February 20, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:00] Let's take a roll call. Laura. Here, George Kurt, here, Mark here, and Sarah is here. Okay. We do have some people who wanna speak at public participation. So we need to go through the rules, please. Sure, Vivian, can you hear us on? Zoom? Yes, I can. I'm just pulling up the slides. Okay, great, thank you. Sorry I was on to give me a second here. Okay, you should see them. Thanks, thanks, Vivian. Thanks for joining us everybody. The city has engaged with community members to Co. Create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members.

[1:00] staff and board and commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives for more information about the city's vision and the community engagement processes, you can visit our website. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised code and other guidelines that support the vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants are required to identify themselves, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak. If you're joining us on the Zoom Webinar format this evening, virtually you may participate in public, you may

[2:03] participate in public participation. Sorry? By hovering your mouse over the bottom section of your screen. On the raise hand function. and when it's your turn the host will adjust your settings and unmute you. You can also do this by hovering over the reactions. Button and raising your hand. Thanks, Vivian. Okay, I think we start with folks online in person. Okay? So our rules of engagement are you? If you have something you want to say about any topic that is not part of our public hearing items. You are welcome to do so. Oh, and we have no public hearing items. So our first speaker is Fran Mandel sheets. Hi! My name is Fran Mandel Sheets. I live at 5 funny Marine Street. Thanks for hearing us to night, thanks to Mark for his work on the landmarks board. It's been a long road to get the application for the historic district to the heart of boulder to city council, and to you.

[3:07] I am as a former member of the Landmarks Board. This process started almost 3 years ago with a simple motion to expand the Banshell's landmark boundary. Like everything in Boulder, it has taken a long and convoluted route to to night. The historic district application meets the requirements of Boulder's preservation code arguably better than just about any current landmark or historic district in the city. The problem has been the parks department. They have money to redevelop the area, and as they did in the West to the west of the Municipal Building, and the Department does not want the landmarks board at the design table for phase 2. One of the hold ups proposed by Parks Department was their cultural landscape assessment. This Cla Parks decided they needed it.

[4:01] The Cla is not required or needed by planning as the the planning. As the research is bountiful. The city even recently paid for a number of qualified outside consultants to study various parts of this area. The CLA. By parks was poorly done. The results were pre decided. It was completed in the dark without any input from the community. We weren't even given it chance to read it. The conclusions were written to meet the Parks Department's needs to disallow the Olmsted contributions. The CLA. Claims the topography of the park is not intact. but it is the historic district applicants brought in qualified professionals to prove that topography in the park is, in fact, intact. The original Olmsted drawings of 1924. Therefore the period of significance should include Olmsted's work. Preservation staff made a concession to Parks Department, I think, for peace among city staff.

[5:01] The Landmarks Board unanimously voted to recommend that the Southern 2 thirds of the Central Park be considered intact, disagreeing with the cultural landscape assessment and the historic preservation staff recommendations. Yet the Cla is being included in the packet to Council with staff recommendations unchanged. We're asking this board request the city hire reputable reputable consultants, such as Mundus Bishop, to clarify that Olmsted's. that the Olmsted work is has integrity, and should be included as a period in the period of significance in the city, the Civic Park historic district. Thanks. Thank you. Fran. Patrick O'rourke is next, and then. Then it's a third I can see. Good evening. My name is Patrick O'rourke. I live at 88 turn again.

[6:00] Historic boulder. First of all. Thank you for the meeting coming to the Landmarks Board meeting, because as an applicant, we got kind of stuck in a circle talking about the history of Black 10 and Black 11 and it's gonna be one of the amendments to your proposal tonight. Rc. Talks about it, I think. And the reason I came tonight is, I think, that the end when the N double Acp came they identified it as Block 11 I went over it this afternoon. I didn't have a chance to have the map in front of me, and I believe it's including part of Block 10. And so I think you're gonna deal with that. And it's on the storybook mapping system that you have available to you. And I think and I want to thank Marcy and the landmarks staff for doing an incredible job of researching this section of town. I also want to let you know that in my opinion the research has been completed for Black 10. Thank you.

[7:05] Thank you. Guys. Zara. Sorry. It's Catherine. Okay. wait 1 s. She just well, they're doing that. I'm gonna my pen broke. I gotta go wash my hands. Hmm.

[8:19] no, I'm sure. While we're waiting I wanted to ask a question of Marcy that I know we have this item coming up later. But Can it can. I'm sorry we're we are actually in the public participation. Can you? Can it wait, please? Sure. Thank you. A lot of files on here, is it? Under a file folder?

[9:03] Never mind. Never mind. It's planning board. February twentieth. Yeah. Okay, okay. huh! Some of us don't do all the time. Not a problem. No problem. We appreciate you coming out. Hold on, hold on! If you can't, just don't worry about. If you'd like to start speaking, I'm happy to share my screen in like 30 s. So and if you can't, that's okay. Okidok.

[10:00] alright, please introduce yourself and then go forward. That writing office can't hello! My name's Catherine Barth, and I was never on the planning board, but I was on the landmarks board. and I know that your board is even more intense landmarks, for which from you you you can hardly imagine that. But I thank you so much, really and truly, for what you do for the city, and I especially wanted to thank Mark for his really good comments during the last Landmarks board meeting. I think they were very helpful to the board and to the public, and so thank you for being the liaison. see, this first photo is showing the 1894 flood. And it's from just about Broadway in front of the man, and it's going south, going east, and you can see where the train station used to be at Fourteenth Street.

[11:05] and in that bunch of trees to the right, behind the men is where Central park will be designed and planted. and there were some trees there that were natural, some that had been planted years before. And so we Olmsted used trees that were there, and he also planted new trees or plant new trees. and then if you go down the next photo and go down to the next. Here we go it. This is how serious it was. I mean, the trains just were abandoned in the river in the creek. and you know I found it. How do you get an engine like that out of that water? I mean, it's just like, how did they even have the

[12:02] the tools or knowledge to do that for 5 days after the the flood. and it was. I think, July 30, first, 1894. there was no communication at all from the north side of the creek. the south side. and then the next photo. I'm sorry. That was it. Okay? Well, anyway, there were a bunch, and I think they must have been undergraduates who are rigged up some pylons crossing the creek, and they had, like a little cable car. and the story is that they actually were bringing beer from the south side of the creek. the to the north side. The brewery was south side.

[13:01] Katherine, you only have a couple of seconds left that you might. I think that the flood was very important, and started all of the wonderful things that we do in boulder the sense of community. And thank you so much. Sorry. Sorry about that, Kathy. All right. do we have anyone online? Yeah. Hi, I'm Vivian. I'm here to help moderate the public participation online. So please go ahead and raise your hand. If you would like to speak during this public participation moment, and I'll call on you in the order that I see the hands go up same as the in person participants. You'll have 3 min to share your your comments with the board. First we'll start with Scott Holwick, followed by Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Scott. You have 3 min. Yes, good evening. Am I audible. Thank thank you so much. And, Madam, Chair Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening

[14:08] on the proposed historic district issue. My name is Scott Holwick, and I am a lawyer with the law firm of Lions and Gaddis in Longmont. The address is 5 15, Kimbark Avenue 80501, and this evening I'm here on behalf of the Boulder and Left Hand Irrigation Company. the North Boulder Farmers Ditch Company. and the Boulder and White Rock Ditch and Reservoir Company. I am compensated for my appearance by each of those entities at a hourly rate. That is what I charge all the ditch companies. I represent dozens of which are in Boulder Creek Basin, which is considered water district Number 6. I wanted to just mention for context that there are some inaccuracies in the narrative. In this packet there are 5 ditches that take water at the Thirteenth Street turnout, which is part of this designated area. The 3 companies that I'm representing each have water rights that take water from that location. There's also the Mccarty ditch and the Smith and Goss Ditch, which are private ditches.

[15:15] Interestingly, the city is either a shareholder in the 3 mutual ditch companies or interest owners in the other 2 ditch companies, so they have an interest in the water that is historically been used to irrigate farmland throughout Boulder County and within the city of Boulder I wanted to point out that on page 19 of 102 in the packet, it talks about the earliest constructed feature that remains today. The 1871 boulders slew those water rights that are owned by the entities that I mentioned date back to 1,859, and certainly we're there prior to 1871, and we're diverted at that location. Through some infrastructure the ditches have been intact and in place since at least 1859. So it predates what is in the packet.

[16:00] I have worked with in the past. The city public works and water resources staff in particular. When it came to the designation of the Boulder Duchampi Tea House. and on page 14 of 102, 14 of 102 public works, had a recommendation proposing to utilize the same approach as the landmark designation of the Tea House, which includes language in the designation, designation, ordinance, that acknowledges that the use of respective ditch easements to transport irrigation water to shareholders and interest holders will not require landmark alteration certificate review. It's something that we worked closely on with the city. The ditch companies and staff. We were very collaborative. We are certainly not against the historic designation, but we want to ensure that the Planning Commission proposes what it needs to to City Council for approval. That includes what staff is recommended. Thank you very much for your time. I certainly appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you for coming and sharing your comments. Next up we have. Lynn Siegel. Please go ahead, Lynn. You have 3 min.

[17:09] The most important thing that I have to recommend to the planning board is that you support freeing Palestine. that this is the biggest issue before you as a planning board for the city of boulder on the ground in boulder. Everything that we've ever had is is a threat because of this issue. So I'm asking that you recommend to the City Council to make not only a resolution for a ceasefire, but for defunding, is real. for restoring the 1948 borders. and for actually making a contiguous State for Palestine, because it was divided up that way from the beginning with full intent of basically divide and conquer.

[18:08] That's the most important thing that you can be doing in your jobs as a board here watching out for the city. Because if you don't. we don't have any civic area to protect, because we're all gonna be gone and all gonna be done for. This is serious stuff that's going on between Israel and Iran and the whole. You know, the only people on Israel's side, the West United States. The rest of the world is upset. The World Court is supporting Palestine. So you need to make some kind of a statement to the City Council. because it's for everything that you do here. Every developer project that you put up everything

[19:00] depends on that. That's more important than a whole of it. So meantime. on sea south. the I'm sure the land is going to be approved. we have 60 days to set up a petition to oppose that. But the whole. The whole issue is that this blood plain needs to be restored. The alluvium needs to be restored. That's part of planning board, too. because flooding affects all of boulder and see you going up there. If we don't do the flood remediation, and it's only for a hundred years. Anyway. it's just gonna make flooding down stream even worse with a hundred year remediation. And that affects all of the projects that you're always approving all the time.

[20:02] So please stop. See you South. it's got to be stopped. It's the worst thing that ever happened to Boulder. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, and there are no other hands raised. So that concludes this portion of the meeting over to you. Chair, I wish you a good meeting. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Our next task is approval of minutes folks gave input to Thomas 4 min, and he sent out revised minutes later or late this afternoon. Anyone have any other changes that they want to make. Alright anyone wanna make a motion. Okay? I move approval of the minutes from January sixteenth, 2,024. Do you have a second second Laura? Second, I know I need. I? Oh, I sorry. Aye, aye.

[21:00] okay, great second minutes we have to approve are those from January twenty-threerd. anyone wanna make a motion? I move approval of the planning board minutes from January 2320 24, I will second, okay. And I, George. Aye, Sarah, is an aye, aye, aye. and I was absent. Okay, awesome, all right. Next, we have a call up item 59, where? Where is Edward? You online? Yeah. are they both online? Yeah. okay. they're panelists. So they can turn on their cameras. Okay, I think there's Edward, I believe, in a car. Good evening. Yes, hey, Edward? Just you look very. It's very mysterious. Just Fyi. So this hold on 1 s. This is call up item 5,900 a block of Arapaho Avenue floodplain development permit. Fld 2020 23 dash 0 0 2 6. Floodplain development permit application for the replacement of the Arapaho Avenue pedestrian Bridge over South Boulder Creek by the city of Boulder public works the callup period expires. February 20, sixth, 2024. Do we have questions, or does someone want to call it up?

[22:31] I have a comment, okay, go ahead. I had submitted. I'm on. I think I'm on. Okay. Yeah. I had submitted questions directly to Tom. the the named engineer, Planner on this project and Ed Edward had replied that he was not able to because of the court. Well, I'll the way I read the email was because of the nature of the questions and the timing.

