Residents urge Lafayette council to reject 124-room extended-stay hotel proposed next to Silo neighborhood

Dozens of residents told Lafayette City Council on Sept. 16 they oppose a proposed 124-room extended-stay hotel adjacent to the Silo neighborhood, saying its size and use are incompatible with surrounding residential streets and near a school bus stop.

Speakers described the proposal as a public-safety and livability risk. “This location is simply not appropriate for development of that size and type,” resident Beth Davis said, noting the site sits roughly “30 feet from our children's school bus stop.” She said an extended-stay hotel’s constant turnover and heavier vehicle traffic would create a risk for children and neighbors.

Other residents recounted lived experience from similar facilities. Kristen Shaner and Jill Summers described problems they attribute to extended-stay lodging in other communities — higher police calls, persistent problematic tenants who are difficult to remove under state law, and long-term declines in surrounding property conditions. Summers cited local examples in the Denver region where motels drew repeat police calls and later became long-term blight.

Speakers asked the council to consider alternative, neighborhood-scaled commercial uses such as shops, cafes and restaurants that they say better fit the area and to deny the hotel application. “We are not against development,” Beth Davis said, “but we feel that it is in the wrong place.” Kristen Shaner and Jill Summers asked the council to weigh the potential for drug-related crime, difficulty evicting long-term guests under Colorado law if they stay 30 days or more, and the strain on local services.

City staff did not present a development application during public comment; several speakers said they had submitted petitions and emails to staff and urged elected officials to act. The proposal was raised during the public-comment portion of the meeting; no council vote on the hotel was taken at this session.

The council did not respond with substantive policy action on the proposal during the public-comment period. Council members later said they would follow up with staff after the meeting and invited residents to remain for other agenda items where staff or council could follow up directly.

The matter remains at the pre‑application/public‑comment stage; any formal planning or annexation items associated with the site (including zoning, plat, or site‑plan applications) would be noticed separately and would include staff reports and public hearings. Residents said they intend to continue organizing and that petitions and neighborhood canvassing have already been submitted to the city.