and a 2,110 square foot outlot (Outlot B). As detailed in the Vacation portion of the staff report; the consolidation of the four lots will not prohibit access to the alley for the existing residential properties along Baseline Road and Geneseo Street. The City of Lafayette holds fee title to the abandoned railroad right-of-way immediately east of and adjacent to the Feed & Grain LLC parcel via a quick claim deed from the BNSF Railway Company in January 2013. The City acquired the railroad right-of-way for the purpose of a public recreational trail that has since been constructed. Some structures historically associated and used with the East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 4 of 17

Feed & Grain business at the site were located within this right-of-way. The City’s position is that they wish to preserve the historical aspects of the grain elevator and silos and also recognizes that the other portions of the Feed & Grain building that operated within the right-of-way were historically part of the commercial site. Thus as part of the March 7, 2017 agreement the City will convey the proposed Outlot B to the property owner of the Lafayette Feed and Grain property in return for the easements and details outlined in the agreement signed by City Council and the applicant. The City will be granted a 10-foot maintenance easement adjacent to the silos to ensure the ability to preserve the silos.

New easements as part of the Minor Subdivision including the 20-foot utility easement, the 10-foot maintenance easement adjacent to the silos, and approximately 20-foot wastewater pipeline easement in the northeast corner of the site are shown on the submittal. The private access easement, utility easement, drainage easement, and maintenance easement must be dedicated by separate instrument and the reception number included on the plat before it can be recorded. Staff has also identified a number of additional signatures lines, corrections, and additional information that will be need to shown on the plat prior to recording. Staff recommends that all additions and corrections to the plat and clerical and grammatical errors shall be corrected by the applicant prior to consideration by City Council. Staff will provide the applicant a list of those corrections. Approval of the East Lafayette Addition - Replat A Plat is contingent upon recording of the easements and upon the effective date of the ordinance by the City’s vacation of the alley. Staff has reviewed the minor subdivision and has determined that the minor subdivision, with the recommended condition of approval, meets the applicable requirements of Section 26-17-6. East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 5 of 17

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, the approval of the minor subdivision of Lot 1, 2, 25, 26, of Block 1 East Lafayette Addition to combine the existing four lots and the vacated alley into one large 28,963 square foot lot and a 2,110 square foot outlot (Outlot B), in that the plat complies with the requirements of Section 26-17-7 of the Development and Zoning Code. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Code Modifications: The applicant is proposing Code modifications to allow for development of the subject property in a fashion that is desirable and uses the historic layout of the site. The parking space reduction, and parking lot setbacks, and parking lot layout are reviewed in more detail in the Parking portion of the Site Plan and Architectural Review section of the staff report. The applicant had submitted the Planned Unit Development (PUD) application requesting parking lot setback reductions and building setback reduction as code modifications. The applicant has requested Code modifications for dimensional standards. Below is a comparison of the C1 (Regional Business) zone district requirements and the PUD request. Code Requirement

Food & Grain Request

Building/Patio setback from Baseline Road

20’

10’/4’

Parking lot setback from Baseline Road

20’

10’

Parking lot setback from commercial to residential

20’

10’

PUD Criteria: The following PUD criteria apply to all PUD’s and has been analyzed as follows: 1. The City finds the project is unique and/or necessary for economic development of the City. This project is unique in that it provides redevelopment of a very visible commercial entrance to Lafayette. The historic use of the site as a Feed and Grain store and accompanying silos is very unique and through the proposed PUD modifications staff believes this look and use at the site is preserved. The redevelopment should encourage desirable users and tenants to the site. 2. The development is in the best interest of the City. This proposed development will create new users at the site and also redevelop a commercial site that is vacant thus creating a project that is in the best interest of the City. The proposed use complies with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. 3. The modifications to the Code by the PUD are in the best interest of the City and the neighborhood in which the development is occurring. The building setback modification and the parking lot modifications will help create a more inviting look to this highly visible area. The enhanced architecture of the building will create an entry feel and a rehabilitated look to this corridor but still keep the silos and grain elevator as the main entrance feature and East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 6 of 17

keep the historical character. Staff believes that flexibility is required in order to facilitate redevelopment on this site. The preservation of the silo and grain elevator are important to the City and neighborhood. This preservation creates an encumbered lot that requires some code modifications for good development. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval, subject to the proposed conditions. The plan complies with the Planned Unit Development criteria of Section 26-18-5(b) and (d); the plan is unique; in the best interest of the city; and the code modifications are in the best interest of the city and the neighborhood. SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Proposal: This plan includes the development of a 4,032 square foot footprint two-story commercial building on the .665 acre Lot 1. In addition to the building, the site improvements include 37,848 square feet (15%) of landscaped area and 46 parking spaces distributed along the east and south sides of the building. Dimensional Standards: The following table illustrates the existing bulk and area requirements and those proposed by the applicant. Building setbacks are measured from the property lines along Baseline Road to the north, Geneseo Street to the south and the residential properties to the west. As demonstrated in the table, all dimensional standards comply with the minimum zoning requirements of the C1 zoning district with the exception of the parking lot and building setbacks on Baseline Road. The setbacks are included in the Planned Unit Development code modifications requested by the applicant. The height of the building measured to the midpoint of the roof is 34 feet 3 inches in height. Building Coverage: Area for Landscaping: Building Setback: Front Yard (Baseline Rd) Side Yard Rear Yard Building Height: Parking Lot Setback: Baseline Adjacent Residential

C1 N/A% 15%

Proposed 20% 15%

20’ 0’ 0’ 35’

10’* 0’ 110’ 34’

20’ 15’* 20’ 10’* * Requested as part of PUD modifications

Streets and Access: Public streets adjacent to the subject property include Baseline Road to the north and Geneseo Street to the south. Pedestrian only access is via the City trail property to the east. Historic vehicular access points to the Feed and Grain site were from the alley, the Baseline Road main entrance to the north, and the secondary access from Geneseo Street to the south. With the Minor Subdivision application, reconfiguration of the site and accompanying parking requirements; the vehicular access point has been slightly changed. The main access point from Baseline Road will remain and the access easement into the site from the alley will allow for East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 7 of 17

continued adjacent residential vehicular access but the access from Geneseo Street will be closed to vehicles. Sidewalks and pedestrian connections and improvements are currently in place up to the east property line. There is a 4-foot concrete detached sidewalk proposed along the north edge of the subject property. This sidewalk will connect the existing residential properties along Baseline Road to the site and will provide future connection to development to the east. Staff would like to see the continuous pedestrian connections along the south edge of the subject property on Geneseo Street. Staff recommends the applicant provide a 4-foot concrete sidewalk that connects to the existing Geneseo Street sidewalk to the west and continues to the property line to the east. To provide citizens the easiest and best access to the Lafayette trails system; staff recommends that the applicant work with Parks Open Space and Golf Department and provide connections from the sidewalks on Baseline Road and Geneseo Street to the existing City trail property. Site Plan