[23:04] they were not going to be able to respond to my question. So I'm not. Yeah. Am I? Am I misstating that, Edward? Edward? You're you're muted. No, you are correct. We were not able to provide those answers, since they weren't part of the application or part of the permit in front of you. So And my questions. I just want to point out to the board that my questions stemmed from a statement in the packet that the bridge is in poor condition. So if that's why we're replacing the bridge. my questions were around. why was the bridge in poor condition wasn't maintained properly. Is it being replaced with a bridge that has any effect on it's effect

[24:01] in a flood condition. So anyway. So I'm not going to call it up. But it is a. It's a curious situation to be the board that decides to approve or deny or research a permit application. and have statements in the packet that, in fact, raise questions. But then those questions are either outside the scope of the permit or kind of unanswerable. So I'm voicing a and and we ran into this in the situation where Kurt had called up the pedestrian bridge at the trailhead in the wetlands permit. So at a future meeting at a future time. II would love. I would appreciate a discussion of

[25:01] I understand we are, we do criteria based decision making. And I would appreciate a discussion of wetlands and flood permit. like applications. And our role in deciding to whether to call them up. what information is available to us and and the breadth of that information and our questions. So that's my statement. And just at a future date, I'd like more more input on that from from staff, because it it. It seems it's it's frustrating to me issues as a way of streamlining

[26:06] the process, by which applicants, so not saying we should. Your request has been heard, and I'm sure we will get a response. But just recall that we did just say, You know what. Let's streamline by getting rid of these as part of the part of our process. Yup and I was absent at that meeting, and I have not provided the input that II should have to the staff presentation. I need watch that meeting. But just never mind, it's competing and competing challenges. Alright. So you're not gonna call that up okay? Alright. Thanks for the comments. Edward, do you have any anything you need or want to say? I will say. We noted the note, the request, of course, the managing the agenda, and finding a time we will have to work on, but we know the desires great. Thank you very much. Edward and have a nice rest of your evening. You're welcome. Okay, we have no public hearing items. which means we get to move on to matters. The first matter will be the proposed civic historic district. We have set aside 60 min total for this conversation. Obviously, if we need to go longer than that, we will, but that's our hope is to keep it within 60 min.

[27:23] He's go ahead. Oh, thank you. And could I have permission to share my screen? There we are. Thank you. Okay, good evening. Planning board members. Thank you for having us here this evening. Christopher Johnson and myself. Marcy Gerwing are here with the planning development services, comprehensive planning group to get your feedback on the proposed civic area historic district.

[28:06] The meeting objective tonight is to hear Staff's presentation. then have a discussion and report on any land. Use implications related to the proposed district. We will then include your comments in the City Council memo going forward. your Planning Board Review is required as part of the historic district process in section 9, 11, 5, E. Of the Boulder Revised Code, which reads within 45 days of the Landmarks Board's decision to recommend approval on the proposal to establish a historic district. The Planning Board shall review the proposal and report to the city Council on its land, use implications. and to clarify from our memo. We had us a motion language recommended in there. You're not making a formal motion as this isn't a public hearing. But we are hearing your feedback and report on very specific to any land. Use implications of a historic district.

[29:06] So there's one key issue in front of you this evening, which is, will the proposed historic district designation result in any land use implications? I'll give a bit of background kind of starting high level and then go into the current land use and zoning districts. So local designation recognizes and protects areas significant to Boulder's history. There are currently 10 historic districts designated in Boulder, and many of these are the most iconic places in Boulder, the Pearl Street Mall is part of the downtown historic district. Chautauqua is a local historic district as well as a national historic landmark. and then Mapleton Hill is probably the largest and most recognizable residential historic district. It has been 18 years since the city has designated a historic district, and I think that is reflective, that these decisions are not taken lightly, and they take time.

[30:08] In addition to historic districts, there are also about 214 individual landmarks, and those are scattered both within historic districts and outside. The benefits of designation include tax credits. Grant funding possible code varies variances, staff assistance in a bronze plaque. and then the responsibility of local designation is that it comes with a layer of design review. So physical changes, reviewed by the historic preservation are to ensure that they are compatible with the sites, historic character and designation. And last year, 88% of the lac applications were approved. 11% are still in review, and only 1% of the applications were denied. We can often come to a consensus through the design review, and if the landmarks board denies an application, it's subject to call up by the city council

[31:05] of the approved lac applications. 90% were approved within 2 weeks the proposed historic district is shown in the boundary. On the screen. It extends from behind the municipal building where we sit today. To behind the Atrium Tea House and Bimoka Buildings, along Thirteenth Street. and then between Canyon and Arapaho, excluding the privately owned parcels on the northeast corner of Broadway and Arapaho and this is a really unique area of boulder, and it spans a very long period of time. It includes history that extends well before the 1871 founding of boulder and is significant continues to be significance to indigenous peoples. Today. in the 1870 s. Through the 1920 S. There was a residential area where both black and white residents lived and worked, and that their houses were mostly concentrated where the Muni building is today, and extending to where the library is. In the 1920 s. Those residents were displaced as the railroad company and the city purchased that land to make way for a municipal center and a park.

[32:22] Central Park was established in 1924. Formally there was a park there before, but formally established after plans from the Olmstead Brothers out of Brookline, Massachusetts, and since 1924 has served as a public place for numerous concerts rallies protests and events. Right at the heart of Boulder there are 5 individually landmarked structures within the proposed boundary, including the municipal building, the ban shell, the atrium, the tea house and Bemoka, so the designation for those structures and their sites wouldn't change if the district were designated. But the area would also encompass Central Park, the Thirteenth Street plazas, and the public spaces in between.

[33:10] so overall the buildings and the park that remain today. Represent an evolution of the city over the last 100 and J 25 years and have a generally forward-looking and progressive architectural spirit. And then this social significance, as a public gathering space in the the seat of city decisions. This historic district application began back in 2021, with a request to expand the landmark boundary of the band shell. The Landmarks board voted to initiate the process, and then, later, in 2022, voted to recommend the expansion of the Boundary City Council, held a public hearing in 2022 and voted. They did not vote to expand the boundary, but they gave a nod of 5 for parks and recreation and planning and development services staff to explore the creation of a district.

[34:07] Early last year our 2 departments, began to meet to determine an approach to explore the historic district, including the development of a an assessment. And then in late May, 3 community groups submitted a historic district application which activated the process in the Code which began with the landmarks board vote to initiate the process. In July we came to an agreement with the applicants to provide a little bit of extra time in order to do the community engagement and department coordination required for a complex district that includes city owned property. So you can find a lot more information in the packet. But broadly we started the research and the department coordination in August. This provided an opportunity to tell a more complete history of our community. Asking new questions, looking at it through a racial equity lens.

[35:07] and that informed our community engagement, which was in September, October and November, which included walking tours, a story map, different community events and media coverage, as well as presenting the research at a Carnegie library event. We then move to the draft design guideline framework in December, convening a technical advisory group, and we chose to limit the development of the design guidelines to a framework, because the boundaries will be determined by city council, and that will have a big impact on what the design guidelines would be, as well as the very compressed timeline. To do all of this work! That framework was reviewed by the Landmarks Board and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in December we did another touch point with the different 9 different departments, and then now we are into the Board and City Council Review, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Landmarks Board have reviewed the application. We're here tonight to hear from the planning board, and then we'll continue on to city council

[36:14] the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of the 4 members that were present. They agreed that they do not support the designation of a historic district. And their comments can be summarized as a lack of understanding of a unifying element or over a team theme of the district. Lack of support for additional protection and outsized input by one city board. Given that many of the buildings are already designated and disagreement that the potential benefits outweigh the added process, time and expense of a district. and then, earlier this month the Landmarks Board voted 4 to one to recommend designation of the historic district to City council. They recommended the boundary that Staff has proposed, which I'll pull up on the

[37:02] this screen. But they also recommended 5 other motions for things for Council to consider that includes a district name that commemorates those that were displaced during the park's development, and other exclusionary actions and policies by the city expanding the boundary to include Block 11 to recognize the historical significance of the displaced residential area. And it's important to the site of Boulder's first black community expanding the boundary to encompass the banks of Boulder Creek, whereas the boundary before was the midline. and then expanding the period of significance to include the residential period, and finally, a motion to consider recognizing Olmstead's plan as being intact, recognizable, and significant to the historic district. This is a lot of context for your discussion tonight because it is focused on the land, use implications. But I wanted to give you the context of where this application has been and what the other boards have have weighed in

[38:01] tonight. You won't be weighing in on the merits of the application, or whether it meets the eligibility criteria. Unlike the the other 2 boards that have reviewed it so far. So here's where you all come in. We're looking at the existing land uses which in the Bvcp Land use designations. This area is designated as park, urban and other public and semi-public and open space. Other and staff finds that the land uses today are generally consistent with the Bvcp land uses. and then the current zoning is public and Dt. 5 as shown on the map up on the screen. and so as I mentioned, you won't be making a formal motion, and so this is recommended or proposed language. If the board as a whole has consensus about these statements. You're welcome to use them. You're also welcome to just have a discussion, and we will be taking copious notes and then summarizing them for the City Council's review.

[39:13] these are, similar to the last 3 historic district designations which were 18 and 20 years ago. But the proposed language, as the code hasn't changed would be that the proposed designation is consistent with the Bvc. P. Land use designations that it's consistent with the existing public, DT. One and DT. 5, zoning, and that the proposed district does not impact the uses permitted in the underlying, underlying zoning And the other piece in my presentation that I skipped over was that the Landmarks board and the historic preservation program does not regulate use. There's an intersection in terms of adaptive reuse and reuse of old buildings. But in terms of a user view or changing use. We don't regulate that.

[40:06] So with that I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. and then if it's helpful, we have up on the screen a key issue for the Board's discussion with approximately 45 min to an hour estimated for board deliberation. Thank you, Marcy. Why don't we just start with clarifying questions, and then we will get to board discussion. Who would like to start curt thanks for that presentation, Marci. That was great. In the letter from the Naacp which you give us, the link to which I appreciate. It refers to the the owners of the private property on the site that we're probably sitting on right now. We're not compensated fairly for the the land that they

[41:09] sold or gave up, or whatever are there records of the those transfer of deeds, or but the actual ownership was, or has there been, any research on that process? Yes, and Claire Brandt in our program really took a deep dive into the land transactions in the history. And so I think there is more research and analysis that could always be done. But looking at the transactions, it did appear that the land values were lower than comparable areas, and and there there was one particular property owner that seemed to be a holdout for longer as well as a business owner along Broadway. So if I recollect the research correctly, they were compensated. But it did seem lower than than a comparable sale.

[42:08] Thank you. Can I keep going? Okay. Next question is, you said, and I'm missed this. If this was in the memo you said that city council in 2022, I think it was considered expand, just expanding about landmark boundary of the Ban shell and opted. Not to. What was their rationale for that at that time? That's a great question. they let's see. I watched that video many times. The proposal was to expand the boundary. I don't remember the reasons why there weren't enough votes, but it didn't look like there was enough votes to expand the boundary. At that time the landmarks board had recommended to expand the boundary staff at the time had recommended to not expand it, but instead, to look at this area holistically as a historic district, and it seemed like more

[43:09] members of council were in favor of that approach. Then to expand the boundary. At that time you mentioned that part of the reason, and I had asked the question on email about the design guidelines. and thank you for your response about that you mentioned in your presentation that part of the reason you were holding off from developing final design guidelines was, you weren't sure what the the final boundaries would be. Can you talk about how the boundaries would affect what the design guidelines would be, or should be? Yes. and I don't have a map of all of the different boundaries that have been proposed. But there have been a number, and I think my pointer option is here. So the

[44:04] original boundary proposed by the applicants is slightly different than the boundary on the screen. It extended from behind the Muni building to the existing landmark boundary along Canyon And then included the parking lots along Fourteenth Street, behind the atrium, the teahouse and Bemoka. with the rationale that anything that was built there would have an impact on those 3 landmarked buildings. So they proposed, including that. And then the boundary cut halfway across Thirteenth Street jogged down to Arapaho, and then continued along Boulder Creek. and so staff's recommendation and the Landmarks Board recommendation is to exclude those parking lots on Fourteenth, because they're not historic parking lots, and the guidance discourages having a buffer area unless it's connecting to another historic feature beyond that.

[45:00] So at the time. historic district design guidelines. We would have written draft guidelines talking about new construction along Fourteenth Street without knowing whether council will include that in the boundary or exclude it. Okay. thank you. Laura, do you have questions? I do. I thought, yeah, go for it. Thank you, Sarah. Marcy, thank you for that presentation, and for the very thorough packet. I'm going to have some very nice things to say when it comes time for comments, but I'll stick to questions, for now? So in the packet it looks like the grassy lawns, and the paths appear to be character defining features especially given the Landmarks Board recommendation to include the Olmstead period in the period of significance. and their discussion of the remaining integrity of the Olmstead landscape design, which does include like those paths, and how they're configured in the topography. so would the configuration of path through the park be considered to be a character defining feature. Am I understanding that correctly.

[46:09] I will say, I think I wish I had a Arial to show rather than this map. But we'll go with what I have on the screen. The the list of character, defining and or contributing and non contributing features in the landmarks board. Memo is preliminary, and we'll continue to develop those before Council's review. But the 2 paths that are contributing are the ones that come from the corners next to the ban shell which have been there since the Olmstead period the Boulder Creek path would be non contributing. And then the path, while they're always for a very long time there has been a path that parallels the creek on the southern portion. The path itself is maybe 10 years old or 5 years old, so that path itself, or the circulation pattern.

