×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Public Review Draft

Thanks for your input on the Public Review Draft of the Lafayette Land Use Code. Commenting on this draft is now closed. We invite everyone to visit the project website for more information about upcoming key dates and other opportunities to participate.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Guided Tour Full Document

Guided Tour

Hide
Take a quick tour to see the most important parts of this document
Powered by Konveio

Comments

View all Cancel

Commenting is closed for this document.

Eric Mar 10 2026 at 10:07PM on page 223

Suggestion
A little amorphous definition. I would encourage a design that removes the garage from the front yard and places the detached garage in the back yard. This concept creates a better streetscape without cars parked in front yard driveways.

Maya Nixon-Lavalle Jan 22 2026 at 2:02AM on page 229

Not horrible, but 80% seems a bit overdeveloped and seems like it may directly contradict the inclusion of "natural features" and even potentially "historical features" described in the general requirements.

Grant Swift Jan 18 2026 at 1:24PM on page 228

Question
Why is this a public document now when you have not discussed it with open space staff or the open space advisory board? Something is very wrong here...

Karen Norback Jan 18 2026 at 8:11AM on page 229

Suggestion
Take this section out. I think it was added before the rec center was built as a way to get some rec facilities in town. I don't think we should be giving any credit to private facilities any longer.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 4:01PM on page 90

Suggestion
55 feet? This does not align with the comprehensive plan. I feel like I am taking crazy pills! 3 stories maximum by right, please!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:57PM on page 235

Question
I'm surprised CC is not involved here

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:56PM on page 234

Suggestion
So you're telling me the PC can amend/adopt LUC without CC approval? I'm not sure they should be able to do that.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:55PM on page 230

Suggestion
could we require reservation of open space under this? if not, how can we modify?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:55PM on page 229

Suggestion
Any ability to require public land dedication be contiguous? Or a percentage of it at least?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:54PM on page 229

Suggestion
Really? What about natural wildlife habitat? Wildlife habitat land should be maintained in natural condition and not used even for temporary development purposes

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:54PM on page 229

Suggestion
This should be more!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:53PM on page 228

Suggestion
This should be more!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:53PM on page 228

Suggestion
Medians and detention ponds should be excluded from public land dedication credit

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:52PM on page 218

Question
Any place we can require fiber infrastructure (e.g., conduits from building to access cabinets) to be provided for future-proofing?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:51PM on page 184

Suggestion
Graywater capture and reuse for landscaping (where permitted)

Graywater capture, treatment, and reuse for toilets/urinals (where permitted)

Green roof (not just cool roof)

Solar panels

Contiguous public land dedication to preserve wildlife habitat

Nature-based solutions

Dark-skies compatible lighting for all outdoor light fixtures - looks like covered elsewhere

"Hail proof" roofing materials (better than class 4)

more efficiency options !!!

more resiliency options !!!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:50PM on page 184

Suggestion
The minimum number of features required is too low, especially in view of how easy some of these are (low VOC, watersense fixtures, no natural gas). Item I here is a much larger lift than items VI, VII, IX.

Unless this changes to a scoring system, suggest a minimum of four (4).

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:49PM on page 184

Suggestion
This list looks highly incomplete and should be expanded.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:48PM on page 184

Suggestion
This should be revised - these are not all equal - some are too easy. I think these should be scored and a minimum score required. Recommend updating and taking to sustainability and resilience advisory board and sustainability department for score recommendations.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:47PM on page 183

Suggestion
Can this be bolstered? I'm still irked by the roof pitch of the great outdoors water park being the wrong way and want this to be really thought about before plans are drawn to maximize potential for rooftop solar.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:46PM on page 182

Suggestion
What does well-maintained mean? What does healthy mean? If these are not defined they are very ambiguous. Who enforces this? Code enforcement? Hmm... Allows for unfair treatment and potential bias.

These should be removed unless there is a definition.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:43PM on page 178

Suggestion
I like this! As built drawings should be updated any time changes are made.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:42PM on page 177

Question
Does this align with state law on turf grass?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:41PM on page 177

Question
what about graywater? is that permanent? Should this be a little more flexible to account for graywater in the event that is legalized in Lafayette?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:41PM on page 176

Suggestion
I don't like this!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:40PM on page 176

Suggestion
I like this!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:39PM on page 112

Question
I'm not sure why these uses would all be permitted by right in neighborhood districts? Maybe I don't understand what these are?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:38PM on page 111

Suggestion
Should short term rentals be restricted in any way? This tends to be anti-affordable housing so why not limit to special use in some districts?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:38PM on page 109

Suggestion
I think compost should be broken out into its own category. Composting could be compatible with NR and AG by right and maybe some other districts by special use

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:37PM on page 103

Suggestion
Neighborhood cafe by right in residential zones? I think this is the prime example of a special use scenario.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:36PM on page 102

Suggestion
I'm liking the allowance of urban agriculture and community gardens in all zones!

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:36PM on page 100

Suggestion
I question allowing religious uses by right in all these districts. I think more special use is appropriate.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:35PM on page 99

Suggestion
Why are there P's for any DR zone? I'm confused by the point of DR. Shouldn't all uses be S?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:34PM on page 98

Suggestion
So this tells me that all commercial zone districts will allow housing. I question that we want to allow housing, by right, in ALL commercial zones. Why don't we have ANY commercial zones where housing is not allowed by right? In my opinion, housing should be a special use if it is allowed in commercial areas, but maybe CMU could allow housing by right.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:32PM on page 58

Suggestion
I'm confused by including religious institutions here - are there religious institutions on publicly owned lands? This does not align for me. I suggest removing reference to religious institutions if this is actually a civic zoning for publicly owned lands.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:31PM on page 43

Suggestion
WHERE THE HECK DID THIS COME FROM? This does not align with the comprehensive plan, which says generally 3 stories maximum or, at best, says further discussions about height following enactment of the comprehensive plan. I say no to 5 stories by right. Limit 3, additional height in exceptional circumstances only. Again, council should have the ability to decline height beyond 3 stories for any reason or no reason.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:29PM on page 34

Suggestion
The next two could align with the comprehensive plan, but I think the exchange must not be guaranteed and council should be permitted to decline any requests for additional height for any reason or no reason.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:29PM on page 34

Suggestion
This does not align with the comprehensive plan to me - 3 stories generally is the maximum allowed by the comp plan so I do not see why location alone would dictate this is allowable. I think council should have the ability to decline to permit additional height for any reason or no reason.

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:28PM on page 14

Question
Is MHC broad enough to cover a tiny home community? Should we consider expanding to allow tiny homes?

Adam Gianola Nov 14 2025 at 3:27PM on page 14

Question
Are we eliminating completely commercial districts with this change? Will all commercial districts now allow housing by right?

JT Kendall Oct 15 2025 at 10:06AM on page 155

Question
How were these new minimum parking requirements calculated? There is a history of nonsensical calculations for parking requirements, so I'm not sure if there has been a lot of thought or referring to benchmarks that are driving these new mins. Parking minimums tends to increase the cost of new residential and business development, and goes against efforts to reduce car traffic and emissions. Furthermore, it puts us into battle with the state and its law restricting minimum parking requirements. There is a lot of good research that lends itself to removing most parking requirements. Why are we maintaining minimum parking requirements? link
View all