Parking: Parking is provided along the east and south sides of the building. The plan initially indicated a total of 46 parking spaces to be provided including 2 ADA spaces for the site. In the additional month to review the project; staff and the applicant have met and discussed some East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 8 of 17

reconfiguration options with the parking lot located on the south side of the site. These proposed changes are included in this portion of the staff report. While there is not a specific user associated with the project at this time; the building is designed in a fashion that it would readily accommodate a restaurant, brewpub, or microbrew type user but still have some flexibility and could possibly have some component of retail or office. There is some flexibility required as users such as brewpub or microbrews may create a situation where parking could be slightly deficient or spaces possibly removed. There is approximately 6,782 square feet of potential commercial or restaurant area. The Code requires one (1) parking space per every 200 square feet for retail uses and one (1) parking space per every 150 square foot or one (1) per table, whichever is greater, for restaurant uses. Staff is confident that the parking will meet and probably exceed the number of required spaces for the site. The applicant had detailed four (4) parking spaces centrally located in the parking lot. Staff believes these spaces are aesthetically undesirable and the parking lot can be better designed so there is not an ambiguous parking situation in this parking lot. Staff recommends that the four (4) proposed parking spaces in the middle of the parking lot be replaced with two (2) landscaped island end caps with drainage channels incorporated, pull-through parking spaces in the middle, and one-way traffic around the central parking spaces and the landscaped islands as a midpoint. This additional landscaped area will also help the applicant meet the Code requirement of additional square feet of landscaped areas for parking lots greater than 25 parking spaces. As part of the Planned Unit Development application with this submittal the applicant is requesting the required parking lot setback of 20 feet between residential properties and commercial uses to be reduced to 10 feet. The applicant is also requesting that the 20 foot parking lot setback from Baseline Road be reduced to 10 feet. The setback reduction for the parking adjacent to and an arterial street can only be reduced to 10 feet if an articulated masonry, stone or similar material decorative wall with trees and shrubs on both sides of the wall to soften the appearance is provided. The Code requires a fence or berm of 3-foot in height adjacent to any public right-of-way to screen the parking area. From the plans submitted it does not appear that a landscape berm is proposed along either Baseline Road or Geneseo Street. With the high volume of traffic along Baseline and the residential density adjacent to the site on all sides; staff recommends a 3-foot high articulated masonry, stone, or similar material decorative wall with trees and shrubs on both sides of the wall to soften the appearance shall be added along Baseline Road and Geneseo Street to screen the parking area. Overall, subject to modifications and staff’s recommendations, staff is confident that the parking lot is appropriate in size, layout, and shall function well by not having a direct cut-through to Baseline Road from Geneseo Street. The parking lot is lined by trees, fences, and the existing grain elevators to help screen vehicular parking and staff is supportive of the parking plan with landscaping buffers and connected areas rather than one large parking lot. Designated bicycle parking and bike racks proposed along the south side of the building Architecture: The applicant is proposing a 4,032 square foot footprint two-story building. The building exterior materials form is a reflection of the existing historic silos that will remain onsite. East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 9 of 17

Primary materials will include a silver galvanized metal roofed second story of the building, a split faced block patio, with the majority of the building being blond colored stone. There are significant accents throughout the building including chartreuse projecting metal panels on the west elevation, red metal canopies over doors and windows, red stucco above the three window sets, timber trellis over the front seating area, and a red accent band that is incorporated on all sides of the building. The east elevation incorporates many of the same elements but also adds some additional split face brown and red block. The front seating area along Baseline Road and the second story patio seating area in the back portion of the property will be the patron highlights. Staff is concerned the second story seating along the back of the building may create conflicts with the adjacent residential that backs to the property. Staff recommends that the applicant add three additional evergreen trees along the southwest portion of the site immediately adjacent 813 E. Geneseo Street property to help mitigate the view, noise and lighting from the patio.

The architecture for the proposed building incorporates design parameters from the Commercial Guidelines while keeping a historic look to the site. This site is unique as the only other developed commercial property at this time is Bolyard's Collision Center located at 901 East Baseline Road which is immediately across Baseline Road to the northeast of the subject property. Staff believes that this is an important site as it transitions the residential properties from the west to the opportunity parcels to the east on this main thoroughfare of Lafayette. The building has been designed with materials and colors that complement the historic nature and use of the site but will also transition to the residential development along Baseline Road. The proposed color paint scheme pulls colors from the existing building and silos while giving this building an updated look and feel appropriate for this commercial development.

The building incorporates an emphasized building entry point areas with patio seating areas bookending the building. The primary building entrances are on the west side of the building to allow for access to the building from the parking lot area and avoid extra pedestrian traffic near the Baseline Road entrance. Building fenestration is provided through the use of recesses, canopies, awnings, East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 10 of 17

windows, architectural projections and doors located on all building elevations. A 5:12 pitched roof is proposed as the second story middle portion of the building with a flat roof portion on north side of the building and a flat roof with patio proposed on the south portion of the building. The mechanical equipment will be ground mounted and located to the south of the building near the proposed trash enclosure and loading area. This area is proposed to be screened with a 4-foot screened fence; staff would like to ensure that the mechanical equipment and all other facilities are properly screened from the pedestrian trail adjacent to this area and the public view. To ensure that the mechanical equipment is screened from the public view, staff recommends the proposed 4-foot fence be increased in height to 6-foot and the material on the fence be approved by staff. The plans show wall mounted gas meters and electrical boxes located on the east elevation of the building. Staff recommends that all wall-mounted equipment be painted to match the adjacent wall color.

The patio on the north end of the building is proposed to be setback four (4) feet from property line immediately adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk. The applicant has proposed a three (3) foot masonry wall along the north end of the patio for screening, patio delineation and for aesthetic pedestrian appeal. The patio will extend over the City’s 20-foot wastewater pipeline easement. Public Works indicated this is not an issue but as with any improvements within an easement; the owner must understand that should the City need to make repairs, excavation, or need to access the pipeline; that the patio may have to be removed at that time. The City will not allow the footings for the patio to be located within the easement. Staff recommends that the applicant design the patio footings to spread footings as much as possible outside the easement. Overall staff believes the building design and architecture is high quality and incorporates details and colors from the historic uses and buildings at the site

East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 11 of 17

Trash Enclosure: A trash enclosure is proposed to be located adjacent to the mechanical equipment located to the south of the building near the proposed loading area. This areas is proposed to be screened with a 4 foot screened fence, staff would like to ensure that the trash bins and all other facilities are properly screened from the pedestrian trail adjacent to this area and the public view. To ensure that the trash enclosure is screened from the public view, staff recommends the proposed 4-foot fence be increased in height to 6-feet and the material on the fence be approved by staff. Landscaping: The design intent of the landscaping design for the Feed and Grains site is to enhance the historic nature of the commercial site by adding new landscaping. The trees are placed onsite to preserve the view corridors and provide shade for parking lot areas. There is no existing trees onsite as they were removed with the demolition of the onsite structures. The proposed landscaping plan meets the minimum Code requirements. Street trees will be provided along Baseline Road and Geneseo Street. The majority of landscaping is located on the perimeters of the property along the edge of the parking areas and adjacent to the residential properties to the west. The quantitative landscape requirements for the minimum number of trees and shrubs are shown in the following table: Proposed Code Percent Landscaped Area 15% 15% Square Footage 4,889 4,660 Site Landscaping (15% of area) Trees 5 5 Shrubs 33 33 Parking Lot Landscaping Trees 3 3 Shrubs 47 47 Street Trees 6 6 The landscaping proposed on the north edge of the property will enhance the project by creating a buffer along Baseline Road; unfortunately the eight (8) shrubs along Baseline Road are located in the right-of-way and not onsite as required by Code. All landscaping is required to be on the subject property and not adjacent to it. Staff is supportive of keeping the eight (8) apple blossom rose shrubs along Baseline Road as a buffer but the City will need eight (8) additional shrubs to replace that landscaping. With the slight changes in the parking plan and lot staff believes there should be room to add these shrubs into the plans. Staff recommends that eight (8) deciduous shrubs be added to the landscape plan with the location and species to be approved by staff. The overall landscape treatment of exterior spaces enhances the quality of the project and creates streetscape improvements. Subject to staff recommendations, staff is supportive of the plan. Irrigation/Water Budget: The water budget included on the hydrozone plan for 5,860 square feet indicates a total water usage of 10 gal/s.f./season. The Code allows up to 15 gallons/square East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 12 of 17