[47:03] there would likely not be a character defining feature, but things like the the street, the tree, lined street along Thirteenth, the open area south of the ditch and north of the ditch, like those broader kind of characteristics, are probably the direction that we're going. Okay. And do you have a slide that shows the Olmstead layout that the landmarks board was talking about when they said, We think it is still intact, and shows Olmstead's design. I do not. Okay. Is that in the packet? I think there's the images in the packet to. Okay. Good. Thank you. I did watch the landmarks board, meeting it. Very informative. Next question. So the Urban street grid is on the preliminary list of character defining features, and I believe one of the landmarks. Board members inquired about whether the curbs might be historic. and that raised a question for me of would having the streets included in the historic district limit potential changes to the street design. Like, let's say, we wanted to include a buffered bike lane or something like that.

[48:08] If it's in the historic district. Is that possible? That kind of level of change? Yes, I think that would be allowed. Obviously, there are many variations of what a buffered bike Lane might look like, and the extent of the physical change would probably determine the review. But in general the urban street grid is intended to be in the most basic organizing features, that it is a rectilinear street grid that bounds and bisects our civic area versus. Like the curbs themselves, the pavement, the stamped concrete of the farmers market. could all change. It's not the material itself. And I think there would even be room for changes to Thirteenth Street.

[49:01] considering, you know, how does that change the relationship between the urban park and the buildings along the edge? Okay, thank you. So the environmental significance analysis includes site characteristics such as spatial relationship of the civic buildings, circulation paths within the park, creating a relatively flat central, green, and mature trees planted in groves and line the perimeter of the park. I think this is what you were just talking about. And Central Park is also on the preliminary list of character defining features. It says, Central Park's open green, with trees planted in groves. Do I understand correctly that the future development would be limited in order to preserve these environmentally significant features and character defining features. I would say, there's a lot of change possible in the park and in this area. But if it's designated as a historic district, it's how does it change? And so, by identifying, like the open gathering spaces in the lawn or these groves of trees. It would inform. Like

[50:02] not planting, maybe a dense grove all the way through, or, you know, preserving the views of the flat iron which has been a design characteristic for a hundred years or so. But I will say that II think a lot of change is still possible. And that's kind of where the design guidelines come in of like. How does it change? But by no means would this be kind of cast in amber and and preserved as is today. It's defining what's important to carry forward. And then how do things change around it that respect that character, but doesn't freeze it in time. Thank you. And I'm I'm glad you mentioned the design guidelines, because the only place in the design guidelines that mentions new building is in the East bookend? Would new buildings be possible, such as an African American cultural center or a museum? Would that be possible in the grassy areas that are not currently protected by historic designation, or would it only be allowed in the East bookend a a new building?

[51:04] Well, I'd say it's too early for me to say what would be approved, or what could be approved in in considering the flood plain zoning all of those sort of things. I don't know what would be approved in terms of a a new building? Just specifically with relation to the landmark, the historic designation of those grassy areas. Would that change what would be allowable? Putting aside the flood plain, all of those things would have to be met. But but with the historic designation itself mean that those grassy areas there cannot be a new building in them. I don't think, my approach would not be to preclude something or be so specific to say, this cannot change. You know this must be preserved in this exact way. Preservation to me is about change. It's about, how does something change over time. So a new building, whether it's a larger center or maybe bathrooms or restroom facilities. our historic Preservation Review would look at well, where is it cited? And how does that change the spatial relationship of the buildings? What materials is it made out of? Is it of a style of its own time, or is it trying to replicate something that was there which would not be appropriate? So it's often, how does something change over time? Not

[52:17] yes or no. or the assumption of always. No. Okay. Okay. Why don't we do? That sounds good. Mark, do you have some questions? Not many. I think so. I'm interested in what was presented at the Landmarks Board meeting as the applicant's application. and then tonight the boundaries as shown there. you know. So the applicant started off with an application that included the parking lots and didn't include

[53:03] block 10 or 11 and and I don't know if we've clarified. Is it blocked in? Is it block 11. Is it? What are we? How are we expanding to the west, and what are we including or suggesting to include. great question, and so what's on the screen tonight? And what's in your packet is the Landmarks Board's recommendation to the City Council of what they designate? It's a formal recommendation. And the way that we chose to show it, which is slightly different than what's in your memo is a solid line around what was in their formal motion, and then a dash line in the area that encourages city council to consider expanding it to include. I think it's Block 11. But I'll double check what? What block it is. When City Council reviews it will have it similar to how the landmarks board

[54:00] memo was, which is. Here's what the applicants proposed. Here's what the landmarks board recommends, etc., and then council ultimately decides where, if if it's going to be designated, and if so, where to draw those boundaries. So, council, well. what's block 11? Okay, so Council can make that decision in spite of the applicant and their application applying for something different. Yes. yes, in another example is just the atrium building, which was nominated by historic boulder, and then, at the Second Reading Council, chose to amend the boundary to exclude the parking on the north side, and then it goes to a third reading. But council takes it as a recommendation, and then can ultimately decide where to draw the boundaries. Okay. all right. though. My only other question is, you know, I I'm always interested in in. Why.

[55:06] why, people would oppose the district, and I think their concerns have to be taken seriously. And one of the one of the comments that I've heard and and discussed with people and read is that we can do. We can. We can make this place historic. We can educate the public about its history. We can put up plaques. We can have educational walking trips. We can do all of these things without creating a historic district and the associated burdens. if burdens to, is in the eye of the beholder, but to the parks department, and so forth. Is it? Is it your opinion that people have successfully done that without the really have a an area. This really historic educational serves the public

[56:08] without the creation of a district? Or is the district creation really essential to to having those sorts of things be present. I will say, You made a similar comment in the landmarks board, and in the 4 plus hours of the hearing, that comment stuck with me and was something that I thought of multiple times over the last 2 weeks, which is, I agree with your assertion, which is. we can. We can recognize history outside of designation, and we we can put up signs and educate, but we don't, and it seems like there's an opportunity maybe, to tell the story as part of a certain month, or a certain year, or part of a series, and then it goes away, whereas with historic districts the story is elevated and told as part of the whole tapestry of boulder. When we say there are 10 historic districts. Those names get repeated over and over, and it becomes more of a recognized area of of boulder. The the one

[57:18] place that I think I can think of. That's not a historic district, but that we tell the history. But we don't know. The full history is the Gosgrove neighborhood. I think that we generally know that that's where many of Boulder's African American residents lived from 1,900 to 1,950, and then it was a predominantly Latino neighborhood. I don't know if I could tell you a whole lot more than that, not to the level of. If it were a historic district, what story we would be able to tell and and celebrate. Great thanks. Okay. And the final thing is. with the expansion of the boundary. I mean you again. This is a similar comment to what I made of the Landmarks board, and that is, you did such great work

[58:03] and extensive work in the regarding the the original proposed boundary. including excluding the parking lots. But And and yet here we are. A week, some days later. With an expansion. And do the staff feel that the expansion is supported by your research that you've done subsequent to the landmarks board meeting. I will say we have a lot of work to do between that first Pre Lim meeting. Memo is due for Council, because it it was we really concentrated our analysis on the proposal that was put forward by the applicant. And then we had thought broader when we did the additional research. And our analysis was, it's a very important

[59:00] in very significant time to Buller's history, and has that significance. But what's left of it? And so our approach will be to forward the landmarks, boards, and the planning boards and the parks and rec advisory boards recommendation will provide more now, a little bit more analysis based on the considerations, those 5 memos that the landmarks board made. But I don't anticipate that we'll change our overall recommendation. This is we're we're really in the process of providing the same or similar information to each board, and then each memo becomes a building block of here's what the first board, second board, third Board said, and then city council has the information they need to make an informed decision. Great. Thank you. Camille. Do you have questions. Thank you so much for your or helping clarify some of these complex questions and thoughts.

[60:05] I have. I have a couple of questions. So my understanding is, all of the buildings in the proposed district are already landmarked. Is that correct? That is correct? And just to clarify when we refer to the Olmsted plan, we're not talking about frederick law, olmsted, we're talking about is it his son's son. Okay. so that is kind of doesn't that have a different weight in the historical world? That is not the Olmstead, but it's a Olmsted. I. Olmsted, Jr. Was still a very significant figure in American History and American landscape architecture. And so when we say Olmstead, I think most people think of New York Central Park. But Olmstead, Jr. Who eventually dropped Junior. Was a very key figure in American landscape design and city planning, too. So it's still a big deal, even if it's the sun.

[61:04] Okay? So the and I guess I'm just not clear on where this information landed. But you talk about the racial equity lens. how does that lens have? How does it apply itself for the district? What what is its role? Well, this is this historic district application is the first historic preservation project that we used the racial equity instrument for. And Vivian, who's on the call today, is part of the project team on the communications and engagement side. And so we use the tool at the beginning in August. To say who benefits from this district, who is being left out. And what we identified was asking the community connectors in residence group for feedback on the racial equity instrument. And through those conversations we met twice, once

[62:11] online and then once at the site for feedback on the walking tour. And what they helped us identify is the importance of who tells the history, how we tell it, and how we can tell a more complete history of Boulder. And so that's the racial equity piece that, I think, makes this historic district application. defines it, it happening in 2,023 or 2,024 versus 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. so is there something within the district, or is this? Will this be embedded in the the guidelines that particularly

[63:00] recognizes and directs actions around acknowledging the indigenous people and their use of the of the land. And I think the language situation was working. People that were also historically on this property? Are there specific accommodations, I mean, how how does that land? It's one thing to say. Okay, you know, once a year we'll have a tour or something. But I would think that we have a responsibility of using that as a tool in a very precise way, a lens to acknowledge that it will show up somewhere. Yes, and in one of the guiding principles guiding principle 4, which I also didn't include in my slide deck, talks about our draft language was acknowledging that it because it's the

[64:02] civic heart of Boulder. It needs to be welcoming and inclusive, and that's the direction for the guiding principle, and our draft check said, acknowledge the many diverse histories, and I'm paraphrasing it's it's better worded than that. The Landmarks board in their review a couple of weeks ago. Change the language to make it actionable, to to actually do something about recognizing the history and telling those stories and elevating those histories, whereas the draft just said, acknowledge them which doesn't go far enough in in the Board's view. Thank you so much. So those are my questions. So I just have one question. Then we'll go back to Laura. What are the implications of not expanding the boundary to include block 11, not including it. Changes within that dash boundary would not go through the design review process.

[65:03] the residential area. I was looking at the overlay earlier. The houses were both within the existing municipal building, landmark, boundary, and the dashed boundary there. So I think there is still an opportunity to tell those stories in the way that a formal designation does whether the boundary is expanded to the to the west or not. But the most direct answer is the design review wouldn't apply to the area in the dashed boundary. Okay, that's that's very helpful. Thank you. Laura. Thank you. Last 2 questions. So I was trying to find something in the packet that would talk about if something were built that were new, what standards would apply to it, and what I found was in compatibility with Site, that section of the memo. It states that consideration will be given to scale massing, placement and other qualities of design. With respect to its site. The scale massing and placement of structures in the proposed district is generally defined by one and 2 story buildings, surrounded by or surrounding a central urban park with mature trees and a green lawn.

[66:21] So does that like if I were just reading that as a somebody who was trying to apply that standard, so future development would need to be one or 2 stories and be on the perimeter of the green area. Is that what I'm hearing. No, I would say, you're referring to the eligibility criteria for whether something would qualify as a landmark or not. And so that description is, what's there on the ground today? I think that the east bookend and the downtown urban design guidelines. envision buildings in the East bookend. I have not heard a proposal to build

[67:03] structures in the park, so I'm very cautious to go down a hypothetical path of what would be approved or what wouldn't be approved. But II would. I put some space between what the eligibility criteria analysis says, and what a full design guideline process and analysis will be. That's a a whole separate projects that we would undertake if it's designated. Okay, I might have misunderstood the memo, but it says, consideration will be given to scale massing, placement and other qualities of design with respect to the site. And then it talks about what is there now? So I was assuming that meant it would need to be compatible with the character that you're seeing there. Now am I misunderstanding that it's the designation. Criteria reads compatibility of site consideration will be given to those things. That's the analysis of looking at is this area eligible? Is it environmentally significant?

[68:06] And then I'm describing that we are describing the character that's there now. Okay, so it's not an assumption that that will be a design guideline for future sign. Okay? Last question. A preliminary list of non contributing features on the site includes the B cycle stations. If the historic district had already been approved before the B cycle stations were built. Would there have been an issue with putting those B cycle stations on the site because of historic compatibility? Because of that designation? Good timing? Because I just answered a question about the B cycle stations up at Chautauqua which are allowed, and then we made the decision that they don't need review because they are there seasonally but if they were there permanently like Ev chargers or other similar things, it's a matter of where they placed. and then most likely approved, that 99 falls into that.

