March 4, 2026 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:05] The landmarks? Oh. The March Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the March 4th, 2026 Landmarks Board Meeting. It is… the time is 6.01. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Thank you. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive. meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[1:15] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online, and currently only audio testimony is permitted online. Thank you. The report? The recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on the YouTube within 28 days of the meeting. We'll do a roll call vote, or just a roll call, and brief introductions. Abby? Abby Daniels, Landmarks board member.

[2:01] John? John Decker, Landmarks Board Member. And we have, Michael Virtual. Michael Ray, Vice Chair, Landmarks Board. virtual attendee. And Chelsea. Virtual. Hi, Chelsea Castellano, member of the Landmarks Board. And I am Renee Globick, Chair of the Landmarks Board. We do have a quorum this evening. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about these projects. We want to hear from you, and have found it more productive if you are speaking to persuade us, rather than to berate us, staff, or the applicant. As with the regular Landmarks Board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing. Requests to speak outside of those times are denied. We request the members of the public who wish to speak let us know by raising their virtual hand. As Board Chair, I will call for a roll call vote on any motions that are made.

[3:05] Before we move to our regular business, I would like to acknowledge that this is Abby's Daniels' last Landmarks board meeting. I'm not ready for your term to end, Abby. And I wasn't, expecting to be emotional either. I don't know historic preservation without you. You have been such a mentor and someone that I've looked up to and learned from so much since we first met in 2007. I hope… I hope you appreciate this little tribute that we put together. So, Avi, you've been on the Landmarks Board for 8 years. You were appointed in October of 2018. For a 3-year term, and then re-upped in 2021. You've served with a number of people, including Bill Jelick, Fran Sheets, Ronnie Paluzzio, John Decker, Chelsea Castellano, Renee Golibic, and Michael Ray.

[4:12] You were there during the transition, during COVID-19, and how, quickly we had to adapt. Some of the special projects you worked on and were really a leader in were the Chautauqua Lighting Design Guidelines, the Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations, the Civic Area in its many iterations, the Atrium and the Duchambe Tea House, as well as the Heritage Roundtable Awards ceremony. There are also numerous Saving Places conferences, as well as that, ADU ordinance. You have voted on 26… actually, it's more than 26. It is… something like 33 individual landmark designations, and I know that these are near and dear to your heart. And I think, one thing that you do so well that I'll miss so much is that you really express gratitude for the owners that bring forward these nominations, and also,

[5:11] Whether it's an easy review or a contentious review, you always are so gracious and extending your thanks and appreciation for the hard work that they've put in. I also know that the Hannah Barker House is near and dear to your heart. It's one of Boulder's biggest preservation success stories, where it really was within inches of being demolished, and yet through the, you know, tremendous work of many people, including yourselves, it is now an incredible testament to this strong woman, Hannah Barker, and all of the stories, kind of, within its bricks. I wonder if maybe this house and Hannah's story resonates with you, because you both have ties to Kansas.

[6:01] Oh, God. And, as you know, we love research. We wonder if maybe your roots in preservation could have been attending East High School, a beautiful Gothic Revival school. participating, grooving to the music at the 1950s sock hop, or serving in a leadership role in your sophomore class officers with that, really beautiful Doric column. So, Abby, there's so much more to say, and we've invited some friends to share some, short remarks about your time here, and, I want to kick it off with… A special message, online before, moving to our in-person, speakers. So if you give me a minute to set up this… Hi, Abby, it's James. Congratulations on making it through 8 years on the Landmarks Board. Wow.

[7:07] That's no small feat. But seriously, Abby, I so admire your knowledge, Your calm, cool demeanor… And perhaps most of all, your gift for listening. Boulder's a better place for the work you've done on the Landmarks Board, and in your role as Executive Director of Historic Boulder. I take my hat off to you, and wish you all the best in the future. And with that, I'll sign off by saying… I've been brief. I've been sincere, and now I'll be seated. Take care, Abby. Bye. So that was, James Hewitt, former preservation planner, sending that, to you from a beach in Mexico. So… I would like to invite Tim Plass, Leonard Siegel, and Fran Sheets up to say a few brief remarks for you, Abby.

[8:14] Wow, it's still tough up here. Tim Plass, I'm the Executive Director of Historic Boulder. And Abby, I just wanted to come tonight and express, thanks for all you've done for preservation in Boulder, and I agree with James, you've just been, you know, and what Marcy said, a model of decorum. Really, a strong grounding in historic preservation, and the value of preservation, and what it means to our community, and just really furthered the goals that are important to all of us who are here tonight. And, I was on Landmark's board from, I think, 2003 until 2009, and I remember many times when you would come. when I was on the Landmarks Board, and, speak for preservation, speak for,

[9:04] for Historic Boulder as the Executive Director, and I so appreciated that, and you always had great comments, very concise and cogent. So, thank you so much for doing that. And then, of course, you know, your service on the Landmarks Board, too, which I think… I've sat in a lot of different seats on the dais, and for different… for different boards in the council, and I think Landmark's board is maybe the toughest of them all. In the way the quasi-judicial issues come down, and all that, and the emotions that people have. So, thank you for being a beacon, and for making the right choices, and for doing it graciously. And I just think, as I was coming here tonight, that there is a symmetry Because, as I said, for… for many years, you came, when I was on Landmarks Board, and you were Executive Director of Historic Boulder, and you addressed me, and now I'm coming, and you're on Landmarks Board, and I'm the Executive Director of Historic Boulder. So there's a certain symmetry, and I just made it, right? I mean, just barely by a few days to be able to say that, but…

[10:12] I would just say. Thank you so much, and I don't know what your future holds, but I hope it's something in preservation, or something that's satisfying to you. But anyway, just a huge thanks from Historic Boulder, and from the community that values preservation so much. Abby, hi. I'm speaking as a private citizen, and a tribute to you tonight. I've had the privilege of knowing you since my early days on the board of Historic. folder, and you were an executive director, and you were a terrific role model for me. And I want to thank you for your tireless support to keep the spirit of historic aspects of Boulder alive and relevant for new generations. When the city is looking for new Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board members, Abby should be your role model.

[11:09] Abby's processes with the Presbyterian Manor Development are a great example that demonstrate how Preservation Advisory Board members should deal with complicated preservation projects. Abby was attentive to all the applicants' presentations, attending meetings with them on the project site and here in the Tate Building. Abby understood that this was such a high level of preservation to recommend landmarking over the wishes of the property owner that she conscientiously did her homework. She visited the site other times to familiarize herself with the historic houses. Undoubtedly, she refreshed her understanding of the historic preservation code. She thoroughly reviewed the City's planning staff's recommendations about the preservation of these historic houses prior to attending the meeting. She understood that the staff recommendations had been approved at the highest level of the planning department with the director, Brad Mueller.

[12:06] That gave her confidence, undoubtedly, that the planning department understood the implications of such landmarking, and that the department could manage the process with the next steps with the planning board and site review. She was familiar with the many instances in the past where preservation and housing developments have been mutually beneficial and accomplished great results, including the Geological Society of America site, the Boulder Transit Village, and the currently Nuropa project on Arapaho, just to name a few. Abby, you understood how developers bargain, and that their statement that they would stop their project if they didn't get their way with a demolition was not likely to be carried out. The developers had already committed a year and lots of funds on design consultants and city fees, and would not likely walk away from those expenditures. Finally, you made the clear and logical determination to vote in favor of landmarking all four of these properties. It was the appropriate and correct conclusion, given your role as a landmark preservation advisor for the citizens of Boulder.

[13:15] Thank you, Abby, for being a role model for those who include historic preservation as one of the foundational community values, and I request that those who follow you continue As… and follow your lead as Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board members. Thank you, and congratulations. I… Fran Sheets, as you know, I was on the board before Abby was, and I… can only second what Len just said. I was extremely disappointed in the board last month. That was it. That was just something that… shouldn't have happened, in my opinion. But Abby…

[14:01] was at Historic Boulder when I came on the board, and you were not only a mentor, but… we could work together, and I… you helped me understand… The code, and the city, and preservation, and you're… Dedication to preservation was so impressive, and it was so helpful, and there were those tough moments when you had information that I couldn't get anyplace else. So I so much appreciate your kindness and your openness and your helpfulness, and I think you've left a mark in Boulder. In the years that you've been here between the two organizations that, I hope people don't forget, because it's significant, and I think we have a… you have a lot of… preservation… That… behind you, that you were… that probably wouldn't be there if it weren't for your abilities and your articulateness, and your ways of helping us see through the maze of it all. So, thank you, Abby, and I hope we…

[15:11] see more of you in Boulder, we need you. Take care. Oh, thanks so much, Abby, and we've got some flowers for you, then I'll pass it back to the chair. And I'll just say, I just want to take a moment and thank you for your service. And, I just wrote a few things, and, you give such a gift to this community, and, and you… on the time and the board and the commitment you have to preservation. And I just want to say that, you have shown such grace and consistency with leading with compassion and purpose, and every time you're supporting the board members and also having,

[16:03] you know, having… we… and also supporting preservation. So, I just want to say thank you, and thank you for welcoming arms, and just so much compassion for everything. So, thank you for being on the board. And I feel lucky to have served with you. So, I feel I have to say something also. And… definitely wish to say something. You've been. A joy to work with on this board. And you have taught me a great deal, because you have a great deal of knowledge and a great deal of experience in this area, this subject. And, have given me… Very different ways of seeing things sometimes. And, I just am gonna miss you on the board.