foot/season, the plan is within the landscaping Code requirements. The plans do not appear to include a weather sensor as required by Code. Staff recommends the plans be revised to include the installation of a weather sensor in an appropriate location subject to staff review and approval. Lighting: The lighting plan includes a total of five (5) new pole-mounted lights on the site and thirteen (13) wal-pak lights proposed on the building. The pole-mounted lights are disbursed in the parking area with two (2) on the west side of the parking lot, one (1) along the south side of the parking lot, and one (1) light in the proposed central parking area with the four (4) parking spaces internal to the lot. The pole-mounted lights are twenty (20) feet in height with the shoebox light fixtures. All lighting proposed is full cut-off in design but staff wants to ensure that the lighting impact on the adjacent residential is minimal. To ensure optimal shielding of the parking lot lights, staff recommends that an additional shield be added to the parking lot lights to shield the residential properties to the west. Thirteen (13) wal-pak lights are proposed on all sides of the building with six (6) wal-paks located on the west elevation, one (1) light on the south elevation, four (4) lights on the east elevation, and two (2) lights on the north elevation. The photometric fixture sheet identifies wal-pak fixtures that are full cut-off in design. The Lafayette Commercial Design Guidelines recommend lighting levels that do not exceed a lumens reading of 8 foot-candles at any one location. The plans indicate readings at low levels throughout the site with levels not exceeding 8 foot-candles. Signs: There is a proposed wall sign location shown on the building. All signage will require separate Sign Permit Application and will be required to adhere to the Code regulations. Staff has no concerns with this initial signage rendering at the site. Any signage that is illuminated will be required to shut off no later than 11:00 pm or 30 minutes after closing whichever is later. To help minimize the effect on the adjacent residential neighborhood; staff recommends that no illuminated signage be permitted on the west or south elevations. Engineering/Utilities: Comments from the City Engineer are included in the memo dated March 29, 2017 attached to this report. The City Engineer will need additional data and details before building permit submittal. Staff recommends the property owner and applicant address the comments from the City Engineer prior to submitting a building permit. Drainage: Drainage is intended to drain as the site historically drains. The City Engineer has outlined in his memo that a drainage memo or report will be required confirming that the offset flow and how proposed drainage works for the site. Prior to recording the subdivision a drainage easement will be added to the plat. Economy of Service: The City currently provides all city services to the surrounding area and will be able to provide those same services to this development without any undue hardship being placed upon the City. The easements acquired with this development will help provide services to the immediate area. Public Transportation: The closest RTD service is the Lafayette RTD park-n-ride located at Public Road and City Center Circle approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the site. Staff is hopeful that as East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 13 of 17

development occurs on Baseline Road that RTD stops and accompanying services can be provided in the immediate area. Developer’s Ability: This would be this developer’s first project in Lafayette. Public Safety: Staff referred the plan to both the Building Official and Fire Marshall. The Building Official and Fire Marshall will need additional information for review with the building permit, but otherwise expressed no concerns with the submittal. RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed site plan/architectural review complies with the review criteria of Section 26-16-7.1 and the submittal requirements of Section 26-17-9 and recommends approval. SUMMARY The project under consideration includes Vacation, Minor Subdivision, Site Plan/Architectural Review, and Planned Unit Development applications to vacate the existing alley between Lots 1, 2, 25, and 26, a Minor Subdivision to combine the existing four (4) lots and vacated alley into one lot and an outlot (Outlot B). The applicant is proposing a 4,032 square foot footprint two-story building on the newly created Lot. The building exterior materials are a reflection of the existing historic silos that will remain onsite Staff has reviewed the applications and finds that, with the recommended conditions of approval, they meet the applicable requirements of Municipal Code. Staff feels the site plan and architecture, subject to staff’s recommended conditions of approval, is a very attractive, high quality design. The scale is appropriate to the site and function of the project; there is variation of detail and form and this project is a good redevelopment use of this site. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vacation 1. All conditions of approval outlined in the March 7, 2017 agreement between the property owner and the City of Lafayette shall be met. 2. The recording of the vacation of the alley right-of-way and the recording of the access easement, utility easement, and drainage easement will occur contemporaneously before the Plat is recorded; Minor Subdivision 1. All additions and corrections to the plat and clerical and grammatical errors shall be corrected by the applicant prior to consideration by City Council; 2. Approval of the East Lafayette Addition - Replat A Plat is contingent upon recording of the required easements and upon the effective date of the ordinance by the City’s vacation of the alley;

East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 14 of 17

Planned Unit Development 1. The Planned Unit Development approval is subject to Site Plan/Architectural Review approval. Site Plan/Architectural Review 1. Prior to building permit submittal, the site plan and architectural plans shall be revised as follows subject to review and approval of staff; a. The applicant shall provide a 4-foot concrete sidewalk along Geneseo Street that connects to the existing sidewalk to the west and continues to the property line to the east; b. The four (4) proposed parking spaces in the middle of the parking lot shall be replaced with two (2) landscaped island end caps with drainage channels incorporated in the islands, pull through parking spaces between island end caps, and one-way traffic around the islands and pull through parking spaces as the midpoint; c. The applicant shall design the patio footings to spread footings as much as possible outside the easement; d. The applicant shall add three (3) evergreen trees along the southwest portion of the site immediately adjacent 813 E. Geneseo Street property to help mitigate the view, noise and lighting from the patio; e. The proposed 4-foot fence to screen the mechanical equipment shall be increased in height to 6 feet with the material on the fence be approved by staff; f. All wall-mounted equipment shall be painted to match the adjacent wall color; g. The proposed 4-foot fence to screen the trash bins shall be increased in height to 6feet with the material on the fence be approved by staff; h. Eight (8) deciduous shrubs shall be added to the landscape plan with the location and species to be approved by staff; i. A 3-foot high articulated masonry, stone, or similar material decorative wall with landscaping both sides of the wall to soften the appearance shall be added along Baseline Road to screen the parking area; j. A 3-foot in high articulated masonry, stone, or similar material decorative wall shall be added along Geneseo Street; k. The plans shall be revised to include the installation of a weather sensor in an appropriate location subject to staff review and approval; l. A shield shall be added to the parking lot lights to shield the residential properties to the west; m. No illuminated signage shall be permitted on the west or south elevations of the building; n. The applicant shall address the comments from the City Engineer prior to submitting a building permit; 2. The Site Plan/Architectural Review approval is subject to the Vacation and Minor Subdivision application approvals; 3. The applicant shall work with Parks Open Space and Golf Department and provide connection from the sidewalks on the Baseline Road and Geneseo Street to the existing pedestrian Burlington Trail; East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 15 of 17

MOTIONS Vacation Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the requested vacation of the alley right-of-way, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, finding that the request complies with Section 26-14-20(c) of the Code in that no land adjoining any roadway to be vacated is left without an established public road and that the right-of-way to be vacated is no longer necessary for public use and convenience. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends City Council deny this request for the vacation of the alley right-of-way finding that the request does not comply with the criteria of Section 26-14-20(c) of the Development and Zoning Code. Minor Subdivision Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the minor subdivision, subject to the recommended condition of approval, finding that the plat complies with the requirements of Section 26-17-6 of the Development and Zoning Code. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends City Council deny the minor subdivision plat finding that the plat does not comply with the requirements of Section 26-17-6 of the Development and Zoning Code. Planned Unit Development Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve this request for a Planned Unit Development, subject to staff’s recommended condition, finding that the proposal complies with the Planned Unit Development criteria, the land use map, and the requested code modifications are in the best interest of the City. Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends City Council deny this request for Planned Unit Development approval finding that the proposal does not comply with the Planned Unit Development criteria, the land use map, or the requested code modifications are not in the best interest of the City. Site Plan/Architectural Review Proposed Motion for Approval: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the Site Plan/Architectural Review, subject to the recommended conditions, finding that the plan complies with the criteria of Section 26-16-7.1, the submittal requirements of Section 26-17-9 have been met; the architecture promotes a harmonious transition in scale and character of the proposed building to surrounding land uses, the quality and overall design is compatible with the location and proposed use, and colors and materials are harmonious and compatible. East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 16 of 17

