August 22, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] thank you. George will not be with us. Okay, I'm calling to order the city Boulder Planning Board meeting. August 22,023 before we go to public participation. Or to open comments. Excuse me. we're I'm going to propose a motion to move to continue agenda. Item for A to the next planning board meeting on August 20 ninth, because we have a very packed schedule. This is something that I discussed with the staff during meeting agenda setting yesterday. So if somebody would like to second that motion, and then we can vote on it. I'll second it. Thank you all right. So I, Lisa, did you hear what the motion was? Okay, so mark yay, or nay.

[1:05] Mark, you're on mute. Yes, thank you, Kurt. Yes. Lisa. yes. and L. Yes. Laura, yes. and Sarah is a yes, all right. alrighty. Hopefully, everything else will go equally quickly. All right. So now we have a open comments. Anyone from the public can speak for up to 3 min on any topic other than public hearing items today, the 2 public hearing items. if we get to them will be agenda. Item, a public hearing consideration on Boulder Junction phase 2. Project. The second item for C is public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed ordinance. 8, 5, 9 to amend title 9. Land use.

[2:05] We have a I think. Vivian, if you could please see if there's anybody in the audience in the public audience who would like to speak to any topic, not on the public agenda, I would appreciate it. and I think we may also, Sarah unless it happened before, come on, need to read the rules of the meeting. I was gonna say that yeah, because they're relevant for later as well. so, Devin, I'll pull up the slides. So first off. Thank you. Everyone from the public who's joining us tonight, we really appreciate your time, and my name is Vivian, and my role in these meetings meet meetings is to facilitate the public engagement portions, and these rules are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes the disruptions. As Sarah mentioned, we'll start with open comments from community members. And there are 2 public hearing items in the agenda today. So we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and that we worked with the community to develop these expectations for meetings.

[3:16] and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing that we want to make sure everyone who participates feels safe and welcome. And we want to ensure we make space for different viewpoints. In our meetings. We have a lot of information on our website about productive atmospheres. Vision. If you want to read up more about it. But I'll just focus on what we need to know for tonight's meeting. The number of rules of decorum that are found in Boulder Revised Code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our meeting participants. This evening we ask that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session.

[4:01] Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited, and we do also ask that all participants from the from the public identify themselves by the name they are commonly known by, and to display their first and last name before speaking. We're in the Zoom Webinar format, and this allows participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not turn on video for community members because of security concerns. In this platform. in accordance with the meeting rules I mentioned, we, you need a full name associated to to be able to speak. and we cannot unmute you without your full name. If your full name is not currently displayed. Please change it or send it to us in the QA. And we can change it for you. No pre-existing list to to participate today. So at the appropriate time you can raise your hand, and on your screen you'll see a couple of different ways to do this, the very bottom of your screen you should see a horizontal menu that has 3 clickable items, and if you click on the hand, icon, it'll raise a hand next to your name

[5:10] with an expanded menu. You can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And there's nobody participating thus far by phone. But I can monitor that for instructions on how to participate via phone. that concludes this session. So now, if anybody would like to speak during open comment again, this is not for the public hearing items. This is for items not on the agenda. You can raise your hand now, and you would have 3 min to speak to the board. Okay. nobody for open comment over to you. Chair. Thank you, Vivian. all right. So now we're on to discussions of disposition, planning board, call-ups and continuations. Does anyone want to call up Standard Wetland permit? VET. 2, 0 2, 3,

[6:02] 0 0 0 1 0 Nineteenth Street and 4 Mile Canyon Creek bridge placement. Okay. that was a no for the record. 3 B. Call up Standard Wetland. Permit. WET. (202) 200-0007, Boulder County culvert replacement at Flying Road. Does anyone want to call that up for the record? That is also a no. okay. So now we're going to jump to public hearing. Item 4 B public hearing and consideration of the following related to the boulder function phase, 2 project amendments to the Transit Village Area plan and amendments to Chapter 5 of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan to revise the summary of Transit Village Area Plan. So in our planning meeting yesterday we set aside 120 min for this. and if I'm not mistaken, I remember correctly, Chris.

[7:01] you are comfortable with people. Raising hands to ask you questions as you go through the post through the the material. Is that correct? Am I remembered correctly? Sure, that that would be perfectly fine. If we're gonna try to limit our presentation slides to slides to about 15 min or so. But certainly we're we're open to pausing at any moment to answer any questions that might come up. Okay. So what I'll do is if people raise their hands, I'll call. I'll ask you to stop for a moment. I'll call in them. and you may have all have gotten sort of at near the end of today the 3 questions. That we're being asked to explore, and hopefully that will frame our conversation. Alright, Chris, take it away. Great! Thank you. Let me get my screen share quickly. So just to make sure you can see the presentation.

[8:03] Great. Thank you. So thank you. Chair and and greetings to planning board members and Christopher Johnson and the comprehensive planning manager within planning and development services I am joined here this evening in the presentation by Chris Wranglos, who is a senior planner within our within our team, and has been intimately involved with the project here. Vivian has also been played a very key role in all of our community engagement. And then becca, he who is another team member, she, unfortunately, is recovering from appendicitis surgery so hopefully, she's not watching tonight, and she's recovering. But I hope she's doing well. I'm gonna pass it to Chris to to really kick us off here and walk us through a few introductory slides, and then I'll be back to walk through and describe the proposed amendments to the Transit Building area plan. So, Chris, go ahead.

[9:07] Who who are we waiting for? I'm so sorry. Chris. Oh, Chris, we can't hear you. You're connection, maybe. No, can't hear you. Yeah. Chris Wrinkles, why don't you sign out? Sign back in, and maybe Chris Johnson can get started. Chris Wrange. Say, Hello! Can you hear me now. Yes, we can hear you now. Hello! Yes. Hello! Yes, we can hear. You doesn't sound like he hears us. Why don't? Why don't I go ahead and take a slide or 2 just to introduce while Chris is working on on getting the audio set up.

[10:02] Can you? Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, sorry about that, folks we'll get. We'll get run in here. Okay? So the key objectives for this agenda item this evening are going to be to adopt the phase, 2 amendments to the Transit Village Area plan, and subsequently we are also asking the Board to consider an amendment to Chapter 5 of the BBC. Which has a section on the Transit village area plan that provides a brief summary, and we are simply Updating that summary. And so it should really be seen as more of a house cleaning item. You can also note that official updates to the Bbct land use map will be a future implementation step that we plan to complete by the end of the year. Concurrent with this amendment. Next slide. Okay. As Sarah and Kj have alluded to. We sent 3 key issues or key questions for playing board. Consider around this agenda. Item, the first is, does any board support the proposed mui land use along Old Pearl Street, over the prefer, over, or prefer mute.

[11:03] Second question is, does playing board, support the recent revisions to the place types? And finally does planning board, having additional revisions, proposed. Phase, 2 amendments next slide. As for a rundown of our presentation this evening, I'm going to briefly cover our project approach for Kj. Will then run through the proposed amendments in future steps. Next slide keep going. Okay. Tbac was adopted in 2,007, and really, it's hard to believe that was already 15 years ago. But it does continue to guide future change in Boulder Junction today, and within the plan there are detailed recommendations for land use, area, character transportation connections and implementation. Next slide. Additionally, Tdf established a vision for the area which will continue to be applicable for phase. 2. Tivap established the desire for Boulder Junction to become lively and engaging with a range of uses attracting a broad diversity of people.

[12:03] It should have charming chaos and incorporate citywide neighborhood scale public spaces. And there's an emphasis on sustainability, walking, biking, and possibly car-free areas in boulder junction. Next slide that vision continues to guide the future of Boulder Junction today. But there was a broad belief from city council. This board in the community collectively, that elements of phase 2 needed to be updated after 15 years. This amendment is an additional piece to ensuring the land uses transportation connections and urban design elements of phase 2 align with the current community needs while still striving for that original vision through extensive community conversations and public input several key themes for phase 2 emerged. There's a desire to allow for greater flexibility, for residential and mixed use outcomes that TV app originally would not have allowed for a desire to see enhanced support for existing and new local and small businesses.

[13:03] and the community wants to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle connectivity as well as incorporate more tree canopy and landscape areas to balance higher intensity, development and overall. There is a desire to embody the creative, entrepreneurial, and funky spirit that is bolder and on balance our focus groups are supportive of the overall package of amendments and felt like Staff listened to and incorporated their feedback. Importantly, most members express an interest to also remain involved as we move forward with future implementation steps on the project. and I will point out that there is a lack of consensus around, whether a broader application of the land use. Category, mixed use, transit, oriented development should be applied across all of phase 2 versus what is proposed which designates the mixed use industrial land. Use category between Old Pearl and Goose Creek, and we'll expand on this a little bit later on in the presentation, but wanted to call that out. Now, before we go too much further.

[14:04] Okay. Now onto the actual amendment itself, we focus strategically on updating the land use transportation and urban design sections of tbap in response to the themes that had merged. We've updated the original 2,007 tbap document with notations. They're the big red exclamation points that you can't really miss to direct community staff Boards Council. And really, anybody who may be interested to the phase 2 amendment where those updates are described in more detail. and the amendment itself is attached to the original document as an addendum, and they are meant to be read together, and finally, like we mentioned before, a large bulk of Tvap still addresses relevant topics for the future of the area. So it's not to be overlooked by this amendment itself. From here. I will pass it over to cages, share the proposed amendments to the Transit village area plan. But first I think we'll take a quick look at some of the market dynamics in the area.

[15:00] Hey, Jay, go ahead. Okay, thanks. Chris. Yeah, as as Chris mentioned. And and as I think we mentioned to planning board a couple of weeks ago. During our information update, we've been working with with an economic consultant to do some market research around the area and we do have representation from Eps here tonight. So in case there are more detailed questions on the market dynamics, we can. We can certainly ask questions of them. But I wanted to just start with, you know, really kind of an identification of what the current sort of sub areas are within within phase 2 and kind of walk through the characteristics of those and then touch on what some of the future market dynamics may be before we jump into the proposed amendments. So first of all, on the north side of Phase 2. So basically north of Goose Creek. what exists there today is really primarily some stable office and industrial technology types of uses. There's a number of laboratory and bioscience and research uses in that area. On balance, a lot of a lot of those uses, and a lot of those tenants can actually afford higher rents than what you might find in a typical office or industrial user. So we imagine that many of those properties will probably be stable for for at least the the sort of near and medium term

[16:21] in the central area along old Pearl. Really, what exists there today is is primarily older and lower scale buildings. There's really a mix of wholesale, some service, commercial and office businesses. This area really does have probably the highest redevelopment potential. If you're just looking at it purely from an economic perspective. And that's really based on the underlying building values that are there today and the differential between what a redevelopment project could could potentially look like in the future. That also, of course, identifies the highest risk of of potential business displacement without some additional sets of tools or incentives to make sure that some of those existing businesses could remain in those areas

[17:04] and then on the south side. So south of for a parkway, what is there today contains, you know, basically several larger flex and warehousing type spaces. It is under primarily consolidated ownership. And so we anticipate that redevelopment is likely to occur in that area probably sooner than some of the other areas. And then looking ahead, a couple of the dynamics around different types of uses. So regarding retail, it's it's likely that the demand for retail is going to be relatively modest in this area until a larger number of residential and units and and residents would be, would be there more on a more permanent basis. It is likely to be more successful if it's focused in key targeted nodes or areas as opposed to spread throughout and that smaller spaces within those new developments may help deal with some of the affordability of those new spaces

[18:00] on the office side. I think everybody probably agrees that there's a big question mark in terms of the more traditional kind of multi-tenant office building in the future of that given covid and the new hybrid environment. So thinking about smaller, more flexible spaces may actually increase longer term success in terms of the office market on the multifamily residential side that is just based on demand. Likely the highest and best use of what future redevelopment could look like, and it is important. To understand and and consider that because of the potential revenue that can be offered by residential uses that could potentially offset some lower rents from other uses on the ground floor. So there is an opportunity there to potentially use residential to offset some of those lower revenue types of uses on the ground floor. And then finally, industrial. Really, any new industrial space is likely to be more kind of in the maker space or non-traditional types of industrial spaces. Not go. It's not going to be the large scale kind of warehouse or manufacturing that we you know, we might imagine when we think of industrial use.

[19:07] The other thing is that is important to note here is that because newer space is more expensive, that may actually be, you know, higher, more more difficult for any existing area tenants to be able to afford. So again, something to be thinking about as we move forward. So with that, as some context and background, we'll move into what is actually included in the amendments to the Transit village area plan, and I wanted to start by quickly drawing attention to the revisions that were notified and sent to you on Friday in email form and then included in attachment E. That we posted on Monday yesterday to describe some revisions to the place. Type. Section it's page 13. Through 17. Within the phase, 2 amendment itself. I would have to double check what pages that is within the packet. But this is a description of of those changes. Some of them were were quite frankly just. Some fixes to some errors and omissions of things that we had missed in the original draft.

[20:10] and a couple of others were recognition of some missing types of uses that would be appropriate within the transit oriented development that that we had missed and that we did not include before. And so we wanted to make sure that we made some some clarifications and some edits to revise and make sure that we were capturing all of that information. The other thing I wanna touch on really, briefly, as well, is really the relationship of land use and place types. And and the reason for this is, you know, place types are really kind of a new newer invention. That was part of originally part of the East Boulder Subcommittee plan that we've carried that over to use here, and the amendments and the Transit village area plan and anticipate, you know, continuing to use this framework as we move forward with a lot of our comprehensive plan and area plan updates.

[21:04] But really the the Land Use category lives at that highest level within the Boulder valley. Comprehensive plan really establishes the overarching vision. The sub-community and area area planning process then begins to define place types which start to add some more qualitative description of the outcomes that would be expected within those land use areas trying to set some some initial sort of performance expectations of what we would want to see coming out of that. They also help to guide eventually, some zoning or code updates that might be necessary as part of the adoption of an area plan, and so they they help to really bridge the gap between land use and zoning so that we can be more, you know, be more successful in terms of understanding what zoning or code changes might be necessary going forward. and another sort of graphic to just kind of understand.

[22:11] Once we get the zoning in place? Will the place type still have any real effect. or will that really be superseded then by the zoom? I would say yes, it would continue to have effect. Because what what's more likely to happen is that the zoning would change more on an incremental basis as individual projects come online. And we would wanna make sure that different zoning categories or different zone districts would be appropriate within not only the land use category, but also that place type description. So it's it's I would say. It's fairly unlikely that this entire area would be rezoned in one, you know, in one motion, and it would. It's probably gonna be more incremental. Over time.

[23:01] Okay, but any effect from the place that would still be expressed through zoning in some way, not okay. Sounds good. And then the second question is, so we're changing. We're modifying somewhat these place types. We've adopted these place types from the East Border Subcommittee plan. As we change the place types. are they also changing for the East Boulder Subcommittee plan, or their different place types with similar names for the 2 areas. That that is a great question. And I'm really glad you asked that. One of the things that we found ourselves. In a little bit of you know, in a corner was that we had originally applied a place type that was directly analogous to something that was in the East Boulder Subcommittee Plan, and upon further reflection and really kind of digging into that, we recognize that we needed to make that distinct and really define that more for Boulder Junction than than East Boulder. So what we've what is proposed in Boulder Junction,

[24:09] that only applies to Boulder Junction only applies to this area. Within the transit village area plan, the East Boulder subcommunity plan and the place types within that are separate from this. There is, there is one place type, the neighborhood to D that is shared across both of them, and the description is is essentially identical between those 2. But, the application of those is specific to this this particular area. Okay, thank you. Great. Eml, you're next. Thank you so much. Thank you, Christopher. My question follow up to curt about zoning place type, etc. Isn't this project going to be subject to form based code? That's not yet been fully determined, but it is very likely that it could be, and that's certainly going to be a future implementation step that we would explore that as a as a zoning strategy and and understand what that looks like. Yes.

[25:10] Doesn't the current plan direct the project? Oh, II missed the last part of your question. Sorry? Oh, sorry. was it? Phase one form base code? Yes, portions of port of phase. One was for base code. Correct? Umhm. So that isn't something that would need to be undone for phase 2. It. It didn't assume that the whole folder junction tbap we form base code. that that is correct. Currently, that form based code only applies over on the phase one side. So if we are to use form base code going forward within this area. We would need to have a feature process to expand that and make the code updates to to do that.