[17:11] I, I, I will continue. I think Michael, just came off mute and camera, if you… In a minute. Yeah, I just had a couple things to add, and it's… I won't go on and on, but I… Abby, I'm the newcomer to… to the… to the role and to the board, and I think… the… the… what I hope to be able to inherit from you is truly the… the compassion and understanding that you lead with. I… it's… it's… it's inspiring, always, to… to… you lead with gratitude towards applicants and the community, and I hope that I can just follow in those footsteps in your absence and pick up that mantle.

[18:07] I will also miss our chats about Washington, D.C, which is the thing that you and I really have in common, and the beautiful National Gallery building by John Russell Pope. So if you're ever feeling like you want to talk about that, you know that you have, like. a willing colleague to go on and on about how beautiful that building is. So… so thank you, and… and… and I'm sure we will… We'll be in touch. Hey, and I'll just jump in as well. Abby, I am sad that you were leaving. I… Honestly, can't imagine a more welcoming and warm colleague to have over these past 4 years. You had… just bring so much joy to this. Work and love it so much, and it makes me love it.

[19:02] even more, too, so I just want to say thank you for being just such a wonderful colleague, and I just… I'm gonna miss you. It's gonna be very hard to replace… irreplaceable, but just thank you for all the work that you've done, and for being so kind and warm and welcoming over the past couple of years. Of course. So my family would say they've never seen me speechless, but I feel like tonight I am, and I can't thank you guys enough. It means… means so much, and to colleagues. And Michael, you need to remember, I'm just as equally happy to talk to you about the IMPay East Building of the National Gallery of Art as well, where my office was. But you guys, thank you, it means a lot, but I've always believed in term limits. I think this board is always, At its best, when there's new blood, new energy, new,

[20:02] just a new member, and you should know tomorrow night, and maybe we'll hear on Friday who that is, but, thank you all very much. Great. So, now we will approve to adopt the minutes. So we have minutes from two meetings to approve tonight. We'll start with January. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to January 7th meetings? Minutes. I approve… I move that we approve these minutes. I second that. Thank you, Abby. We'll do a roll call. John? Aye. Abby? Aye. Michael? Aye. Chelsea? Aye. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the February 4th meetings?

[21:03] Minutes. I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, John. Seconds the motion. We'll do a roll call. John? Aye. Abby? Aye. Michael? Aye. Chelsea? Aye. We'll now move to public participation for non-agenda items. This is to speak to topics. Sorry to interrupt. Good evening, Landmarks Board. Renee, to clarify, your vote on those motions was both in the affirmative You moved, but I don't think you voted in either of those. Great. I, I vote for the January 7th meetings, and I vote… I, for the February 4th meeting minutes. Great, thank you so much. And they pass 5-0?

[22:02] We'll next move to the public participation items for the non-agenda items. This is to speak to topics other than the public hearings. We'll start with in-person speakers, and then move to virtual participants. As a reminder, we no longer swear people in for open comment. Is there any in-person? Yes, we've got one. We've got Bev Potter. You'd like to join us at the podium, Bev? And we'll start your timer at 3 minutes. Thank you, Ben. And you will have 3 minutes. I'm in here. I haven't been here in so long. On a more serious note, Bev Potter, Boulder. I am the original landmarks. board observer. For only 24 years, and I'm still here. I wanted to come up and make comment about, regarding Chelsea's, remarks to the, Boulder Reporting Lab. I feel that it was, aside from being unnecessary.

[23:07] I don't feel there is any… Problem with the historic preservation process. But I feel it was totally inappropriate. For that, comment to be made. To a public setting. I think if… if anybody has concerns about the preservation process, the first thing is that it should be discussed with the rest of you on the board, and with the preservation staff, and if necessary, with, the attorneys. I was really quite shocked that, that any of you would do this, you know? I, I don't talk well. I just, you know, I'll leave it at that. I just, think it was out of line. I'm very disappointed to hear that Chelsea has,

[24:08] Lost… lost, I guess, the devotion to the preservation process. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you, Bev. Any more in-person? No more in-person, so we'll move to online participants, if anyone would like to speak to open comment. Now's your opportunity to raise your hand? And we've got one so far, so, Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes. Lindsay Go, I agree with, Bev Potter. And, as far as these four bungalows go, it's my understanding that the Landmarks Board themselves.

[25:04] can reverse this stay of demolition on March 26th. And… I, I, I called for the, for, for the, for the… for the Landmarks Board to step down, the whole board. Because I'm… I'm appalled at the way things have gone with a lot of processes. That seem like they're benefiting the developer. You know, 1015 Juniper was a giveaway of about $5 million to the developer because the house was on a flood claim on the confluence zone. And… They built probably a 10 or 20 million dollar house on the space and used up the whole lot. And, there was… it was a perfectly fine house. Beautiful little bungalow, also.

[26:04] And then 613 Walnut was another problem. Where actually, I was really impressed with the way Marcy made it clear that there could be no discussion about the owner's needs. With regards to that. space. For… they were trying to make their best money out of it, and… That… that should have been preserved. I'm not sure where… where it stands right now. But in any case, these four bungalows… Have got to stay. This is a milestone area. For library patrons to see these houses. I don't care if they were Sears Roebuck. You know, they're… they're cute little houses, And they're an example

[27:06] a striking example of what Boulder was and could have been. If it weren't for the developers that run this town now, with Planning Board and the other, And council. Which is all just turned to just maximum density, and No character. And it's… it's just not okay. So I asked the Landmarks Board First of all, I do want you to all just step down. But with regards to March 26th, reverse these 4 bungalows. from the stay of demolition, which will be lifted that day, I guess. And… you know, I don't want to commute out to see my historic assets. I guess it's not beeping. Oh, thank you, Lynn.

[28:03] Thanks, Lynn. We now move on to… is there any more virtual comments? I don't see any other hands raised at this time. Discussion of landmark alteration and demolition applications issued and pending. Marci, do we have any pending applications for discussion? We do. There are, 5 applications that are pending that the board has reviewed. So, the first 4 are the properties you all held a public hearing for… public hearings for, last Wednesday. And so, as a reminder, those came in, the board placed a stay in December, and then met to discuss alternatives, December 8th and December 15th, and then held public hearings on February 25th. And voted to not initiate landmark designation for 3 of the properties, 976986, and…

[29:02] 10.04 Arapaho, so those stays continue until March 26th. If the board does not take action before that time, then the, demolition applications will issue. And then the board voted to initiate the designation process for one of the properties, 990 Arapaho, so a hearing will be scheduled within 60 to 120 days, and the two, regular meetings that fall within that time are the, the May meeting and the June meeting. So looking ahead, the planning board will review the concept plan in a public hearing on April 7th, and then, we will schedule that Landmarks Board designation hearing within that time period. The, next property is the Fire Station 3 at 1585 30th Street. This one is a city-owned property. It's a little bit different process, as it is a city-owned building, and, there are, as we learned in the February 4th Landmarks Board hearing, the building is eligible for landmark designation. The board places stay of demolition

[30:18] To explore alternatives. The facilities team is doing work to coordinate across, the different departments, so they are preparing a pre-application to understand the process for redevelopment, what's in… what's… What potential uses there are, you know, in the floodplain and in this zoning district and land use, what the… Property line, process would look like, and then, among other things, and then they are also working with the, city attorney's office to… and the city manager's office to talk about, you know, if we did, if the city did offer this building.

[31:06] to… a community organization, what sort of stipulations might there be? So, sometimes, like in the previous cases, we meet within a week of the Landmarks Board, meetings. This one is going to… Take a little longer before we schedule a meeting to discuss alternatives, because we really want to understand what those guardrails are before talking about, you know, alternatives. So we're early in this day of demolition on that one, but looking ahead. it's the March meeting now, so April 1st, your next meeting. is the last regularly scheduled meeting for that scheduling decision of whether you want to hold a hearing on June 4th, which is, the last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay expires, and then the stay expires in June.

[32:02] So, that… any questions on those, those are the five pending… Applications. Thanks, Marcy. Oh, and I see Chelsea has her hand raised. Thanks, Marci. Could you go back a slide? Just wanna see, okay. One question that I had was around the timeline for, for 990 Arapaho, and, so it looks like we have the state, we have the… Planning Board Concept Plan Review hearing on April 7th, and I know that we were all anticipating that being an important meeting for the project to understand, you know, you know, how that process plays out with Planning Board and how that impacts our work, but I was wondering, because if we wait until the designation hearing to be in May or June, and Council has their, Council has their break in July, then this could push

[33:15] potentially the, council hearing to August, which just seems like a very long time for a project that we have taken a lot of strides and effort to try to give decisions faster, in order to ensure that they have an answer one way or the other. This being a non-profit organization that provides affordable housing to seniors, so I'm just wondering if there's any possibility that we could consider either moving our April meeting date to after the April 7th date in order to be able to make a decision

[34:01] or have the hearing at that point, or to add a special meeting in April to, have the designation hearing then, so that the ultimate decision isn't pushed back until August. So, I hear an assumption of the outcome of the designation hearing, which I, you know, we don't know what will happen there. The April 7th, meeting is the Planning Board Concept Plan Review, and then the next meeting a month later, would be the, Landmarks Board hearing, the first of the two dates. And so… We don't have capacity to do another special meeting, and feel that the timing between the planning board review and then the time that it takes to prepare for that, designation hearing, do the analysis, do the public noticing. That April 7th to the May

[35:03] Landmarks Board meeting is the appropriate amount of time. So, while we haven't set the agenda, we've, been looking at the schedule and It looks like it could tentatively be scheduled for that May meeting, which is, you know, within a month of the Planning Board's concept plan, review. I… I know I'm a lame duck landmarks Board member, but I'm gonna fight till the end. I just have one comment about your April 1st meeting. I believe that's Passover, and I don't know if there's any discussion of moving it to April 8th anyway. Regardless of what Chelsea brought up. Claire thinks Passover starts on the 2nd. We will look at the… the calendar there. If Planning Board, reviewed it on the 7th. then we wouldn't turn around and review it at the Landmarks Board a week later. That's just not enough time to prepare.