Proposed Motion for Denial: The Planning Commission recommends City Council deny this Site Plan/Architectural Review finding that the plan does not comply with the criteria of Section 26-16-7.1, the submittal requirements of Section 26-17-9 have not been met, and the design is incompatible with the location and proposed use. Attachments: 1. Project Narrative 2. Vacation description and exhibit 3. East Lafayette Addition Replat A Plat 4. Plans 5. Color Rendering 6. Engineer Memo dated March 29, 2017 7. Parking Lot Options 8. Neighborhood Meeting Comments and Adjacent Property Owner Comments

East Lafayette Addition – Replat A Vacation, Minor Subdivision Site Plan / Architectural Review and Planned Unit Development Page 17 of 17

VERBECK DESIGN STUDIOS INC. To: City of Lafayette Planning Dept. Re: 4 Land use applications March 24, 2017 Subject property: 816 East Baseline Road, Lafayette Co. Blocks 1,2,25 & 26 Block 1 Lafayette addition, and Out Lot B Owner: Feed & Grain LLC, A Colorado Limited Liability Company; Laurence Verbeck manager Applicant: VERBECK DESIGN STUDIOS INC Laurence Verbeck P.O. Box 1663 Boulder Co. 80306 303-931-9386 [email protected] 4 land use applications for concurrent review: 1) VACATION REVIEW 2) MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW 3) PRELIMINARY PUD 4) SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW These 4 concurrent processes shall first vacate the alley, and then combine that land with existing lots 1, 2, 24 & 25, Block 1 into LOT 1 of Replat A. LOT 1 and Outlot B will accommodate a proposed commercial development consisting primarily of one commercial building and site improvements.

Project Overview The development site is located close to downtown Lafayette on the south side of East Baseline Road, bordered by the City’s pedestrian / bike path to the east, Geneseo Street to the south and a residential neighborhood to the west. This site represents a truly exceptional opportunity to create an iconic East Baseline gateway to downtown historic Lafayette. The site has many difficult constraints including irregular configuration, utility & drainange issues and historic use. However, the development team has used these constraints in a creative “adaptive reuse” program which accentuates the positives while eliminating the negatives. The proposed contemporary building is visually tied to its surroundings, reflecting the agrarian roots of the iconic Elevator and Silos by borrowing styling and materials such as slope roof, heavy timber, and period metal siding.

Located on highly visible Baseline Road, close to Old Town, adjacent to pedestrian paths, the new Baseline cross walk, and close to amenities like the Great Bark Dog Park, we hope the proposed project will quickly become a neighborhood anchor by drawing more people and energy to the area, providing one more piece to the City’s economic success story. And finally, we look forward to working with the City, as it directs, on further restoration and eventual adaptive reuse of the Elevator and Silos. Feed & Grain LLC Laurence Renzo Verbeck, Architect 1) VACATION REVIEW A. VACATION REVIEW Application Form included here: See Topographic Land Surveyor’s Alley description. 2) MINOR SUBDIVISION A. MINOR SUBDIVISION Application Form is included here. See document: REPLAT A B. This application shall: a. Consolidate lots 1, 2, 25 & 26, Block 1 and the vacated alley, into one parcel. b. Establish 1 (one) maintenance easement and 2 (two) utility easements. C. Mineral Rights Owners, one party: Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, a Delaware Company 8020 South County Rd. 5, Suite 200, Windsor Co 80528 3) PRELIMINARY PUD • PRELIMINARY PUD Application Form included here. See documents: a. Site Plan: A102 b. Landscape: L1.0 c. Vicinity map • Name and addresses of adjacent property owners. 812 E BASELINE RD UNIT B SACERDOTI ALESSANDRO J Mailing Address: same 813 E GENESEO ST BARBEAU ROGER J & MARY J Mailing address: 506 N BERMONT 816 E GENESEO ST CAMPANA JOSEPH M Mailing Address: same 811 East Baseline Road Owner: 811 East Baseline Rd LLC Mailing address: Same



Areas: Site total including Outlot B: 31,072 sq. ft. Building area. • Basement Level area: 4,032 sq. ft. minus stairwells = 3,820 sq. ft. • Building footprint / Ground Level floor plan area: 4,032 sq. ft. o Patio: 714 sq. ft. • Second level floor plan area: 2,248 sq. ft. minus stairwells = 2,036 sq. ft. o Seating deck: 638 sq. ft. o Mechanical roof deck 944 sq. ft. • Building footprint lot coverage: 13%

• •

Parking: 48 parking spaces are provided, which includes 2 accessible, 8 small car, and 38 standard. This amount of parking is sufficient for any number of allowable commercial uses. Site development: Feed & Grain LLC and the City have recently signed an agreement which stipulates: •

Feed & Grain LLC agrees to the following concessions: i. Gift the Elevator and Silos to the City ii. Provide two 20’ wide easements for the City’s waste water pipe realignment project. iii. Provide $50,000 in cash to the City iv. Provide a 10’ wide easement for maintenance access to the Elevator and Silos. v. Provide vehicular easement access to the alley vi. Provide alley storm drainage where none exists now.



And the City shall cooperate in development of the property as presented by submitting as a co-applicant here.

Setback changes sought from 20’ to 10’ on the north property line to accommodate the trellised patio, and on the west property line to accommodate parking. Parking will be shielded from the neighbors by a 10’ wide landscaping buffer where none exist now, and a 6’ wooden fence. This will be a significant improvement to the current use which is ad hoc driving and parking to the edge of the property. There will not be through drive access to Geneseo Street, so this neighborhood will not be impacted by traffic or parking. Along Geneseo Street, a wooded fence with landscaping on either side will shield the Geneseo St neighborhood. •

Additional community benefits by the applicant, which simply make the project more holistic, friendly and neighborly, include: vii. Pedestrian trail access link to City trails / Bike rack. viii. Beneficial use of vacant land which will provide local jobs and economic opportunity.

ix. Historic Preservation: The applicant has already spent $20,000 on restoration of the Elevator and will continue to work with City in the future on further restoration of the Elevator and Silos, such as the adaptive reuse of the Elevator for patio / open space seating in a museum like setting. •

Landscaping: Sheet L1.0 •

Landscaped area = 4,660 sf. ft. o Additional 200 sq. ft. landscaped area per 25 cars > 25 o Total landscape area required, 4,860 sq. ft. 4,889 sq. ft. provided  1 /1000 = 5 Trees required  1 /150 = 33 shrubs required  Street trees, 1/40 LF: 6 required  Parking 1 tree/15 spaces = 4 trees. 1 shrub per = 48 shrubs.

Total required: 15 Trees and 82 shrubs. * A 10 day notice per 26 16 3b; letters mailed and sign posted on 10 March. Meeting held March 23 2017 5:30 to 6:30, participants comments provided to Staff.

4) SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW See documents: • Site plan: A102 • Landscape Plan: L1.0… • Architectural building elevations: A300 • Grading and Drainage Plan: C.1 • Lighting / Photometric plans: E1 & E2 • Estimated date of completion of improvements is 9 to 12 months after final planning approvals. END_____________________________________________________________

Exhibit A Page 1 of 2 Easement Vacation A portion of that alley in Block No. 1 of East Lafayette Addition filed December 24, 1947 at Reception No. 457602, in Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado, described as follows: Note: 1. The Basis of Bearings is the west line of Lot 2, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition, as monumented with a pin and cap PLS 16406 at each end with a grid bearing of N 00°21'30" W.

Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition, a pin and cap PLS 16406; Thence N 89°38'30" E, along the southerly line of said Lot 2 and the southerly line of Lot 1, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition, a distance of 79.41 feet, more or less, to a point on the westerly right of way line of that parcel conveyed to the City of Lafayette filed February 15, 2013 at Reception Number 3290264; Thence S 00°21'30" E, along said westerly right of way line, a distance of 20.00 feet, more or less, to a point on the northerly line of Lot 26, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition; Thence S 89°38'30" W, along said northerly line of Lot 26 and along the northerly line of Lot 25, Block 1 East Lafayette Addition, a distance of 79.41 feet; Thence N 00°21'30" W a distance of 20.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.036 acres more or less.