[69:00] Thank you, Marcy. Alright. All great questions. I think what I'm gonna recommend is that. We just go down the line, and folks give feedback on the prime. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had asked all your questions. There were such good questions. They prompted more good questions, not my questions to other people's questions. So following up sort of on where Laura was so, and you had referred to this in the design. Guidelines number 5, it says, encourage a vibrant Miss mix of uses in the East bookend through adaptive reuse, reuse, and creative infill. So that sounds. If I were a Landmark Board member and reading that that would sound kind of exclusive to me like this is the place where adaptive reuse and creative infill is allowed.

[70:00] Is that the intent? I mean, you kind of talked about this. But yeah, I think that. I think I'm realizing a yeah, that in these discussions about the guiding principle, what's most important to guide the the design guidelines in the future, that the redevelopment with structures would most likely occur in the East Book End, and the feedback was, it's really important to provide some guidance of what kind of redevelopment would be appropriate in the East book end. It's not intended to be exclusive, but it it is reflective of, I'd say, the conversations that. I've heard over the last 8 or 9 months about potential development or change in this area. What's most important to address in the guiding principles that inform the guidelines. Okay?

[71:01] And then final question is also following up on. I think it was Laura's question about the street, so I understand that Broadway. the the C. Dot right away on Broadway, would be excluded right from any kind of design. Review. Correct? So that's not true of thirteenth, and it sounds like from the proposal you actually expanded the the landmarks boundary to include all of that section of thirteenth from Repo to canyon. Right? So I still wasn't clear. I realized, oh, I've never seen a streetscape change come through historic review before, and I don't know what the the implications would be, or the process would be, or anything like that. And you did talk about how well the material itself probably would not be preserved. But if the if the curves were to be moved, or if there were to be some reconfiguration or something.

[72:07] How would that be handled? That's a good question. And I also don't recall many streetscape improvements coming through the design review process and things like repaving doesn't require review. Would be very busy if it if it did, and and so it would, it would be, I think. more unique or creative changes that would come through like if the curb changed, or if the grade of the street changed, or anything like that I just don't know how likely that would be. I think the intent of including Thirteenth Street is because it it connects the historic district, the east book into the park. And so

[73:00] while it, the street itself is non contributing it would still make sense to not carve it out per se in the historic district. But, I might need help envisioning what sort of creative changes might happen to the streetscape as we get closer to the design guidelines to then respond, and the guidelines wouldn't be prescriptive to say, you must keep a you know this high of a of a curb cut or use this color concrete or anything like that. That's not the intent of the guidelines. Okay, but you you did say something that I thought was important. There we you said that the street itself would be non contributing by that, do you mean just the surface of the street. I think. What else would you include? Well, there's the entire right away, right? Which includes the sidewalks and the curves in this tree lawn and all that stuff. And so I just wasn't clear which which specifically you were talking about when you said it wouldn't be contributing. Yeah, I think the street

[74:06] I think the street itself and the the sidewalks. We identify the urban street grid, which has some sort of circulation in this grid pattern. But the intent of the historic district wouldn't be to regulate that level of the street design. So I think, without having. Well, I'm just trying to think of other historic districts. we've looked at sidewalk improvements for replacement of, say, flagstone on Mapleton Hill, because flagstone is a contributing material that's more and more rare sidewalk improvements in Highland lawn. We work with the Public Works Department to ensure that the bright white compound isn't used so that it's a uniform look like, that's kind of the level of aesthetics that we're looking at. And we leave all of the technical transportation. Sort of

[75:10] design to the transportation planners. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Alright. Last last call for questions. Okay, so I think it makes sense to us as we're just going to be giving some feedback under the for the proposed historic district designation. Result in any land. Use implications go down the line and give your feedback, and then folks can either reiterate that they support what you say, or add something, or add their own things or disagree, and then staff can take notes and incorporate. So, Mark, why don't you get going? Okay, I'm going first, I guess. Alright you don't have to. I can start with Laura. I'll I'll I'll in in regard to the question.

[76:02] I think that definitely the proposed hory proposed historic district will result in land use implications by the nature of imposing design guidelines, a design framework, a historic district. You know. Years of of significance. Thank you. II really appreciate that. Okay. but I think that those implications are outweighed by the benefits to the community of the creation of the historic district, and I hope that the the important story that is to be told in the creation of the district is far out ways. the the the resulting land use implications.

[77:04] Great Kurt. yeah, this is an interesting question, because on one level the answer to the question. What are the land? Use implications? The answer, or are there land use implications? The answer is clearly, no, there are none, because historic preservation doesn't regulate use. And then, on the other hand, the answer is clearly yes, because of what Mark just said, which is that, of course, there's additional process. There's additional hurdles and potential barriers that are imposed by historic design. That's kind of in some ways the point where it's part of the point. And so I think. trying trying to navigate between those 2, I think clearly there are some land use implications, and I think that the

[78:03] that that it it could be problematic in certain cases, in trying to do some things that the city would like to do in the future, whether it be better. Recognition of the long history of the indigenous inhabitants here, who lived here for 12,000 years, or whatever of the people, white and black, who lived in, I think, very small and modest dwellings along right along Water Street. and on the banks of the creek and then we're somehow moved out in ways that are still a little bit vague and possibly suspicious. And and also potentially in reconfiguring, for example, the the the park as

[79:02] Maybe Laura was alluding to, or the possible uses on the east side of Thirteenth street. So II would say that to sum up, there clearly are some laneous implications and their potential benefits, as Mark said. But I think we should be cautious. I would advise City Council to be cautious about this. Because it may make it difficult to achieve what we want to achieve. Eml, you're next. Thank you. I think I'll step into that that space that both Mark and Kurt are talking about regards to the Bdcp. And the zoning. II believe that there are not any land use implications with the project relative to those regulations and policies. but I would urge that another consideration of land use implications.

[80:06] articulate the with actionable means, articulate the and incorporate the history of indigenous people and the working population. I think to you know, to say yes, they were here, and yes, we recorded it. and yes, once a year we'll have a who put a plaque. I don't think that goes far enough. We know better. And we see that in all so many of our professional peers around right? They start their conversation by acknowledging if they're on land that belong to Xyz. So I think it is a an important component. A land use implication that it's got that history. and I would encourage you to find a way to incorporate something regards to that history that is actionable and meaningful

[81:03] on a continuous basis into the into the process and the guidelines. And and however this unfolds, thank you. Alright. I'm gonna build on what Ml just said, which is that, I suggest, that you should expand the boundary to include block 11 to ensure that there's a common design review process for an entire area, and that the actionable equity lens is applied across the entire area and not limited to the smaller area. So I think it both advances our equity goals as well as our design goals. I'll be brief. II agree with almost entirely what Mark Ml. And Sarah said. and combination including Sarah's additional comments around expanding into block 11.

[82:02] I apologize. This might not be brief. I would say that I do think that there are potentially very significant land use implications to doing this historic district. I do wanna compliment Staff on the research that you did. And I think you know, it's very clear all the hard work that you've put into the project, and so much good has already come from it. In terms of uncovering and synthesizing the research, using the racial equity instrument, the story map the walking tours, the connections with the community connectors. and a recognition that the history of this area has typically been told through a lens of racial prejudice, which is something that staff are working really hard to change. And so I commend you sincerely from the bottom of my heart for all of that work, and I think that that work needs to continue. And the story needs to continue to be told, regardless of whether this is a historic district. There should be the murals, the artwork, the walking tour, the publicity, all of the things that we would do that needs to happen, regardless of what City Council decides about historic district.

[83:02] I do think that you know whether you are for it or against it. The land use implications are pretty clear, at least from my interactions with landmarks board. They view it as their charge to defend the character defining features of the site. and if those character defining features include things like topography, green lawns, pathways, you know, as Ml. Pointed out right now, all of the buildings are already landmarked, this historic district will not change that. The only thing that it will really implicate are the green grassy areas. And I think it will constrain, for example, if somebody wants to put food trucks. If somebody wants to build a museum or a cultural center, or any other significant change to the landscape, maybe you can find a place to put some B cycle stations and some restrooms, and that might not be too hard. But I think the view sheds are mentioned as special characteristics. So I would just encourage city Council to look very carefully at the features that are going to be preserved as defined in the landmarks, ordinance.

[84:02] and the character defining features. As well as the design guidelines which we don't have privy to yet they're not. They're not created yet, but they should be before it goes to city council and think very carefully about. What are the land? Use? Implications of a historic district that mostly is protecting green space because the buildings are already protected. And you know that some people might think that that's a great thing. Protect that green space because it is a community gatherings button. It has a history, and it should not change. But I mean, Marcy, I appreciate your comment that it's not meant to preserve this area in amber, but, as we have seen, the landmarks board often disagrees with staff, or sometimes disagrees with staff, and they can make their own determination of how they protect the historic district and the character defining features in that district, and from what I have seen, at least, our current board is inclined to be very strict about that, and a future board might also be strict or stricter. So, and we don't have any control over that once it's landmarked, it's landmarked forever, unless there is some process to undo that which I understand. It's possible. But I'm not sure if it's ever happened

[85:07] so. I think those are my basic comments. I just want to wrap up by saying, I think the the prab unanimously. The parks and rec board unanimously, unanimously said that they didn't support this, and the main reason as it was summarized at that meeting. I have a quote here somewhere. You find it apologies. One Prab member summed it up. We think this park could be better than it is, and we don't want historic designation to stand in the way of this park improving. And then the chair added, or slow it down. and I think that was a primary reason why they voted for to nothing not to recommend the historic district. I definitely think it has historic significance, and we should be telling the stories. But I do think it has potentially very significant land use implications. Alrighty. I think we are done here.

[86:00] You're looking at me like we're not okay. We're done alright. Thank you very, very much, really appreciate it. I'm always a little nervous when he's got the big eyes, I'm like, oh, no very thoughtful. Just see. Thank you. Your comments were very thoughtful. I really appreciate how prepared and particularly summarized your thoughts. I really appreciate your time and consideration of this. Thank you. Alright, thank you, Marcy. Alright! We will take a 5 min. We'll take, you know. Take a 7 min break, and we'll come back at 7, 35, and start on the next item.

[95:39] KJ. Is back we can begin alright. We are resuming the February twentieth City Council. I'm sorry. Oh, my God, no planning board meeting. I will not be on city council. Alright, we are now looking at. Matt. Item B, under matters which is progress, update on implementation of the East boulder subcommunity plan. Kathleen King will be making a presentation.

[96:08] She needs about 15 min right, Kathleen, and what she'd like is to what Kathleen would like is to make the presentation, and then take questions and comments. So if we can all hold our hold, our questions that would be great. Take it away, Kathleen. Great. Thank you, Sarah. I am going to share my screen. See? And can you see East boulder zoning update? Yes, we can. Great. Okay. Well, good evening. Looking forward to sharing an update with the board tonight on implementation of the sub community plan in addition to Christopher, who's in the room, I'm also joined by my colleague, Sarah Horn, who's been working on the project.

[97:00] We were planning to have Leslie over holds her from code of metrics with us tonight, but she had a last minute change of plans, so if any questions come up for her team, we'll be sure to take those down, and we can send out responses to the board following the meeting. So just wanted to note that Sarah mentioned. I have a relatively quick presentation, and then we'll hold questions. For the end. And then a last planning board to provide feedback on key questions that we've prepared for this item. So as we get started, I like to just reorient everyone to where we are in the city. The East Boulder subcommunity is one of 10 in the city, and it covers area north of Arapaho and generally east of Foothills Parkway. The Planning Board adopted the East Boulder Subcommittee plan in 2022. And we've been working through implementation over the past year.

[98:05] The plan sets a vision for the future of the subcommunity and identifies areas of change where community members have expressed a desire to see evolution in mostly industrial and office-focused areas to more mixed use. Neighborhoods where people could live and work be well connected by a variety of mobility options, and have access to recreation and outdoor spaces. The implementation of the East Boulder subcommunity plan is in some ways very different from other recent area planning efforts. Such as Alpine balsam or Boulder Junction, where the city was the majority land owner in East boulder properties and areas of change are all privately owned. So our implementation strategy is dependent on being able to regulate for the outcomes expressed in the plan. And in this first major project we're looking at to

[99:01] significant components. So the first component is zoning. And that's what our discussion will be focused on tonight. And then the second is the form base code. We met with the board. This past fall to take a look at form based code outcomes and discuss the review process. The Planning Board gave us helpful feedback, and the project team is working through drafting an update to the form based code that will be available for the public to review this spring. but just for context, a reminder that the form based code guides redevelopment by establishing standards for building form and design and providing guidance for the design of public spaces between those buildings in Boulder the Form base code acts as a sort of overlay, and we will still use the underlying zoning districts to determine allowed uses. So while we're talking about zoning districts tonight, the focus is really on those allowed uses. All of the other characteristics of form, bulk, and intensity that are built into our code will be guided by the form based code for the area.