[36:04] the ne- The next night. Yeah, that's unrealistic. Okay, so… So, is it seeming possible that we could… do the designation hearing in May as opposed to June. Yeah, so we're not going to set that agenda in this meeting tonight, and so, there are 3 hearings scheduled for the April meeting, and many other projects who are also coming in. So, we are looking ahead to those, but cannot commit to a specific date, tonight. Okay, and when will that date be confirmed? So the deadline for that meeting is a month prior, and so we look at all of the applications that come in, look at our work plan, and set the agenda, usually the month prior.

[37:03] Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Marci. And I, I think that the, I mean. when designating a house historic, I think there's a lot of work that goes into it that we, as the board members, don't see. So, we do want to give you adequate time to do the process and do it So, I, honor the fact that you guys are working behind the scenes that we don't see. So, thanks for all of that. There's no other comments on the stays. I do have a question. Okay. And… and I'm… I apologize if I missed it, but did… did you say that the applicant has… has either withdrawn or is moving forward with the concept plan review with the planning board on April 7th?

[38:00] I think they're moving forward with that April 7th date. Okay. Thank you. Any additional comments about our stays? Of demolition, the landmarks board. As I don't hear any. We will move to public hearings. We'll move to the first public hearing. This is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to demolish an existing accessory building and construct a new approximate 500 square foot accessory building at 432 Concord Avenue, a non-contributing property in the Mapleton Hill District. Pursuant to Section 9-1118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the proceedings prescribed by Chapter 1-3, Quasi-Judicial Hearings, Boulder Revised Code 1981.

[39:00] The owner and applicants are Ian Arthur and Jennifer Wells. I'll hand it over to Claire for the staff presentation. Thank you, Renee. Something… Okay, so, tonight. All speaking to the item will be sworn in. That includes me, Claire Brandt. I am the Historic Preservation Planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I'll pause to allow any board members to note any ex parte contacts. Hearing none, okay? Hearing none, here's an overview of the process we'll go through today. I'll give the staff presentation. The board may ask questions. The applicant will then have up to 10 minutes to present to the board. We'll then open the public hearing. After all members of the public have made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said.

[40:02] And then the board will deliberate. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and a recording of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, usually sooner. As we do record the meetings as the official record, and as the applicants today are virtual, I'd like to remind everyone to speak clearly into the microphone. The criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9-11-18B and C, and the review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property. Does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, and the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property. And the Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy-efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled.

[41:10] The options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application. This is subject to a 16-day City Council call-up period, where City Council can choose to review the decision. The Landmarks Board may also deny the application, which would be subject to a 30-day period in which City Council could review the decision. This is actually the applicant's appeals process. However, denial would mean the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months, so if the board is headed in that direction, they'll give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw. So, the application process for these applicants has been a little bit convoluted, and I thank them for sticking with us through this process. On June 5th of 2024, the Landmarks Board

[42:02] Conditionally approved the demolition of the existing accessory building, the construction of a new one and a half-storey accessory building. and modifications to the primary house. They did not receive a building permit for the work prior to the landmark alteration certificate expiring. So at staff's request, they submitted two different new applications, and the LDRC reviewed and approved changes to the house on January 28th. But as the application for accessory buildings includes demolition and construction of a new building larger than 340 square feet, it's required to be reviewed by the full Landmarks Board, and that brings us here today. The decision for the Landmarks Board is whether the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building meet the criteria, and Section 911184 provides that when demolition of an existing building in a historic district is proposed, the proposed new construction should be reviewed concurrently.

[43:04] So staff analysis is in two parts, the demolition and the new construction. The property that we're looking at is 432 Concord Avenue. It's located on the south side of Concord Avenue, mid-block between 4th and 5th Streets. It's in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The rear of the property abuts the alley, and there's currently a small shed located at the southeast corner of the lot. The house was originally constructed around 1924, but it was moved to this location in 1951. Due to its relocation and extent of alterations, staff considers the building to be non-contributing to the historic character of the district. The accessory building, that's at the southeast corner, was constructed between 1987 and 1999. It's approximately 9 feet by 12 feet, and is clad in vertical pressboard siding.

[44:07] The gable roof has a shallow pitch, shallow eaves, and asphalt shingles. It was constructed outside the 1865-1946 period of significance, and is considered non-contributing to the historic character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. The Landmarks Board must determine, though, whether the demolition of that existing building would damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the property within a historic district, or adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value of the site or district. Staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the request for demolition. The building meets the definition of a non-contributing building, as it was constructed between 1987 and 1999.

[45:01] Outside the district's period of significance. And the building is not considered individually significant. Demolition of the existing accessory building would not adversely affect the special character. of the district, and the Landmarks Board previously approved the demolition of the building in 2024. So moving on to staff analysis for the approximate, 500 square foot accessory building. We analyzed the key site and setting characteristics, the mass and scale, key building elements, and the detailing. The new accessory building is proposed to be located at the rear of the lot, set back approximately 4 feet from the alley. The building is almost square in plan, approximately 22 feet wide and 23 feet deep. There are no mature trees proposed for removal. Proposed new hardscaping includes a walk and steps at the northwest corner of the proposed building, and the existing gravel parking area to the west of the new building is proposed to be retained.

[46:12] The guidelines note that the new accessory building shouldn't detract from the overall historic character of the principal building. And the site, or require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature, such as a mature tree. That accessory buildings and parking should be at the rear and accessed from the alley, but maintain adequate space between buildings, and preserve a backyard space and general proportion of built masts to open space in the area. Staff finds that the proposed new building respects the traditional relationship of the building on the site and maintains a human scale at the alley. The proposal is consistent with the existing proportion of built master open space, with a backyard maintained between the primary and accessory buildings.

[47:00] The construction of the proposed new building does not require removal of a significant historic building element or site feature. As the existing building proposed for demolition does not contribute to the special character. Or the historic architectural and aesthetic interest of the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Looking at the height, form, mass, size, and scale, and overall proportion of the proposed, it's a one-story building, frame construction with a front gable roof form, minimal door and window openings. And horizontal lapsiding exterior. The boarding is about 13 feet tall. And the front gable form is a moderate 5 and 12 pitch. The guidelines ask that a new accessory building is small in scale and mass and simply detailed. The guidelines emphasize that new structures be compatible with the historic context, but recognizable as new construction.

[48:01] And new construction should be a product of its own time, but take design cues from the primary structure on the site. Staff finds that the proposed one-storey accessory building is subordinate in mass and scale, to the primary two-story building. The simplicity of the structure and its clear design as a garage is complementary to the character of the primary building and the alley. The building takes cues from the primary building in its frame construction, moderately sloped pitch roof form, minimal door and window openings, and horizontal lapsiding exterior. The two-car garage is appropriate in this case and does not overwhelm the site or alley. Key building elements include dormers, windows, and doors. The proposal includes two evenly spaced single-car garage doors at the south elevation facing the alley. The other elevations include asymmetrical, horizontally oriented slider windows. A single-person door is at the north end of the west elevation of the building.

[49:05] And the single garage doors are standard 8 feet wide and paired. The windows are varied in size and located under the eaves. They measure approximately 4 to 5 feet wide and about 4 feet tall. The guidelines for key building elements include direction to not imitate historic buildings, but take design cues. Simplicity is an important aspect of creating compatible new construction. Windows and doors should reflect the window patterns and proportions of the existing structure and the district, and use similar materials, and should be simpler in detailing and smaller in scale than similar elements on the primary structure. The relationship of solids to voids and symmetry or asymmetry should also be compatible. Staff finds that the overall design of the new accessory building is compatible with the historic site and district, is clearly of its own time, and will not create a false sense of history.

[50:03] The proposed window pattern on the accessory building is simple, and reflects the design of the primary building, which has a variety of asymmetrically positioned windows. The windows for the proposed accessory building are in a regular pattern, but traditionally spaced. The accessory building is proposed to include an asphalt shingle roof, 6-inch lap siding of cementitious siding painted white, aluminum-clad windows, and guttering with leaf guard. Lighting details and materiality of the garage doors, pathways, steps, and driveway apron were not provided in the application, and changes to the existing fence were also not provided. The guidelines for materials and details include those for fences, which should use traditional materials, but the property is within the wildland-urban interface, the WUI area.

[51:00] So fencing materials within 8 feet of any building must be constructed of non-combustible material. The wrought iron style fence both meets the guidelines and the WUBI requirements. Other fence styles may be appropriate and considered as part of the review process. The guidelines also favor use of a permeable, soft-edged surface over hard, non-porous paving or concrete, which gives a modern look and is generally inappropriate. Color choices should not be bright or garish, but similar in scale, proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally. Staff considers that the materials and details provided for the proposed new building are reflective of the primary building, and will not detract from the overall character of the site. The application materials do not include details of the garage doors, fencing changes, lighting, locations, and type. So details of, type material, color, proposed should be reviewed by staff to ensure they will not detract from the overall character of the site.