[26:06] Got it. Thank you so much. And, Christopher, can you just clarify that form based code? That's in phase one might not end up being exactly the same form based code for phase 2. That is also correct. Yes. thank you. Laura. You're next. Thank you. And another just quick clarification about form base code that I think I remember from the east boulder working group is that in many areas of the country form based code is kind of a a substitution for zoning. You know that you use form based code to dictate the form of the building, but you don't say what the uses are that it can be any use as long as it meets the form, and as I understand it, that's not how we do it. In bolder. We have kind of a hybrid where we use form based code to dictate the shape of the building and what it looks like from the outside. But we still also regulate the uses, so we do both. Not either. Or

[27:00] is that what's planned for? Tbap 2. Yes, I believe I'm sorry I missed the last part of your question coming online, Carl. Laura. That's correct. The form based code that's used in the city of Boulder is more of a hybrid. We worked with a consultant that, you know, had recommended that we start adding architectural standards and things like that as the as form based codes evolved we felt that it was still appropriate to apply the use standards of the underlying zone. So they still apply. Thank you. Okay, any other questions before Chris moves on. Alright, Chris, take it away right? Thank you. And this slide may get to some of those those questions as well. So we could think about the the land use living at that 30,000 foot level, you know, looking outside the the window of the airplane. As you get down to that 5 and 10,000 foot level, you start to see a little bit more granularity. That's where the place types really come into play. And start to describe in a little bit more detail. What what is it anticipated within that particular land use? And there could be multiple, different place types that apply within a single land use. And then, as you move into zoning, that's really when you get to the ground level, that's what you're going to experience, you know, physically, as you're walking past the building or or driving past an area.

[28:29] And multiple again, there's a lot of overlap here. So multiple different zone districts could apply within different place types and actually across differently and uses as well. So really, this is just kind of intended to show that you know, by selecting 1 one or the other sort of place type. There's still a lot of flexibility and overlap between many of these things as we move forward. So now to get into, you know. Really the heart of of what is in in the proposed amendments. I'll start with the land, use descriptions, and you can see on the screen here. We've the staff is recommending the use of the mixed use transit oriented development land use category for the northern and the southern areas and then application of mixed use industrial across that central section along old Perl.

[29:20] you could see some brief descriptions there as to what those are, and then a couple of other notations of park, urban or other, that would apply to the publicly owned lands that are adjacent to the Goose Creek, Greenway, and then a a very small area of something called open space development rights or restrictions. That is really more of a housekeeping item to clean up a scenic easement that our Osmp colleagues have control of Pearl Parkway there. So that's that's more of a clean up item that we've worked closely with them to prepare. so on, on kind of at the very general level. The again, the land use designations are defined within the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan.

[30:04] These quotes are taken directly from those from those definitions where the Mut land uses intended to pair existing, or plan transit facilities with residential and partial development opportunities. mixed use industrial is really to integrate diverse housing, commercial and retail options into our existing industrial areas and offer a variety of local services and amenities, and then park, urban or other, which is the other really main land use. Category applied here is for public lands that are used for a variety of active and passive recreation. but also for flood control purposes. So this is a very appropriate analog and description for the Google screen way going forward. And we've had a lot of, you know, questions and conversation around the differences between MUTO. D. And Mui. And this is one of the key questions we posed to you this evening is to understand the application of those, and where it is most appropriate.

[31:04] Again calling out some some key points of the de from the definitions in the comprehensive plan. Mutd consists predominantly of attached residential uses. It doesn't mean it's exclusively of attached residential uses. Whereas mui consists predominantly of light industrial use on the ground floors again, not exclusively but predominantly, across that larger area. both of them also support a range of other types of uses that we would expect to see in a mixed use environment. So office retail services, commercial light, industrial, etc. So really, on balance, both of these land uses are very, very similar. It's just that one of them lean slightly in the direction of more residential uses related to transit and other the other one leans in the direction of maintaining and continuing to see light industrial and service types of uses.

[32:00] So we use that framework and understanding. Really the the very subtle difference between those to develop, then the place type, categories that apply to each one. So in in our proposed amendments there are 3 different place types to that would apply to the nutod land, use category, and a third one funky functional that would apply to and was really developed specifically for that mixed use. Industrial underlying land use category so regional to D is is really kind of the highest, most intensive uses. It's primarily residential in focus, but a lot of their flexibility and and opportunities for other types of supportive, both manufacturing and industrial type of uses, but also retail and commercial neighborhood. To D is a bit more focused on really office, commercial and residential types of uses, again, very focused on on transit and kind of evolving some of our existing or automobile oriented commercial areas into a more walkable environment.

[33:03] And then the funky functional which we had a lot. We had a lot of fun, you know, creating this early thinking about what this could be. And it's it's really in response to a lot of the community feedback that we heard about the goal of this area to be something a bit different than phase one. You know, one of the critiques of phase one is that at times it can feel a bit too polish a bit too cold, a bit too corporate, so to speak. And so, you know, really trying to lean into this opportunity to create something that's more eclectic, more artsy and funky, and provide a lot of opportunities for adaptive reuse of some existing structures. Really, the this place type allows for the greatest flexibility on the ground floor. And really starts to introduce more of those service and and commercial type of activities that you see out there today. And certainly we would be interested in seeing in the future. So it's important to think about these things in in conjunction with another rather than just individually. So as you start to think about the and utod plus the regional to d place type

[34:11] versus the mui versus and the funky functional place type. What I what I wanna express or just show to you. And there's a lot of information on this slide. But really it's intended to just show the similarities between the 2. You can see that the overall Atvr range is very similar. The open space expectations are also very similar. The types of uses all the way, sort of through that residential light, industrial dining entertainment, retail, etc., through office. Also very similar. Where you start to see a little bit of that nuance, and responds to the way that these are defined within the Comp plan in the way we've started to, then tease that out through these place types is that in that Tod area you start to introduce, you know, things that might be more appropriate to that in terms of lodging, hotel uses some public and institutional opportunities

[35:03] and in the in the mixed use, industrial and funky functional. That's where you start to see some of those auto service, indoor recreation and greenhouse opportunities on the ground floor. That might also be appropriate. And, Sarah, I think I see your hand popped up. So I'm curious about this. 10 to 20% open space is that is that what's currently in code for the level of density that's possible? Or is that some percent that is specific to this area that that was in response to there were some recent code amendment changes that basic. I believe it's it's based on height. So as a building reaches. I believe it's 25 or 35 feet. It would be at that 10 open space, and then, as it increases from there up to 45 or above 45 feet. That's when it jumps to 15 or 20. So in the in the in the place type description.

[36:01] it says 10 to 20% based on height. And is that just maybe, Chris, maybe you're the person to answer. Maybe Carl is. So Carl come back. Is that how different is that from what's in Tdf one in terms of not in terms of the code, but in terms of the amount of open space that we could generate. Yeah, the the 10 to 20% open space would be different than what is in the first phase of TV app, just because with the form based code. We kind of made the leap that the open space shouldn't necessarily be on a singular site, but rather on it in a designated area. So the form based code was very specific about a park, about a plaza space, about paceos. So we didn't apply the 10 to 20% open space per lot requirement in the form based code. So but in the let me just, I wanna just clarify in this proposal. You also propose, etc. But this is an add on to that, you you you're adding, you're adding

[37:11] the the potential for open space which is sorely lacking in Pvap one is that just a layperson's way of talking about it? Ye? Yes, except II don't know if I would classify it as a total in addition to. Because I think, what what Carl's referring to in that form based code? Again, we're we're not quite yet to the point to where we can exactly define. We haven't reached that point of implementation to define exactly how this 10 to 20 would lay out across the site. But you're right in terms of the other proposal, and I've got a couple of slides coming up that'll speak to that of identifying really some some key locations where where open space would be important to be more consolidated and concentrated as opposed to just. You know. every individual site has 10 to 20, I think what we would anticipate doing here in a future code update would be to understand how we can take the idea of on on balance across the area having 10 to 20 open space, and how we can start to

[38:15] organize that you know, on the ground so that it becomes more meaningful. And it's not just individual small little, you know, parcels on on each lot, and I think that's that's really, I'd say, the level of detail that will be in the in the next step. Alright. Thank you. I appreciate the help. Yeah. Kurt has his hand up too great. This may be more of a question for the economists. But these 3 uses more in sort of industrial uses as model auto service, indoor recreation, which I'm not sure what that means. Greenhouse. Do we have an expectation that those would be realistic uses to see in this area, whatever the zoning is, post redevelopment. If they were allowed, I guess the question is, would they? Would those kinds of things really appear.

[39:10] or or would they not just not pay off? In my opinion they're not likely to occur? I mean, I think there's some sort of desire expectation that some of those uses would be retained within the within that that central area with that designation. but II find it a a little bit difficult to conceive of an auto use or a greenhouse use being in the First or Second level and issues building. III think, in in general. when I look down the the list of uses between the 2 zone districts, I

[40:05] I wouldn't anticipate a significantly different development pattern in one area versus the other. at least based at least based on what I think. The market we tend to build. Yeah, okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Then I'd like to actually follow up on that. If I can. Daniel. how much is what's being proposed is what would be driving out the light industrial that we have repeatedly said, we want to protect mean I'm I. You know you're saying I'm you're hard pressed to think that you know this isn't. What would this was here isn't what would end up arriving in 1015 years, but how much of that is driven. By the way, we are proposing changes. Well, I mean, it is when I look at phase 2 compared to phase one, I mean the certainly the biggest difference was

[41:02] base. One was primarily big and land and and developed more quickly and very heavily, predominantly residential phase 2. There are a lot of, I think there are a lot of existing uses that we would that we would expect might stay for some period of time in the future. And that's some combination of owner occupied buildings and space that are. you know, that are viable businesses and and and may continue and that's that's both. Some of the light industrial along all pearl. but certainly also some of the the the biotech lab space on on the north side, that since see you buildings and some of the other tech uses are up there.

[42:02] but you are potentially up zoning much of the property in the area, and so there will be, I mean, you know, there will be an incentive for property owners, I think, to. you know, to sell or or redevelop their properties over time. Alright. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Any other questions at this point? Alright, let's go back to Chris. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Alright. So moving on to this question around around open space and and how that serves to, you know, address itself kinda throughout the area. So what we've proposed through the urban design section within the proposed amendments. identify these, you know, 6 sort of key nodes of of open space and really identify 3 important and and sort of primary locations. One would be future rail plaza as we anticipate that rail service may actually still arrive here at some point.

[43:14] I know it's a it's a it's a promise that that's been made many and many a time, but there seems to be quite a bit of momentum in that direction. And so understanding sort of what? That you know what that would look like the phase one area where the rail station is is currently planned. A lot of that area, of course, has already been developed. And and so the space needs are are relatively small and and taken up already through through development. That's already occurred. So there would be an opportunity to provide some of that on the east side. And the phase 2 areas, we want to be thinking ahead about that. The second location is really along creek. And and this was. This was a very common theme throughout all of our community. Process is is really the notion of Goose Creek as an amenity.

[44:01] It's centrally located within this particular area. You know, how can it evolve from what it it is today that primarily serves a plug control purpose in a transportation purpose with the multi-use path into something into something greater than that. Still obviously needing to serve those 2 purposes. But how can it also transform into a community space. and then finally, down in the southern acre anchor. There's, you know, thinking about the the scale of those land parcels that are down there, and how to how to break that up, and really, offer an opportunity for even something large enough to be able to host things like festivals and events. The other 3 are more, you know, kind of secondary pocket park type of locations that are strategically located throughout the rest of this area again, one of the key you know themes that we've heard throughout this process is really, how do we introduce additional open space, additional landscape and additional tree canopy into this

[45:02] area. And as Carl was mentioning the form base code currently on the phase one side you know, went an additional step, and actually regulates where these might occur, and I think that would be part of the conversation moving forward into those next steps. If we do expand form based code into this phase? 2. Area, how do we more? More directly regulate? And some of these outcomes? And actually, you know, make them come to a reality. So that would be a next step in the process. Chris. Laura, yeah, I got it. Thank you, Chris. Can you please? Christopher, can you please explain the red shadowing on the map? What is the what's the significance of the red? Okay, I do have a couple of other questions on this slide, though, if you don't mind. Before, one of our commenters said, it's not fair to put 2 conceptual outdoor spaces and a multi use path through a single property. Could you point out which property that is.

[46:02] that they're talking about? I I couldn't find one that had a multi-use path. And 2, oh, you can. Okay? Great. So, yes, small. Yeah. Small area introduced here. Kind of right at the very end of old pearl that clips just a corner of that property. Then also here at what is the location of what would be a future pedestrian bridge across whose creek and then this pseo, that that runs along the south side of Reduce Creek, Greenway, and a couple of other multi-use paths that that cross this area. Okay, thank you. Yep.

[47:01] Laura, did you have another question on this slide? I he'll probably cover it, so I'll I'll hold alright. So yes, moving on to the next component of the urban design framework. One of the critiques. We've heard about the phase one area that we're trying to learn from was the requirement to have ground floor commercial and retail activity really across the entire area. And and really, what we've learned is that it would be more valuable and I think more more successful to those businesses if if those retail commercial activities could be focused around areas of future high activity. So we've we've tried to be really thoughtful about where those might be in terms of important road intersections or around some of these open space locations. How can we be more deliberate in terms of concentrating that retail activity? In those areas? And then also, just to mention, while we're on the slide the pedestrian corridors and pesos. These are really intended to complement the transportation connections, plan and and serve to break down

[48:07] larger parcels, and also really be aligned with some key locations, particularly along this creek. Really intended to be enhanced urban spaces, and and not just say, you know something as simple as a sidewalk. So really looking to combine a variety of materials and activities and amenities along these particular locations. And then the final component of the amendments is the transportation connections plan. So I'm just gonna highlight a couple of key items that that come out of this in terms of what we are proposing. We. We maintain that a lot of the Transportation Connections plan that was already adopted within the 2,007 Transit village area plan, but with some strategic updates. We've continued to include a couple of local road connections, and that particularly the northeastern area, to help create a more urban grid. And what is currently a fairly suburban type of layout.

[49:02] we've added and included a number of multi-use path connections to that future rail station location up there in the North. And then we've a proposed a bicycle and pedestrian bridge across Goose Creek. This was originally identified as a vehicular connection from a wilderness place down to old Pearl a lot of the conversations with the community and just thinking about really the the physical impact of a vehicular connection, and and quite frankly, the cost and engineering of trying to do that across this group was was fairly overwhelming. So we worked with our colleagues and transportation to really understand the the need for that, and then convert that to a bicycle and pedestrian connection instead. also identified and removed a number of really costly and difficult underpass locations that was in coordination with our multi board working group and the liaison from the Transportation Advisory Board, and then we had a check in with them last Monday to review those recommendations, and they were in support of that

[50:05] one of the things that they did bring up that we were able to incorporate is at that particular location of the on and off ramps at Pearl Parkway and foothills you see, circle there in red there's an existing intersection there for the multi-use path. and the proposal. And the connections plan is to extend that multi use path further south along foothills, Parkway, and really to look at some intersection improvements that would be really critical in that location. The the vehicle movements getting on to foothills and then off the foothills on those ramps is is really high speed and really problematic in terms of safety for pedestrian invisible. So we identify that as a future improvement to be to be done. So that is, that is it, as far as the Transit Village Area Plan amendment. And before I move on, Sarah, I saw that. Can you please pull up? I expect to see the map that have the overlay of the

[51:04] neighborhood, Todd and the and you Todd, the green and the back back further. So I have a question that has to do with why why not expand the neighborhood? Todd to the south. So it's along Goose Creek and have some concerns about the debt, the the what I thought I understood about what is allowed and encouraged in the neighborhood, Todd. Because if it's a neighborhood, Todd, you'd want feeling of a neighborhood, otherwise you wouldn't call it that. So I'm just sort of curious. The question, A and question B are connected. Sure? Yeah. So the name. Let's see the neighborhood to d if I recall. And then I'm gonna see if I can pull up something on the side, as I'm as I'm speaking, just to make sure that I capture that correctly. But,

[52:01] The allowed uses on the ground floor are primarily would be. You know what you would anticipate seeing in kind of a neighborhood setting of residential dining and entertainment. Some retail uses, and also public or institutional uses on that ground floor, and then above that would be allowed a continuation of residential uses. For retail opportunities or or commercial opportunities, and then office as an option above the above the ground floor. But I guess what I'm asking so question a was, why didn't you continue the neighborhood, Todd, all the way to the Goose Creek, which is supposed to be an amenity? And why would you have office space in what is meant to be resident, basically residential. And I thought you had said, and this was a confusing piece for me. You said that one of the lessons learned from tbap fun was, instead of proposing to have

[53:02] retail commercial, etc., on the ground floor. spread throughout the area you were thinking about consolidating it in certain areas which makes a lot of sense to me. But what you're what you're actually describing in neighborhood, Todd, is not that. Yeah, that's a great. That's a great question. So I think the what's what's challenging is that? You know, as we move sort of down into that level, further level of detail. That's where that's where we start to make those refinements. So within neighborhood, Tod, as a as a place type overall, we have to allow for retail at the ground floor. But through that urban design framework where we've identified those activity nodes. That's where you know. Essentially, what we're saying is that retail isn't allowed use on the ground floor within that entire area. However, we want to make sure that it gets concentrated in that activity node location. So we have to. You know, we have to allow the use to occur. But then we use other tools to try to focus and curate where those things actually happen. If that makes sense.