[100:11] So this is a current zoning map for East Boulder, and I want to, I think, be clear that we're not anticipating a comprehensive rezoning as an outcome of this project. So that's to say, the city will not lead a rezoning of properties in the areas of change. But rather, we're creating guidance for property owners who may consider redevelopment in line with the sub-community plan by providing sort of prevented zoning options for both that property owner, but also staff in the planning board, as they play roles in development review. So again. this gets back to maybe a significant difference between implementing this project versus something like Alpine balsam or Boulder Junction included in the Subcommittee plan is some pretty specific guidance on the types of uses that community members wanted to see in these different East Boulder neighborhoods as they evolve

[101:07] in the future. And the project team used those place types and looked for matches just based on allowed use across the 43 different zoning districts. Despite having so many different zones, we still didn't have any perfect matches between what is described in the plan and what's allowed in our zones. But we have some zones that are very close. And so we're proposing a few modifications to these zones for your consideration and feedback tonight for the innovation to D, the neighborhood to D and the main Street live workplace types. The zone that presents the best match for allowed uses by right is. and allowing use by right is a really important component to the implementation. We're really trying to streamline the review process for these areas that may be covered by the form base code.

[102:01] So we're working to allow users described by the plan as by right to avoid an additional process of going through use review and a form based. Code review. In order to better align Mu 4. With the planned uses in the area, we would need to modify the use tape full to allow categories of brewery, distillery and winery which is currently prohibited, and small theater rehearsal space which today requires use review and zones. The parkside residential category matches pretty closely with MU. 2, and should work for those couple of small areas that are called out for parkside residential in the subcommunity plan, and then the innovation to d non residential place type matches with the IG. Zone. But we're recommending some modifications to allow breweries, distilleries and wineries as uses with restaurants, and to allow brew pubs and taverns to add to the dining and an entertainment mix in the area the destination workplace could really either be Ig or Ims.

[103:08] Ims is a closer match based on allowed uses. But we would want to discuss expanding allowed office floor area in this zone district. So when considering the modifications, we want to understand how they might pack other areas of the city that already have this zone applied. So first we'll look at. The Zone was a newer zone district, created actually in step with the form based code for Boulder Junction, and has since also been applied to a portion of the Alpine balsam site. but it currently does not allow breweries, distilleries, wineries by right, and has a use review for small theatre or rehearsal space. I think. Historically, the the brewery category was really industrial. They have large equipment. Can sometimes have canning or bottling operations associated and certainly trucking for moving supplies and product.

[104:08] But locally, we've seen these businesses evolve to include tasting rooms which have become in both East Boulder as well as other areas of the city, really valuable social places where people meet, gather and celebrate together. So as we think about how an MU. 4 zone which we've seen typically include pretty dense residential components. We believe this use would be complementary and fit in with these zones for social spaces as well similar with the small theater and rehearsal spaces. So we believe this type of use would be complementary to the zone providing social and entertainment opportunities. But it's also a use that can be activated throughout the day and night, creating more vibrant spaces throughout different hours. It, too, has some considerations for loading, unloading things like set materials. We would want to think carefully about parking needs and pick up, drop off phones. But these are things that will be managed both by the form base code and by the city's curbside management program.

[105:12] The ME. 4 zone at all. Pine balsam is pretty restricted, and so it's unlikely to be significantly impacted by these changes. In the near term for that project for impacts to areas zoned. IG these are mostly focused in East Boulder, the Boulder Junction phase 2 area, and along the foothills corridor north of Arapaho. So I used a different mapping tool just to try to be really clear about where the Ig zone. So this map looks a little bit different from the previous one. But the all the areas in grey are the Ig Zone districts. The modifications would expand. Dining and entertainment options in these neighborhoods which the team considers complementary to the existing and planned uses which today are mostly work focused, but may experience some transitions to include residential in the future.

[106:14] The other area that would be impacted by this change are the industrial zones in gun barrel. And again, we believe these modifications would serve as complementary to existing and planned uses in those gun barrel neighborhoods. So then the final item for consideration is whether to expand the allowed by write space for office in the Ims zones. The Ims Zone is a closer match based on uses to the destination workplace place type. And this is because it would allow for residential uses by right. The alternative is to use the Ig zone for this place type which does not allow residential by right, but requires a use. Review now, because the adopted Subcommittee Plan describes residential as an allowed use in those areas, it would meet the criteria for approval of use.

[107:11] However, as I mentioned earlier, this project is really working a streamline process for redevelopment, particularly for residential uses. So by allowing residential by right in the areas defined by the place types map in that subcommunity plan, we're at least eliminating that kind of hurdle or barrier. The destination workplace place type also supports and anticipates office space and R&D use to accommodate existing and future businesses. However, the Ims Zone currently limits office use to 5,000 square feet. The modification proposed is to expand that allowed use to 20,000 square feet for a more realistic footprint of office in this area. And today, office use in IG, zones are 50,000 square feet for floor area. By right? So that's just for reference, the 20,000 square foot is more similar to the zone.

[108:11] The potentially impacted areas outside of East Boulder would be in North Boulder, where there's a kind of handful of developable parcels west of Broadway, north of Rosewood Avenue, and then in the steel yards area of Boulder Junction. So here's a summary of those equivalent zones. We're asking the board tonight to provide feedback on whether these zones, based on allowed uses, are appropriate matches for the place types in the plan and then based on your feedback. The project team will be working on process recommendation for property owners interested in rezoning in line with the plan and future form based code updates. And then here's a summary of those proposed use table revisions which attempt to minimize impacts to other areas with this designated zoning. But our changes that the team felt would be essential to helping realize the plan through that streamlined process.

[109:14] So we'll take your feedback tonight and share that with city council for further direction on March seventh. and then you can expect the team to return in the spring, and we'll have those draft updates to the form base code and some initial community feedback on on those proposed changes as well. And that's it pretty quick. I will. I can put the key questions up, but I might stop sharing my screen for a minute so I can. Let's see, can I make a suggestion? Can I make a suggestion instead of having the questions up? Why don't you, if you don't mind putting up the color, coded a map of suggested place types.

[110:01] Because that's where people are really gonna be asking questions about, I think. is this the one you're referring to? Do you have the the actual, the buildings versus the map. the buildings is a little bit easier to sure. Yeah. Let me. Scroll up a little bit. You have a multiple. Yeah, perfect. Okay? Alright. So opportunity for clarifying questions. And then once we get through those, we'll give feedback. I'm go ahead. Go ahead. You're the expert on East Boulder subcommittee plan. Thanks, Sarah. just a couple. So Hi, Kathleen, it's nice. Hi! And thank you for that wonderful presentation. And the really nice packet was very clear and even though it's a very complex topic. So thank you so much. So I think I'm understanding correctly that the underlying zoning it's not gonna achieve all of the vision of the place type. But the zoning would need to be compatible with the place types, and then the rest of the vision will be achieved through the form base code. Do I have that right?

[111:14] That's right. They're they're kind of a match set. We have to have the underlying zoning to really dictate that use. And then the form base code will address the more of the built environment. Thank you. And in in the packet it said that the idea that's represented in this these diagrams that various uses are appropriate by floor that will be taken care of not by the zoning, but by the form based code. Do do I have that right? That's correct. There's a a place in the form based code where we can kind of dictate those uses by floor. Great? I had a question about the focus group input. One of the bullet points said that the focus group had. There was interest in ability to create more and wider variety of housing options in East boulder. Can you say more about that? Like? What kind of housing options were they interested in that they think are not adequately represented in the plan?

[112:06] I don't know that. The conversation was that the housing options were not adequately represented in the plan. I think it was more of a a general interest in wanting to see redevelopment that includes housing. And that being a really important component of this plan. yeah. okay, thank you. So it's not about housing types. It's just amount of housing, and where it's allowed, and that kind of thing. Yes, okay, thank you. And At a previous meeting we had a concern about in flat Irons business Park. There's a large landowner who is not particularly interested in developing residential, even though some of the parcels that they have acquired. The hope was that there would be significant residential. There. Is there anything that planning staff are working on that could address that in any way? I think it would primarily affect the neighborhood to d the main Street live work and the destination workplace types. And maybe that's not a question for zoning. Maybe that's a question for form based code.

[113:07] So I do know the property. I think that you're referring to, or the previous meeting that you're referring to and yes, I think you know, looking into the place types and reading through the descriptions of how those neighborhoods are envisioned to evolve a real focus for incorporating residential in that particular area. I think you know, you're talking mostly about flatter and business. Park is on that innovation to D, where you can see that the upper floors are more restricted to residential, and so that that will be played out through the form base code, and then also that Main Street live work along South Boulder Creek. There. that is another kind of

[114:03] form based code will help to manage that this zoning topic is really focused on. What uses are allowed by right? Okay? So maybe there's more conversation to come on that when we talk about the form base code last question just raised by your presentation. You talked about the Ims zoning, and that you would need to expand the office use by right, so that it doesn't require a use review and that you wanted residential to be available by write so that it didn't require a use review. I guess my question is, if we're really trying to encourage residential, why wouldn't we make it harder to do a large office space in IM S. Like, why wouldn't we just allow that to still be a use review topic in order to encourage residential as a preferential option? So I think you know, a big part of the subcommunity plan describes wanting to

[115:06] allow existing businesses to continue to exist in East Boulder and wanting those smaller businesses to also be able to grow in East Boulder and wanting to keep our local businesses in the city. And so I think that supporting an expanded space for that type of business use is something. That's consistent with the plan. and creating for requiring use review in addition to a form based code review is something that would make that more challenging, but certainly would welcome broader discussion about that from the from the board. Thank you very much. I mean, I don't have questions. I have comments and clarifying right now, clarifying questions.

[116:03] Who are you talking to me? I'm talking to everybody. Oh, you're right. I'm looking for. Oh, zoning update document is just absolutely superior. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the work you all you and your all everybody involved in that. I think it's it's it's an amazing little document. Help clarify a pretty complex project. So thank you for that. The clarifying questions I have. Well, Laura asked one which I think is something that is important to consider. I would just add or question the intended outcome of promoting more higher square footage of offices. So that's a that's a question. That Laura asked, and I'm not sure

[117:00] you know where that'll go. but in generally will place types override zoning. Use. No The zoning is You know that kind of legal basis for what you can do with your property. The sub community plan is serves as a guiding document, as projects go through development review, certainly, but kind of more directly guides our work in comprehensive planning. Moving forward and figuring out how to kind of make all these wishes in the plan come to reality. So would the form base code override the zoning use? Would the form base code override the zoning? Use the context? I'm asking these questions in is

[118:02] the and MU, 4 place types. well, anyway, those in particular. they in the different ways. Well, no. The question I'm asking is, the diagrams are very clear. So we're looking at. If we're just gonna look at. we see that in Main Street, lib work. We see that in innovation TOD residential. And we see that in the neighbourhood TOD, and we see in those that. for example, innovation TOD. There is no office that goes on that diagram place type diagram. There's no office that goes beyond the first floor. So the sectional unfolding of the use

[119:05] the approved uses is that something that is the use regulates. I think I understand your question. So yeah. so yes. The form based code. If you are, if your property is identified on that map that says you have to go through form based code Review. The form base code supersedes the underlying zoning. So you could if you wanted to do an office project in a innovation to D area. you could build office. But you could not build to 5 stories. You could only build it for a two-story building. You wouldn't get that sort of built in additional intensity that comes with form based code without providing residential on the third, fourth, and fifth floors.

[120:10] So how? That answer your question. kind of I'm I'm look so if we look at innovation to d residential, it's an MU. 4. And there is no office approved beyond the ground floor. I mean, on that diagram. It doesn't show anything above. Oh, first and potentially second floor that would have anything other than residential. And what is that? P parking, parking all the way? Fifth floor? So where. if the use allows office in the MU. 4. Where does this place type limiting factor as you move up in section? Where does that get accommodated? Is that form based code

[121:06] that's in the form base code that would drive that and that would limit office use and office space to the first and second floors. So in all the places where we have a a conflict between please. type uses and use allowed use based on zoning form based code would supersede. Yes. Okay. Phew! That solves a lot of my questions. Because, you know, just keep seeing conflict and conflict. It's like, How are we gonna control what we, what we're really looking for, and just to follow up on what Laura was saying? it seems that the

[122:03] your answer of keeping local businesses in the city in the IMS. Destination office. going from 5,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet by right. That that kind of seems to contradict the intended outcome of getting residential and creating a balance of of housing and work. So I'm I'm not convinced that the Ims zoning makes sense for the destination workplace, and I know that you guys questioned it, and it's part of the presentation, and that it might be a different it might be ig rather than ims but I think that it's a valid concern to to to keep bringing up. Do we need a new zoning that would accommodate what we actually want there, or are we gonna try to.

[123:01] you know, squeeze it into fit not quite elegantly into Ims or Id. That's a question you don't have to answer, but I think it's a question that you posed in the process. and I'm not sure where has your thinking evolved since? Hackett? So II think it's important to also consider what the existing zoning for this area is. And so right now, a lot of the area is Ig, which does allow that 50,000 foot by right. And so limiting redevelopment in industrial and office focused area. to such a fraction of what's allowed today would be such a significant change for the area. And it's just something. Certainly, for the for the boarding council to consider.