[52:06] The materiality of the pathway, steps, and driveway apron should also be provided to staff to demonstrate permeability, so crusher fines or other permeable material at the driveway apron. And also, staff should review proposed grading and hardscaping to ensure it will not damage the historic site or surrounding properties. Staff considers that the conditions of approval should address the following to be consistent with the guidelines. No, yes, the details of the garage doors, lighting, fencing materials, spacing and color, and materiality, as I just reviewed. And staff recommends that the Landmarks Board adopt the findings, and that the project will meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate.

[53:03] In… set forth in Section 9-11-18, Standards for Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications. And in reaching this conclusion, the board considers the information in the staff memorandum and the evidence provided to the Board at its March 4th meeting. Our staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions. Staff's recommendation, for conditions may be modified by the Landmarks Board. And… that's the end of the staff presentation. As a reminder of the next steps, the applicant has up to 10 minutes to present to the board. Followed by public participation. And an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said, and then board deliberation. And a reminder that the criteria for your decision this evening is found in 9-11-18, and considers whether the project meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate.

[54:07] And the options, for the board today are either to approve the LAC, Application, approve with conditions, or deny the application if you believe it does not meet these standards. Did the board have any questions for staff? I do not. I don't see any hands raised or anyone participating, so… We can move… move to applicant presentation. Are they on virtually? Great. We're here. Can you hear us? Yes. Okay. At this time… You will have to, it's not on my notes, but…

[55:03] Now, we have to swear you in, so swear to tell the truth. And state your full name. Yes, I absolutely swear to tell the truth, and my name is Richard Ian Arthur. And my wife, Jennifer Wells, is here as well. And I swear to tell the truth, and my name is Jennifer Wells. Thank you. I think it's, we've gone, as the beginning of the process stated, we've gone through this process once before with plans that, unfortunately. Ran up against, a number of, hurdles that, You know, we were close, to being able to make come to fruition, but in the long run, it was, it was just a very difficult thing for us, and so we backed off our plans, both on the house, which you've

[56:01] approved and, and settled on a… on a simple design for the garage that we believe fits with the neighborhood. And also matches, the house. It also leaves enough space in the backyard for us. We have a south-facing backyard, which we love to use, and allows us to, have enough space in the backyard, so… The garage, we think, is a wonderful addition to the property. All the houses on our alleyway have garages. Most of them are ADUs, but the one right across the alley is a… is a standard garage, two-cargo garage. So, we believe this design fits, fits well within the neighborhood, and, And is in keeping with the historic district. Any questions?

[57:02] Do any of the board members have any questions? I see no hands raised. And, November's here for questions. So, thank you, and, we will move to public comment. Virtual attendees, please raise your hand. Amanda, do we have any… or press star 9. Do we have any virtual attendees? Yeah, so, No, we do not have any hands raised… okay, with just one. Sorry. Lynn, you'll have 3 minutes? Landon, please state your full name, and swear to tell the truth, and you will have 3 minutes. Thank you. though, I swear to tell the truth the best that I know it. I'm not a religious person. I don't believe there is a singular truth, and I don't know… that whole expression, I think, is very, dubious to make people say.

[58:00] So, I'm saying it with that alteration. The best that I know. I'd really like to hear the backstory of this, it's just a block from me. And I remember… being through the meetings with the main house, but, I'm kind of curious, because this seems like it didn't even need to go to LDRC, it should have just gone through as a staff approval. I mean, it meets everything, it's clearly No problem. So, it kind of feels like it's a waste of the Landmarks Board time, and the LDRC, and the staff are paid, so why not have them do it? It's kind of curious to me, but I'm sure you have some kind of explanation for bringing it through this… this Level of process just for this garage. Doesn't make sense. Anyway, so good to go. Done.

[59:04] Great, thank you, Lynn. And I don't see any other hands at this time. Great, now we can move… Oh, and by now my things are all messed up. The public portion of this hearing is now closed, and we will move to the board deliberation. We estimate 25 minutes for this discussion. I will… I will have to say, Claire, thank you for that, staff presentation, and you even make a shed sound amazing. So, I am… I will just, I just want… I am in favor of the staff recommendation, and if no one had any comments, we can… I could make a motion. I… I have a quick comment. Oh. But I'm also… I'm in favor, this is a… it's an excellent and incredibly clean application, and I just wanted to… to,

[60:05] Congratulate the applicants for clearly doing their research for what the guidelines will be looking for, and proposing a design that's… the way I look at it, a slam dunk. And I think, you know, that… that should be set as an example for… other kind of garage projects in historic districts in Boulder, and I'm just appreciative and grateful for the research that they put into the To what… what is approvable. Yeah, and also thanking them for, Having to go through the process twice, and we are… we appreciate there would be… You know, even though that maybe it could have been approved at staff level, there are other instances where it could not have, so that's why this Is in the bylaws. So… Anyone else have any comments and deliberation?

[61:03] Surely, with Abby's last meeting, she would She could rise to the occasion. Well, I do want to, echo Michael's comments about the clarity of this application to the applicants who… who are now getting a little familiar with our process and so forth. And I know the reason it's before us here tonight is any, freestanding construction over 350… 40 square feet has to come to the full landmarks Board. We know there's many things that staff is more than capable, and with the recent changes we made in streamlining our LDRC meetings weekly, this still couldn't have been done by staff in Just because of that, requirement, but I, I, I am pleased to support this and do appreciate, not only Claire's presentation, the staff memorandum, but… but, what the applicant submitted to make this a very, actually, simple, clear, clear,

[62:07] Application to consider. Yeah, I confer. I think staff… elegantly reviewed it, and it was elegantly presented, which, prevented it. It was elegantly presented. And it was developed correctly within the framework of the guidelines, so it was… Presented in a way that makes it a slam dunk. Do we have a motion? I… Staff recommends the landmark. Oh. Oh. You have to move. Hello, Lamar Sport, again. They're bringing it up. Okay. There we go.

[63:02] I move the Landmarks Board adopt the staff memorandum dated March 4th, 2026, as the findings of the Board and conditional approval the application for a landmark alteration Certificate to demolish an existing accessory building and construct a new approximately 500 square foot accessory building at 432 Concord Avenue. HIS202600036, a non-contributing property in Mapleton Hill Historic District. Finding that the proposals meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9, 11, 18, Boulder Revised Code 1981, and it's consistent with the general design guidelines, provided this The stated conditions are met. I second that. We'll do a roll call vote. John? Aye. Abby? Aye. Michael?

[64:02] Aye. Chelsea? Bye. And I vote aye. The motion passes unanimously. Claire, can we go in to the next steps, and… I don't have to read those, do I? Great. Thank you very much, everyone. We really appreciate your consideration. And all your help. Claire, thank you very much for a wonderful review. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Ian and Jennifer, for, attending tonight. I know you have better things to do. The, next steps in the process is that, City Council usually has 16 days to decide whether they want to review or call up the decision. We need to extend this to the next regular council meeting, which isn't until April 2nd. But at that point, if they do not call it up, the conditions of the LAC will be reviewed by staff, and once they're satisfied, we'll issue the LAC. And it's valid for one year, in the rare case that Council wants to review the decision.

[65:17] We'll schedule a hearing within 45 days, and you'll hear from us about that. And Ian and Jennifer, I wanted to, just thank you again for, for, Really working well with, with staff and, and listening to our recommendations and, and, I'm following them, and it's been a pleasure to work with you. Thank you very much, we really appreciate it. Yeah, thank you. Let's move on to matters. I'd like to welcome KJ, Comprehensive Planning Manager, to speak about the draft Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.

[66:07] Board discussions. Does… oh. I just keep reading, I don't know where I'm supposed to stop and end. Oh, yeah. Trash cans. Yeah, they're a little trash. Mine's more, traditional.

[67:25] Good evening. Landmarks board members, My name is Christopher Johnson, I am the Comprehensive Planning Senior Manager. I am here to give you a little bit of an overview of the draft of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which went live for community review and comment yesterday. Recognizing that it only did go live yesterday, you all have had, only about 24 hours to see the entirety of the plan. We did include some details on, preservation-related policies in the memo packet, but again, if you haven't seen the entire, entire document yet, I encourage you to head to the website. We'll give you the more and more information.

[68:12] And then, certainly, you can provide, feedback either through Marcy or Claire or myself directly, or just through the regular community portal, as I'll show you a little bit here. Let's see… Okay, so, there are a couple of key questions that we will ask, of you to consider for tonight. So, first of all, does the draft plan overall reflect the community priorities and aspirations, particularly related to historic preservation? Are there components of the draft plan that the board really strongly supports, and then are there any recommended revisions that we should be thinking about and considering? Over the next month or so, we are meeting with a number of different advisory boards, 8 in total, and then we also have meetings scheduled with Planning Board and City Council at the end of the month.

[69:08] So we will be getting a lot of additional feedback, both from community members, but also all of our policymakers over the next month, and we'll hopefully then have an opportunity to incorporate your feedback into the final plan. The role of boards and commissions at this moment is… is more advisory. You are not making any formal decisions, you will not be making any formal recommendations to City Council related to this. I will say the Open Space Board of Trustees has a little bit of a unique, situation in that anything that's open space related, they will actually make a formal recommendation, but For your process, this is really just an opportunity for you to, review the plan and provide feedback, as you would like to. You are helping us to identify, you know, any, any gaps and really shaping the changes to the plan, so your, your information, your feedback is really important, as we move through this process. And then we would encourage you, to at least make a motion of support, for the plan. So again, it would not be a formal recommendation to Planning Board and Council.