[54:13] No, it makes sense, and I understand that. But it also seems like the the. the allowance. the alap. I realize that this is a multi-stage process. But sure, sure. if you really want a sort of a residential area, feel a feel of a residential area, why would you allow office space on the second floor? It just seems like a retail on the second floor. It just seems like. And I again, I understand, this is a this is a broad, vague. Here's what could be allowed. But I worry that what could be allowed will end up undermining the thing. You're the right thing you're trying to create, which is a neighborhood feel.

[55:04] Yeah? Yeah. Well, I think that the you know, admittedly, the terminology can can get confusing at times. And and really, what we're thinking about here in terms of transit, oriented development is is allowing for and having an expectation that there would be a substantial residential component to that. But at the same time, I don't think we want to restrict or not allow for the possibility that there could be an office use that would also benefit from having that proximity to transit and and you know, employees being able to use that really, I think the goal with the neighborhood to D is to slightly change the character in terms of, you know, focusing that more on the residential component and and sort of a purely kind of office component as opposed to the regional, to d, that allows for both of those things as well, but also to introduce elements like lodging and hotel uses, or

[56:06] you know, more kind of higher intensity. Commercial type of uses. In that in that respect. Right? So. And why not extend the neighborhood? TOD. All the way to Goose Creek? Yeah. So that decision is really, I think, based more on the we want to make sure that Goose Creek is animated and activated to the highest potential possible. Partly that, you know, helps with safety issues and and other things like that, but also makes a space that it is really a place where people want to be. So we did want to make sure that we alert, at least allowed for the opportunity for those higher intensity, residential uses, or other kinds of commercial uses, to be adjacent to Goose Creek, and and really help to energize that space as much as possible. Alright, I appreciate that current. You're next. Thanks. Following up on Sarah's question about where the brown, the active ground floor uses go. There was, I thought, good discussion in the multi board working group about the notion of the importance of

[57:11] a spine of activity to draw people along from one place to another. The analogy that I think of is the the the prostry mall draws people along right. There is always activity. There's always a new thing to look forward to as you're walking down the Mall. If you took all of that activity and separated it into 2 core areas that were that were separated by something uninteresting, like ground floor residential. Which isn't that interesting? There wouldn't be anything to draw people from one to another. And but that sort of isolated activity zone seems like what we're talking about here. So

[58:00] do you have any thoughts on that? Have you thought more about that. That feedback. Yeah, that's that's a that's a great comment. And one thing that we learned. And I say, I say, kind of the collective. We, you know, in terms of the the study of these things over decades in terms of commercial streets, and and really the more linear characteristics of of the Pearl Street Mall, and and I will say, you know, Pearl Street is A is is an exception to the rule, and in in terms of pedestrian malls, and how successful it continues to be, because there's a number of examples across the country that that we're not as successful, and and you know, unfortunately, have sort of failed. So there's a there's a fairly you know, sort of understood maximum distance that those more linear commercial types of spaces. Really, really thrive, and as soon as you start to extend beyond that, you, you start to lose some of that activity and and you end up. Having some challenges.

[59:03] The, I would say the 63 mall in Denver is actually a good example of a linear commercial district. That's too long, and there are portions of that area that are not certainly not as successful as as others. So if you think about the total distance here from, you know, sort of north to south. It's it's considerably longer than what you would typically see. Generally you fall into that sort of quarter mile, 3 or 4, maybe 5 city blocks is is a comfortable, you know. Linear commercial area where you're gonna have a lot of success throughout it. Anything beyond that. And you really start to have some challenges. So that's partly where we were thinking more in terms of creating these nodes and less of a linear connection, knowing, though, that to your point, this this notion of of a spine and really kind of a North South connecting rib. We've got the. We've got the Goose Creek, Greenway, moving east and west, but moving north and south. That creating that connection is going to be really important. And we think that there's an opportunity to do that

[60:08] through signage and wayfinding and sort of branding. And here you kind of leave the bread, chrome, so to speak, so that these are space to a point to where, if you're in one, you can kinda see what's happening just down the road at that next activity center. And so that might be enough to make you move through that area and try to make the connection in that way as opposed to really requiring those those retail or commercial uses on the ground floor all the way along. That's fine. Heard of you. Happy? You got the answer. You're looking forward. Happy. Ish? Okay, Mark, you're next. Thank you. Christopher, I just want to clarify a couple of things. first of all. within the whole TV. 2, area

[61:02] is there any publicly owned land other than the Goose Creek, Greenway? The answer is, no. So what you see what you see here on this map, the green sort of sliver there along the discrete Greenway. Those are the areas that are owned by the city of Boulder. I will note that the let me flip to this next slide here, that you can see the the green way itself, the the creek itself, and actually the multi-use path are outside of city on land, but they fall within a 120 foot utility easement that crosses over. So you know, by by right. We. We have the the ability to use that space, but it is technically not owned by the city of Boulder. And so would you, would you characterize these nodes as the cities are planning staffs

[62:01] general aspirational vision without a and I'm this is not a criticism. It's just I just want to clarify without really any mechanism for forcing a concentration of retail and restaurants and things that we want in these nodes within within the land use place type, zoning pyramid. If if a property owner or developer said, Okay, I I'm I'm operating within this pyramid. And I want to do x in within the within node one. We we don't really have a a way of saying no, you can't do that, or something. Is that correct? Well, I would say, I guess, like 2 2 answers to that. One is that if it were a site review project, right, there needs to be consistency with local area plans and the comprehensive plan. So if this was in place and a site review process came through, there would need to be some consistency, so there would be a lever to to be able to to pull in terms of that

[63:19] the the other way that we can move in the direction of of having some more regulatory teeth and authority over. That is, if we do move forward with form based code, there is the opportunity to establish in the code itself what's called the regulating plan and that's what was used over in the phase one area. We have a regulating plan for all time awesome as well, where you can get much more specific about where those uses are organized and located. And how they might be how they might be established through a private redevelopment project. Yeah. okay, that was, that's all my question. For right now. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks.

[64:00] Laura and Kurt before I call on you, Chris. your last slide was just. And now we're gonna ask for your feedback on these and on the on our amendments. Correct? The only yeah. I just wanted to mention you have in the packet. You have to revise language for Chapter 5 within the comprehensive plan. It's very minor revisions to the existing description. That's there. And then. I also just wanted to make sure everybody kind of understood. And I think I think we're getting there through the discussion that really, this is the first step in an ongoing process, as we implement phase 2, and that will be coming back. Yeah, ideally, before the end of this year, with the actual official changes to the land, use map and then we'd be moving into a lot of these, a lot of these conversations, a lot of these details in terms of what are the infrastructure needs? How are those actually implemented by the city or through private redevelopment. And then what does what are the zoning and regulations? Necessary to really guide those outcomes as we move forward? And in addition, what are the, what are the programming? Opportunities here to support local businesses, mobility options, all those other types of things. But correct. That is the end of the presentation.

[65:17] Okay? So, Chris, I'm gonna ask members of the Board who have questions, clarifying questions we haven't already asked. We'll go through those, and then we'll go to public comments. So, Laura. And then Kurt. thank you. So going back to the slide that showed those 6 open space potential areas. Outdoor spaces, can you? Just, I'm I'm sorry I'm feeling a little slow. You you mentioned earlier that the 10 to 20% open space might not be on a per parcel basis. But you might try to concentrate it in these, if I understood correctly, in these 6 outdoor spaces and along the Greenway potentially. Can you explain how that works like I get how it works when it's an individual property owner and they have to provide 10 to 20% open space on their parcel. How would you move that to somebody else's parcel? What's the mechanism?

[66:08] Yeah. Good question. I think that would also fall to a an exercise around the regulating plan within a form base code that would give us the opportunity to really highlight or identify where, where that 10 to 20 falls. And II would say that that doesn't necessarily exclude the opportunity for an individual parcel to provide that 10 to 20 as long as you know, as long as it's located within the redevelopment project in in accordance kind of with the with the intent and the ideas to concentrate these in certain locations. That would still be that would still be acceptable. I'm I'm not sure how that works from a private property rights perspective. Do we have an attorney that can explain that like, if you're talking about putting more open space than is required on a particular parcel, because you want to concentrate it there. How does that? How does that work?

[67:03] Hello! Can you join us? Or Brad? Yeah. And I let me let me just clarify that before as well. I think you're you're correct in that. We wouldn't necessarily be able to say 50% of the open space for this entire region is going to be located on parcel X. We would still have to be reasonable in terms of what? You know what that application is so that we so that there wasn't, you know, raising a property rights issue, of course. Then I'll just chime in, and I I'm sure. Hello! We'll speak to kind of rational nexus on individual projects. But jurisdictions have lots of different tools to get public open space, including purchasing it or negotiating it as part of other desires of various landowners. but creating a vision is an important first step towards getting people on

[68:03] the same page, so that bigger projects that supersede any one interest or one property can begin to be realized. That that really is the the bottom line function of comprehensive planning and master planning is to developer the vision. And then work to help people kind of get towards that through variety mechanisms. And you know, sometimes they pan out as planned in many other cases they evolve along the way. We would anticipate that here, too. So thank you. That's helpful. Hello, did you want to add something? Yeah, II think Brad already mentioned some key, some key things. There are some limitation in terms of exactions that the city can require. The city cannot require exactions and dedication of property to the city for purposes that such as parkland, beyond the impact set a particular property creates. But there might be different ways to get to that. Maybe there could be consolidated development, or there might be an opportunity to create incentive structures in the Code

[69:15] or, as Brad mentioned, that could be purchased. Or maybe it's not a completely public open space. But you know, a plaza with restaurant space. What people can sit. That's just kind of programmed in a way that makes it accessible to people. So those would be the things we look at in the next phases and then implementation, how we can make it work and complete the vision. Okay, thank you. all right, Kirk, do you mind if I go to Ml. First cause she hasn't ask many questions? No good. So ml, then Kurt and Mark Oops. Thank you, Sarah.

[70:01] so I don't see Christopher anywhere, but I guess so. The question I have is There were 2 entities, one being city council, and the other being dab that brought up question. inclusion of encouraging or incentivizing small parcels to provoke smaller, more affordable commercial spaces. And I am wondering, did that land anywhere. I well, what we've tru, what we've attempted to do, because, you know, we're we're obviously, you know, in terms of the the legal conversations around private property rights. We're we're limited in terms of what we could do to actually subdivide individual parcels. What we did intend to include were, you know, using the transportation connections and pasos and these other pedestrian connections to help break down some larger sites into smaller

[71:10] you know, into smaller redevelopment areas. That's that's one way we've tried to address that and I think that also, you know, to to the point that was made, I think, earlier in terms of the the market research. There's there's kind of the overall development scale. But then there's also really the internal architectural design that I, you know II know you would appreciate in terms of how we design those ground floors to be flexible and and almost modular and in size, so that they could be flexible for different types of commercial users, where you might have, you know, have a space that could be broken down into 3 different smaller tenant locations, but also could be expanded to be one larger you know, one larger individual tenant space. So being able to provide that flexibility going forward. And that's something we would again look to look, to include or or try to regulate through some of the future zoning and design code updates.

[72:10] So that idea of creating smaller parcels in in some capacity is still moving forward. Am I hearing you say that that that hasn't gone away? And I just don't see evidence of it, and I wasn't sure I wanted to make sure. Cause it seems like a nice solution. If if there can be an incentive or a means to to kind of promote smaller parcels. and I have no clue right what the planning tools might or might not be, but I like that as a way to attract and retain small ownership and small businesses. And you know that quality that we keep alluding to that we want to retain. And yet if we don't have a means to get that.

[73:02] we won't get it. Still, it's still with us, and you're gonna keep looking for ways to make that happen. Ye? Yes, overall, I would say that that concept is is certainly still with us, and and I will say, you know beneficially, a lot of these parcels are relatively small in terms of in terms of the the structure that we're talking about here in terms of a mixed use and a transit oriented type of neighborhood or development. There's a number of these that that are especially all along Pearl, and some in the northern area that are that are really quite small, and might actually need to be combined in some fashion to come up with a feasible redevelopment platform. Really, in the southern area, that is the area that has the largest you know, the largest individual land parcels. And we've attempted to try to break those up a little bit through those pedestrian connections. Well, that's my big question. Thank you, Christopher.

[74:02] Okay, so, Kurt. And then just a reminder. These are clarifying questions. We'll get to our discussion after thanks. This is really a follow up to Mark's question about how we ensure that we get active pedestrian spaces and active first floor in the right places and not in the wrong places. So if I understand correctly, you're saying it will be that will. The the mechanism will either be through Site Review or potentially through Formos base code. But my question is, since we're doing land use designations right now. And we're doing place types right now. Why don't we use those mechanisms? Why don't we say, for example, there is a place type that you know, goes along, for, you know, is right around these activity areas, or goes along some spine or whatever

[75:06] to to make sure that that happens. And then outside of there, it's a place like that does not, you know, does not encourage or does not allow active ground for uses. Yeah, that. Yeah, that's a that's a that's a good question. And you know, I think going into this. You know, just thinking about this phase, 2 area overall. And you know, really thinking about the the overall land use categories and and really the the scale of those. And then also in the place types. we were admittedly we were cautious to get to granular at this stage and and really get into that you know, trying to create a specific place type that serves a particular you know, need with within a very small geographic area. We wanted to make sure that we were thinking about these areas broadly.

[76:00] You know the market is changing all the time. And and again understanding that this area is going to evolve and change over what I would say is a much longer timeframe than phase one. We wanted to make sure that we were incorporating as much flexibility over time as possible, so try not to, you know. Try not to get too restrictive at this moment as to exactly where certain things would, you know, would be located, and also just being cautious that we didn't end up with, you know, 5, 6, 7, or 8 different place types that that you know are only applied to very, very small geographic locations. Great, thank you. Alright, mark. yeah. So I just want to clarify that the reason we have a future rail station kind of in the northern quarter, 20% of the property

[77:00] east of the tracks is because the I guess I'm I'm old enough to remember everything about the old discussion about having a rail station on on a curve. So is that. Is that that? Still the deciding factor is that we cannot have a rail stop on the curve near the Rtd depot. Is that correct? Yes, that is that is exactly correct. Okay, yeah, which is, yeah. It's all too bad. Okay. Then, is there anywhere in this plan? Either in the original plan, and I didn't see it, or in the tbap to for pedestrian connections east-west across the tracks.

[78:03] Yes, there is, and it's it's probably buried underneath this little star, right here there there is an underpass connection that is proposed at the rail station that would connect east and west. And there's an existing underpass right along Goose Creek that also connects to east and west. Okay, existing. So right now. On the north side of Pearl Parkway. If I'm a pedestrian or a cyclist, I can. I can go under the tracks no, along along pro Park way they are. There are at grade crossings on on both the north and south sides of Pro Parkway, but in the Goose Creek, Greenway. There is a underpass. That the multi use path connection goes under the railroad tracks. Actually, also under a junction place there and then winds up and connects up to that upper level right at the bus station.