ST

25936

EY OR

1/23/17

RV

DA V

COL

ID C

NER

SIO

ES

File: G:\GEOSURV\2015\115016 816 E Baseline\Alley Vacate.dwg Printed: Jan. 23, 17 11:30 AM By: JVogt

PR OF

Prepared by David C. Costner For and on behalf of Topographic Land Surveyors 520 Stacy Ct. Ste B, Lafayette, CO 80026

DO REGISTE . CO

R ED

OR A

N A L L A ND S U

Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 Baseline Road Pin & Cap PLS 16406

N 00°21'30" W 150.00' Basis of Bearings

Lot 3

Pin & Cap PLS 16406

Alley

N 00°21'30" W 20.00'

Lot 2 Block 1 East Lafayette Addition

Lot 1 Block East Lafayette Addition

City of Lafayette Rec No. 3290264

N 89°38'30" E 79.41' P.O.B.

S 00°21'30" E 20.00'

S 89°38'30" W 79.41'

Lot 24

Lot 25 Block 1 East Lafayette Addition

Geneseo Street

Lot 26 Block 1 East Lafayette Addition

North 0

40 Graphic Scale in U.S. Survey Feet 1" = 40'

File: G:\GEOSURV\2015\115016 816 E Baseline\Alley Vacate.dwg Printed: Jan. 23, 17 11:30 AM By: JVogt

80

East Lafayette Addition Replat A A Replat of Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 25, Lot 26 Block 1, a Portion of the 20' alley south of said Lot 1 and Lot 2, East Lafayette Addition, Reception No. 457602, together with a portion of that property conveyed to the City of Lafayette at Reception No. 03290264. All Being a Portion of the NE 1/4 Section 2, Township 1 South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. City of Lafayette, Boulder County, Colorado

Baseline Road S 89°38'30" W 299.95'

Site

35|36 02 Alum Cap PLS 28656

30.00'

30.00'

N 1/4 Corner Section 2 Alum Cap PLS 23529

(Survey Tie) S 00°21'30" E 30.00'

S 89°38'30" W 94.41' 8.41'

12

.5

'18

"W

26.90'

1'

1"=500'

S 89°38'30" W 8.53'

_____________________________________ Community Development Director

Commencing at northeast corner of said Lot 1, thence S 00°21'30" E along the east line of said Lot 1, and along the west line of said BNSF Railway Company, a distance of 38.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;

_____________________________________ Attest: City Clerk

Executed this _______ day of ____________________, 2017 A.D.

_____________________________ as Manager of Feed & Grain, LLC

I, Gary Klaphake, City Administrator of the City of Lafayette, Colorado, hereby certify that I have examined the Minor Subdivision and it appears to be in compliance with all applicable ordinances of the City and that a development agreement has been executed by the developer and accepted by the City. _____________________________________ City Administrator _____________________________________ Attest: City Clerk

Attorney's Certificate: I, ________________, being an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, certify that I have examined title to the above described land within the City of Lafayette, Colorado, and that the party executing the plat is the owner thereof in fee simple.

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ____________________, 2017 A.D. by

15.00'

Notes:

City Administrator's Certificate:

_______________________________________

N 89°38'30" E

_______________________________ , 2017

Garage

1. Basis of Bearings is the south line of the southeast quarter of Section 35, T1N, R69W, 6th PM as monumented with an aluminum cap at each end, with a grid bearing of N 89°38'30" E and a distance of 2644.82 feet.

_____________________________as Manager of Feed & Grain, LLC, as owner of the property described hereon.

Outlot B 2,110 sq ft 0.048 ac ±

S 86°32'05" E

Witness my hand and official seal.

79.59'

S 86°32'05" E 79.59'

S 00°21'30" E 105.50'

20.00'

20' Utility Easement

________________________________ Attorney at Law

________________ as __________ of The City of Lafayette, CO

52.93'

20' Alley Vacation

N 89°38'30" E 25.00'

4. The following documents were relied on for the preparation of this survey. a. 1896, Book 168 Page 525, original conveyance to Utah and Pacific Railroad Company. b. 1898, Unrecorded Station Map, Lafayette, Colorado by Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy R.R. Company c. 1910, Unrecorded, Henry Drum, survey of East Lafayette Addition d. 1947, Rec. No. 457602 East Lafayette Addition, Subdivision Plat e. 1957, Unrecorded, Lease agreement CB&QRR Co. to Van Booven f. 1957, Book 1037 Page 478 Schaaf to Van Booven g. 1967, Rec. No. 857664 Van Booven to Distel h. 1971, Rec. No. 995752 Distal to Richardson

East Lafayette Addition according to the plat thereof, Block 1, Lot 2 Block 1, Lot 25 Block 1, Lot 26 Block 1, a Portion of the 20' alley south of said Lot 1 and Lot 2, together with a portion of that property conveyed to the City of Lafayette at Reception No. 03290264, from the BNSF Railway Company , and described as follows.

Containing in total, 0.713 acres, more or less.

N 01°25'21" W 134.61'

Lot 1

3. These premises are subject to any and all easements, rights of way, variances and or agreements as of record may appear. A ingress egress access easement is hereby granted over and across Lot 1.

Pursuant to Section 26-16-6 of the Lafayette Code of Ordinances, this Minor Subdivision plat for East Lafayette Addition, Replat A was approved by the Community Development Director of the City of Lafayette, Colorado this ________ day of ____________________, 2017 A.D.

Have by these presents laid out, platted and subdivided the same into lots and blocks as shown hereon and designate the same as East Lafayette Addition, Replat A, in the City of Lafayette, County of Boulder, Colorado; and do hereby dedicate to the City of Lafayette, County of Boulder, Colorado, for public use the streets shown hereon, including drives, and lanes, the public lands shown hereon for their indicated public use and pedestrian access, utility and drainage easements shown hereon for pedestrian access, utility and drainage purposes only.

28,963 sq ft 0.665 ac ±

2. GeoSurv relied upon Fidelity National Title Company, File Number 515-F0534163-170-RRO, Amendment No. 1 effective date May 27, 2016 for the preparation of this survey and to determine, a) ownership of the tract of land. b) compatibility of this description with those of adjacent tracts of land. c) rights of way, easements and encumbrances of record affecting this tract of land.

Know all men by these presents, that Feed & Grain, LLC, being the owner of all that real property situated in Boulder County, Colorado, East Lafayette Addition, Replat A, City of Lafayette, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, described as follows:

Thence departing said lot line, N 89°38'30" E a distance of 8.53 feet; Thence S 01°25'21" E a distance of 134.61 feet; Thence S 89°38'30" W a distance of 26.03 feet to a point on the westerly line of said BNSF Railway Company; Thence N 00°21'30" W along said westerly line, a distance of 52.93 feet; Thence N 89°38'30" W along said westerly line, a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence N 00°21'30" W along said westerly line, a distance of 81.66 feet to the PONT OF BEGINNING.

N 00°21'30" W 120.00'

N 00°21'30" W 170.00'

House

N 00°21'30" W 38.34'

°2 3

.8

Vicinity Map

8'

48

52

Community Development Director Certificate:

9.36'

29.91'

N

Certificate of Dedication and Ownership:

_____________________________________ Notary public 18.10'

My commission expires________________

Review Certificates: ____________________________________ City of Lafayette Engineer

N 89°38'30" E 26.03'

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ____________________, 2017 A.D. by ________________as __________ of of The City of Lafayette, CO, as owner of the property described hereon.

Elevator

Clerk and Recorder's Certificate: I hereby certify that this instrument was filed in my office at ________o'clock___.M. this

5. According to Colorado Law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon.

Witness my hand and official seal.

________ day of____________________, 2017,

__________________________________________ Notary public

and is recorded in Plan File _________________________, Reception No _________________.