[70:16] But it would be great to have the support of the various advisory boards. It's not required, but it's certainly something we would encourage in… either your April or May meeting, so that we can carry that forward to the adoption process starting in June. So, as a reminder, what is the comprehensive plan? For those of us that sort of work with this and work in this arena, it's very easy that most community members and even advisory board members don't actually know what this document is. Which is perfectly fine and acceptable. It… this really is, intended to establish the community's vision for the next 20 years for the Boulder Valley, so that includes the City of Boulder and the immediate areas surrounding the city of unincorporated, Boulder County.

[71:01] It guides a number of different things, land use, our housing, transportation, etc. It informs future development decisions, budgeting choices, programs that the city provides, and also a lot of different future planning efforts that we work on. And then it's used regularly by policymakers, by yourself, and then also by members of the community to have an understanding of the direction of the community and why some of the decisions might be made, and in support of those policies that are in the comprehensive plan. So, we do what's called a major update to the comprehensive plan on a 10-year cycle. So, the last major update was in 2015. There was a… what's called a midterm update in about the 2020 timeframe. We started this major update in October of 2024, so we are 18 months or so into this process, and we are now into the fourth and final phase of what we're calling a bolder future.

[72:01] Which is the preparation of, and review of the draft plan, and the future land use map, and then ultimately the adoption process, which will follow in the summer. We had a number of goals for the update as we got started. This was based on a lot of feedback we've received from community members and some of our staff that use the document, policymakers and others. Really, there was a very, very important goal, and really one of the primary ones, was to update the language and the formatting of the document itself so that it's clearer and easier to use, and it's more understandable for, you know, the average community member. Really to kind of raise the level of descriptive text and the policies that are in the plan to be more direction-setting and aspirational and less prescriptive. There's a lot of detail in the current plan that we're trying to pull out a little bit, because that will be addressed through other mechanisms. Part of why that's important is ultimately it will make the plan more adaptable and flexible over time, so as conditions change.

[73:06] pandemics come along, major economic disruptions, wildfires, things like that. We need the plan to be more resilient and more flexible, given the pace of change in the world today. And so that's part of the reason why we want to pull some of those specific aspects out of the plan. And then importantly, we came to you in September and heard some great feedback, earlier about, you know, a lot of support for this notion of simplifying and clarifying the plan. And then, from a preservation-related standpoint, really emphasizing the opportunities for adaptive reuse and the environmental benefits of preserving buildings. really clearly communicating the value of historic preservation in the comprehensive plan, and then recognizing preservation as a tool, as one of the solutions for things like our environmental goals, our housing goals, our equity goals, etc. So I think as you…

[74:04] have an opportunity to read the plan as a whole, you'll see that more sort of sprinkled throughout, and we'll touch on a couple of specific examples. So moving into the draft plan, we won't have time to go through this in, you know, page-by-page, painful detail tonight, but I will touch on a couple of key, key things. So, through those earlier stages of the process, we ultimately landed on a community vision statement, which is, our community works together to ensure everyone belongs. to create opportunities for all and to sustain the health of the Boulder Valley for future generations. So all of the policies and the values of the Comprehensive plan are moving towards and working towards this, this ultimate vision. There are a number of foundational policies that remain within the comprehensive plan, even though it's going to look a lot different, I think, for most people, anybody that has familiarity with the document.

[75:04] It's gonna look and feel a lot different, but there's a number of really core sort of foundations that have been part of the comprehensive plan for the last 50 years that are still part of the plan, so… This idea of a compact urban city that's surrounded by open space, the value that we place on our open lands and our natural systems. This notion of strong neighborhoods and a really clear sense of place within the city, and different places or different locations within the city are gonna feel different. Our climate leadership, and then also this, this really critical ongoing collaboration between the city and county. That's a, something that was part of the original plan back in the, in the mid-70s and, and carries on today. There's also a number of new ideas and new areas of emphasis that may be in the plan today, but have really been elevated in terms of the community conversations we've been having.

[76:00] So, really leaning into this notion of 15-minute neighborhoods, and, if you remember, we convened a community assembly, which was a randomly selected group they worked for. actually, several months over, you know, very clearly defining what 15-minute neighborhoods means for Boulder, and the types of things that are important within those areas. We are… we are making some… have some policies that are pretty direct about housing supply and the diversity of housing choices within the city that are different than what we have said in the past. There's policies around a night economy and the experiential economy, so thinking about how Boulder can continue to evolve and really thrive in, economic conditions as well. Really supporting and leaning into the arts and culture aspects, natural infrastructure, and then really thinking about local agriculture and food systems, and what that means for our community, both from a cultural standpoint, a socioeconomic standpoint, a health and wellness standpoint. These are all things that are part of the new plan as it's currently proposed.

[77:11] The other thing I'll touch on that is, you know, certainly has some, relevance to historic preservation is the future land use strategy. So, essentially, what this is, is, the city… it's different than zoning, but it's, it's sort of the next level above zoning in terms of describing and defining. Broadly, the types of uses and the character of places across the city and the county that we would anticipate seeing in over a 20-year time horizon. The strategy, very similar to the approach we've taken to the plan as a whole, the strategy for the, for the land use framework was to right-size this and simplify this. Right now, the land use map, and the land use, framework has 25 different designations. We have now reduced that to 12.

[78:01] They fall into four very broad and understandable categories of neighborhoods, hubs, systems, and then special purposes. The designations are very differentiated, there's not a lot of overlap between them anymore, which was one of the challenges we had with the previous version. And also, they're adaptable. Again, they're intended to be fairly broad in their definition, so that a number of different outcomes are still possible to be consistent with the vision as conditions change going forward. This is just a snapshot of what that looks like in the proposed plan. So this is the future… proposed future land use map for the city. It may still look really kind of detailed when you're looking at the whole map, but if you compare that to what… with what it looks like today, you'll see that this notion of applying this at a neighborhood scale as opposed to, parcel by parcel really, really does apply. One good example, which is the image on the right-hand side, which is the Alpine balsam, an ideal market area along Broadway.

[79:04] In the plan today, in the current comprehensive plan, that single block has 8 different land use designations, and today it has 2. It's proposed to have 2, of Community Hub and Neighborhood 2. And so, again, working through this, and community members have an opportunity to weigh in and provide comments, both on the map and also on all of the plan text and policies. The other thing that we've, done related to the land use definitions is really provide a lot more sort of qualitative description of what these land uses are intended to feel like or be in the future. Today, in the plan, there's a very short, you know, sort of 2 or 3 sentence description of those 25 different designations. And instead, with the 12 that we've provided, we've provided a little bit more detail on, you know, what it is, why it matters, and then what you can expect in these areas, and then that further defines, or goes into a little bit of detail around

[80:06] The types of uses, which uses are kind of primary, which uses might be supporting, what are the urban design characteristics and the sort of feel of the area, and then what are some of the mobility characteristics of that as well. We've heard through this process, an importance of really tying together the land use and transportation aspects, because those two things are very inter, integral to each other. So, I'm gonna touch on just quickly then the policy updates, and I'll pass it to Marcy for a few slides. But again, taking this notion of the approach to make sure that the policy updates are clear, limiting the redundancy and some of the complexity that exists today, making sure that they're straightforward and resilient. We have, similar to the land use designations, we have reduced… there are currently 210 policies, that's now been reduced down to 102, through a lot of cycles with all of our, subject matter experts from, all of the different departments, and then additional

[81:09] community input as well. So we've… we've made, some really great strides of trying to make that, more useful for people going forward. Marcy. Thank you. it's been phenomenal to watch. We're in the Comprehensive Planning Division of Planning and Development Services, so we get a front-row seat to the work that, the Comp Planning team is doing, and it's just been astounding. The, care that they've, taken in Approaching this major update. And you already summarized what we heard in September from the board, correct? Yes, I did. Yes, you did. Which, was… really about, like, integration and recognizing that preservation isn't just, like, siloed over here, but, at its best is really integrated into so many other values. And so, while these…

[82:08] Mmm, 9 or 10. Policies are maybe not the only ones that relate to historic preservation. These are the ones that, as we reviewed the draft and provided our staff comments, the ones that seem to most directly relate. And so, I picked three, the ones that are bolded, to, kind of focus on this evening, but wanted to… Call your attention to, all of these as you then go read the draft in detail and provide, you know, additional comments, so… I will read the titles of each of one, because I think that it illustrates, kind of, where preservation ties in. So, there's one about the community benefit associated with annexation from Boulder County into The city limits that talk about historic and cultural resources. Similar to rural land preservation, recognizing the importance of not just

[83:01] Natural land conservation, but also those agricultural resources and cultural, resources. Neighborhood character and evolution, adaptive reuse and historic and cultural resource protection are ones we'll, go into detail with. Design Excellence for All projects talks about how the city evolves, and how incorporation of, historic and cultural resources, can benefit that. The visitors' economy and experiential economy are ones where, you know, the data is there. Heritage tourism really, spends more, invests more, and more money stays in the local economy, and You know, anecdotally, I am planning a trip, and so I'm googling where to go, you know, in Austin, Texas, and just from Google, it says, here's your weather. here's, like, here's the weather, here's where to eat, and here's some historic sites. So it's not just the people in this room, virtual or not, that

[84:06] seek out those historic, authentic places when they travel. It really is something, whether you're a history buff or just somebody who appreciates a place with, some authenticity. History really… and preservation is tied into the visitor economy and the experiential economy. And then, the arts, culture, and heritage investment, that's related to the new tax that was passed in the last couple years, where it really, speaks to the investment and the value of Of the arts, culture, as well as heritage. Sue… So the, policy number 24, Neighborhood Character and Evolution, reads, the city works with the community to shape how different neighborhoods evolve over time in varying ways and degrees.