[79:10] Okay? Last clarifying question is I? Gee, I'm glad you're optimistic, or at least you're hearing rumblings of some future commuter rail connection. Happening. I'm I'm highly skeptical. Even. I like rail, but I'm just highly skeptical. My question is, in all of this discussion about tbac, one and 2 phase, one phase, 2. Has. Rtd, given you any updates about the reopening reuse of of the art of the bus station, and and possibility of real brt beginning and ending there.

[80:00] Yes, we have had some conversations, and I believe Chris Hagelin is from our transportation department is on the call. So, Chris, if you're there, that would be useful for you to chime in. But I do know that we have had conversations with our TV. I know that there are 2 lines the I believe it is that goes out to the airport and the Ff. 4 that connects down to the civic center in Denver. Both of those have been identified in their return to Service plan to come back to this station. Those would be the first 2 lines timeframes for that, I would say, are still a bit up in the air, you know, based on Rtd, service levels and driver availability. II think those are still a little ways out, but those have definitely been identified as the first 2 to come back to this location. Okay. is Chris. It's Chris around. Yep. go ahead, Chris.

[81:01] Yes, I'm here. Yes, Christopher is correct. You know, there we we periodically well, I would say, frequently ask Rtd. About return of service to Boulder Junction. you know it is anticipated that it will restart we do not have a timeframe for that in terms of the rail. We not only have Rtd, but there's also front range passenger rail discussions going on. So a wider regional discussion about it. So we're seeing some movement on that. There's a lot of meetings happening. And honestly, that could happen before Rtd rail service. We may have a peak hour passenger rail via front range rail service. Okay? Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay? So I would just like to thank Chris, Chris and Chris for all the work that they did to on this

[82:02] Last call for clarifying questions. All right, we're up. We're going to go to public comment. And I will. I think it's Vivian to come back and manage that process. Thank you very much, Vivian. Alright. Other members from the public also go ahead and raise your hand. So we know how many people we could couldn't really hear you. So if you could repeat whatever it is, you just said. How is it now? Much better. Thank you. Okay. so I was just saying, so far we have Simone's needs hand raised. She can go first, and each member from the public will have 3 min. Devin will pull up the timer and I just ask that everybody who wishes to speak. Please go ahead and and raise your hand so that we know how many people will be speaking tonight. Please go ahead, Simone. You have 3 min.

[83:05] Hi! My name is Simone Smeed, and I'm one of the owners and operators of boulder, indoor soccer, and we're a tightly bounded piece of parcel land on the right behind Pearl Parkway. And so we have just a specific concern. We are currently in the MUI. Zoning. And we have a couple concerns because we are the only property that doesn't have a Ford face on Pearl street. So we're a flag lot that you currently wrap around. Go parallel to the rank train tracks. And then there's our building, and then we're bounded by on the back side. We're bounded by Goose Creek, so we have over 600 square feet of bordering open space, being Goose Creek, and then we're bounded by the railroad tracks on the other side, and then the way some of the futuristic planning is looking is like there would be a road in, and then it would end at a at a dead end at our parcel of land, and we feel super boxed in in that configuration. And I think a lot of what's going on here is is great forward thinking. And I wanna say, Christoffer is like amazing in his ability to process everything. But we.

[84:21] as a particular parcel of land, are the only ones that aren't sitting there on Pearl Street, and we feel like, how are we going to have successful first floor. Businesses operating there. Additionally, we feel like to fit in with the plan. That the city is proposing. It makes sense for us be to be a mute specifically, or the residential, and I call it you got that business corridor going on, old Pearl? What about a residential corridor Bounding Goose Creek. So then, you have both sides of Goose Creek, potentially bounded by the residents, which then also give, you know, eyes on the park, so to speak for safety and security and also create a neighborhood feel instead of having this one. We're like an oddball. The odd doc, in this whole proposition of just being tightly wound back there. So I think those are

[85:19] Most of my points, I wanted to say, and I just would hope I'm not gonna speak for anyone else at this opportunity. I'm just gonna say, for our particular parcel land, if you look at it. And it's actually our buildings aren't even. I'm not sure if it's a mix up or what. But we're like super light grey. You don't even see our buildings back behind. They're like the darker ones on Pearl Street. if there's a possibility for us to be Mut at this point, it keeps your map nice and clean. And then it makes a lot of sense to support the residential corridor and park activity that you're talking about along Goose Creek. So thank you, everyone for your time and efforts. Appreciate the opportunity.

[86:03] Thanks so much for being here tonight. Next we have Daniel Eisenman. Please go ahead, Daniel. Hi, thanks, everybody. Dear, planning board members, you guys are convening today to vote on the proposed land uses and updates for the second phase of the present village area plan. This decision can be a real positive one, as it's the best opportunity within our city to meet the our immediate housing needs located within the core of the city with proximity to mass, transit and bike and pedestrian connectivity, and in close proximity to the existing infrastructure and services. We would like to see the addition of the indoor recreation use added to the regional Dod Place type. I think a gym would be considered an indoor recreation use and sort of a service in a community would need. So so we would hope that that could be added to that place step. And I just wanted to close up by saying that we support and celebrate the city staff and their efforts on creating a collaborative environment with the focus groups. I think it was a successful effort. Well planned, well attended.

[87:14] and they listened. So I just want to commend the city for their hard work, and KJ. And the team, and Chris and everybody else, and Vivian. So we hope that the Planning Board can support these amendments and work to towards the implementation plan, where all the additional details can be worked out. So thank you very much. Thank you, Daniel. Anybody else from the public. This is your opportunity to speak for this public hearing. Item. Okay, no other hands raised. Chris, before Chris of credit before we go to our discussion. could you answer Daniel's question about whether a gym is considered a indoor recreation user is that defined? That term defined something else like the socket. The soccer

[88:07] facility alright. Just had to find my mute button. Yes, and I'm double checking with my development review colleagues. But generally I believe that gyms are are more of along the lines of the personal service uses, and indoor recreation is really, I think, intended to. Refer to those larger kinds of indoor climbing walls. Pickle ball? indoor soccer, etc. Great. Thank you very much, Christopher and Kurt. Did you have a clarifying question. Yeah. I wanted to follow up on something raised by Miss me. I believe that has any consideration been given to connecting old Pearl to pearl that on that West End? It seems like it's not very far, and it would have to go through the motorcycle place, I assume. But I'm wondering if it would be possible. I don't know

[89:10] to what extent this would address their particular needs, but it seems like it would be beneficial, just in terms of connectivity, to have at least a small connection through their probably it wouldn't be a fully signalized intersection. But maybe a writing right now, or something like that. Has that been considered? Yeah. So from a from a vehicular standpoint connecting at that location would be would be very difficult and and and problematic, partly just because of the distance between. That you would have a very, very short distance between that intersection, even if it was a right and right app and the rail the railroad location and intersection there. So from a vehicular standpoint, it would be really difficult. We we do show a multi-use path connection at that particular location, so that there is a at least a pedestrian and bicycle connection. That would be accommodated. But from a yeah, from a vehicular standpoint, I think that would be pretty challenging.

[90:12] Okay, I'll sorry, Kurt, did you have a follow up, or can I go to Laura? Thank you. Laura. Also following up on one of the public comments, Christopher in the funky functional place type. If I am reading this right ground floor residential is allowed as a conditional use. And you said that in one of your emails about the revisions, that what those conditions would be to describe where residential on the ground floor is appropriate will be detailed in a future implementation step, but it would likely include proximity to open space and or transit facilities. Things like that so a lot that is adjacent to Goose Creek would that potentially be? Have an allowable ground floor? Residential use as a conditional use?

[91:03] Ye? Yes, as as envisioned. You know today this evening that that is one of the things that we would be looking very closely at in terms of where where, and you know where it would be appropriate to have residential uses at the ground floor, and and proximity to that open space. Is certainly a factor that we would, we would be supportive of Ok. So even in that mixed use industrial, the funky functional place type, you could have ground floor residential in some locations, including potentially along Goose Creek. That's correct. Yes, okay, thank you. Alright. I'm gonna suggest we take a 10 min break. We come back. We do our discussion. And in the meantime, can I ask Staff please to put up the 3 questions and the draft language for the motion which was not included in the proposal. So we haven't seen exactly what you wrote. That'd be helpful. Have both of it possible?

[92:03] Great! We can do that. Thank you. So we'll be back at according to my clock. 7, 41.

[102:02] So did we lose our chance of seeing Max this evening. Went to bed. But maybe we'll see what happens. Okay. Sarah, did you want me to go ahead and put up the slide with the questions, okay. yes, please. Thank you. Alright. I believe we are back. So we'll approach this from the 3 key questions which I think give space for people to raise specific concerns within the umbrella of each of the questions. And then, if

[103:05] some topic has not been touched on, we'll go around the Horn and see what those topics may be if there are proposed changes to the recommended motions or conditions. I think we're going to need help from Hella to know exactly how to do this? Not not yet, but exactly how to make those proposed changes, just because this is such a unusual document for us to be working from. So let's start with key question number one planning board members support the proposed M. Ui land. Use along old Pearl Street, or prefer MUTO. D. I'll start with Laura. Thank you. I have a question that is going to greatly influence my answer to this and this comes from the letter that was sent by the property owners.

[104:03] They maintain that phase. One property owners continue to struggle for tenants and have shown that businesses below residential is not a sustainable option currently phase one is 75%. Vacant in the first floor light industrial spaces. Could I ask Staff to comment on that? Or the could you verify those facts? Is phase 1, 75% vacant are those spaces designated as light industrial. My concern here is that if we have a 75% vacancy of light industrial spaces in phase one. Why would we expect that phase? 2 would be successful with that corridor along old Pearl, staying as light industrial on the ground floor. So I don't know if Christopher wants to answer that or somebody else. Yeah, I can. I can intend to. So II don't believe we have a verified number of the total amount of of vacancy from all of the all of the property owners in that particular in in the phase one area. Certainly it is high and higher than you know what we would like to see. I don't believe that any of those spaces are restricted to live. Industrial uses. However, I think primarily many of them are

[105:13] commercial or retail in in nature. And the you know. One thing I would mention relevant to that is that. And and I kind of alluded to this in a response to Ml. Is that a number of those spaces are very large in size, so they're very expensive for a tenant. so that that is, that is one particular challenge associated with with many of those with those spaces that we would hope to address going forward. And then, secondly, the the phase, one area, even though I think most of us feel like it's already complete, but a lot of it is actually still under construction, and many of those residential homes are are not yet occupied and then, obviously with with the pandemic and a lot of You know, changes to hybrid work policy and the the occupancy of those office locations. In phase one is is, you know, severely lower than than what normally would have been expected. So the number of people in that particular phase, one area is certainly lower than we would have been originally anticipated, and I think that is also having a market effect. You know, on the the viability of businesses in that area.

[106:23] Brad, did you want to add to that? Yeah, I appreciate that. Just maybe the perspective of of time suggest my age. There is a saying in development and in land use cases that retail follows residential, and I found that to be true. Over and over again. It throughout my career the retail commercial. like industrial, which is a service type as well. really, just simply does not come until there's a critical mass of residential, and, in fact.

[107:02] were this not vertical mixed use, I would, and it was traditional. you know, segregated, zoning or segregated uses we would probably see the residential getting built, and then the and then the commercial coming later. But of course, when you're building building by design as that in its vertical mixture. Not gonna see that I don't think we can discount Covid effect either. And even though you know, in many respects we're kind of well out of that. The terms of financing and planning. For tenant finish, and all those things take. Well. so that's not a defense necessarily of the question or the concern, but it it hopefully gives a perspective that I would submit. We just simply don't know yet. Where that's gonna go. personally, I do think it's gonna fill in in due time.

[108:00] As Christopher mentioned. There's a fair amount of retail or residential rather, that's not not built there yet. It's building out right now. So thank you. Thank you, Christopher, and and Brad. Ii would also like to invite the economist, if he's still on the line to to comment. If he has an opinion about that mixed use industrial area, that is. you know, mostly not residential on the first floor, and any expectation about you know what you're seeing in the market. And and would those first floor spaces get filled. are you? Are you, Laurie? Are you referring to the phase 2 area or the phase, one area to the phase 2 for tonight? Thank you for the clarification. Sure. I think consistent with what Staff has presented is that our expectation is that in terms of uses that that retail would be limited to

[109:10] locations that we think are high activity areas and major road intersections. The how the rest of the First level space gets filled in. you know. III think our expectation is that there will be some of the developments that cities looking to encourage in terms of office service maker space, you know, light industrial maker kind of space. But we also would expect that there would be sort of developer pressure or market pressure.

[110:01] or at least a number of the buildings to be a hundred percent residential. You know that I am less unless there are regulatory regulatory controls that prevent residential from being on those First level site. I think there's an expectation that at least the percentage of the buildings would would be developed. you know, with a hundred percent residential. Thank you, Daniel. I would like to listen to my fellow planning board members who already have an opinion, and then, if you could circle back to me, Sarah mark So but I toured both TV one and TV 2 today, and I've been through there many times, and

[111:04] ride through there and stuff. So I feel like I have a good. a a good feel for how it's how it's going now, and it's function. And and I'll say that I think the way the the the western portion is developing and has developed. And what's changed with Twitter going twitter, not fulfilling their space obligations with Covid with. Just you know the way things have happened and since the time that we developed that plan. I think that we tend, especially in Boulder, to try to plan with a very finely pointed pen like we're, you know, detailing things. And you know there's there's a little bit of hubris not on any staff members. Just it's human to say, well, this is this is what I want to plan. And so in in getting to the answer to the question.

[112:11] I support a greater degree of flexibility that I think is offered by MU. To d. and and I'm I'm ready to change that back if if staff or fellow board members can convince me otherwise. But I think just overall. We're looking at a plan that this you know, we're still building out phase one, we're we're a long way from start from really starting implementing phase 2, and consequently III feel like a greater degree of the flexibility is is what I support, and I think that that is offered by Mut. And I just also want to remind all of us that you know we're very much focused on phase one versus phase 2. And this side of the tracks to to a pedestrian, to a user, to a resident. There's no phase, one and phase 2. It's like, Oh, it's on the other side of the tracks. Oh, it's a block over at whole foods.

[113:17] They don't make these distinctions, and I think that by separating phase one from phase 2 so distinctly. we are possibly saying, okay, we're gonna correct for this mistake in phase, one by doing something else in phase 2. When in fact, it all may just work out to be one nice, big, really nice big neighborhood when it's all worked out. And and it might work out really well in ways that we don't anticipate. And so again, voting for more flexibility. Thank you. Mark Lisa. yeah, I think that's a good point. And and I'm not entirely sure where I'm letting it on on land use specifically and still trying to make sure. I understand that the different options have been presented with. But

[114:07] that's something I've struggled troubled with, for this, too, is that we kind of. I think we tried to get more into like form based code, and tried to think about placemaking, and tried to think about pedestrian environments, and paid parking and all of those things. But we still were just so constrained on what the spaces were, and what the uses were in the first zone, that we kind of backed ourselves into corners, so that when something unexpected, like a pandemic happens, or certain uses don't material is the way that we thought they would. The faces just aren't flexible, the way that you'd like them to be, and as much as you know, there are times and examples where we try to apply Euclidean zoning, which we're not doing here, but where we apply Euclidean zoning, and we try to control for certain uses, whether it's noxious uses or trying to protect certain kinds of neighborhoods, or whatever that often ends up in empty spaces and not very interesting neighborhoods, and so on. So anyway, I'm I'm I'm wrestling with exactly where I'm gonna fall. But

[115:05] this feels like an area of the city, where, being more flexible and allowing. you know. more types of use and development that fit. What we're trying to do with the area overall feels appropriate. You know, like back to the light industrial. It makes sense to me that the commercial is kind of sitting there empty. And I'm like, okay, well, you know, or really short of his housing, it sure be nice if we could just like turn that back into some housing. which I feel the same way about downtown, and I know not all those buildings are appropriate for adaptive reuse, but still you know, or vice versa, you know. It turns out that. Oh, you know what you know. It's we're not using it for that. We just want to be a big, open, warehouse type. Space, and people are gonna use it to do some light manufacturing. I know that's probably not gonna happen. But II just like more flexibility in this area, I guess, and so I I'd like to lean toward what will allow us to do that I'll call on myself. I'm supporting, at least for now the mui, because

[116:01] a fundamental part of the conversation that we've been having on this all along has been trying to protect some space for mixed use. I'm sorry for light industrial use. And just from the financing the the financial perspective. MUTO. D. Is. gonna it's gonna wipe that out because the financial, the financials, the financial incentives are going to push towards high density housing, slash commercial slash office space. That's just the way it's gonna go. And while it'd be great to have residential a lot of residential, we do also have this need to protect and sustain at least some light industrial in town. Otherwise. if you remember, I can't remember what the statistic was, but we've already displaced a lot of industrial zoning in boulder, and we continue to do it. And somehow I think we have magical thinking that

[117:04] that won't be a problem. But it's a problem. I mean, it's it's a problem. So my position right now is mui. And I think what we realize through this process when it comes to flexibility is if 3 years from now, when they actually, when staff actually gets to the okay, what is this actually going to look like on a granular level? If the decision. if folks who are on city council and planning board at that time, and in the market, the market analysts, etc., etc. Say, you know what we need to change this a little bit, I'm pretty sure, like 110% sure that it can be changed. So my position right now is mui, and I'd rather start there rather than give that up. Mel! And then, Kurt. thank you, Sarah. So I am in support of the proposed and Ui land use matter of fact, my initial instinct

[118:05] was to increase it all the way down to Pearl Parkway. I'm not sure why that edge was selected the way it was. But you know, so M. Ui allows light industrial services uses that currently exist and would be encouraged in the future. So this land use type differs only slightly from and ut in that it encourages the smaller maker spaces, workshops, breweries, and other creative spaces. It doesn't prioritize retail on the ground floor. It prioritizes places for people to provide different kinds of services. It's also not intended for large industrial or warehouse uses and I think if you look at the scale of the buildings and what we know about the property.