House

My commission expires_______________________

Silo

N 00°21'30" W 130.00'

6. Any person who knowingly removes, alters or defaces any public land survey monument or land boundary monument or accessory commits a Class Two (2) Misdemeanor pursuant to State Statute 18-4-508, C.R.S.

Fees ______________

__________ _______________ _________________________________ Deputy Clerk and Recorder A 74.62' R 766.20' Δ 5°34'48" L 74.59' CB S 03°08'53" E

Silo

10' Building Maintenance Easement

Silo

Surveyor's Certificate I, David C. Costner, do hereby certify that I am a duly registered professional land surveyor licensed under the laws of the State of Colorado, that this plat is true, correct and complete plat of East Lafayette Addition Replat A as laid out, platted, dedicated and shown hereon, that such plat was made from an accurate survey of said property by me and under my direct responsibility, supervision and checking and correctly shows the location and dimensions of the tracts staked upon the ground in compliance with Articles 50-53 of the Title 38, Colorado Revised Statutes governing the subdivision of land.

S 89°38'30" W 108.04'

David C. Costner PLS 25936

Geneseo Street

North 0

20 Graphic Scale in Feet 1"=20'

File: G:\GEOSURV\2015\115016 816 Baseline\816 Baseline 2017.dwg Printed: Mar 22, 2017 3:00pm by: dcostner2

40

Review Print

LOYALTY INNOVATION

Revised 3/22/2017

LEGACY

520 Stacy Court Ste B, Lafayette, CO 80026 303.666.0379 www.topographic.com

From: Renzo Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 11:34 AM To: Jon Hoffman Subject: Feed & Grain Meeting Attachments: Results of neighborhood meeting MAy 11 2017.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

To: John H. City Planning Re: Neighborhood meeting for 816 East Baseline held May 11 2017 The applicant and a rep from Atlas Tower were on site for more than the hour long meeting. 5 comment note pads were available and parities were encourages to write comments. Included in one PDF are all sign in sheets and comments and a post card received my mail. Additional verbal concerns by neighbors are summarized below: On alley use, Neighbors requests included: Block access completely for more Kids use. Block access except for emergency equipment. Maintain access as the plan proposes. Restrict access to locals only. Sign alley for one way traffic. Gate access for locals only. Block and provide turnaround at east end. Applicant indicated that nearly any of these is acceptable, however it is up to the City’s planners / engineers. On Genesco St access. It seems of those who voiced opinion, the propose plan to NOT allow access is preferred. On the proposed Telecom facility. We heard no opposition and many comments of encouragement. The photo realistic images of tower disguised like a “tree” was well received. Several people requested Verizon / T-Mobile to be included for greater coverage. A written comment asked about placement. Commercial use of the site: Several people voiced concern about potential noise created by outdoor seating spaces, and or a possible restaurant that served beer (Brew Pub), however, most felt a restaurant that didn’t serve beer, or bakery or coffee shop or dentist office may be acceptable. Some objected to any commercial use. It was explained that the applicant is not proposing at this time, and the City not considering, use other than a vacant commercial building, and that uses by a future tenant will be considered in the future by City planning Staff with due process. Regards Renzo

file:///department/...-17,%20PUD%203-17,%20AR-9-17%20-%20Feed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/5.12.17/Feed%20%20Grain%20Meeting.txt[5/15/2017 9:51:22 AM]

Laurence Verbeck; Architect VERBECK DESIGN STUDIOS INC American Institute of Architects US Green Building Council, LEED AP [email protected] www.verbeckdesign.com 303-931-9386 P O Box 1663 Boulder, Co 80306

file:///department/...-17,%20PUD%203-17,%20AR-9-17%20-%20Feed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/5.12.17/Feed%20%20Grain%20Meeting.txt[5/15/2017 9:51:22 AM]

April 24, 2017 RE: Proposed Brewpub at 816 Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026 Dear Planning Commission and Lafayette City Council We live at 720 Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026 and are strongly opposed to the approval of the proposed “Feed and Grain Brewpub” in our neighborhood. There are multiple reasons this is not a good use of the vacant lot and should not move forward. 1. Various traffic and safety concerns There would be two points of entry/exit that would be accessible to cars; (a.) ingress and egress directly from Baseline and, (b.) the one-car width alley parallel to Baseline that provides parking and home access for residents. The traffic on Baseline is already very heavy (particularly in the eastbound lane) and with or without a light people exiting the restaurant may feel compelled to take the alley, which is a completely unacceptable means of ingress/egress from the resident perspective living in the neighborhood. Further, there seems to be no obvious or viable solution to prohibit the use of the alley because: a. The alley can't be closed at the end where the restaurant/bar meet because garbage and recycling trucks, as well as emergency vehicles need to be able to pass through; there is no place for them to turn around if the intersection between the lot and alley is closed off. b. There is only room for one vehicle at a time to pass through the alley, which works fine in our small neighborhood, but would be a disaster if other non-resident vehicles were allowed to enter into the mix. c. We have numerous families with small children who play in the alley, thus creating a dangerous situation during early evening hours, particularly if patrons of this proposed establishment have been drinking or carelessly speed. d. And of lesser concern compared to the more pressing above mentioned safety issues, increased usage would require additional maintenance, as the alley is hard-pack gravel prone to wash boarding and divots. 2. Noise and law enforcement Our neighborhood is made up of working professionals and families with small children that need sleep for productive days at work and school. To my knowledge, no one in our neighborhood is supportive of loud music and people at all hours of the night – would you be? There will be inevitable and repeated noise complaints that will have to be addressed by law enforcement. Similar to the ingress/egress issue, there is no viable solution to buffer the noise that will carry down the block/alley. 3. Neighborhood fit From a planning standpoint, a singular restaurant/bar separated by 6 blocks of single family homes and isolated from other types of businesses makes zero sense. A feed store on the edge of town, close to more rural areas, with daytime operating hours is one thing, but a restaurant that serves alcohol bordering homes and a busy two-lane highway is absurd. a. This is not walkable or convenient for non-vehicle patrons; the location invites more car traffic and congestion. b. The above noise and traffic issues create a situation that is less attractive to future home buyers. This is a lose-lose proposition; a YES vote to move this project forward would display a stunning lack of responsibility, ineptitude, and general absence of concern for residents. A YES vote indicates a willingness to disregard public health, safety, and quality of life. From a business perspective you would be setting this establishment up for failure by allowing it to locate in an area where their presence would be resented and unwelcomed. We do not support this idea in concept, nor would we support this business with our patronage in principle if allowed to move forward. Sincerely,