[124:08] Kathleen. Do you mind if I chime in on that one? Briefly as well? II think the your question, Ml. Around. Whether Ig or Ims might be more appropriate for that destination workplace place type. The Ig currently allows for a much larger amount of office right than Ims does. Also. The benefit of Ims is that it allows residential by right where Ig doesn't. So Ims overall is more logical propose zone district to encourage the possibility of residential going forward. But to to Kathleen's point about, you know, adjusting the allowed amount of office from what is currently only 5,000 square feet up to 20,000 square feet. makes that the difference of changing from Ig to Ims le less Dr. Less drastic, you know, going from a 50,000 square foot allowance down to 5,000 square foot is a 90 reduction. We're trying to take a little bit off of that and make it about a 50 to 60 reduction, if that makes sense. Yes, it does that that really does clarify.

[125:21] which would account for you know, people who have all this property there, and they have an idea on how they want to develop it. And you know, we've got a vision may or may not okay, perfect. Those are my clarifying questions. Thank you so much. Could I ask really quick? Could we show again that map? That shows where the Imf zones are in the city cause. It's not a whole lot of land, right? It's just a few select areas. right? So that's just 2 areas. Let's see. I am. So here. So I don't have street labels super clear on here this is Broadway, and then this

[126:01] rosewood Avenue. So 4 Mile Canyon. It's along here. and then the other is is really steely arts. And so these are the only places that really exist outside of east boulder. Is that right? That's correct, and boulder the second one, the Boulder Junction, one also has form base code as well. So that's another kind of regulating factor for office space in the Ims zone in boulder junction. very helpful, thank you okay, I'm Gonna call on car, Kurt, and then, Mark. But before I do. can I beg you guys, when you put up graphics, tell us which way is north. cause it's different on different maps, and you might have 2 maps on one page. It's really you're sort of asking us to ground ourselves in the middle of the matrix, which is a little hard.

[127:07] 80% of the maps north is up. But it's that 20 confusing that that yeah. So I agree completely. And and they should always just have the north arrow dropped in there. Thank you. Much appreciated. And then, Mark. thank you, Kathleen. One quick question. First of all, the these place types are also getting used in Bull to Junction phase 2, and you might have mentioned this, but if you did, I missed it. I apologize. I just want to confirm that whatever assignments we're making here, or equivalency or yeah, assignments of use uses use types basically to place types will also apply in bullet junction phase 2. Is that right?

[128:00] I think it will set the precedent for Boulder Junction phase 2. But because we haven't determined how this necessarily gets documented if it if the that table of equivalent zones is maybe an amendment to the East Boulder subcommittee plan, for instance. I have to maybe ask Laurel how that transitions over to Boulder Junction as well, but I think it II would assume it would be kind of the precedent and reference for place types in in Boulder Junction. I don't know, Christopher. If you have a additional thoughts about that. Yeah, I think I think I would agree. I don't. I don't think this action. you know ultimately that planning board would take here several months down the road. But, I don't believe that that action in and of itself would directly apply to Boulder Junction, but it would establish a very clear direction. That, you know, when we come forward with zoning changes related to the phase 2 area for Boulder Junction. We would have that as a basis both for staff analysis and recommendation. And certainly, you know, in discussions with the Board and Council.

[129:12] Okay, so to be clear that innovation to D, for example, just to pick a random example. In East Boulder could be slightly different from the innovation to D in Boulder Junction phase 2. Okay. Great. Yes. And then my second question was a follow up to Laura's, and I still wasn't clear. So she was asking the question about this conundrum we ran into with the proposed Bio Mid Science. Whatever project there on the current century link property. and the fact that the the East Boulder subcommunity plan says there should be housing here. But the the we allow other uses, and we're reviewing these projects.

[130:09] parcel by parcel, project by project, and not in a holistic way. And so there's nothing here that is really addressing that fundamental problem. Is that correct? so I'm trying to Think of a that particular property which I believe that property and the subcommunity plan falls into the destination workplace place type. So that particular site does anticipate that it would be used for office or workplaces, but that we wanna integrate some other uses maybe retail, or things like that. The destination workplace place type allows for or describes that residential should be accommodated.

[131:10] But the description of that place type in the plan. I think is, leans more towards workplace than residential place. but every single one of those parcels in destination workplace could end up, then being developed as office without any. with with 0 residential. and that would still be consistent with this plan. I think that's true. And the projections that we did for The area when we looked at you know how much housing could be or might be accommodated in these different areas of change.

[132:01] the projections for housing really focused on that innovation to D Place type along the Fifty-fifth Street corridor, and then also the main Street live workplace type along the creek. But the I think we have the same problem with innovation. To D, right, you could have innovation to D develop as a hundred percent. 2 story office buildings, right or second story office, first story barbershops. There's nothing to prevent that. That's true. Okay, okay? And if I may call it. We Main Street live work also allows for a variety of uses on every floor, and so that Main Street live work could end up being just work. I think that's correct. Let me pull that back up. I think you're hearing a theme.

[133:06] More or no, I'm done. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Mark. Okay, I I've I've had this roller coaster of emotions, because, as as I right, you've you've been on the board too long. For once I had. I had something in front of me, and it was like Main Street live work, and then green checks for a loud and X's for not allowed. And I thought, Wow, okay, I'm looking through this. So. But what I want to clarify that what I'm seeing here, let's just take as as an example, main Street live work. and I, as I run down through the allowed and disallowed uses that those allowed and disallowed uses stem from, not

[134:02] the East boulder. Subcommunity plan, definition of Main Street live work. They stem from the MU. 4 zone. That's right. The the checks and crosses are are in reference to uses allowed, or, you know. conditional in the Zone district, not the place type, the place type descriptions in the subcommittee plan are not as specific as to go kind of use by use in line with our use table. Okay? Great, that that's super helpful. And maybe it's obvious to everyone else. But it wasn't to me initially, okay, the. And so I have this whole list of what I think are some. And again, I'm I'm not denigrating anyone here, but some seemingly wildly illogical allowed and disallowed uses and inconsistencies here, and so those things that I find inconsistent and illogical, those actually extend to any MU. 4 zone in the city.

[135:09] That's correct. Okay. so can you clarify from me? And again, you know, this is not just about the Ebola Subcommittee plan, but under commercial uses in the Zone we allow hostels, and we allow hotels, but not bed and breakfast. So if you serve breakfast. are you? You're a small hotel, and you serve breakfast. is, are you a bed and breakfast, or are you a hotel? That's a good question, probably, for Lisa had in our development review stuff. I don't. II do not know but I could find out. We did ask Lisa about that bed and breakfast in in me for and she said, I think in some of the recent use table updates, it just wasn't

[136:04] a particular use of interest that was discussed in their engagement process. And so it didn't really rise to the top for use. Table change. But yes, I think it stuck out to us as well. Yeah. And I mean so I'll hold all the rest as as commentary. But I'll have one other question, and that is. would it? Because of some of these crazy inconsistencies and strangenesses? What does it make sense when we have a a subcommunity plan that we've just adopted. That is this beautiful vision of what we want. that we just make some new zones that would be like East Boulder, one east boulder, 2 east boulder, MUEB. M. 2, whatever it might be that rather than try to force

[137:02] an mu for zone. And I understand we don't want to proliferate more and more zones. But in this case, it seems there's there's these folder subcommittee plan to me. Promotes housing promotes, a diversity of uses and promotes retention of innovation. Right? So if we have, if we're trying to promote innovation. But we're restricting R&D to 5,000 square feet. But light manufacturing can go to 15 or greater. Do we need to have zones? So we need to create zones that actually fulfill the vision of the plan. So. I can speak to. Maybe this strategy of why we are attempting to modify some of our existing zones as opposed to creating new zones. So

[138:01] boulder for its scale and size does have a lot of zones. David. Gear always makes the joke that if you add one, you have to take one away. So yes, but he's no longer with us. But the other thing to really think about is, you know, we are planning this area for use of form based code. When you create an entirely new zone, the idea is that zone could be applied, you know. anywhere else throughout the city. So you have to build out the full breadth of what a zone district includes. You have to build out the regulations for use, form, and intensity. Similar to any other zone district. and we'd be sort of building that infrastructure, knowing that we don't intend to use it because we want these areas to be under form based code.

[139:03] so you know, part of that kind of strategy of using existing zones is to make this part of the process. Move a little bit quicker, so that we can kind of take advantage of of infrastructure in our code that already exists as opposed to building a a sort of new system. so I think I think that's if I'm understanding what how you've answered everyone else's questions. The intention is to use form based code to catalyze residential

[140:03] development on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of Main Street live work. destination, office and innovation. TOD, that! That's your. That's the mechanism form based. Code is the mechanism to catalyze residential in those areas. Is that my understanding correctly? II don't know that I would limit the catalyzation for redevelopment in these areas to form base code. A lot of east boulder is performing really well as it is. The rents for property owners are great. There's not right now a lot of incentive to redevelop under the existing zoning. The Ig zone in particular, is very low, far

[141:02] so zoning changes in the application of form based code are certainly a significant part of the package that could help incentivize. But we'll also be looking at other ways to encourage property owners in these areas to redevelop with an eye towards housing. Okay? So II think what you're hearing here is a recognition that there's a landowner who has something like half the parcels in flat Irons Park, who has no experience in building residential and no interest in building residential. And so, while we well. the idea here is, let's create some tools that might draw might incentivize or drive

[142:05] a developer to do what we actually want. The East Boulder subcommunity plant a subcommunity to be. We are not actually creating requirements for outcomes that we want. We're essentially saying we'd really like it if you would build some residential on the third, fourth, and fifth floor. But we don't really have, at least in the plans that you've laid out. We don't really have the tools to require it. Is that essentially, is that what I'm hearing? I mean, I know what? The market? Yeah, I think. Yeah, I think. I think that's accurate. What we're describing or what you've described is accurate. We have to work with

[143:01] property owners to help realize the vision. Certainly. And then there are other components of the implementation plan. That will be looking at, such as the creation of a General Improvement district at 50 Fifth in Arapaho, the station area and then, you know, I think it's also important to think about. You know, East Boulder is not just flat Iron Business Park. There's the neighborhoods east and west of Belmont City Park that have a lot of potential. And then certainly, that station area and the Associated station Area Master plan. But what we're trying to do with this particular project is, yes, create more opportunity for redevelopment of residential in these areas. But not necessarily requiring a full transition for a a property owner to move from

[144:03] a use. That's intensely office to intensely residential. Okay? So I'm gonna executive privilege and make the turn into comments as long as I have the floor. And I'm gonna say that I think you need Mut, this process that you're going through right now needs to come out with much stronger controls to get more residential in these particular what you're hoping to re designate as MU. 4 zones. and that you know, we we know how development works in boulder, and an applicant applies, and once the applicant applies, the process begins, and basically what the city can do is respond to what the applicant's proposal is. therefore, the underlying zone, and requirements and allowances have to be in this particular area with this particular owner, who develops a certain kind of development which has no housing.

[145:07] I think we need a little bit more sturdier, sturdier controls. So that's that's my comments, and then I'll go back to everybody else. Wait. I'm sorry I'm I was wrong. There's still a question. Go ahead, Emily. prompt. I got prompted for another question. So, Kathleen. is it possible? Can we designate a percent of the uses allowed based on the place place types. for example. You know, in MU, 2, right? We've got a certain percent, the ground floor that is mixed variety of things. And then the top 3 floors are only residential. Is there a way that we can? I understand. Let's use the infrastructure. We've got as far as the zoning types and whatnot. But would there be a way to articulate? Okay, yes, you are in

[146:03] destination workplace. But you have to provide a certain percentage of residential relative to office for every office you got to provide, you know, quarter of a residence, something of that nature which starts to get at the fact that we want mixed use. We don't want a monoculture in in any location, at least not in the areas that we designated for change. so is that possible? And maybe is it can't. Can we do that? I think it's probably better answered by the city attorney's office. And then I will. But certainly I think the concept is interesting, and and I can follow up with Leslie from code of metrics to see where there might be precedent for that. Go ahead. Well.