[85:02] Change in each area will contribute to its unique and authentic character while supporting citywide goals. Adaptive Reuse, which was a theme from the Landmarks Board discussion in September, reads, the City encourages the continued use and reuse of existing buildings to recognize local history and architecture. Activate vacant or underutilized spaces, contribute to neighborhood character, and retain embodied carbon by eliminating unnecessary building material waste. And then the, the big one, which is the main one, historic and Cultural Resource Preservation. The city and county identify, evaluate, designate, and steward historic places, archaeological resources, and cultural landscapes, including associated intangible cultural heritage, such as traditions, practices, knowledge, and living relationships to place. Through policies and programs, the city and county elevate diverse stories that foster a shared sense of belonging and help the community understand where it has been, where it is, and where it is going. In collaboration with departments and community partners.

[86:11] Historic and cultural resource stewardship supports a more sustainable, equitable, and resilient future that reflects and honors the full diversity of the Boulder Valley community. This is an abrupt transition. Yes, it is abrupt. living in Yeah, absolutely. So there's just a couple wrap-up slides, here to kind of, to end the presentation, and then we'll open it up for discussion. A lot of the questions, you know, that we hear throughout this process is, you know, okay, so what does the comprehensive plan mean for me, and what, you know, what will we do with it? Broadly speaking, the comprehensive plan drives most, if not all, of the future decisions that the city makes, and that manifests itself in a number of different ways, that trickle down to

[87:04] individual community members, business owners, property owners, etc. Change does happen gradually, so that… I think that that is one thing I do want to emphasize, that, you know, some people may get concerned when they read about some of the land use definitions or things like that, and think that their neighborhood is going to change radically overnight, and that's not the intent of the comprehensive plan. Again, it's a 20-year vision, and many of the policies may actually never come to fruition, or they certainly may not happen within a 20-year time horizon, so it's… it's something that we're setting a roadmap and a direction for change, but ultimately that change is going to happen incrementally over time. And the way that that gets implemented, at least through the city organization, there's a number of different, internal processes that are influenced by this, so the citywide strategic plan and all of our annual work plans. Code updates, additional land use planning that our team does through area and sub-community plans, ultimately then capital investments and programs and services that are provided by the city.

[88:08] But we also know that we don't do this alone. We work very closely with community members individually, but also partners and other agencies to help deliver on and ultimately meet the goals that are identified and described through the policies in the plan. there are a couple milestones I'll just, highlight for everybody, and then, and then I'll show you, sort of, how to access the document, how to look at the map and provide feedback. So, as I mentioned, the community comment period is open. It's open from yesterday, March 3rd through April 6th, so a little bit over a month, worth of time, where it is open and available to anyone and everyone. To be able to review and provide comments. As I mentioned, we have, not only 6, let's see, 6 other advisory boards to, meet with through the month of March. We are also meeting with…

[89:05] Our, County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, Planning Commission is on the 18th, and then the Board of County Commissioners is in the early part of April. And then we have a joint study session with our City, City Council and Planning Board, at the end of the month on March 26th. We also then bring all four of those approval bodies into the same room on April 13th to, again, have a discussion session around the draft and identify any… any items that need to be reconciled between city and county. You'll notice as you read through the plan. The policies are very specific as to whether they say the city does this, or the city will do something, or the city and county will do something. So there's a lot of specific, language in there as to who those policies apply to, and ultimately who's responsible for those. And then we anticipate beginning the actual formal final approval and adoption process in June, and with, all four of those bodies being involved, you know that's going to take a little bit of time, and so that will likely extend into the July, maybe even August timeframe, to finally,

[90:14] Have the plan, formally adopted. So, the way to provide feedback, there's an online form at the, at the project website, so aboulderfuture.org is the main project website. If you go to, go to that website, the main homepage. scroll down a little bit, there will be a link to, view a PDF of the full document. We've also broken it out, by… individual values of the… of the comprehensive plan. So, if you're looking for transportation-related policies, you'd go to the accessible and connected value. If you're looking for housing-related policies, those will be in the livable, value. So, those are all broken out individually, so you can provide comment.

[91:02] Either on the whole document itself, or if you have just a specific area of interest, you can go to those policies specifically and provide comments there. And then there's also a link, in that… on that main page that will take you to a separate page, which, includes all of the land use map information, and there's… A couple different maps that are interactive and you can zoom around on. There's a side-by-side comparison of what the land use map looks like today versus what the proposed map looks like. There's an interactive map where you can drop a pin and provide a comment, and do all of that sort of thing. So there's lots of different ways to provide feedback. You can also just email us, which is always, acceptable. But the good thing about using these forms is, of course, everything goes into the same location. We're able to capture all of that efficiently. And I think that is my last slide, so back to the key questions for you to think about and provide some input tonight, if you're able. Just is, sort of broadly speaking, do you feel like the plan is starting to address and reflect the aspirations related to historic preservation?

[92:13] Are there components that you strongly support, and are there gaps or things that you would recommend for potential revisions as we continue to think about this as we move forward? Thank you. And if you would like me to actually pull up the website, I'm happy to show that and navigate a little bit if anyone's interested. I wonder… John. I would be interested in seeing you navigate the website. See how that works? Okay, yeah, give me a minute. Get into it tomorrow. You can play with it on here.

[93:00] Yeah, well, it's not working on mine. That's what I'm saying. Oh, that's not. I'm not getting good. Wi-Fi. Good Wi-Fi. Yeah, you pretty much gotta read it. That's so machines. Yeah, so the one great thing, especially for all you millennials on the board, is that the… is that this works, this works on mobile or, or on a laptop or a desktop, so, it does work. In multiple formats, but this is, this is the landing page, this is the main page of the website. And… let's see if I can… so, If you, if you just scroll down, here is the… the big header. The comprehensive plan is live. You can navigate using a few of these links here, but if you just keep scrolling, you'll see the information on how to review the draft plan.

[94:05] This is where you can click the link to view the full plan, or you can also click on this image here, and it will pull up a PDF version. to review that. And then here is what I was referring to as far as you can provide feedback on, kind of, the plan as a whole, if you just wanted to provide, you know, single comment of, hey, this is great, hey, this is terrible. You can do that, or if you keep scrolling a little bit down to the policy review, this is where those different. tiles are available that are categorized under, each of the seven values in the comprehensive plan. So, as an example, if I click the accessible and connected. It will take me to a page that has all of the policies, out of the 102. It has all the policies that are, related to accessible and connected goals.

[95:00] So, you can just pop those open through this dropdown, read through all of those, or as many as you're interested in, and then here is the area to be able to set a ranking on. You know, I think this is great, it supports the vision, you can type in some comments if you want. The map… I will show you how that works. So again, if you scroll down a little bit in the page. Down to the future land use strategy, there's two tiles, so this tile here will take you to a similar, set of drop-downs that'll explain all the different neighborhood types, the hub types, etc. So that's where that information is, sort of the text content of the land use strategy. But then if you go over here to the maps. That will take us to, again, another page, and…

[96:00] Here is where the side-by-side comparison… Lives, and you can just click on that and zoom right in. And it should show you parcel lines and the streets as you get a little bit closer, so you can compare. The image on the left is what the land use plan looks like today versus the land use plan. As proposed. Under the current draft. And then I mentioned also this ability to then leave a pin, on, on the map if you wanted to actually then make a comment on the map. Here. So, the one thing about this is that you do have to, if you click drop a new pin, you do have to enter an email. If you are uncomfortable providing your email address, you can use the project email address, which is listed here, just right above, which is future at bouldercolorado.gov. And then you can zoom in, you can leave a, you know, you could leave a,

[97:03] leave a pin on an individual property, and leave a comment and say, I think this should change to something else, or whatever, you know, whatever comment you would like to leave. The last map that I'll show you here is, this is the large planning areas, so, Basically, this is what really governs the compact city surrounded by, rural lands, is the Area 1, 2, and 3. Area 1 is the city of Boulder. Area 2 are, Some adjacent areas that would be eligible for annexation at some point in the future, if property owners were interested. And then Area 3 is the rural lands on the outside of the city. So again, this map shows you a side-by-side comparison to what the Area 123 map looks like today versus tomorrow. I will, give you a little spoiler alert. There are very few changes to this, to this map. There are only two that are being proposed, and they are based on, community change requests that were submitted by individual property owners.

[98:08] This one out on East Arapahoe Road, and then another one, here at the very south end of town, which they're Area 3 today, but they're directly adjacent to the city, so we are proposing to change those to Area 2, so they could be potentially annexed at some point into the future. But that's how that works. Oh, and you can leave… if you wanted to leave a comment on the Area 123 map, there's a space right below that. Leave a comment? Okay. Wow, thank you. So, to kind of borrow from Mies van der Rohe, less is more, and even though I think the ancient Greeks actually kind of got that ball rolling, but what impresses me are the things that went from 210 to 120 invites, you know, the things that are making it clearer, more simple, more straightforward.