[119:02] Uses and ownership. It already is smaller scale and I am in full agreement with Sarah's assessment of you know, if not here, where I mean it's already there, and for us to to not acknowledge that that is an important part of the fabric of our any neighborhood, and certainly a city to allow for these smaller nuanced developments to occur. I think this is the perfect place. I think Staff is spot on here, and I do have one question is like. why was the southern end of it articulated where it is? I'm not sure that's even a street rather than at Feral Parkway.

[120:01] Chris, can you answer that? The southern half, the southern half of, and the Mui, the Southern, the northern half of the southern half of the mute Mutad, between Pearl Parkway and I did. Yes, I do. I do know the area. So the thinking the thinking there was that specifically, because Pearl Parkway is such a wide right of way. And you know, fairly high speed, you know, vehicular connection there. The goal was to actually allow for a greater level of intensity on both sides of that street, so that you could. you can get quite frankly taller buildings there to help bring the scale of the width of that right of way down a little bit, and ideally start to in incorporate some additional kind of visual friction, as it sometimes is called, which I know doesn't sound like much, but basically try to get people to slow down a little bit when you've got buildings that are right up you know, to the street and things like that. So really, the goal was to try to try to bracket for a parkway with some higher intensity uses. That's why we that's why we jumped over the street there with that new Tod.

[121:16] What is that? What is the southern edge of the proposed mui? That is the North Boulder farmers ditch, I believe that's right. Well, it it was a natural feature, but it's now in a concrete channel. but it's not a street, so there won't be any cars going in and out. We're all facing old pearl all those properties. So what you're proposing that you use Pearl Parkway to be more about the more urban interface probably is very logic logical, because these businesses

[122:02] really have would have their back to that right. They all face onto old Pearl a lot of those businesses face actually on to Pearl Parkway. Currently they kind of are access from the from the rear right now, so that access would likely change as part of you know, a future redevelopment that would come in off of off of frontier, or perhaps off of pearl from the backside cause. Yeah, I don't think that we would allow for a lot of additional curve cuts directly off of Pro Parkway into into those areas. Right? But you're saying, currently, people come in off of Pro park way onto frontier and then access those businesses that way. Yes, that's correct so frontier is kind of an important acts really it's the only access street cause all for all dead ends.

[123:00] Correct. That's right. Sorry to interrupt. Devin. Can you please promote Curt back to panelists. Yeah, he should be back in here. Thanks. Sorry about that, and no, no worries. So I do think, given the fact, it's limited access and everything about it. It is different. and everything else. And I just think that that would also encourage us to consider that it has a different. a different function, a different use. anyway. So that that's my perspective. Thank you. II yes, I support the proposed Ny land use for various reasons, including those that I stated. Okay, thank you. Eml Kurt, you're next great. Thank you. I'm sorry my zoom crashed, and so I need to get back in. So I missed a little bit of this. This is what I get for updating my zoom I support a new to D, for the reasons similar to those that Mark and Lisa elaborated on

[124:14] II think the flexibility absolutely is important. We've seen through the pandemic that things change, and very rapidly, and we don't know what's coming down the bike. And so having the the greatest flex flexibility for land uses, I think, is important. I'm also a little skeptical. The the industrial, the kinds of industrial spaces there, and of the kinds of industrial uses, I think, would not primarily be what is already there which is boulder roofing, and the when something that is a bunch of bikes out there, and those are more sort of heavy industrial, a little heavier, industrial. And

[125:00] I. So the the memo talks about small marker mark, small maker spaces, workshops, breweries, and other creative spaces, and I'm just a little skeptical about how many of those we need. Certainly they're important things. I'd I'd love to have more. But there's a limited demand for them and and so limiting ourselves, allowing those things sounds awesome limiting for for uses to those to me does not make sense. I'm also concerned that, according to the estimates in memo, the when built out, this would end up with 1,500 to 2,500 residences and 3,000 to 4,000 jobs. So we continue to exacerbate our jobs housing imbalance. which is not the direction that I feel like we should be going. And so, allowing more residential, I think, is

[126:00] is what we should be doing here. So for those reasons, I support any, do. So at this point I'm gonna do a thumbs up, thumbs down because we seem to be 3 3. I'm sorry, large. Let me. At this point we have a sense, and people can change what they were gonna do when from when they first talked. But I have a question for Staff can, if you don't mind, before we go to the thumbs, up, thumbs down. Sure. Thank you. So going back to Christopher and these various maps. I just want to make sure I am understanding how this is going to work in practice. So I'm looking at first. The land use map that has that stripe of mui across the middle which seems to imply kind of a linearity. And when we talk about old Perl, we talk about wanting it to be sort of like funky and fun, and a pedestrian district. And people can kind of it's very activated. It's very lively. It's very artsy. It's it's eclectic, it's cool. So there's that vision. But then and that that also maps onto the place type vision. But we know that then the place types that that middle strip of M. Ui could have some residential ground floor, especially along Goose Creek, and those are pretty wide parcels

[127:13] there to the north of Goose Creek, so they could easily be, you know, residential in the back and party up front. They're the reverse mullet kind of thing. But then, when you look at the other map that you've given us with those activity nodes that feels like a very different vision than kind of a linear activated district along old Perl. And I, just, I'm really struggling with how those houses actually gonna look on the ground. Are we? Are we expecting kind of a linear activated district along old Pearl that is dependent upon having that and mui designation? Or are we really looking at like a few different activity nodes that are in both the mui and the MU to d, and will it really make a difference whether it's mui or MU to d. yeah, yeah. Good question. So the

[128:01] the the activity nodes that are identified are really more intended to be specific to sort of true retail or personal service types of uses where you need that really highly active you know, foot traffic and pedestrian activity, the the mui and sort of, I guess the corridor that might be created through that designation along or perl wouldn't necessarily be totally focused on the retail aspect of it. It would be more of the you know more of the maker space, more of the light industrial or manufacturing types of uses, and and you know, a bit more diversity, I think, in terms of what those what those could be. So I think that that's the that's the intention in terms of how that might manifest itself. II agree to your point that there could be locations, certainly within the M. Ui that have residential on the ground floor. And so again, it's gonna be a bit

[129:00] a bit of a mashup. And really it's intentional that way, so that it is, you know, much more diverse in terms of what those activities are. creates that kind of funky. And I collected space that the community is interested in. Okay, thank you. That's clarifying. I appreciate that thumbs thumbs up for mui. We have 3 up and one sideways, so thumbs up for MUTO. D. We have 2 and one sideways. Okay, so we'll come back. We'll circle back to that. But I think it gives Staff a a flavor. We'll come back to it when we actually have to deal with the motion? Okay. Second question, does planning board support the recent revisions to the place type? Please raise your electronic hand. If you have a comment, you want to make

[130:01] Ml. anyone else, go ahead and raise your hand. Mark, ml, then Mark, and if any other hands go up a call. Yeah. thank you, Sarah. So I think there's a new place type. the funky, the funky one is the new one. and I have a sense. Well. let me just say the least apparent advancement in phase one is, are the pedestrian and people places. So the thing I have been thinking about regards to phase 2 is Could there be a place type. that whose sole intent is place making? And this being in the interstitial spaces where you have label. Activity nodes, outdoor spaces, alley, multi-use path.

[131:09] Paso, although II didn't see any particular path articulated as a passale but the idea that it's these spaces where people are in are publicly engaging. That's what makes a place right? It's not what you're doing inside your door. It's not whether you're making stuff or whether you're cooking dinner. though it's that interstitial area that becomes really critical. And I think that that is what has not shown up in phase one to me. That would be the big lesson learned. is there is no there there, even in the designated plaza. So I would.

[132:01] My suggestion here. and it might end up as a condition or something more formalized is to let's consider adding a place type that gives some specificity to the interstitial public spaces where we don't want them to be. I think, somebody, Christopher, you might have said that just just a you know, a sidewalk with a few trees planted on either side. That does not a place make, and I and I think that that is the downfall of phase one is that there? There wasn't any specificity around. So what about those places in between buildings or that plaza where nobody goes, or that? Now, of course, this is all you know. We don't know how it's gonna land, because we've had Covid and all. But that would be.

[133:02] I support adding this funky new place type. I think the idea of of trying to capture a use that speaks to a different scale. Then the some of the other place types speak to is important. but I think that I would propose making another place type, which is about the interstitial spaces. Ml, thank you, Mark. So. I agree with ml, except for the one thing which is rather than greater specificity, it's it's in some regards it's greater flexibility, so that that the place that we're agreeing that we're trying to achieve

[134:04] occurs kind of organically. And and that is where people are coming together. And I think that the failure in phase one we certainly can attribute partly to business conditions, covid etc., and and maybe that will all correct itself someday. And so when II while talking, we've been discussing, I've been looking at the little Graphic and the Revised Graphic and in regard to place types, what's allowed and stuff. And it's like, really, there isn't all that much difference between them. And and what I got to thinking about is I support the concept of these no's. Now. whether or not they're in exactly the right places. I don't know but I do support the concept of notes, and and if there's going to be some specificity about types of businesses, then

[135:01] I think it should be within the realm of the node we're trying to create. to support the activity that Ml. Described. There needs to be a place there, and that place is not someone upstairs cooking dinner. It's someone downstairs walking to a restaurant meeting, friends going to the gym, whatever that might be. So if there was ever a place to have a place type, it would be in the node versus this kind of broader. Ii think. Let the broader area develop as it will, and really focus. If you're going to incentivize and drive drive the developer to do something in an area. Then, hey, this is a no dary. We really want you to do this here, and we're gonna help you move that along. Thank you, Mark. Laura. Thank you, Christopher. Could you describe for us again, what is that next phase where the nodes get more developed. It was some kind of a controlling plan or something. It's a different tool than place types.

[136:11] Yeah. So if if we move forward with form based code. In this, in this area, there's some. There's part of that that's called a regulating plan. And that's where that level of of specificity and detail gets gets incorporated and you regulated. Okay, I think part of what we're struggling with is that this whole concept of place types is pretty new, right. It only came in the East Boulder subcommittee plan, and for a lot of us we only talked about that for a night or 2, and then never saw it again. So this whole concept of place types is is somewhat fresh. It it makes sense to me that you have this. You know that at least how I experienced it in the East Boulder subcommunity planning process was that zoning is kind of not specific enough, right? Like zoning just tells you we want residential. We want commercial. We want mixed use. But it doesn't have this level of detail of first floor uses. We want these specific things like this place types, diagram gets much more specific about allowable uses.

[137:12] and maybe that that lives in different places, maybe that lives in zoning and the use tables and other things. But I think that the place types is just a really good for me. Clarifying tool. Of what kinds of things can we expect on the ground floors and above in these different districts. So II like the place types and to answer the question, I support the revisions to the place type. It sounds like those were really good cleanups. yeah, I'm I'm for it. And I totally respect where Mark and Ml. Are coming from in terms of place. Making is more than place types, place types are much more general than place making, and it sounds like that comes in the Ford form based code with the regulating plan. So I haven't seen that yet. I really don't have a good grasp of what that looks like. But I'm I'm trusting staff that that's kind of the tool that you use for that purpose rather than place types.

[138:04] Thank you, Laura. So first I want to say goodnight to Max, but he seems to have left So I actually, II think the place types are essentially fine. Because we know that the granularity will come later. But I do like Ml's idea of encouraging or recommending I making a recommendation that carries over beyond. Whether this these amendments are approved that will carry over beyond approval into the granular, the the plate, the process at which we get granular. That would I have a specific node. I? Yeah, place type that once defined and I'm assuming it would be more retail restaurants, personal services

[139:07] and relatively smallish might then suggest that some of the other place types could be refined. So, for example, you could what I would want. But that doesn't mean that's the right thing would be eliminating the office space on the second, the upper floors of the neighborhood, Todd, so that you would have housing rather than office space but maybe we can draft a condition which is a it's not a condition. It would be a recommendation to consider developing a place type for the read. I'll call it a retail? No, no, just because I don't know what else to call it or we could call it a place making slash, retail, node. We can work on that language, but I support that idea for Mel, and hope that it can.

[140:03] rather than trying to change what you have here. It would be an additive part of the discussion going forward. Kurt. thanks. Yeah. I agree with a lot of what has been said, including Eml's point, which I think is somewhat similar to what I was getting at with with trying to define better where the activity areas are going to be. And and I realize we can't. We shouldn't over define it. But but being more, a little bit more specific would make me more comfortable. I do trust Staff in what you're doing. But it's just. It's a little hard to sign on to something at this point when it it still feels so big. I agree with Sarah about her concern about allowing office on upper floors of the neighborhood. Dod. That does not

[141:03] seem appropriate for something that in my understanding is a place type that is particularly focused on residential. I also, I do have questions about the location of the neighborhood to D, and it. It's, I guess similar to what Sarah was getting at. When she was asking about extending it down to to Goose Creek. I feel like the corner of Valmont and foothills. Parkway is not a very appealing place to have residential to me it would actually be preferable, even though the train obviously allowed it. I think it's actually less more compatible with residential to have residential long train tracks than along Parkway, and particularly, I think it would be great to have

[142:00] concentration of residential along Goose Creek. I understand, wanting to activate that. But I think that there are ways to do that with residential so overall. II agree with what my colleagues have, said I, and not certain that the location chosen for the neighborhood Dod, is really the best. Alright. So how about if we do a thumbs up for something along the lines of what Ml. A recommendation along the lines of what Ml. Talked about? And and if we have more than we have more than 3 thumbs up, maybe we can ask Ml. To draft up something that we can then try to workshop or add in when we get to the actual motion so thumbs up. I need more specificity than something along the lines of what Ml. Talked about to be able to support or not support some sort of place type

[143:05] that would be around centered on these, the concept of the nodes that would be some combination of placemaking retail probably not public service. I'm sorry personal service. so that because that's not defined at it's the assumption is that that'll get worked out in the in the next phases, and it probably will. But we have an opportunity to at least articulate a recommendation. It's it's not binding. It's a recommendation. City Council can say no. The next planning board can say no blah blah. You know it's there's all kinds of off ramps, but it does capture what I'm hearing from at least Kurt myself. Ml. And I think Mark also was sort of interested in the idea. We haven't heard from Lisa yet. So it's

[144:02] it's not meant to be a. It must be this or it must be that, but rather a recommendation to look at a fourth place type. Can I just ask Staff to respond to that about whether place types would be an appropriate tool from from just an administrative perspective, to do what Ml. Is talking about like I support what Ml. Is talking about in terms of trying to define better those spaces, and I would love to have Staff's opinion on whether place types is the right tool to use for that. Yeah, thanks, thanks for that question. II would probably advise. II would probably advise against the use of the place type, knowing that that's really intended to be specific to and and has a interrelationship with land uses and zoning, and what I think. I understand what what the interest is, and I think that there will be mechanism to do that I would probably I would get a little bit nervous about using the place type as as the as the actual tool that we use. But II absolutely think that there is an opportunity to do that, and to define and create better specificity about those activity nodes and the kinds of things we would expect to see there. And and certainly we would be. We would be open to exploring that as part of a future step. If that is what is recommended.