[147:01] I could jump into Laura with the city attorney's office. I also haven't spoken yet, so say my name for the record. So I think I would need to do a little bit more research. Just to know for sure. If we could do that, I think my concern would be getting into kind of the spot, zoning or directing directing people how to develop in those specific areas. I think the way that we normally approach this is with zoning to say, you can do, M. Before you can do residential. That's how we normally approach it. So I'd have to research it a little bit more and see if there's anything that says that we can't do it that way. So we could do that before we bring it back. Yeah, cause we're in the process of trying to to make something that you know, was a many year process of determining what kind of uses we want there, and would we want this to look like as a as a neighborhood, as a community. And now we're trying to squeeze it into these zonings that don't necessarily accommodate what is articulated here in section

[148:02] as place types. So we're trying to fit. you know, geometries that don't necessarily weren't conceived for the same purpose into each other. And I'm just trying to figure out, okay. is there a way that we can still leave the zoning as we want and accommodate the complexity, the nuance. that this plan has laid out. So thank you for looking into that. I think that might be a way to get what we're looking for. Yeah, absolutely. I'll go back with you, Kathleen on on some thoughts alright. Since I've assumed that we were done with questions. Are we actually done with questions? Okay, we'll start with comments. And you haven't spoken yet. You said you had a comment. I'm gonna hold off. Okay, Laura. Thank you. You know II read the memo, and I think it was done with the characteristic thoroughness and thoughtful consideration that has been the hallmark of the East Boulder Subcommittee plan update. You know, Kathleen, your leadership on this has been really outstanding and I generally support all of the recommendations in here. I think it was thought about very carefully how to do this with a combination of underlying zoning with form based code to look at. You know what's develop along which floor.

[149:22] and as far as this question of residential in flat Irons business park. You know this. This was discussed pretty extensively in East Boulder Subcommittee plan meetings, and this concern, I remember, was raised back then of well, if we give too many options. people might not choose residential, and I've mentioned this before. I think the thinking at that time was, well, the market is going to drive us towards residential, and we need to just have faith in that, and that has not turned out to be the case, at least with this one large landowner that we're aware of in Flat Iron's business Park. But this plan was pretty carefully negotiated. I know that landowner input was taken into account, and I imagine that if we had forced residential into flat irons, business park and not offered options, there may have been more resistance to plan adoption from some of the landowners.

[150:13] so I don't know what the city attorney's office might come back with. But I think we do have to respect the plan that has been adopted. Hopefully, there might be some creative solutions to try to get more of a residential outcome, and I'm interested to see what that might look like. So thank you all for your work on this. I guess I'll go to the a general agreement with what Laura said. especially relative to flat irons business park. Right? Right? I actually think that they'll that, you know you got people driving specific models on that project property, and probably just haven't brought other people in and will ultimately change over time as they recognize additional value on that property. So II that I'm not terribly concerned about in regards to the specific

[151:07] proposed revisions. I'm okay with them. Except for the Ims office increase. I think it goes counter to the plan. I understand what was being said. but I think it's important to respect sort of the jobs, housing and balance that we're trying to address, and some of this, and I think similar to flat Iron Business Park. At some point. The developers and landowners have a choice, and they will choose what the market will drive them to. I don't think we need to offer additional carrots and actually enhance the ability to develop more office, which then decreases what we're trying to do with housing. So that would be my my modification to what has been proposed.

[152:00] Hello. key issue number one. I think that the use table modifications that you proposed make sense. Once I understood that form base code will articulate what happens as you move up. So I have no concerns with what is being proposed. The conditional use. Ii do the IG. The IMS. It. It seems to contradict an out an outcome. You know, we're looking to reduce barri barriers to achieving the types of places we heard community members want. I think that was one of your driving factors. We want housing work balance. And so I just would question how getting more office by right supports supports. That. So that would be my comment on the conditional use.

[153:09] To increase that as of by ride. without somehow addressing the contradiction that it appears to be making. Does that make sense? You get confused? Am I making sense? Me? Yes. yeah, I've got you. Sorry. I'm typing. I'm typing and listening can designate a percent of uses to try to get that. These place types are are so intriguing. And we went through all the effort. And you had this. You know the special outside consultant come in to articulate that. and it seems we need to find a way to make sure that the zoning that we're approving

[154:04] will be able to be spoken to with form based code form based. Code will be able to to work from that and give us what we what we truly had envisioned in that area. I think that is My number one comment in moving in moving forward. Thank you so much for your time on this. Okay. thank you. I definitely, genuinely support what was proposed, I think. There's been a tremendous amount of great work. It went into this. And yeah, the presentation was really good and helpful. And so I think, overall, we're absolutely going in the right direction. I just quickly regarding what Mark brought up. I support the approach of not adding new zones. As stated, we have an awful lot of zones already, and I'm I guess, a unifier

[155:09] rather than a separator, or whatever those terms are. In taxonomy, and so so that that II support Staff's direction in regarding that. I also agree with the the point that or the the the idea that Emily brought up about some sort of proportionality between office uses or non residential uses and residential uses. I think there are a lot of different mechanisms we could use for that. I'm not sure that that is the the right one, but I think there are a number of ways achieved, and so I would encourage F to look into those. Now I will get to what I brought up in my email, which was some potential additional changes to the use tables

[156:02] for and for Ig Ims. I don't know, Madam Chair, how would you like to handle this? Do you want me to go through these and see if there's general support for them? Or how does Staff want them to be matters? Item, not a vote. So I think you can just go ahead and make your comments and then and then share it. I would make a copy of it, share it, and they'll incorporate it as they see fit. Okay, well, you already got the email. So you know those. I'll just go over them very quickly in club and lodge, I think. No reason not to allow those private college or university. Will it happen? Probably not. But why not? You know, if is neuropa private go to university? Okay? Well, you know, they could potentially want to have a a site there

[157:01] home daycare. If there are homes and hopefully homes with kids which would be great right then you could imagine somebody wanting to have a home daycare, and on the third floor, fourth or fifth floor of one of these Billings. I think it should be allowed. Why would we prohibit that business support service. Honestly, I don't know exactly what that means, but it sounded good neighborhood business center, which I'm imagining to be sort of like a yeah kinkos, or more like galvanize or something. Is that what that is shared? Workspace? We're do you know? No. What is the definition of neighborhood neighborhood business center? Okay? Alright. Well, consider, consider allowing those and consider prohibiting. So currently allowed is principal parking facility.

[158:07] which I think is probably not appropriate and also fuel shoot. I don't have basically gas station. And I think it would be appropriate to not allow gas stations, especially as we transition to electrification of our transportation system. Anyhow. Okay, so that was MU in Igms again. Club and lodge, I think, would make sense. Religious assembly is not allowed. and which is always struck me as a little odd, because religious assemblies generally meet on Saturday, Sunday. some on Friday, and actually seem quite compatible with other sorts of more industrial uses which tend to be happening, you know, Monday through Friday. So I would consider that Home Day care again. Financial institution is not allowed. I think it could be useful to have a little bank office, you know, in

[159:10] the flattering park area or elsewhere in East East Boulder Administrative Office, which is, I think. like associated with an industrial use right? And that is allowed in Ig, but it's not allowed in Ims. So just something to think about. Medical office is conditionally allowed in IG. And but it is not allowed in IMS. Again. Seems like it would be a good thing to allow, maybe with some use some size, restriction, or something. and then also neighborhood business center. So those are the ones that I called out, as I think worth at least giving a little more consideration to thank you.

[160:00] Okay, Mark. Kirk mentioned many of the things I wanted to bring up, and I'll just add on a few that I think are again. So my my whole question about do we just need a different zone? I actually would. I don't think so. I wanted to ask the question, but no, I don't. I don't think we need different zones. I think we need to simplify again the zones we have. and so if we, if if the East Boulder subcommunity plan has brought to light the need for simplification, clarification, and making things more consistent in an MU. 4 and MU. 2 zone rather than worry about. Oh, this ripple effect might change something else, you know, west of Broadway. Okay, so be it. If we simplify it. if we simplify it here to fit the needs of these Boulder Subcommittee plan.

[161:04] most likely is going to have a positive result elsewhere in the name of simplification, clarification, fewer use reviews, etc. And again, I'll just add on to Kurt's list. Here. IG. Zone we allow community gardens. We allow greenhouses and plant nurseries, but we don't allow crop production so exactly. What are you doing in your greenhouse? If you're not producing a crop? It makes, you know. Yeah, so can I. Just ask. But isn't this where? This is? Where our regulations about marijuana growing facilities would kick in. maybe doesn't say marijuana crop production. It just says crop production, which is Co, it's divided. Commercial production production means the commercial growing a porticulture material. So you could. You couldn't have a commercial greenhouse

[162:05] in the IG. Zone. You can have a personal one. But but yeah, a personal one. But the IG. Zone doesn't, only allows group living uses. It doesn't actually is, household living uses are prohibited. So the group I anyway, II think I think with rather than go on and on about some of the wild inconsistencies, I think. is, I think, the document that we have is so easy to read compared to the code. It's like, Oh, you can. You can quickly pick out these these inconsistencies that are very hard to pick out when you're looking at the use table on Unicode. It's like, Oh, I I'm I get lost there. This is so great. So anyway, I applaud the packet and the presentation

[163:00] for making it easier to find these sorts of of limitations and and strangenesses that are very confusing to, I imagine when an applicant comes. If I wanted to open a daycare home. And you said, Yeah, you can have it on that corner, but you can't have it on that corner. You can have it, you know, on this side of the block, but not that side of the block. That's that's you know. but that's anyway it it it is a struggle. So I would advocate for broader simplification of the zones that we apply to East Bowl, alert subcommittee plan, and and apply those across the city in regard to the idea of having requiring percentages of projects to have residential. you would to me it would have to be. You would have to do it, project by project, and so meaning every project

[164:05] in that zone. That is 75% industrial. And you, we set a limit of you have to have a minimum 25% residential. Then that's project by project. You have to do it that way. Because if we don't, if you say in this zone, our goal is 50% residential, 50% industrial. Then you, we get into the whole adu saturation limit. Who gets there first with their industrial project and then only those who come later have to build residential. So you have to be very careful about spot zoning and about creating a race to acquire the use that you want within the zone, and I'm I would I would be really want to discourage that sort of thing because it it wasn't effective on ad use. And we eliminated it. And you know, we found it to be really unfair. So

[165:07] okay, that's it. Okay, any last minute inputs. Alright. Kathleen, thank you as always, for all your help. It was wonderful much appreciated. And this matters is now closed, and we will go on to the third matter, I'm not gonna take a break, because maybe we can get this done in 15 min. This is the letter to City Council. It is due Chris on the twenty-first of mid of March. Is that correct? I'm double checking the 20 Twenty-second Twenty-second groups that decide to submit feedback to city council must do so by March twenty-twond. Okay, so just so, you guys know how this has happened in the past. In the past, 2 people from the board have agreed to work on a draft, and then to bring it back to the full board

[166:03] to get feedback and input and then to come back with a final draft which is then sent off to council. The purpose of it is for the Council to get input from planning board on what we think, or you all think should be part of their agenda for the next 2 years. So can I add to just really okay? So the specific, prompt asks for 2 to 3 community issues or opportunities on your mind. So they're looking for like your top couple of issues. Okay? So I don't think we've done this for the last couple of years. So really, what we need right now are 2 people to volunteer to co-write a draft, and then to bring it back and I think we'd want to bring it back by next week. Just a draft which you'd then get feedback on. and then you can have another week or so to finalize and get final approval, and then we can send it in. Are there 2 people who would like to work on this far as one curts the other.

[167:05] That didn't even take 10 min. That took 2 min. That's awesome. Yeah, can I? So I actually chatted with Laura about this, and we thought we were kind of brainstorming. Are there things topics that we thought might we might be able to get, you know, general consensus on the board about, and we came up with 3, and then I thought of another one later. So the 3 that we discussed. and the not trying to push these just trying to get feedback on whether these seem like they would be supportable. One is reform in some fashion of parking regulations, including of particularly off street parking requirements, potentially including changing the minimums. Imposing maximum, something like that. So that was one.

[168:03] The second part, can I? Can I weigh in? Yeah, I think I think what we would say is that we support Staff's effort to take a look at parking minimums, and that that is something that we think should be a priority. We wouldn't be trying to dictate exactly what should go in that, I think. Certainly we might give some ideas or some some examples. Right? Yeah. Yeah. The second one was encouraging a focus in the Boulder Valley Comp plan update afocus. encouraging that a focus be a be, a housing affordability and and additional opportunities for deed restricted, affordable housing today to receive that one. Yeah, yeah, I think again, it would be encouraging as a focus area for that Comp plan. Update

[169:04] the the kind of creativity that staff exercised with the zoning for affordable housing pro program. But that program was kind of constricted by the boundaries of the Bvcp. So encouraging them to look at. Okay, if you're not limited by the current boundaries of the Bvcp. What could we do? So in again encouraging a staff work. Item on this make a comment on the housing bit. I think it would make sense if you're gonna make housing a priority but cast a net wide. affordable housing can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. Are you talking about permanently affordable housing? Are you talking about middle income housing? That is, market rate affordable can be both. But to be clear about what it is you think that you want to encourage council to focus on. That's that's my only suggestion. Okay, yeah. And I was trying in stating it. I was just. I was trying to be very general and talking about

[170:07] housing affordability, which maybe is not a very clear term. But you. So you're in. You're suggesting. maybe try to focus that down a little bit more. Well, I'm just, I just think to be. It's always better to be clearer, then less clear, and at least in my my opinion. Not that I'm always that clear, but I think we we collectively haven't talked all that much in the last couple of years on middle income housing. We we sort of talk about it occasionally, but it is clearly a real challenge that we need to. That the city needs to return its focus to and from my perspective, II don't know that I don't quite understand the Boulder Valley Comp plan, review process. Don't think it starts till 2025. Maybe there's some planning beforehand, but it seems to me like between now and 20 that that I'm not sure this needs to be plugged in. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But there's a lot about

[171:14] housing that the Council can focus on. That isn't necessarily part of the Boulder Valley Comp plan. Maybe it is so. I might to just suggest casting your net more broadly than connecting it to Boulder Valley Comp plan. And you know, just trying to suggest so not constraining it to the Comp plan update itself, but generally talking about housing, affordability and middle income house. Yeah, okay. Sounds good. The third one was lark and frame phrase this better than I can, but encouraging, conducting a housing study for the airport. Yeah, for the airport site. I think I think this board

[172:03] Has in the past acknowledged that in order for city Council to make a decision about the the airport site. They need, you know, data, and no housing study has yet been conducted. And so this would be encouraging a work plan item, to do that housing study before they make a decision. Thoughts or comments about that like is that. do we feel like. That's a consensus item that we would support. But I I'd I'd broaden it out honestly. So we haven't had a housing data survey since 2,014. I think it would be really, really, really valuable for the city of Boulder to do a housing data, a housing choice survey of that that really tries to understand what the housing needs are not just people need shelter. But what are the housing types that people desire?