[99:08] And, now I know what I can go look at instead of TikTok, so, this will be fun. And now I'm gonna have more free time. But, the one thing, Marcy, when you were going over the kind of intersection with historic preservation in this. it… it really got to me when I saw the city and county… nope, well. I know you want us to go to the questions, but where you talked about the city and county's preservation efforts. And how they do that, and… I think we sometimes forget what a stellar county program we have, and Marcy knows how excellent those staff members are, and how they've been champions for things, and they have much more of a variety in the county, from Caribou Mine to Gail Abel's Ricky Weiser House, and so I think that

[100:06] I sometimes forget, not only are they great resources, not only are they fun people, but the resources there, and, you know, I used to go occasionally to the, Historic Preservation Advisory Board, HPAB, that I think you used to meet the first Thursdays of the month in the Boardy County Courthouse, but it really… that kind of means a lot, that this is… encompasses Boulder, but it really is countywide, and that makes it, I think, all the more richer, and all the more important, and kind of the shared vision and going, so I can't imagine the amount of work this has… has been, but and the only thing I really want to make a plug… 4, and others can… Can speak as… I love the concept of 15-minute neighborhoods.

[101:01] Just… Saved. I have a technical question. So, KJ, in the current versus the proposed, and I'm a maps guy, so I went straight to the maps, and. You sure? didn't… didn't read stuff, so maybe I skipped over this. But it… it looks like… In the current plan, there are 3 levels of housing densification categories, and in the proposed plan, while it doesn't identify density, there's neighborhood 1… I presume neighborhood type 1 and Neighborhood Type 2. So is there… am I missing something in the planning industry and thinking? That… where there's sort of less… density. densification sort of categorization or definitions, and that's what Boulder… this… this proposed plan is sort of heading towards, or… what's the thinking there? And I apologize if it's spelled out in writing somewhere.

[102:15] Yeah, no, it's a great, it's a great question, Michael, and you're… you're very perceptive, about that, so I appreciate that. So, I think it's twofold. I do think that there is, there is movement in the industry, in the planning industry, to, begin to move away from really specific definitions around density in particular, and to be more qualitative in those descriptions. And, you know, there's even a… there's even a shift… we did not go quite this far, but there's even a shift to move away from describing these as land uses, and instead calling them place types, and so it really speaks to the character and quality of the place versus the sort of quantitative aspects of density. So that is, you know, that is certainly influencing our thinking, but also through the conversations that we've had with community members and other policymakers through this process.

[103:14] process. It's been pretty clear to us that there is an interest in Allowing for and providing for some greater flexibility than we currently have under our existing policies. And, you know, the ability to… not define a neighborhood as low density, but to define it around the character and quality and scale of a place, even if there might be a home that might have 2 or 3 or even 4 units in it. So that's… that's the… that's the thinking behind that, and the more, you know, the more that we… sort of worked into this process, we realized that really having the two definitions of neighborhoods was sufficient, and that we didn't feel like there was a need for a third, sort of level of specificity through the process.

[104:05] Excellent. And one quick follow-up, and I apologize for monopolizing any time here, but then… then how… what is the relationship, and again, I apologize if you mentioned this, but the relationship then with a plan and actual zoning like, definitions, because it seems like this density issue, if described differently in a comprehensive plan, if there's… if there's no zoning meat on the bone to sort of be in parallel or aligned with new definitions, it seems like zoning will impact very directly density. Correct? Yeah, so… so it is true that there is a… there's a sequence to this, you know, to this process, and as I… as I… just briefly sort of mentioned through that, you know, how does the plan ultimately get implemented over time? There will be a need for ongoing conversations and, potential future code updates in the zoning code in order to address…

[105:06] the policy vision that is established by the Comprehensive plan. So, you know, again, we're sort of at the leading edge of The plan establishing that overall guiding vision, and then ultimately there will need to be future projects, to update the codes, do more detailed planning exercises, other kinds of things that will ultimately lead to. you know, some of the actual implementation of that vision. So there'll be a period of time where those two things may be a little bit misaligned. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yeah, great questions. follow up with that, or just to continue the discussion, they're not… this… this comprehensive plan isn't directly changing the zoning map, or… Correct. Okay. Correct, yeah. So the zoning map, even though you have it listed side by side right now.

[106:02] Right. Two land use maps side by side. Yeah, it's… it can be really, really confusing, so, And the reason why it might be even more confusing is that today's land use map is so specific and detailed and granular, it looks like a zoning map. And under our proposed plan, that land use map becomes much larger areas of a single color, as opposed to that very detailed parcel-by-parcel sort of change, so it will… I think it will be… visually, it'll be much more clear if the proposed land use map is adopted, and when you compare that, there will be… there will be a clear distinction between the land use map and the zoning map, whereas today, those two things look very, very similar. But you're right, to your fundamental question, the comprehensive plan will not change the zoning on any property. Okay. So then, like, the… I mean, zoning in the past has changed. They, you know, changed the… so,

[107:03] The… the future in the… in the next, 20 years looks like you have this over… this over… this plan, and then hopefully zoning as it needs to change can look to this to be like. Hey, this was close to these overlays, so we can… make adjustments as see fit. But as of now, the zoning doesn't change, and… but it provides maybe a direction on how that could change. right? Okay. Yep. And so many last words. No, that's exactly right. Yeah, this establishes the roadmap for potential changes in the future. Okay. Okay. At what place, then, do you consider the issue of form? and forms in the… in the fabric, and I'm speaking in terms of things like.

[108:01] possibly relaxing the height limit in certain areas, which may induce a whole different kind of visual pattern in the fabric. Yeah. Yeah, so… so a couple, a couple of things that we've, encountered over the last year and a half related to height. We did explore whether there was an appetite or an interest for, both with community members and then also with City Council and Planning Board, if there was any interest. In… Considering if there were any areas within the city that would be, appropriate for height above the charter limit of 55 feet. We found, both through a statistically valid survey and through discussions with our policy makers, our ultimate approval bodies, that there was not an interest to touch the 55-foot height charter limit, so that remains in place. On a more, you know, sort of site-by-site or detailed level in terms of a particular zone district that may only allow 35 feet or up to 55 with additional site review or other conditions.

[109:09] It's possible that future zoning changes could… could change that, right? They could potentially allow 45 feet or even 55 feet by right, if it's determined through that community process that that is something that people would be willing to do for that particular zone district, as an example. So, it's really those future processes which have their own community engagement, you know, an outreach, process as part of those. There are public hearings, etc. So, all of those things would be evaluated and debated at that moment in the future. Well, in the more broad scope part of the planning process, was there any examination of what you might call view corridors, or visual corridors that would work oppositely to kind of cut through the shelving that the…

[110:04] one size height creates. Yeah, we. We did not do that at a citywide level, and again, sort of in part because we want the comprehensive plan to have policies that can apply citywide, but certainly if we As an example, if we move into a more detailed sub-community plan or area plan, which would be a more detailed planning exercise for a particular location or geography within the city. Then that might be more appropriate, because we'd be looking at a much more site-specific scale, as opposed to across the city as a whole. Okay. Chelsea has her hand raised. Hi, yeah, I just wanted to share that I wasn't able to read the whole thing since we got it recently, but in the time that we've had, I was able to go through, at least the parts that were relevant for

[111:03] historic preservation, and I just want to say, I think this is such an amazing evolution from previous Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plans. It's so clear and direct and concise, and I know how hard it… it's so much harder to be concise than it is to, say a lot, but it's just… I really appreciate how… clear and direct it is, and how digestible it is, I think it's something that the community will actually be able to understand, which, again, I know is really hard. So, yeah, and I really appreciate the strong commitment To the relevant sections, like, or in the relevant sections, like, honoring the, and stewarding, you know, historic and cultural resources. I think it's… it's great how it's intertwined throughout different.

[112:03] Throughout different sections, or… I don't forget what those numbered things… what those are called, but those sections are, and so one thing that I was curious about was, I… I guess something that I didn't see was language that acknowledges the need to balance preservation with the needs of people who live here today and those who will live here in the future. And obviously, we know that preservation of significant historic resources is so important, but it's one of several important public goods that we're responsible for advancing, and just based on, you know, projects that we reviewed just last week and others before that. I think it's clear that, like, historic preservation

[113:02] is not always simply supportive of other adopted community goals, and at times it can be at odds with them, particularly when we're weighing preservation against urgently needed housing. And… I guess… you know, the BVCP is supposed to represent what the community wants as a whole, and that's hard to do on every topic, to get feedback on every topic, but I'll just share that since last week's meeting even, or whenever that meeting was, two weeks ago, like, I've received an outpouring of supportive feedback from the community expressing support for the needs Of aging seniors over an aging… home. And that just tells me that… Like, it's not just a policy nuance, there's real community interest in ensuring that preservation honors and celebrates our past, while making sure that we

[114:00] meet the needs of people today and the future, and so I just, I mean, I think it would strengthen, I think specifically it was number 31 of the plan to explicitly acknowledge that preservation decisions You know, must thoroughly balance public goods rather than implying that they're aligned in every instance. And since this is, like you said, this is going to be what the community looks to for how we approach these different aspects of our work at the city for quite a long time, and so I guess I just… Want to ensure that we're honest about These efforts, and also figure out how to incorporate people's feedback Into this process, because I guess that's a question I had, was, besides coming to the board, has there been any,

[115:07] intentional efforts directed at, like, focusing on historic preservation and how we think about it in the future with the community. I, Or is that something that you're looking for feedback now from the community? Those are my thoughts and questions. Yeah, no, I appreciate those. I appreciate the thoughts. So, I'll… I'll touch quickly on… on the last question, and then work my way backward a little bit. So, in terms of… engagement, and sort of discussions we've had. We've… we have had, A number of engagement opportunities over the last… year and a half, and we've covered a range of topics through those processes, and, both through… Sort of, intentional, you know, open houses or one-on-one conversations with, community members in person, but also through surveys and questionnaires that we've done over the last year or so.