[145:22] Okay, Mark. I guess I'm gonna make a recommendation that we answer. Question 2 and then under question 3. If someone wants to draft a recommendation, I understand. This is not a motion. I got all that, but just to to draft a recommendation that we could review and say, Yeah, II like that. And that recommendation seems like we're coalescing around. And again, maybe it's just

[146:01] my hearing that II hear what I want to hear. And everyone here's what they want to hear that that more specificity about how, what tools to use to make the nodes successful. you know, to make them successful from an activity standpoint. And so if someone wants to make a recommendation about how to make these no successful, I'm all ears for that. But in terms of answering staff question. II think we can. We can do that in a in a more simple fashion. Okay, I will then say I generally support the place steps. But I do not support office space on the second, on the upper floors of neighborhood. Todd. Would anyone else like to say what what they support or don't support, and then we'll have to fashion something from there. Kurt.

[147:01] Yeah. Well, as I said, I agree with you, Sarah, about not putting office on Dod and it's late in the game. I realize I would like to see a reconsideration of where the neighborhood Dod goes, but I realize that that may not be feasible at this point. And just Anna Kurt, I would support that as well. Laura! And then, Laura, then, Mark. II don't have a position on Sarah. What you said about office on above in neighborhood to D, or the position of neighborhood to D at this time. But I would like to give Staff an opportunity to explain what their rationale was. Just that we're working from that base of information. Why was Neighborhood Tod located in that upper right, you know, northeast corner. And why is office space included on the upper floors and neighborhood? To D. What's the vision there?

[148:00] Yeah. Sure, the neighborhood to d that's described is is is replicated from the East Boulder subcommittee plan. So it's it is intended to allow for an evolution of what is currently very much an office. Heavy location so pretty much that whole entire northern area is a is a mixture of different office type of tenants or you know, tech office, that that type of thing and so the notion there is is is also that the neighborhood. Tod is a slightly less intense land use, and there are some existing uses on the north side of Belmont as well. So we were looking at creating a bit of a transition as you start to step down towards the north and really just focus on really, that area being a little bit different. Character. Rather than applying that utod across the entire area. Thank you.

[149:00] Lisa. And then mark I think my my initial response also is that I'm I'm a little confused over the office up top, notwithstanding my concerns about putting overly strict parameters on. I'm I'm just a little puzzled by it, so I appreciate that. But I just wanted to offer that for staff. Thank you, Mark. So I support The recent revisions to the place sites, including. theoretically allowing offices on the second floor of the neighborhood. To D. And my thinking, there is just that with the amount of vacant office space in East Boulder and around everywhere. I don't think there's not a a a huge demand. There's there's hundreds of thousands of square feet in phase, 1 s floor office that is now readily available. And so I I'm I just think the market will take care of that versus our place type making. But I do. And I do agree with

[150:07] Kurt and Sarah that the neighborhood to d location I would. I would agree with them that it needs to move west, away from foothills into an area that is more likely to read. It really redevelop that. That eastern area has a lot of buildings that are not very far into their useful life, and that the redevelopment most likely is going to happen farther west, and I agree with Curt that from a noise standpoint, and everything else. I'd rather be near the tracks and have occasional noise than near foothills, and have constant roar. So what I think I'm hearing, and we'll do a thumb. Maybe I'm not hearing this, but I think I'm hearing is perhaps majority support for eliminating office on the top floor the upper floors of

[151:04] neighborhood Td. And considering, shifting the neighborhood to d. A. A bit to the west and the south, or expanding it to the west and the South depending on what verb you want to use. is that. can I get just a nod or a shaking of heads to see if I'm capturing correctly what what folks have been saying? I see Kurt shaking his head or nodding his head. I see. Ml, nodding her head. What about Mark, I think I just was repeating what you just said. Lisa, shake head, not head, not head. Laura Shakehead, not head. not hit that. Shake it. I'm sorry. Okay, so and I'm a nod. I'm a nod head. So I think those are the 2 takeaways specific to question number 2. Kind of before we go on to question number 3. Just a question from Staff. I know. I see Christopher writing furious notes.

[152:07] but we're still gonna have to vote on motions. So I want to understand how these this feedback gets captured in the motions. Can someone help us with that? Yes, and certain? Certainly Hella can chime in The way. The way that I believe that these would have to be captured is that in the in the motion to adopt the plan. The proposed amendments as submitted by Staff. You would need to add conditions, and I think each of those conditions would need to be. vote it on individually to make sure that we capture them correctly. Final motion. Okay, so can can we? Can I ask a question? I think in the in the past. There's a difference between saying we move to adopt this plan with the following conditions versus we move to adopt this plan as it's written, and we make the following recommendations, which is different than a condition, right? Because, as I understand it, and we had this discussion with East Boulder Subcommunity plan, city council and planning board have to adopt the same thing right? And so if we put 3 conditions on this.

[153:25] and city council doesn't agree with our 3 conditions. Then we're in this back and forth which takes time. And II don't know that we feel strongly enough about it that we want to hold up the plan adoption. If city Council doesn't agree with our recommendations, so is it possible for us to adopt the plan? Anything that we feel is a deal breaker make it a condition. And anything that we just wanna make as a recommendation, we don't make it a condition. We just make it a recommendation to consider. Is that is that possible? I guess I'm asking Hela for her legal opinion. I'm just concerned that if we put a lot of conditions and then city council doesn't agree. We get into this, like.

[154:02] you know, head budding. Yeah. The the term recommendation. I maybe it should be described a little bit differently. Because a recommendation wouldn't be an adoption. But it sounds like what you're describing is that you would also approve a change, provided that council also approved it, but otherwise the board would be okay. With. If Council does not agree with the proposed change by the board, then the Board approves the plan as originally prepared by Staff. I would be okay with that, I think that would work for me if it works for the rest of the board mark. So pardon me if we don't amend a motion. then there's no real method. II appreciate Staff having 3 key questions and us providing feedback, but there's no method for incorporating that feedback.

[155:06] Without us amending these motions, III could be correct. I could be wrong. It seems like. If this is what is being? We're being asked to make these 2 motions tonight. And if we don't if we don't, if we don't amend these, then exactly what's been presented tonight without our recommendations. we'll go to council, and council will then be told. Planning Board adopted this, and if you make any changes. Then it's gonna go back to planning board. So there's there's a little bit of pressure on both sides to adopt the current motions. But am I wrong that there's really no way of incorporating our feedback unless we amend these motions.

[156:02] Well, I yeah, I think you could draft a motion that already incorporates your changes to start with. So then, that wouldn't be an amendment. But your motion, any changes you want to see should be included in your motion. Right? Okay, so our feedback tonight, this is not like 3 months ago, where we provide feedback. And then you guys are gonna come back with another little revision or something. This is the real deal tonight. And so if we want, whether it's whether it's re crafting the main motion or amending the main motion. What we do tonight goes to council, and and we start that back and forth, and we hope we avoid that back and forth. But it's so just before I pick on before I go to Ml. And then before I go to Brad, and then ml, I just sent to Devin zooming. He's still there. oh. a a. The the language with rec with motion, one

[157:02] adding these little elements that we've discussed thus far. and I've done it as a recommendation. We can fix it later, if that turns out not to be something we're comfortable with. But it's I'm trying to capture what our conversations have been so that we have something to work from after we answer question number 3, that's not meant to And the conversation that Laura started. I just wanted to let you all know that I've sent an initial motion language with additions. Brad, and then Ml, and then Kurt. yeah, he just wanted to speak, to form and and frankly see, I'm also on the same page. But but see if other staff on the call are on the same page I would characterize the recommended motion number 2 is is fairly housekeeping. It. It simply make sure there's consistency between them. Tom Plan and the Transit Building plan.

[158:01] I think when you contemplate amendments that'd be relative to recommended motion number one, where it already says. motion to adopt the plan. including one revisions to be. and then to amending page whatever ever. So that could be the form for how you do that. That's just one possibility. Ml. thank you, Sarah. I think what I understood, I heard Hela say is that we would amend the motion with a recommendation to XY or Z, which means that that would not tie Council's hands into accepting or not accepting what we are recommending.

[159:00] because it's only a recommendation. But it's in the motion. Is it an amendment to the motion? Hell am I understand? Did I understand that correctly, that it would be proposed as an amendment to the motion. but if we make it a recommendation. then the Council's hands are not tied to have to come back to us. If they don't agree. Yeah, it. It also depends a little bit on what what you actually wanna do. But yeah, if it's a recommendation only, then I would not consider it adopted. But I think what Laura was describing was. she would let's say Laura supports MUI. In the plan as currently proposed. Well, actually, let's say, Mark proposes to changes to MUTO. D. And the board, and he makes a motion to change it to that, and the board discusses it and things. Well, we want to change that way, but if Council does not agree. then the Board

[160:04] would accept the adoption of and ui. and the intent of the what would be that for that to be approved? It wouldn't have to come back to council, so we would essentially conditionally approve both versions and leave it up to council. So the the motion to amend would include both options. I'm I'm I'm confused, but I'm sure. Yeah, we'd have to think about how to how to express that well. But yes, he would essentially say. we approve this as our first option. But if Council doesn't agree with that, we also approve this other option, I see. So I know we haven't answered question number 3 yet, and we'll come back to it. But I just want to put this up so you can see that I'm trying to accommodate this concern.

[161:00] And this may or may not be the thing that we end up voting on. But II just want you to see him trying to accommodate this concern. And it does not include something about the place making slash node thing. So we'll have. I'm sending Devin some language around that one. Thank you, Sarah, for reminding. Okay, so Kurt, and then we'll go back and we'll do question number 3, and then we'll see if we can get to motion making Sarah thank you for framing. This I would prefer to use. Hello! Recommended me mechanism, even though it maybe needs a little more defining where we essentially give council 2 options and say. we we pass both of these, and we recommend that you take this one. But if you take the other one, we don't want you to have to send it back. Okay, do you mind? Can I ask you, Kurt, to take responsibility for drafting a second motion or a framing something that explains that to council?

[162:06] So that when we? After we've gone through question number 3, we'll have 3. We'll have 3 items to discuss. One will be some version of what I have up here. One will be the additional idea that Ml. Is working on, and the third will be the we're happy with either either of these things. That you're trying to capture. I I'm not sure that I would say that. But I but you know we'll have a chance to vote on it. Would you be willing to work on that correct. Okay, can I make a recommendation that instead of trying to lump everything into one motion that all well, but but I'm saying is, the way your motion is written. Now, Sarah, you have the mui land use the eliminating the office above the ground floor and slightly shifting the neighborhood to D to the west, all chained together.

[163:00] One option. I would like to vote on each of those things individually, because we might have majority support for mui, but not majority support for something else. So I like the way we have done it in the past, where each concept the Board says either. Yes, we're going to add this to the motion or no, we're not with a majority vote. rather, because right now it's it's either it all sinks or swims together. Okay. if you would like to draft up something that does that, that would be great. II will draft something great. Thank you. Okay. So, Devin, if you don't mind going, I'm sorry, Mark. I just want to get us back to the third question, and then we will have lots of things to discuss in motion making and options out the Wazoo. So just for right now, I'd like to get to question number 3. Okay, II just while we're getting to question number 3. All I want is the the motion language that you can cut and paste from in the packet is different than the motion, the suggested motion language that's on that was on the screen prior to your motion.

[164:08] and I would just canst send us the 2 suggested motion that they have just via email. So we can cut and paste into our, we can use that as a baseline to create our motions or amendments. or they can just put it up on the on the screen when I can't cut and paste from that I have to retype everything. Then all I'm saying is, you're going to be doing something lead. Laura is going to be doing something. Kurt's going to be doing something, so maybe just makes more sense to put up their exact language on the screen. and then we can add in everybody address, come up with it the way. because if once you do it. Then then we'll have yours and Loris and Kurtz and Ml. So we will. We very well could have competing motions. Yes.

[165:01] I'm not worried about the competing motions. It's more that it's just all. It's several of these things are going to be essentially the same. but with slightly different language. And that just seems like. you know, kind of not so helpful. But if you would. And if you would like to give it a shot also, please do So Devin will send you the language that was suggested to us. That's all I want. Thank you. And Devin, could you also please put back that screen with the 3 questions and the suggested motion language. Okay. so, Mark, there's the recommended motion language for you. Third question, does planning board have any additional revisions to the proposed phase. 2 amendments.

[166:01] So This would be, I think, ml, where you might have something about activity, nodes, or place making nodes. I don't know if anyone else also has things they would like to add, but this would be the place. Okay, Laura. Okay, sorry I need to switch back from trying to write something. So I wanted to ask Staff about some of the ideas that were raised by members of the public and think about how we might handle those if it is a good idea. So one idea that was raised by a member of the public was trying to get a higher percentage of permanently affordable housing built in this area. And I don't know if we have any mechanisms to do that. Given the way our inclusionary housing works, and how we work with our partners when we spend our inclusionary housing money like, are there any opportunities to try to spend some of our inclusionary housing money in this area. so that we get a higher percentage of affordability here. And maybe that is something for a later day or a future phase. But I wanted to check in on that idea.

[167:09] Yeah, II do think that that is is something that we would look into in much more detail and a later step. It. You're you're correct that these are all privately owned parcels. They're not sitting on parcels. So we have limited ability to partner with. You know, boulder housing partners or another affordable housing developer in order to create something that was more had a higher percentage of affordability. So the inclusionary housing ordinance will be the the primary mechanism to get affordable housing unless unless the city does invest and actually purchase property here going forward. Gotcha. Okay? I think that is the idea is to for the city to try to spend some of its money in this area to purchase some properties and put some affordable housing here. But I recognize that's probably not land use planning. That's how you spend your money and buy things and make them happen. But I do think that's a good vision that we should work towards, because we it would be great to have more affordable housing in this part of town that maybe private developers are not gonna provide necessarily on site

[168:12] second idea that was raised, that I wanted to check in about, and I'm not going to make an amendment about the affordable housing, but I'm glad we talked about it a little bit. And this might have a similar resolution. Kind of ha! Can we get creative with infrastructure for renewable energy, such as having this area become a micro grid backed up with storage. There are new grants coming online to fund this kind of thing. And there may be more if the Legislature approves the bill next year, you know, is. I think the idea here is, can we get visionary about alternative energy and tvap? 2. Since this is going to be a a redeveloping area. What are Staff's thoughts about that? I'm assuming that probably can't be included at this phase. But is that something we can think about going forward. Yes, absolutely. And I you know II apologize to continue to sort of say, oh, we'll we'll address that later. But I think realistically. You know, the the original Transit village area plan, which, of course, still exists. And really provides the overarching

[169:13] vision for the entire area, both phase one and phase 2 speaks to you know, energy, conservation and sustainability, and a number of environmental and climate related aspects. So certainly that's already, you know, baked into the idea that we would be considering that going forward. you know some of the larger infrastructure, wide kind of ideas of micro grids or district heating and cooling, and other things like that. Certainly we can look into that. I do think it might be a little bit challenging. Given again the individual property, ownership, nature of this and that. It's not a larger you know, sitting on parcel that where you could, you could influence something like that more more directly. But but certainly those are things that we'll be looking into. Okay, thank you. I won't take up more time with creative ideas. But II do think it's worth

[170:03] thinking about how the tools that we have at our disposal. How do they help us get to something that's a little bit more visionary. and so thank you for indulging that you Ml brilliant questions, Laura, because these are 2 things that I had on my on my list of questions. So Christopher, in phase one, there was an option for developers to obtain additional building height up to 55 feet. If at least 36% of the residential units are permanently affordable housing. Did anyone do this? And is this still? Is this part of phase. 2 I would have to confirm with, you know, some of the development review team to understand if anybody actually took advantage of that of that height increase via that particular mechanism. I know that the form based code includes, you know, allowances for height limits up to

[171:11] up to that 55 foot height limit. Certainly we would be looking at as we move forward with the zoning strategy for phase 2. That we would look at, creating those kinds of incentives, so that if a project was going to be that scale and and build up to that maximum height, then certainly we would be expecting a higher level of affordability and that type of project. Hmm. so the other thing that phase one had but I think it backed out of was the Green building density bonus. Was there any thought about bringing that program into phase 2 at at this point we haven't, just because we haven't started that phase of the process, but but certainly we would look to, you know we would look at phase one as a as a guide to understand what was included. As far as the zoning strategy there and under. Understand what was successful, what wasn't, and and transfer over things that we felt like, we're going to be

[172:08] useful and beneficial in these 2. Yeah. So I think that both of these speak to what Laura was talking about. and phase. One did have mechanisms for achieving greater affordability, permanent affordability and green building results. So II guess if they're out there, and if they're part of phase one, or were at least considered in phase one. it would be nice to see where they landed, and mightn't they be applicable 15 years later. Maybe we're ready to take better advantage of some of these things. Thank you.