Sarah M. Trimmer, MPH Steven R. Harrop, AIA, NCARB

April 24, 2017 RE: Proposed Brewpub at 816 Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026 Dear Planning Commission and Lafayette City Council We live at 720 Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026 and are strongly opposed to the approval of the proposed “Feed and Grain Brewpub” in our neighborhood. There are multiple reasons this is not a good use of the vacant lot and should not move forward. 1. Various traffic and safety concerns There would be two points of entry/exit that would be accessible to cars; (a.) ingress and egress directly from Baseline and, (b.) the one-car width alley parallel to Baseline that provides parking and home access for residents. The traffic on Baseline is already very heavy (particularly in the eastbound lane) and with or without a light people exiting the restaurant may feel compelled to take the alley, which is a completely unacceptable means of ingress/egress from the resident perspective living in the neighborhood. Further, there seems to be no obvious or viable solution to prohibit the use of the alley because: a. The alley can't be closed at the end where the restaurant/bar meet because garbage and recycling trucks, as well as emergency vehicles need to be able to pass through; there is no place for them to turn around if the intersection between the lot and alley is closed off. b. There is only room for one vehicle at a time to pass through the alley, which works fine in our small neighborhood, but would be a disaster if other non-resident vehicles were allowed to enter into the mix. c. We have numerous families with small children who play in the alley, thus creating a dangerous situation during early evening hours, particularly if patrons of this proposed establishment have been drinking or carelessly speed. d. And of lesser concern compared to the more pressing above mentioned safety issues, increased usage would require additional maintenance, as the alley is hard-pack gravel prone to wash boarding and divots. 2. Noise and law enforcement Our neighborhood is made up of working professionals and families with small children that need sleep for productive days at work and school. To my knowledge, no one in our neighborhood is supportive of loud music and people at all hours of the night – would you be? There will be inevitable and repeated noise complaints that will have to be addressed by law enforcement. Similar to the ingress/egress issue, there is no viable solution to buffer the noise that will carry down the block/alley. 3. Neighborhood fit From a planning standpoint, a singular restaurant/bar separated by 6 blocks of single family homes and isolated from other types of businesses makes zero sense. A feed store on the edge of town, close to more rural areas, with daytime operating hours is one thing, but a restaurant that serves alcohol bordering homes and a busy two-lane highway is absurd. a. This is not walkable or convenient for non-vehicle patrons; the location invites more car traffic and congestion. b. The above noise and traffic issues create a situation that is less attractive to future home buyers. This is a lose-lose proposition; a YES vote to move this project forward would display a stunning lack of responsibility, ineptitude, and general absence of concern for residents. A YES vote indicates a willingness to disregard public health, safety, and quality of life. From a business perspective you would be setting this establishment up for failure by allowing it to locate in an area where their presence would be resented and unwelcomed. We do not support this idea in concept, nor would we support this business with our patronage in principle if allowed to move forward. Sincerely,

Sarah M. Trimmer, MPH Steven R. Harrop, AIA, NCARB

April 25, 2017 RE: Proposed Brewpub at 816 Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026 Dear Planning Commission and Lafayette City Council I live at 708 Baseline Road, Lafayette, CO 80026 and am completely opposed to the approval of the proposed “Feed and Grain Brewpub” in our neighborhood. Planning and zoning should be set up to protect the nature of both our residential and commercial neighborhoods, and this usage completely conflicts with the current nature of the neighborhood, as well as presenting a safety hazard to all the children here. There are multiple reasons this is not a good use of the vacant lot and should not move forward. 1. Safety concerns Because the front of our units face Baseline Rd, which is a busy and dangerous road, the place where all the children play is in our back alley. On a given day, there are easily 15 or so children playing in our alley, many of them very young. Because we live here, all residents know to drive extremely slowly and carefully and watch out for children at all times. Undoubtedly, placing the Brewpub at the end of our block will increase traffic in the alley, and I am deeply concerned about someone’s child being hit by a car. • I am not sure how much city planning believes that the business traffic will affect our alley. My opinion is that it is highly likely to. If parking fills up in the brewpub parking spaces, the most natural thing will be to drive down the alley to find more parking. Additionally, cars may end up driving down the alley simply as another way to exit, or as an additional entrance. • This is even worse because visitors to the Brewpub could potentially drive into the alley after drinking, only making the situation less safe for the children. Would you want this in your neighborhood with your kids? • The alley can't be closed at the end where the restaurant/bar meet because garbage and recycling trucks, as well as emergency vehicles need to be able to pass through; there is no place for them to turn around if the intersection between the lot and alley is closed off. Losing emergency access would also threaten the safety of our kids. 2. Noise Our neighborhood is currently a very quiet one, occupied by working professionals and families with small children that need sleep for productive days at work and school. A rooftop bar patio right down our alley will carry significant amounts of noise. This is just not a fit for a neighborhood that is otherwise completely residential. Parents are trying to put their kids to bed at 8 pm, and professionals are trying to sleep for work. And what if people who are drinking park at the end of the street after the brewpub parking lot fills, and then walk down the alley at late hours making noise? This doesn’t fit at all with the current nature of the neighborhood. Also, additional traffic down our alley up to bar closing times of 2 am will disturb our residents. 3.

Neighborhood fit There are no other commercial businesses in this area, and especially not a loud and busy one such as a brewpub. The whole purpose of city zoning is to set aside commercial areas where there is expected to be more noise and traffic, and residential ones, where people want quiet and safety for their families. Our neighborhood is clearly completely residential. The old feed store had existed nearby originally, but that quiet business was a far cry from a bustling brewpub. It did not disturb our neighborhood, whereas the new development is likely to drive out all the existing residents. To place single commercial business in the middle of a purely residential area and drive out the residents would be like putting a single house on Simpson and demanding that all the businesses curb their traffic and quiet down to fit. It just doesn’t make sense. I think we would be willing to consider it if it were a quiet business such as a hair salon, but this doesn’t work.

From a planning aspect, a singular restaurant/bar separated by 6 blocks of single family homes and isolated from other types of businesses makes zero sense. A feed store on the edge of town, close to more rural areas, with daytime operating hours is one thing, but a restaurant that serves alcohol bordering homes and a busy two-lane highway is ludicrous. • This is not walkable or convenient for non-vehicle patrons; the location invites more car traffic and congestion. • The above noise and traffic issues create a situation that is less attractive to future home buyers. I am further troubled by the vote coming up on this matter, because proper communication has not happened with the local residents who will be impacted. Personally, I never received notification on a public meeting about this development. The first notification I received was at the end of last week, notifying me of the vote meeting this week. I felt it was extremely important for me to attend this meeting, but I cannot due to out of town work travel which had already been booked, and which I was not able to move. My neighbor informed me that there had already been a public meeting. Neither of us had received notices for that meeting, not had many other neighbors we talked to. So we were never given an opportunity to voice our concerns or discuss a solution with the developer that might work for all, and not destroy our charming family neighborhood all for the sake of a single business. Personally, I walked around the neighborhood this weekend to find out if other neighbors were in favor of the development, or opposed to it. Several were in favor, but the majority voiced serious concerns. Here are voices I am aware of: • • • • • • • • •

Myself, Hildie Henderson – 708 E. Baseline Rd – Strongly opposed. I am a working professional. I selected this as a quiet neighborhood and don’t want the noise and traffic. I’m also worried about the small children running out back. Peter and Maria Schimpf – 722 E. Baseline – Strongly opposed. They have small children and are concerned about safety as well as the noise impacts putting their children to bed Andrea – 702 E. Baseline – Very concerned about the brewpub. She also has small children and is concerned for their safety and the noise impact. Anji and Roy – 704 E Baseline Rd – Opposed to the brewpub. They don’t want the noise and are also worried about the neighborhood children. Jeremy and Elizabeth – 202 N. Foote Ave – Opposed and concerned. They have small children who play in the alley and are worried about their safety. Kirsten – 810 E. Baseline Rd – Opposed. Kirsten told me she is concerned about the noise and also doesn’t want a bar atmosphere in her neighborhood since she has a teenager. Tina – 812 E. Baseline Rd – In Favor. Likes the idea of a restaurant here. Mara – 814 E. Baseline Rd – Not against, but wants to make sure there are restrictions on noise past 10 and to understand the impacts on the alley. Steve Harrop and Sarah Trimmer – 720 E. Baseline Rd - Strongly Opposed. Working professionals who don’t want the noise and traffic and don’t want someone’s child to be injured.

I would like to be able to present more voices, but due to the short notice on this vote, I only had one afternoon to walk around and talk with neighbors before leaving on my business trip. However, it is clear there are many concerns. Not everyone can make it to the meeting Wednesday, but we want to have a voice here. For example, Peter and Maria are out of the country, and I’m on work travel. We would at least like this meeting postponed so we have a chance to add in the voices of those who are concerned, and so we have time to schedule to be there. Most of us were shocked about this development and have had little time to react. I strongly request that you either vote no on this proposal, or that you require a public meeting beforehand, as we should have been invited to in the first place. It is possible we could find a solution that would work for the developer, our neighborhood, and the city, as opposed to the current proposal which many of us deeply oppose and will certainly fight if something is not worked out. Thank you so much for taking the time to read this. I feel certain that given just a little time and process we can work this out amicably.

