Lafayette council approves Silo Phase 2 sketch plan with conditions after months of debate

Lafayette City Council on Tuesday approved the sketch‑plan amendment for the Silo neighborhood Phase 2 planned unit development (PUD), voting unanimously to allow the applicant to move to the preliminary plan stage provided two areas of the PUD review criteria are more fully addressed.

The council’s motion approved the sketch plan while instructing the applicant to update its application to better address (1) community housing needs (PUD review criterion 26‑185(b)(8)) and (2) diversity and quality of development (26‑185(b)(18)). The vote followed extensive public comment from Silo residents and a multi‑hour presentation from the developer and its consultants.

Why it matters: Silo is a multi‑phase subdivision on the south side of Arapahoe Road that was originally approved with a mix of housing types, a central community park, and a neighborhood‑scale commercial component. The Phase 2 amendment replaces previously‑planned multifamily buildings and some commercial/CSA elements with a new mix of townhomes, paired homes and alley‑loaded single‑family homes, reducing the overall unit count compared with the older PUD approvals. Council’s direction seeks to preserve or restore greater housing variety and to ensure community housing needs identified in the city’s planning documents are considered as the plan advances.

Details of the decision and what the council asked for - Action taken: council approved the Silo Phase 2 sketch plan amendment and allowed the applicant to proceed to preliminary plan work, subject to the two PUD criteria (b8 and b18) described in the motion. - Vote: unanimous roll call (Councilors Friedland, Gallegos, Mongette (mayor), Samson, Tapia Vega, Mayor Pro Tem Wong, Barnes — all voted yes). - What council expects next: staff and the applicant will work together on more detailed engineering, drainage, traffic and landscape plans during the preliminary plan stage; council and Planning Commission will get additional, more technical reviews before any final PUD entitlement.

What residents said - Multiple Silo homeowners told council they had purchased based on earlier marketing and approvals showing timber‑frame homes, a large central park, community supported agriculture (CSA) and an on‑site community center. Kelly Doan, who identified herself as a Silo Phase 1 resident, said residents feel the project that is being built “doesn’t remotely resemble what Cornerstone proposed” and asked council to “stand with the planning commission to send Silo Phase 2 back to redesign or to include conditions.” - Several speakers described standing water and drainage problems in Phase 1, delays in solar activation for rooftop systems, and inconsistent landscape and maintenance of common areas. Lisa Norgard told council she considers the unactivated solar systems and the long waits with Sunnova a “growing threat to the foundations of adjacent homes” and said residents were promised amenities that remain unbuilt. - Multiple residents raised the privately owned 8‑acre pasture adjacent to Silo (owned by the Weems family) and said marketing materials for the neighborhood counted that pasture in the project’s open‑space totals even though residents cannot access it.

Applicant presentation and developer response - Cornerstone Homes and Lennar representatives acknowledged the differences between what was originally proposed and what is being constructed. Keenan Tompkins (Cornerstone Homes) told council the project evolved from the long entitlement timeline and changes in project partners and economics: “we sincerely tried to get as many of the amenities and the sustainable features and the cool factors” of the earlier plan, he said, while acknowledging some features were not feasible under current conditions. - The applicant’s planning and engineering team explained several of the design changes: consolidation of stormwater detention into fewer, larger basins (intended to create more usable central open space), changes to right‑of‑way widths and alley sections to accommodate utilities and life‑safety vehicle maneuvering, realignment of Silo Circle to improve vehicle circulation, and relocation of the community center to a hilltop that the applicant said will make the center more central and provide views. - The applicant told council the amendment would replace some previously designated multifamily (for rent) with for‑sale townhomes and alley‑loaded detached houses and that the change reduces overall unit count (applicant materials noted roughly 235 units proposed in the Phase 2 sketch plan; the applicant also presented a variant that counted ADU‑eligible spaces and showed a possible build‑out of up to 265 units including accessory units). The applicant said final product counts will be refined at the preliminary and final PUD stages.

Staff and legal context - Planning Director Stephen Williams summarized the process: council’s review is limited to the record from the Planning Commission public hearing (April 9) and the PUD criteria in the Lafayette code. The sketch plan step is intended as a conceptual review to identify major issues to be resolved before preliminary and final plans. - Staff had recommended allowing the applicant to proceed to preliminary plan, noting important technical analyses (traffic, stormwater, engineering) remain outstanding and will be addressed in later phases. - Planning Commission, by a majority, had referred the sketch plan back for further study, citing concerns tied to recreation/open space, community housing needs, consistency with comprehensive plan goals, and design diversity. The applicant appealed that Planning Commission referral to council, which heard the appeal per the code.

Clarifying details extracted from the record - Property: roughly 10364 Arapahoe Road, south side of Arapahoe Road west of the 287 intersection; original PUD entitlements date to 2016–2019. - Sketch plan proposal (applicant’s description): a mix of alley‑loaded single‑family homes, front‑loaded detached homes, paired homes, and townhomes; applicant showed between 235 and 265 units depending on optional accessory‑unit choices; proposed R2/R3 zoning in places previously shown as T1/mixed use. - Public land dedication / open space: applicant’s materials and counsel clarified the PUD and annexation history is complex; public open space and private open area totals were debated at Planning Commission and in public comment. Council requested more clarity in subsequent submittals.

Council instruction and next steps - Council’s recorded motion directs the applicant to update the sketch plan application to address PUD criteria 26‑185(b)(8) (community housing needs) and 26‑185(b)(18) (diversity and quality of development). Council allowed the applicant to proceed to preliminary plan subject to that direction. - The applicant will return to Planning Commission and later to council with the preliminary plan, required engineering studies (traffic, stormwater, utilities), and more-detailed landscape and open‑space plans; the final PUD/subdivision approval remains a future council decision.

Speakers (attributed) - Keenan Tompkins, President, Cornerstone Homes (applicant owner/developer) — spoke for the applicant and addressed project history and constraints. - Kent Peterson, Vice President, Land Acquisition, Lennar (developer partner) — present for applicant. - Casey Van Eiten, CVI Consulting (applicant representative) — lead presenter for applicant; summarized timeline and requested council direction. - Al Cunningham, PCS Group (planning/landscape consultant) — presented plan details, open‑space and alley/ROW changes, and ADU/NextGen house explanation. - Stephen Williams, Planning Director, City of Lafayette (staff) — summarized process, PUD criteria, and recommendation. - Preston Padden, Kelly Doan, Lisa Norgard, Aaron Rowan, Sheena (Shauna) Brown, Marshall Oak and other Silo residents — public comment raising concerns about reduced amenities, drainage, solar activation problems, and access to pasture counted as open space.

Authorities referenced (as stated in the record) - Lafayette Municipal Code: PUD review criteria (section 26‑185, particularly subsections b(4), b(8), b(12), b(18)). - Annexation and recorded PUD and development agreements for Silo (referenced by staff and applicant during the hearing).

Proper names - Silo (Silo Lafayette) — development name - Cornerstone Homes (developer/owner) - Lennar (national homebuilder partner) - Weems Metropolitan District / Weems (private property/pasture owner referenced) - Sunnova — solar provider mentioned by residents

Provenance - topicintro: block_id "6051.199" (Stephen Williams presentation start). evidence_excerpt: "Good evening, council ... this is related to Silos Phase 2 sketch plan application and it's appeal of Planning Commission's decision." reason_code: "topicintro" - topfinish: block_id "15945.275" (motion passes). evidence_excerpt: "That motion passes unanimously." reason_code: "topicfinish"

Searchable tags: ["silo-lafayette","PUD","land-use","housing","drainage","open-space","Lennar","Cornerstone"].