[173:02] Ml, did you have language that you wanted to propose? I sent it to Devon. Okay, alright. So we'll see it when once we've gone around. Yeah. And it's really is about trying to capture. What I think is is the bigger event. Land! I don't. I hate to use the workplace. That may not be the correct thing. But you know, how do we articulate? Again? I'll use interstitial spaces because I wouldn't limit it just to the nodes. The staff uses the word for sale. I don't. I didn't recognize any of them being called out. Is that in the plan? But there's always there's a whole lot of different public spaces that I think could benefit from from greater attention kind of the way the place types

[174:03] gave attention to. I know it was a little bit different, so I I'm not sure how that would work. But II like the idea of making a recommendation that those in between spaces don't get forgotten. and that we assume that people will figure it out on the fly, you know different building owners and whatnot when they create the open spaces, or they build around the node or alongside of a sale, or any of these things that we put some intentionality to them. So that's what that's what the motion language that I put out there. I took out the language of place types, and just use articulation. But yeah, it's it's on its way, Sarah. Okay, thanks to Devin. Right? Excellent. Okay. Anyone else have something else? They want to add. Answer to question number 3. That's an additional revision.

[175:04] Okay? If we might, then, Devin, can you? Pull up everything that you have received. and if it's gonna all go on one screen that would be awesome. And Devin, I'm sending you mine right now. It's so. We haven't seen Laura's yet. Yes. Hello. Yeah. My recommendation is that if you're proposing an actual change to the plan that you'd be very specific. And what that is because you you are an adopting body. So, for example, the the language that you proposed Sarah, I think first you said Delete. Office uses from what's a lot above ground floor. That's very clear, cause that's a specific place in the plan. And then you suggest slightly

[176:17] changing the boundary of neighborhood. Qd. If you want to change the boundary of the neighborhood. Qd. Then you should describe exactly where it should go to present. II handled that by saying, Move it west away from Foothills Parkway, according to Staff's judgment. but I think we also talked about moving it for Ad, but it's extending itself. We we could add that as well. Then I think you would want to follow Hello's advice to extend it South to a certain point. Extend it. I think what. Kurt, I can't see, Kurt. Sorry. I think I may be wrong, but I think we talk we there seem to be some agreement on up to Goose Creek. Is that what your recollection is

[177:06] extending neighborhood to D to Goose Creek? Oh, yeah, that would be fine, I said, relocating the neighborhood to D land use to the area between the Vns of real tracks and Williams Place, which you know, will. This place doesn't extend all the way down to Goose Creek, and so it's a little bit ill-defined, but we could potentially define it in terms of the boundaries of the connections shown on the connections plan. So, for example, bounded by displays. the Vnsf rail tracks, Goose Creek and Connection Number 42, which is the the multi-use path that crosses good screen. Well, so! But what that? The I'm not sure. I understand. The railroad

[178:02] and wilderness place are parallel. Yes. so you're proposing to move the neighborhood, Todd, to what is now regional to D correct? Are you just swapping the neighborhood? Td. In the regional Todd is larger than the neighborhood, Dod, so it's not a complete swap, but it's putting moving the the neighborhood Dod to the area generally between the rail tracks and will displace and leaving, and and then what I didn't say and should've said is making that northeast corner be the regional field. So maybe let me let me clarify that.

[179:02] So I think the railroad will be as noisy as the corner of Belmont and foothills, or occasionally as noisy as about mutton foothills. What if? What if the proposal was? I don't know what this dotted line is. The where? Where the words Neighborhood TOD. Are? Then there's a east-west dotted line that just goes halfway across the neighborhood. Todd, I don't know what that is. is the prop proposed feature. Local road connections is what? That is. Okay. So what if? What if the instead of moving it to that to the if the goal is to get away from foothills and Velma. What if, instead, we just proposed moving it south to that line and going all the way to

[180:01] along Wilderness? The western boundary would be wilderness place, and whatever that multi-use path is, I think that's what that is on the East side. and then down to Rock to not to Rock Creek. I'm sorry to to Goose Creek. and then you leave that corner. That's currently buildings that are not yet going to be anywhere near being replaced. But you've ex. You've added more, a little bit more neighborhood to D, and moved it away from super super noisy areas, more into the internal component of this lamb. Would. Would that cut some parcels in half? I don't know. I mean we'd have. I don't know. I can't tell from the lines here.

[181:03] There there is one larger parcel, that where the dotted white line is coming south from Center Green Court that's a flexible alignment for a local road, and that parcel that connects them to the cul-de-sac there, coming off a will or this place. That's that's one single parcel. So we would have to. Just we would want to be creative about how we draw that line. Can. I'm sorry, can you? I'm pointing at a map that I'm looking at, but nobody else may be looking at the same map. And can you just pull up the this? It's the map on page whatever page that is 94. So can I just say that when we were doing the East Boulder subcommunity plan. we were kind of cautions against making changes on the fly without consulting the property owners without any public input. II think it would be.

[182:07] I would be reluctant to do that. I don't think I would vote for changing the location of the neighborhood to D too much tonight. So what if the recommendation, then, is is let it be vague rather than specific. I realize that's the opposite of what? What Halla just said. but it does put the responsibility on City Council's plate to decide whether they want to make a change or not. I mean, I think we could ask Staff to make their best recommendation to move the neighborhood, to d away from the sources of noise and extend it down to Goose Creek, and then to take that to City council as our recommendation. You know that that, I think, is in line with guidance, so that I have heard many times from Brad that we have to designate. You know, if we are delegating to somebody who are we delegating to and give them a clear charge. so I don't know if that's a clear enough charge to say, could you please redraw neighborhood, Dod to take it away from Valmont and away from foothills, and avoid the railroad tracks too. And kind of have it be more centralized and go down to Goose Creek

[183:09] is that works for me. Does that work for you, Kurt Kurt, does that work for you? Sorry I'm III missed that. I'm revising my motion language. I think that I would prefer to be specific. III don't like the idea of leaving it vague. I think II want to propose this if it gets voted down. That's fine. But I want to propose something that is specific. So to that end. I have my hand up for a little bit, and III find us that we have fallen once again into the trap of debating motions without having a motion on the floor

[184:01] and debating amendments without having amendments to the motion. So, Madam Chair, I move to adopt the proposed, and then this to the transit. II I'm making a motion. and so, and upon advice of our attorney as well, that the way to do this is to make a motion, and to make specific amendments to the motion. and then we vote the amendments up or down. and then we then we adopt the main motion. So I'm going to move to adopt the proposed amendments to the Transit village Area plan, including revisions to the place types found an attachment E to the staff. Memo. I am going to second on the understanding that we will go through each of these amendments one by one.

[185:00] as we have been doing, but with something specific on the floor. So I second, I am. Yes, thank you for the second, and I invite my colleagues to make amendments to the main motion. Would somebody like to move, to amend to eliminate the office use above the ground floor in neighborhood. TOD. Okay, I move to amend to add the language, and at the end of the current motion that's on the floor. To add the language and to adopt the proposed amendments to the Transit Village Area plan, including revisions to the place, types found in attachment E to the staff. Memo comma revising the neighborhood to D place type to eliminate office as an allowed use above ground floor.

[186:05] I'll second that hold on. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry I was asking Devin if he's allowed if he's able to display the main motion and the amendment that Kurt is proposing Connection Number 42 and applying the regional to D land use to the area currently proposed for the neighborhood to D names. I mean. I'm not going to second that if anyone else wants to. And the reason why curt is because of the desire to separate.

[187:02] II appreciate you putting that all into one amendment. But I think those should be separate amendments. So I'm not going to second that. It doesn't sound like we have a second. I don't even know what we're voting on. I can't see what we're voting on. so it's well. Kurt, it was on the screen there. Yeah, I can help clarify. There was a first and second. There was a first motion Kurt made as written on the screen, and it has died because of a lack of a second. So now you're back to discussion and any new motions.

[188:00] Well, I think we still have a motion on the floor, which is that mark made which is the motion to adopt the proposed amendments, the transit, the main motion that is still on the floor. You're discussing the main motion. and potentially making motions to amend or or just go ahead and discuss. I have a motion to amend, which is, I don't think we need to repeat, the I think we can start with my motion to amend is to revise the neighborhood. Todd Place type to eliminate. Wait, please don't move that to eliminate office as an allowed use above the ground floor. Okay, so this is just the middle clause of Kurt's language here. So Devin, could you? Highlight revising the neighborhood. Dod place type to eliminate office uses as an allowed use above ground floor. and could you move it out. move it out to be its own separate thing as a motion to amend

[189:00] under the main motion. So Kurt still has the main motion. There it's it was actually marks. But so take out the and and just make that motion to amend, to revise the neighborhood. TOD. Place type. and then this is the amendment, the motion to amend, that is now on the floor that we can discuss and vote on before we move on to a separate motion to amend regarding the rest of Kurt's motion there the motion to amend still needs a second, and I'll I'm happy to do that. This motion to amend. So we have a motion and an amendment both with a first and a second. I see that Ml. Has had her hand up for some time. I was just trying to second Sarah's motion. But that's fine. I could put my hand out, turn my microphone off, and the all right. So what I'd like to ask hella.

[190:00] please do we vote on this amendment? You do I? I'm not sure yet who who the second is? The second? Okay, repeat the motion. I'm going to repeat the amendments, a motion to amend, to revise the neighborhood type, place, pick to eliminate offices and allowed use above the ground floor. Ml. ml, yeah. Laura. No. Lisa. Yes. Mark. No. current. Yes. and Sarah's a yes. Did I miss anybody? Okay, it passes 5, 2. Is there another amendment

[191:01] focusing alright. Is there another amendment? I think, Kurt, this is where you could make a motion to amend, and then read your second part about applying the neighborhood Tod Land use to that defined area 42, and apply the regional Dod land use to the area currently proposed for the neighborhood. Dod Land use. I second, that. So, Devin, could you clean that up for us?

[192:12] And does anyone want to discuss, or should we go directly to a vote? Does everybody everybody do we need to outline it on a map? So people know where connection 42 is like. So people can see that area. I think that would be useful, Christopher, could you pull up the map and show us what is this area that that curt has defined? So, Kurt, could you talk us through? And then, Devin, could you use your cursor, or or Devin, or Christopher? Whoever's got control of the cursor? Laura, please? I'm just. I wanted to suggest a slight change to that language, because I think the neighborhood beauty is a place type, but not a name use.

[193:06] So it could be changed to the neighborhood duty, place type instead of land use motion. You're right. That's my error. Yeah, it's just a circle. Yup, thank you. That was that certainly was the intent. So I think way to do that would be for the share to say, if if this is without objection, then that then that the motion would change. it sounds like it is without objection. So It sounds like that could be changed in the language. I just have one question before we vote, which is again for Christopher. Would these boundaries make sense from an administrative perspective and parcel lines, and all of that? Would those boundaries be doable?

[194:03] Yes, from an administrative perspective. Yes, they would. I will just note that the neighborhood Tod Place type is considerably less flexible than the regional Tod, and it would be located next to the future rail station. So keep that in mind. Thank you, Christopher, and we I'm sorry, Devin. Can you please put the language back on the screen. Okay, alright. So I'm gonna read the motion and then we'll vote on it. Motion to amend to apply the neighborhood. Dod place type to the area bounded by the Dns. That rail tracks Wilderness Place, Goose Creek and Connection number 42. Applying the regional POD. Place type. not land use place type to the area currently proposed by the neighborhood. TOD. Place type.

[195:06] So Devin, also after regional. Yeah, thank you. All right. Ml. no. Laura. No mark. Yes. Lisa. no hurt. and Sarah is a no, so that failed. 4 to 2, 2 to 4. All right. Is there another motion? I believe my motion is still up there somewhere. Yeah, can we? Okay? So II have a question for Hela. is. is the way this is written. amend the motion with the recommendation to articulate blah blah blah! Is that is that the way that Council gets the flexibility to either accept it and not be or not, and not be bound to coming back to planning board.

[196:07] I think. With what we had on the screen at the bottom Laura had drafted some language to explain what the intend is off of off the board. If the amendments are not adopted, then the Board adopts, and I would change it to. but I wouldn't eliminate, agree in there. But just say that the Board adopts the proposed amendments as proposed by Staff. But I think that would take care of it with your motion. II do have a question. Are you proposing to make language changes in the plan right now, or are you proposing that this be addressed in future implementation steps? I'm thinking that Christopher says it comes in the future. Is that correct, Christopher? Is there something within this.

[197:01] there isn't anything. There isn't a place type. That's where I thought we needed to add a place type to this to this proposal that would capture not just the building types, but actual place type, which is the interstitial spaces. But I'm hearing you say that that is not the correct mechanism. Did I understand you correctly? Yes, you're you're correct. I think your your motion would would really be a recommendation for future steps to really to really detail out and dive into this notion of the interstitial spaces and creating some better definition around those. And okay, I guess our question is important to staff need to hear this staff need this, because that's what it is. The recommendation that it comes out in the future. In the future. I just think it's missing.

[198:00] I thought I think it would be great as a separate motion. I don't think it needs to be an amendment to this plan. So can we come back to that one I would totally support making like I think it's great to make a recommendation to say in the future we would like to see better articulation around this this and this, you know, around affordable housing around, you know, whatever we want to be visionary about, I think we can make a recommendation for that for future steps. If we need to. But I wouldn't attach it to our adoption of the plan or not. II like that idea. It can go with the paragraph you're putting out there. you know, about at the bottom there that Hila just pointed out on health. We want city council to feel free to move forward without coming back to us. This can be out there as as a piece. Also, it's not not a paragraph, a sentence. Yeah, I think it. I think it could be a separate motion. Thank you. I'll do that.

[199:01] In that case. Should we go back. Oh, go ahead, sir. I was gonna say, it seems to me we should take Laura's. I can't see Laura's motion. So we've already done one and 2? No, we've done one. Would you like to make a motion? Would you like to take your second bullet point and make that a motion. II think we would. I think the procedure will be. We would go ahead and adopt the main motion with the amendments that have been approved, and then this would be a separate motion to say, in the event that city council does not take. Sorry. II meant the second bullet point in your motion, which is just shifting away the neighborhood Todd. from the foothills Parkway, using Staff's best judgment. I don't want to make that motion, but if somebody else wants to make it, and and second it, they're free to. Okay. So then let's go back to the motion that we've been putting amendments to please. Thank you. Now, where is it? It's under Kurt's motion. Okay?

[200:01] All right. So now I'm gonna read the whole thing and we will vote on it. Motion to adopt the proposed amendment to the Transit village Area plan, including revisions to the place types founded in attachment E to the Staff Memo. There's a motion to amend, to revise the neighborhood, Todd place type, to eliminate offices and allow use above ground floor, and the second amendments motion to amend, to apply the neighborhood. Todd place type to oh, this failed. So I don't. But they're failed. Yeah, okay. all right. So we will vote. Can you eliminate that, please, Devin? Just eliminate it, it was failed. Well, I think we need to have a record of it, for so as long as Devin has it captured somewhere, we need to have a record that it was Staff's good. I got it. Okay. Ml. aye. Laura. Yes, Lisa. Hi. Kurt! Yes, Mark.