Thank You, Hildie Henderson 708 E. Baseline Rd Lafayette, CO 80026

From: Wende Holmes Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 5:05 PM To: Jon Hoffman Subject: Proposed Brewpub at 816 Baseline Rd Lafayette 80026 Dear Planning Commission and Lafayette City Council: I have property at 710 Baseline Rd. and an Strongly against the approval of the proposed "Feed and Grain Brewpub" in our neighborhood. 1. Traffic: Since Baseline is so busy, and our units have no on street parking our only entry/exit is thru the alley, which is also where the children play as well as others neighborhood kids! This would cause a hardship on us a owners and our tenets (as my unit is a rental) with unnecessary traffic as all hours! 2. Noise: My tenets are medical professionals with 2 young school age children and have specific times that require quiet. Constant noise from alley traffic the pub at hours will not work for this couple, nor myself as the owner. What will this do to our property values?? This is a neighborhood keep it that way!! Very concerned for lack of early notification regarding this proposal as I, my tenets, and others never received via mail any information regarding a Public Notice on this proposal for dates and times to attend!! I Strongly feel that this should be delayed until all residents within this proposed pub have proper notice and can voice their concerns. This is a safety, noise, traffic and quality of living concern for us. I do not support this in concept, principle and will not be a patron of such. Sincerely, Wende Holmes Owner of 710 Baseline Rd. Owner of Xpresswash in Parker, CO Independent Consultant with Mary Kay Cosmetics

file:///department/...eed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/SR/Proposed%20Brewpub%20at%20816%20Baseline%20Rd%20Lafayette%2080026.txt[5/15/2017 10:26:15 AM]

From: Maria Gonsalves Schimpf Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 6:24 PM To: Jon Hoffman Subject: Proposed development of feed store property Dear Jon, We are out of the country with limited internet but want to share that we at 722 E. Baseline Rd., are in opposition to the development of the space into one that includes a rooftop patio with serving of liquor. We have serious concerns, have lived in our home 10 years, are active Lafayette residents with three small children who attend Pioneer and do NOT want to experience our residential community impacted by this proposed project. Please respond as you can. We cannot attend the meeting tomorrow due to the fact we are out of town. Our neighbors do not support either but we cannot be in touch until our return. Warmly, Maria & Peter Schimpf __________________________________ Maria Gonsalves Schimpf, MA, MT-BC Music Psychotherapist & Birth Doula 646-263-1495 [email protected]

file:///department/...R-9-17%20-%20Feed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/SR/Proposed%20development%20of%20feed%20store%20property.txt[5/15/2017 10:26:14 AM]

From: Karen Norback Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 1:53 PM To: Jon Hoffman Cc: Paul Rayl; Karen Westover Subject: Re: Neighborhood meeting update re: Feed and Grain property: Further Update Hi Jon, Karen and Paul, I went down to the property and spoke with a few people, including Anji Redmond. David Beumee, who I mentioned in a previous email, was there. He did get a notification in the mail. There were 2 other people at that neighborhood meeting who live in the adjacent town homes. The developer met them on site. He opened the back of his truck and rolled out the plans. There was no sign in sheet, or comment cards offered. I think you can see that there was little effort put into neighborhood engagement. I still have not found anyone else who received a notification in the mail. While I was there, Anji went to look at the front of the property and found the neighborhood meeting sign. It is nailed to the fence, behind the large real estate signs. It is barely readable. Anji took a pic of it and is going to send it to me. I will forward it to you. Anji was planning to reach out to Renzo via phone. > On Apr 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Jon Hoffman wrote: > > Karen, > > I reached out to the applicant in regards to the neighborhood meeting issue. The applicant stated he sent out proper notices and the meeting took place and people attended. I will forward your request to Planning Commission to table the applications until the owner has a neighborhood meeting. The Planning Commission will consider your request at the April 26th meeting. Between now and the 26th, the applicant stated he would be happy to meet with residents in regard to the project at anytime. If your interested below is his contact information. > > > > Laurence Verbeck; Architect > VERBECK DESIGN STUDIOS INC > American Institute of Architects > US Green Building Council, LEED AP > > [email protected] > www.verbeckdesign.com > 303-931-9386 > P O Box 1663 Boulder, Co 80306 > > Jon Hoffman > City of Lafayette > City Planner > 303.661.1263 >

file:///department/...20Neighborhood%20meeting%20update%20re%20Feed%20and%20Grain%20property%20%20Further%20Update.txt[5/15/2017 10:26:13 AM]

> > > -----Original Message----> From: Karen Norback [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 3:55 PM > To: Jon Hoffman > Cc: anjir > Subject: Neighborhood meeting update re: Feed and Grain property > > Hi Jon, > I have been unable to find anyone who received a notification of a neighborhood meeting relating to the Feed and Grain property. I have had reports back from some of my neighbors that they have asked other people, and have been told no every time. I contacted Anji Redmond and she said no, and she has also checked with her neighbors and she has been unable to find anyone who got a notification for a neighborhood meeting either. > > Please consider this my formal request for the Planning Commission hearing to be tabled until the owner of the property fulfills his requirement to meet with the neighbors who will be impacted by this development. Let me know if further action needs to be taken. > Thanks for your help > Karen Norback

file:///department/...20Neighborhood%20meeting%20update%20re%20Feed%20and%20Grain%20property%20%20Further%20Update.txt[5/15/2017 10:26:13 AM]

From: Robert Niemeyer Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 4:36 PM To: Jon Hoffman Subject: Verbeek Design Studios Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed JonThank you for returning my call. Just to recap.. I own the property on 900 and 902E baseline which is the property to East of the 816E baseline road that was previously Lafayette Feed and Grain. I think the new changes will be beneficial for the location and am happy to hear the plans. Please feel free to send me any information and look forward to future conversations. Thanks, Robert Niemeyer Sent from my I phone

file:///department/...-3-17,%20PUD%203-17,%20AR-9-17%20-%20Feed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/SR/Verbeek%20Design%20Studios.txt[5/15/2017 10:26:14 AM]

From: Grant Swift Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 6:01 PM To: Jon Hoffman Cc: Gary Klaphake Subject: Fwd: Feed and Grain - mailing snafu again Sorry for the double email. *I think I got the address wrong of the mailing we received. We received the one for the mobile home park. Not the feed and grain. The mobile home park can’t be 816 E Baseline, like I thought it was in the previous email, because its on the north side of Baseline. Again, sorry for the confusion. Begin forwarded message: From: Grant Swift Subject: Feed and Grain - mailing snafu again Date: May 6, 2017 at 5:04:39 PM MDT To: [email protected] Cc: Gary Klaphake Hi Jon. Yes, its official. My block (600-611 E Geneseo St) did not receive any mailings regarding the upcoming community meeting this coming Thursday. I asked several neighbors if they got any notification of the meeting and all said they hadn’t, and thanked me for emailing you to tell you. We are well within the 750 feet that is required, and did receive mailings regarding the *816 E Baseline development. I’d like the meeting postponed again, until proper notification can be sent out. I don’t believe this is a postal mistake; once, maybe, but twice? I’m ccing Gary, because he has had previous interactions with the developer. Thank you for making sure that all citizens that are supposed to be included in this meeting are allowed to be. Grant Swift 608 E Geneseo

file:///department/...17%20-%20Feed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/SR/Fwd%20Feed%20and%20Grain%20-%20mailing%20snafu%20again.txt[5/15/2017 10:43:02 AM]

From: Karen Norback Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 7:11 PM To: Jon Hoffman; Karen Westover; Paul Rayl; Gary Klaphake Subject: Neighborhood Meeting Sign F and G Thought you should have a record of the second sign posted on the Feed and Grain property. Does this man not know he is supposed to give some detail about the meeting itself?

file:///department/...7,%20AR-9-17%20-%20Feed%20&%20Grain%20LLC/SR/Neighborhood%20Meeting%20Sign%20F%20and%20G.txt[5/15/2017 10:43:42 AM]