[116:10] We have always included historic preservation as one of the topics that we're asking people about, so we've, you know, asked about affordable housing, or access to goods and services, local agriculture, transportation, you know, all of the… all of these, focus areas have sort of bubbled to the surface, and historic preservation was always included in that mix. So we've… We've heard feedback, and we've gathered feedback, related to historic preservation. You know, what I will say, in all honesty, is that it… it hasn't necessarily been identified as a real strong priority, in comparison to some of the others, housing being the primary one that we've heard the most about. but also transportation and protection of the environment. But historic preservation is still a core value of the community, and it's clear in the feedback we've received through the process that,

[117:04] You know, that that, that that is true, and maintains, you know, maintains its validity as we move forward. So, I'd say the other… maybe to address your other comments, just in terms of how… these policies ultimately get balanced amongst one another. The Comprehensive plan is really intended to, document and identify the community's values as we move forward, so through that 20-year vision. It's not really the role for the comprehensive plan to prioritize those values, or to describe which ones may be valued more so than others. That is ultimately part of the quasi-judicial process and the legislative process that City Council engages in, that you all engage in. Planning Board engages in, where, particularly when there are, you know, a development review application that comes through, and there's a requirement to be on balance, consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan.

[118:08] It's at that moment that those board members need to weigh those competing values, and ultimately make a decision on which one carries the day. And, you know, that's part of the challenge with the comprehensive plan, is that it… It holds a lot of competing values at the same time, but we're human and we can do that. You know, there's… there can be a value to protect water resources, but at the same time, there might be a value to have a very healthy tree canopy in the city to, reduce urban heat island. Well, trees need irrigation, and so there's, again, there's a competing value there. and how you weigh that out, how you ultimately make those decisions in the future, that's… that's the, you know, that's the nitty-gritty process of the work that you all do and that City Council ultimately does, so… That's partly why each of the policies in the comprehensive plan is written pretty specifically and independently of the others, so that we can clearly describe what that community value is, but then ultimately, it is up to the policy makers to make those decisions, you know, and weigh the value of those policies through those projects.

[119:19] Okay, that's super helpful. Yeah, I really appreciate that answer, and that makes sense to me, that it would be… framed that way. I guess one question I have, based on what you just said, is… so you said that the comprehensive plan is intended to document the community's values. So what if the values of the community are We want to uphold our… Historic preservation goals. and in balance with arousing goals. Like, what if that's the value?

[120:03] Well, I think that… I think that is the value, and I think that's what, you know, that's ultimately what gets described, within the comprehensive plan. I mean, I… I think as you review the full document, you will… Recognize that there are many more policies related to housing than there are related to historic preservation. And that may just be, you know, that may be an indication as to… You know, the level of input we have received around those two different topics, and so certainly, again, it doesn't mean that anyone is necessarily prioritized over the other, and I think every individual project or program is gonna be, context-specific and need to be evaluated independently. So it's… it's difficult for us to say that, in all cases, housing will, outweigh the value of historic preservation, or that historic preservation would need to. balance or defer to housing in every single case, because I don't actually think that that's necessarily the situation, and I think we do ourselves a disservice by,

[121:08] you know, predetermining some of those things. So again, I think that's partly why, you know, why the… the comprehensive plan is, documents each of the… each of the policies independently. And then, again, it's… it's those more detailed. Decisions, where those value judgments need to be made, so not within the plan itself, but through those more detailed and specific, decisions. Thank you, that's really helpful. I just want to say, it is so impressive, the amount of work that has gone into this plan today. I just am really in awe of Of… of the current state of it. It's… it's really amazing. I think it's honestly so much better than all of our previous plans already. Oh, I really appreciate all the hard work.

[122:01] Thanks. I just have a couple comments. I would like to go on the record to state that the Landmarks Board did not Stop the process. Of the last meeting, of the… housing for, low-income, aging adults. So, and I would like to say that it's a… it is a bummer that it is an either-or in that situation. And I would also like to say that, when looking through this comprehensive plan, I thought that was really interesting, like, when people talk about Boulder, they talk about open space a lot. But… and people come to Boulder to go into the open space area. At the same time, open space and preservation are kind of a unique feature of Boulder. So, if open space has such a high lift. preservation should be in there as well, and I like the idea that

[123:00] These items are on the table, and then each discussion gets made into a full, in the legislative branch to talk about each individual, and there's flexibility in each of these situations to allow what the community really wants, and how to, get there. And there's… and again, this process of last week's meeting. there's, again, more process to, have the community be, heard, and our… what we were to talk about was just the landmark of these four buildings, so… I just wanted to state that, but I really like the fact that, Marcy had put in the… about beam preservation, how it is part of… what we come to Boulder for, and, again, and where you go to places and cities, and you see the preservation. And if that was lost… you know, what would we come visit? So, I think there's a lot of interesting… Open space. Open space. So…

[124:07] I mean… Yeah, so, I'm… I'm… I did not read the whole plan. I did review it today by clicking on a couple links and looking at things like that, so, I will, love to leave some comments, but… I appreciate all the work that's… that you've done, and I can see that it's not just work, and so that is really, really great that the values I feel that you have are getting in line with the community, and you're able to pull that through into the plan, so… Thanks for that. That's great feedback. Any… thing else?

[125:00] From any of the members that you'd like to offer? Given the short time frame, of course, that you had to review the preservation policies in the memo, but also the full document. I'm just gonna… throw out that I think that one of the… one of the things that I find compelling and very positive about what you've presented tonight Is the attempt at simplification that allows people… to… Interpretively or otherwise view the plan And be able to see how These kind of conflicting policy pairs. Can… can fit into the fabric of this Compact and complex city. And… The thing that is interesting that… That we got brought into in this last issue that we were dealing with, is the fact that a lot of times.

[126:06] The generally held community values, Exist in, kind of, couples or pairs. that are in conflict to each other. And, an example is that The whole issue of housing. The… the kind of… Simple solution is build more housing. We have an intentionally restricted physical boundary geographically. And, so the obvious way to build more housing, which happens in every other city. Except for a few others that did what we did. Our… is to expand on the land in some pattern. And we're cut off from that. That is a pair right there.

[127:00] The other kind of conflicting pair is the environmental issues, and the fact that even in the open space, you have the beauty and the Kind of environmental positivity of having undeveloped land. And all the natural processes being able to occur, but then you have all the environmental hazards that that can create and induce on the city at the, urban-rural interface, and… That's another pair. And housing and… Anything that impedes housing. Be it, preservation or some other kind of issue of… of land use, or land type. I like the… I like the notion of types, base types, too. I think that's a great place types.

[128:00] Is… is a very good kind of… Kind of, more advanced Kind of urban thinking way to look at… look at neighborhoods. But anyway, these things occur in these couples, and that the plan is supposed to be kind of a fabric to understand a kind of… Formation that the couples create. And you're attempting to project it for the next 20 years, so you're having to kind of synthesize from where we are now, which is a kind of… Kind of static point or equipoise between all these things in balance. And hopefully we can preserve the balances 20 years into the future, and keep changing in some kind of equipoisal way, instead of going radically one way or the other.

[129:04] And so… I… I think it's a… I think it's a very commendable plan, the way it's… Setup, and looking, and the almost interactivity that you've set up in the way it's being presented, so… . kudos. And the way you've done, like he just said, like, the simplification of the zoning, I think in the past. to make… Zoning seem, or the overlay of the plan use, to seem complicated was important. And… but it came exclu… it excluded people. And so, the overall, message, I think, that has been said in Boulder is inclusivity. Like. That's what we want. Include everyone. Everyone has a place here. And so, by you simplifying that, it allows…

[130:00] everyone to be able to see what that is, you know? And so, that's, like, trickling down, and I think that, like, if every day you went into work and you're like, okay, everyone's included, how do I, like, do one thing within the plan to make it happen? And it is, it's, like, allowing you know, my 15-year-old to be able to read the plan, and feel included into knowing, like, oh, this is a neighborhood, and this is that. So… and the same thing with, you know, anybody that's been able to read the plan. So, I just, Because I think that… I think one thing that we could all agree on is that Boulder does want to be inclusive to everyone. So, and I think that is, like, probably the number one thing. So, if we can do that… Then maybe we can reach out to more people. Thank you for saying that, Renee, because in the vision. statement, what really got me was the word, everyone.

[131:03] Okay. We want us to. Great, great feedback, and a great way to close, so thank you for that. Okay, is there anything we want to debrief about this meeting, it says I'm supposed to say? The next regular scheduled meeting is on April 1st. And then the meeting is adjourned. at… Are we good? Okay. Just double-checking all… Do you want to do the honorary? Okay, the meeting is adjourned at 8-12 p.m. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. Bye, Abby!