[201:01] yes, there is an eye. So it passes 6 0. Okay, so now, Laura, do we want to do your motion? Or did we want to do? Ml. let's let's do this one, because it's kind of changed to the last one, and then we'll talk about motions for the future. If if if folks agree with that order. I move that in the event that city Council does not adopt one or more of planning boards. August 20. Second Amendments planning board agrees, or I'm sorry it just, it should say, planning board adopts. Given Halla's recommendation Planning Board adopts the proposed amendments to the Transit Village Area Plan, including revisions to the place types found in attachment E to the staff memo. Without any such. August 20. Second amendments that are not adopted by city council. We have a second. Okay. Is there discussion? Alright, we'll vote on it. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We only have one amendment, right? We only have one amendment, so maybe it should just say, in the event that city council does not adopt the

[202:10] the Planning Board's august. it should just say, in the event that city council does not adopt Planning Board's August 20, s Amendment Planning Board adopts the proposed the rest of it, I think. and then change the last clause to say without amendments. or actually it just, it's just to say, without the amendment, without the amendment, because Council might have their own amendments, and in which case it would come back to us the amendment period. That is not. I would just say, without the amendment period. Yeah, and then end the sentence there. Sarah, do you want to reread it.

[203:02] Do we even need the without the amendment? I think it's a good clarification personally. But okay, do we need to reread this for another? Or can I just call it and read, read it, and then go to the vote. Hello! Hello! Sorry! Could you? Could you ask that again? Do I need to reread it and get another second, or can we just read it and go to the vote? I think I think both Kurt and Laura have indicated that they accept that change so you could just go alright. Motion is in the event that city council does not adopt planning board to August 22. Amendments planning Board adopts the proposed amendments to the transit village. including revisions to the place, types found in attachment. Each of the staff Memo. Without

[204:02] the amendment. Ml. ml, are you okay, Mark? Yes. Lisa. Yes, Laura. Yes. yes, there is a yes, alright passing 6 0, all right. Emel, did you want to make a separate motion. Devin, you can delete the other text on my that, says Laura's motion. Just to clean things up. You could delete everything above in the event. Yeah, thank you. Eml, you're you're muted. Do you want to make a separate motion? I do So let me see. I wouldn't be amending anything. I move. I move to recommend that

[205:00] staff articulate interstitial spaces, such as identified activity, notes, outdoor spaces, ellie. multi-use, path and paceos as the tbap as a tbap area plan gets defined. Is that the correct language? There that you you would have? Christopher? I was, I was gonna suggest, maybe is is implemented through future steps. I like that. is motion with the recommendation, the proper way to state this, Hela

[206:04] II how about. If I just, I move to recommend articulation. I move to recommend articulation of interstitial spaces. etc., etc., motion to recommend articulation of inter special okay, I move to recommend articulation of interstitial spaces, such as identified activity notes, outdoor spaces, ally, multi-use path and per sales as the T. That area plan is implemented through future steps that works just from a grammatical. It should be alleys. Not Allie. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. A, and this is transit is Tvap area plan. Redundant isn't tvap transit village area plan.

[207:06] I would just say, as the TV is implemented through future steps. oh, kind of Ap. Our area plan. II think so. Should everything be plural? I think everything should be plural just in case Christopher is nodding. Everything is plural. Devin multi use paths needed needs an S. And then I'll reread it. And hopefully Lisa and I are both good. Well do I have to reread it? Are we both good. I'm good. I'm good. Okay, is there? Discussion? Nope? Well, I will reread the motion, and we can vote on it. Motion to recommend articulation of interstitial spaces, such as identified activity, notes, outdoor spaces, alleys, multi use pads and pesayas and feedback implemented to future steps. ML. Ay.

[208:01] Laura. Yes. Lisa. Lisa. Yes. that's correct. No. And Sarah as a yes, it passes 5. One. Okay. Is there any other anybody else want to propose a motion on this item. I would like to make one quick one, that if it fails it fails. But just in line with what we talked about earlier. Devin, if you could follow along with me. motion to recommend future creative exploration to increase percentage of affordable on-site housing. And what's some good language here around energy efficiency. Somebody help me out here.

[209:03] This was the idea of a future needs of infrastructure for renewable energy. as I want to use the same language that Ml. Used, you can copy from above as the tvap is implemented through future steps. I welcome any cleaning up of this very inelegant off the cuff language. Sorry I should have written it out. I'll second it. I think it's clear at Devon you could probably eliminate the redundant use of the word future in the first sentence there motion to recommend future. You could take out future, since we talk about future steps.

[210:01] Hmm. and take future out of the infrastructure. needs to be. No. I would leave it there. Yeah. And let's say and meet future needs for infrastructure. Let's use the word meet future needs for infrastructure for renewable energy. Okay, that's my motion. Our second comments. All right. We'll just go to a vote motion to recommend creative exploration to increase percentage of affordable on-site housing and meet future needs for infrastructure, for renewable energy. as the tdap is implemented through future steps. Ml. aye. mark. Yes, Laura. Yes, Lisa. yes. correct. Yes. and Sarah's a yes, so that has to stick to it.

[211:03] All right, we are done with this item. However. I'm I'm sorry. Do I took one of that staff do we need? There's a second motion to adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 5 of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan to revise the summary of the Transit village area plan. II believe we still need to make that motion, do we not? I? Second Mark, did you make the motion? I just yes, we'll count that as me making the motion, since I just read it. I second. okay, could you put? Please put it up on the screen again. Thank you. Yup. thank you. Motion to adopt proposed amendments to Chapter 5 of the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan to revise the summary of the Transit village area. Plan. Ml. yes, Laura. Yes, Mark Lisa.

[212:03] Yes, Kurt, Sarah is a yes, it passes all right. I would just like to point out. Thank you very much, Chris, Chris, and Chris, for everything that you've done here, we really appreciate it. It is now 9 30. We have to take a vote as to whether we are prepared to adjourn after 1030 PM. So a. Hello, do I need to actually make a motion? Literally make a motion? Or can we vote on that. How do I do this? I think you should make a motion. The rules state that no new item can be taken on, I believe, at 10, and it's not quite 10 yet, but I think your goal is to close the meeting. So my goal is to take a vote on whether the majority of the board is prepared to adjourn later than 1030. That is my goal.

[213:00] Yeah, you can make it because it's 9 30. We won't be. We'll be taking up a new I mean a new item at 9 30. Not at 10, Sarah. You're anticipating that if we go ahead with zoning for affordable housing, and that ordinance that we will be here past 1030. So you're asking us if we would like to continue with that item or or not. Is that what you're asking? If we want the majority of the Board wants to vote to adjourn later than 1030, which would mean taking up this item and continuing until it is completed. Hello! If that's a motion to extend the meeting past 1030, I would second that motion. Okay. I am a no, I will repeat it, and then we can vote on it. The motion to extend the meeting past 1030 ML.

[214:06] No. Laura. Yes. Mark. Yes. Kurt, yeah. Lisa. No, and I'll probably be leaving in about 5 min. and I'm a no, and I will also be leaving. So it is 3 to 3. I don't know what we do with that. Hella. You have to tell us what we do with that. That means the motion does not pass. Okay. so the motion does not pass. It does mean we will have to reschedule this meeting. But I think, given all the work that kirk that Carl has put into it, it would be. It makes sense to give it the do it and spend the full 120 min on it when we're we're all not at the end of our tether. Sarah. I'm sorry to interrupt, and I don't need to complicate things, but I believe the motion was to continue past 1030,

[215:08] and we had 3 no's and 3, and just for discussion, part part of where I'm coming from isn't just my own preferences, or sleep, or whatever stuff it's that I I feel so strongly that we get into Phillytown and Cranky Town and Kooky Town when we try to do things past like 9, 9, 30, 10, so yeah, it's it's not just for me. It's that I just. I don't think we do good work late at night. Well, II would like to say that if there are 4 of us who are willing to take up this item, that is a quorum. So if there are 4 of us who are willing to take this up and see it through, we we could do that, and I heard Mark and Ml. And I, or sorry Mark and Kurt and I are willing to do that. Ml, I don't know if you are willing to stay or not. If you're not willing to stay past 1030 to finish this item, then we would not have a quorum

[216:02] whether they're willing to go past 1030, and it was 3 3 in. In a case of a tie is the denial of the motion. I understand the procedure, but I think that it's a different question to say, ml, are you willing to say, even if others are not? And if the answer is no, then we don't have a quorum. I don't know if you were saying no, because you didn't want to hold Lisa and Sarah here when they don't want to be here, which I don't want to, either. But you don't have to stay if you don't want to, but if we have a quorum we can continue. Hello! What is the I mean. what is the legal bind to the motion that passed? Well, no motion passed because there was a vote of the motion that was denied. Yeah. And generally the the root state. No new item is picked up. I believe it's 10. I'm gonna otherwise it is the goal of the board to end meetings by 1030.

[217:05] It's 10 how I just looked at it. and and I'll also add, and II think this is what Sarah was saying, and it may not have been 100 clear just because of the hour that that looking at this item. we will not wrap by 10. We will not wrap by 1030. And one thing that I will also say. and I think it's up to each individual member of the board what they want to do. But I think it's a major staff quality of life issue. I think it's a recruitment for the board issue. I think it's an equity issue for members of our community when we choose to continue meetings after 1010, 30 at night, because it really restricts the ability of the public to be here, and it's II don't think it's a pay to keep staff at multiple late night meetings. especially on a Tuesday, when they also have to be prepping for a Thursday Council meeting, and so on. So I'll just speak strongly to that that I you know we we either need to run more tightly and cleanly, or, you know, figure out other ways to manage ourselves. But II just

[218:04] it's not okay. We we shouldn't be asking that to people, and I don't know how we retain public servants. If that's something we routinely ask people to do. or recovery boards rather than speaking for staff. I would pose the question to them in regard to the preferability of a later night or another another meeting. And and I'm I'm genuinely curious about that answer. Do you mean in this specific instance right now? Well, we have. We have now. You know our our schedule is quite full as we go into the fall. Right? So so my my question is, which one do you guys prefer? Yeah, II would want Charles to chime in. But I I'll I will speak to the General, which is, we serve at the pleasure of planning board. We, you know we're we're here

[219:09] when we need to be here as far as being strategic about this particular item that's coming up. I think that's a question that Charles can speak to us, whether it's better to do that start doing it tonight, or to defer at all to and next week. Yeah, thanks. Fred. You know, I think, given the hour and the complexity. Ii don't know that we're going to get through it by 1030. I don't know that we would get through by 1130. But we are on a pretty tight schedule. If this is a city council priority project to Brad's Point, we serve at the you know, the pleasure of the board, and you know we have to advance our our business and the items that come before us. So if there's a willingness to you know, completed tonight. Then Carl and I are here for the duration. but

[220:02] there may be some wisdom to deferring it where you know it's the only item that you guys have. I don't know agenda. It's it's it's complicated, or it's complex, rather And you know, it seems like there could be a discussion about, you know. several amendments, you know, as the conversation evolves, so we we have also sometimes discussed the option to go ahead with the presentation and the public comment, and then defer the discussion to another meeting. That's true. If you guys feel like you can retain the complexity of the information, and we don't have to do the presentation again in 3 weeks. Because that's typically what happens when we do that is that there's another iteration of the presentation that that we have to give. So II would want to make sure that we're being respectful of staff time if if we do that, that there won't be another presentation, and that the Board will be able to make sure that they're prepared for deliberations.

[221:04] Is there? Some kind of a implication that our chair and vice chair may not be here if we choose to keep the meeting going. Hella, do we need a chair and vice chair to keep them. There's not an implication I know they they've said as much the rule I think maybe you're seeking is what happens when there's not a chair and vice chair, there's a provision, or there to be a vote among the folks who are present. This is true for any meeting where they, you know, may not be present, for whatever reasons there's a vote among those who are present to designate and active chair. So there's a process for that. II think you've heard, Charles, make a clear statement that at this point it probably is not fruitful, and we probably 8 of 1010 min of the time that we would have been presenting. So it would be my second to Charles recommendation that we defer this to a future.

[222:00] That date. III will say we do have computing interest. We need to manage. So we they may need to be coming back to you to to request additional special meetings even outside of our normal cycle. But we'll we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. And At this point. I'm just reinforced, Charles, this point that we call it a night and and move on to them scheduling questions next time. So I move we adjourn. Well, we still have a other agenda items, right? Like we have matters and all of that. So I don't know about. But we do have a couple of members. Yeah. do, do we need a motion to officially defer this item? No, I'm happy to speak to to matters that we can do this quickly. So the matters we want to bring to your attention are the

[223:00] If if we haven't gotten it resolved for the Retreat date, if if you're one of the folks who've not done that yet, please do, Devin. Maybe it'd be good to refresh that for folks if they couldn't find that email, so we can send that out again. And then there was also a request for the survey that all boards and commissions are taking, and I think Devin did refresh that email today. So I'd ask you to take give attention to that. I think it's relatively short 1015 min. and as always, we appreciate all the time and energy do commit on behalf of the public. And, Charles II didn't mean to jump ahead of you if you had something. I apologize. Appear on me. No, nothing from Staff this evening. Thanks so much. Yeah, I was gonna bring up that. Should this item be continued to the next meeting next week, then

[224:00] my recommendation would be that the Board actually continue it to that meeting due to the notice requirement for a public hearing. Yeah, thank you. So that would be a simple motion to continue to August twentieth. I might require some before we do that? I. We already moved to other items, to that. to that date. Right? Well, by by, continue into that data, it gives us the option, gives them the option to further continue things on the 20. That's true. You could continue, we we lose our options if we don't get it. Continue. Yeah, we also know that there are like there could be 2 of us not here. maybe more. So I. This is like not a great one, or way to run a ship. I think

[225:00] personally, I would like. I think Carl has spent months on this. I would like to have the opportunity here. What he has to say and what he's proposing and have in depth conversation about it. We're just gonna end up next week is a fight review where there were complicate complications. It was complex because of some transportation issues. I mean. II understand. And I said this to the staff during our agenda meetings that you guys are under pressure to get stuff done before this council is is replaced by whoever comes in the next council. We're not doing ourselves any favors, and we're not doing policy making any favors when we're trying to like stuff things through a very narrow window. And I just don't think that's the way to make good policy. So I would like to move con to continue consideration of post ordinance. 85, 99 to

[226:06] August 20 ninth. I will second. yes, and I'll can is I know we have a meeting. We had called a special meeting for the Walnut Life Science Building for that night. and I heard somebody say that there's actually another item on that same night which I wasn't aware. I thought it was a special meeting for just the one project. What is Steph's opinion about continuing it to next week? So just to clarify your first point, you you voted earlier in the meeting to continue the proof management item to the 20 ninth. So that's the second item that's being referred to.

[227:01] And and we don't have an opinion about, we would continue to. You know you're welcome to do it to the twenty-ninth or to a different date. Certain benefit we get. We're having it continued to date certain. We don't have to notify it. That's most important when it's less than 10 days, because we have a minimum legal noticing requirement of 10 days. Which obviously, if it's 14 days out, then we can repost that. So at this point, we, you know we we're happy to take the direction as to how we vote this evening. and I think the idea would be as as Bret mentioned earlier, that if you move, if you move this item also to August 20 ninth, then Staff can sit down tomorrow and look at the calendar and maybe move one or 2 of those items again to a different date. you know, after considering all of the options and and looking at which ones could be, we noticed, and so forth, I would like to consider some load balancing, if possible cause we have staff member. Wait last week for an item to be continued, and it wasn't continued until about 100'clock. And then, similarly, this evening. Carl, you know, was waiting in the wing. So what I don't want to happen is

[228:17] car. We don't get to Carl's 2 items again next week. And then he's, you know, waiting around a person so we can give some consideration to kind of overall what the calendar looks like, and figure out how we can lower balance some of that. So if we, if we move forward with continuing it to next week, does that give Staff the flexibility it needs to be able to jiggle around the 2 items that are already. II think this point either option will work. W. We'll work with whatever you decide. and probably have some recommendations. Either way. II appreciate I appreciate everybody's thinking really hard about this in terms of our consideration at this point, but really we can make any of those either moving it to that night, and then recommending to continue again, or just not moving it to the 20 ninth, and then we repost it for subsequent date.

[229:16] We we can work with all those options. madam Chair. let you guys decide you've already overwritten a vote we already took. So at this point, whatever. Well, I'll move to continue the agenda item I believe it was 4 B. To August 20 ninth. I think already had the motion on the table. Then. Fine. I'll second Kurt's motion. Alright. So yes.

[230:01] Mark. Yes. Laura. Yes, ml. yes. and I'm a no. alright! This meeting is adjourned. Have a good night, everybody. Thanks again for your time. Goodnight. Hello!