[173:01] we are. We have decade old information, and that is not very useful at this point. So while I totally appreciate your interest in the in the airport. and maybe that's a subset of the housing choice survey. But I think if you wanna actually drive housing policy, if you wanna help Council understand the housing needs in boulder that go. But beyond shelter we need to understand what kind of housing types people want. What do in commuters want? What do are aging? Do aging people want housing opportunities to purchase, do they? Well, what do people want? And we don't know, because we are operating on data from 2,014. So I would. I wouldn't make it necessary specific to the airport. But you could make that a sub clause, you know, including specific questions about how ever that would connect to the airport question

[174:04] if I could respond. I think that that's a great idea to do a housing choice survey and and suggest that as a work plan item, I do think in terms of staff work. Those are 2 separate items. Right? A housing choice survey is more about what do people generally want? A housing plan for? The airport is more about what is possible on that particular site. and that one, I think, has a certain amount of urgency, because there's a choice facing the city of Boulder, of whether we're going to go down the road, of doing an airport master plan or go down the road of decommissioning, and the Faa is kind of pushing us to make that choice as soon as possible. They would have liked to have made it already, if that's what you all decide you want to do. That's fine. But it's a how would you do a housing survey of an area. What is it? 330 acres 100 7,979 acres? Absent. Knowing what it is.

[175:02] what kind of housing types people want. I mean, it's once, I understand, the urgency of of making the strongest arguments that can be made for your particular outcome on the your particular hope for outcome on the airport. But the the issue in Boulder is broader than the airport, and I think if we want to understand what could be built at the airport. We want to understand what it is that people need and want in terms of housing like that seems to me from a from a planning perspective. To proceed. Proceed, go before, proceed. The spec, the specific specifics of the airport? No, II understand your point, and I think this is something that the Board can discuss in terms of what what we want in the letter, but I do. I do think that they're separate items, and I do think that the idea of doing a housing study specific to the airport is already going to be floated, and it's already being talked about what that would look like, and that that would be. And and again, II do have a perspective on what should happen at the airport, but I also have a perspective on data to inform public deliberations, and that is a huge gap in understanding what's even possible on that site. So you know, I.

[176:14] That's fair. I just think I do think. And we've taught you. And I have talked about this. You're not a neutral person on this particular topic. So I, because you're participate participating with a A as you're allowed as you're allowed to and encourage you with a process that has hope for outcome. So I, just we just have to bear that in mind when we write a letter to council. Understood. Yeah, that's understood. But so I'd like to put an item on the okay? And I have one more. But go ahead. So to take a holistic look at carbon reduction across the regulations. So how does? What does carbon reduction look like?

[177:03] And is there a place for in the use table? How does it look in the avu regulator? How does it look across word regulations because I think reducing our carbon footprint. I don't know that the energy code alone should stand alone. I think a comprehensive look across the regulations on how they might support a carbon reduction would be a useful tool to help us to help inform decisions beyond the way we make decisions. Now, I think we need to add another voice or decision-making process, and I don't think we have an understanding on how what a carbon reduction might look like across the regulations as a as an informant

[178:01] do all the top. Clearly it isn't statement, but II think the idea is I did It brings carbon reduction into a broad discussion rather than Kind of it's in the energy code. and I think it might be coming up in I can't remember which other code, but it'd be nice to have it be part of a discussion. Usually rather than unusually. If you could draft a thought and share it with Kurt and Laura to as they draft something up. And the concept, I think absolutely we should be thinking about holistically and systemically, about the climate implications of everything that we're doing in much, and we do to some extent, but not as much as we could. And there certainly are regulations that run force us to run. Contrary to that, I'm concerned that it is a vast task.

[179:15] And I, yeah, W. Well, and and that's exactly what I was thinking. Is there some sort of a a place that we could identify to start, or some way to narrow it, to to provide a building block for future efforts or something like that. So maybe something can I can. I call a queue on that? So I think you know, city council is looking for input on work plan items. And so they would need something like, we're asking staff to do. Xyz. And I think we have a sustainability like a climate initiatives team. Yeah, we have a climate issues department, and I don't know much about their work and whether they're doing the kind of thing that Ml. Is talking about, or

[180:05] or if there's something that they're doing, that we would wanna uplift and say, Hey, make this a priority make this a work plan. Item, the same thing we were talking about with the parking that the idea would be to uplift a staff effort. That's already kinda on the table. I don't know if you guys can share any information about that. But if you have any information about what they're working on or a website we can go to so that we know what the climate initiative team is already doing, that we might want to add to or uplift. Yeah, we. So we do have regular coordination meetings with climate initiatives team. So our our comprehensive planning group meets with them Quarterly. And then, as a department. We've we've started to increase that the frequency in terms of our, you know, the meetings that we're having and building that relationship in particular, they're they're pretty highly involved in the energy code update. So you know, that gets into some real specifics that are within the planning and development services wheelhouse

[181:01] with climate initiatives input into that. I think what I would. I just a suggestion as you consider this and think about drafting. You know, a recommendation to counsel. Think about what planning boards role would be in that, and what planning and development services role would be in that as opposed to thinking about. You know other other departments or other other boards that might have an influence, because that that topic as a whole is gonna cross all manner of different departments and things like that. So I think, you know, finding a way to to fine tune, that, and into things that that our department, and that planning board can really act upon that would be important. Like a carbon lens, carbon reduction lens kind of like. We have the right racial equity and that sort of thing. Could there be a carbon reduction lens that we look at? You know that we use? And it would be a matter of defining, what are these metrics that were that we're applying across the board? Right? We're looking at. Okay. This led, just maybe we're looking at legislation. Maybe we're looking at. Use review. Or

[182:07] is there a tool that can bring sort of bubble up to the surface? The carbon implications of the decision that planning board is asked to make. We don't generally consider that the applicants, obviously, yeah, we'll meet code. But the energy code. But I it's bigger. It just seems that it should. It should be more like a lens that we apply to across the board, because it's just time you just have to do these things. So I'd like to call queue on that and ask Christopher. You know you and you encourage us to focus on PN. Ds's role or planning boards role. But this letter to Council is to help inform their work plan right? So it doesn't necessarily have to be confined to what we work on. This isn't our work plan.

[183:17] Yes, that that that is correct. But I do think that your perhaps the impact that you would have in terms of encouraging or or guiding city council in a certain direction. It may be more powerful if it's really focused on something that is you know, within within the purview of this board and within the ability for planning and development services to really act upon. I think I think that might be helpful. Okay, in my final one that I was thinking about. Mark will like this is, we have these draft Tdm guidelines, whatever they're called.

[184:03] that have never been very clear. Well, they've never been adopted, and the the the way to use them has never been very clear. And there are no, there's no follow up mechanism. There's no real enforcement mechanism after a certificate of O occupancy is issued. And so it seems like that might be something that we would support studying to figure out, how can we make those better and clearer and more effective? Go ahead. a a. A. A few thoughts on the parking minimum is one. I think it's fine to write it to council. I think it's already gonna be on their work plan. So I think we're preaching to the choir. So I'm not sure what of any significance we're going to get out of it. Maybe we should narrow the scope to one or 2 things. So just something to think about. I I'm okay with it. Either way, I just, I just don't know that it makes any difference. And so why why not focus on something that would actually, you know, potentially make a difference as to their direction.

[185:09] I agree with and support. You know what what Sarah was saying around a housing types survey at a larger level. I think that will take an effort. And and I well. I see its value in the the airport. I think our task is broader. and I think it's important, and I think it will inform some of the airport stuff. And so that's where I would like our focus to be. I'll take, for example, as bringing up right when we're in break. You know some things are are coming in as results of what planning boards efforts have been. and we're starting to get some interesting things happening in Boulder. So I'll take Olive as an example which which

[186:05] was built and constructed is now currently starting to lease and I encourage everyone to go to their floor plan section of their website to see what they're charging for their apartments. They are going from. I'm gonna do a thorough analysis. But everything that I'm looking at is going between sort of $75 to $95 per square foot per year. per bedroom, you know, it's looking like 2,000 to upwards of 3,500 on this development and per bedroom. And so it's interesting, because this is an outcome of what planning board acted on for a housing crisis. And this is what we're getting. And when we look at what we just looked at on the East Boulder subcommunity plan. we talk about housing types. forget about the airport. We've got something coming at us

[187:07] that we can actually address that's already been approved. We want to make sure we get the outcomes of what we're looking for. And so that's why I think a broader housing study is an important thing to emphasize that the airport can be a component of that. But we really need as a city some real data on what people want, because as people. as the as the luxury student students age out of this thing and start looking for their next step in housing in boulder. As far as I can see, there's no real outcome for them on where they go next. And we need information. So that as these developments come at us. we're approving more than just luxury, student housing. Or or maybe that's all we're approving. And these people just go somewhere else in the country. I don't think that's what's happening. But either way, we don't have the data. And so II would be supportive of something like that. You guys are going to be the ones who are drafting. And so I'm I'm very thankful that that you're taking the staff at that, but I would I would. I would ask us to think bigger and broadly as the planning board as 20 and 30 years out, and already things that we have in our pipeline that we have to address

[188:25] and also try not to preach to the choir on things that we know, are going to be on the work plan. Mark. So I've been involved in writing several of these letters when I was on Tab and and other other other work groups and stuff and they are inundated with letters that are long. that are general. that contain lots of lofty things, but are short on actionable items.

[189:01] And 2 years ago the work plan that that council produced. you know, directly impacted our work with adu. Regulations. Site Review, the updated Site Review and use review criteria. These are things that that if you remember last summer and fall, you know, we were meeting every week, and it was. It was a lot. But that was this department doing a lot of hard work trying to get 2 years worth of work done before the new Council came in so that the Council has started the work plan was voting on items as work product of the department. and so I I the the lens I I'm proposing is. can this can a council member take up the planning board? Suggested item and and advocate for it.

[190:04] and say, I want you know, I want parking reform. And, George, you're you're right. I highly predict. lots of lots of people are gonna mention parking this time around. So yeah. So maybe we don't. I love your Tdm idea 2 pages less. and don't be afraid of specifics. And coming back to us and advocating, maybe, for some controversial specifics that we discuss and and vote on, and stuff and and consensus is is great. But you know, II don't shy away. Don't don't just produce something that we can all say, oh, I love that because it's it lacks specifics, and it just feels good. But there's nothing there for a council number to advocate for, and so, you know, give them something to bite into and

[191:04] and and I think also avoid the we really want staff to think about in the future. Looking at, you know. No, we, you know we are advocating for this thing. So that's that's my. That's my input thank you. So those are, gonna get a lot of these letters. Yeah, let me just in terms of schedule. So we have a planning board meeting next week, and then we have a planning board meeting on the sixth, and then we have a planning board meeting on the nineteenth. That's correct. Correct. So and I won't be here on the nineteenth. I'll be out of the country so. and you may want to finish it on the nineteenth and send it in, but I think you can use the next 2 meetings in our matters. Time to sort of words to to feed us the first draft get some feedback. Come back the next week with a almost almost final draft. We can wordsmith it on the sixth.

[192:03] If it doesn't get done on the sixth. You still have 2 weeks to work on it until the nineteenth, and then 2 days to depos to send it off to city council. I'm sorry. March fifth. Not march 6. My apologies. so that's sort of the timeframe it can either be short or it can be a little longer. But just fyi. Okay. any other comments? Feedback. All right. Matters from, yeah. I just have one other thing to bring up for matters. And that's the voting of the vice chair. Since chair silver is gonna be out starting on the nineteenth. I thought it would be good to to vote on the vice chair. Maybe next week put it on the agenda or the week after so just wanted to flog that for you guys and see what you thought would be a good time to do that. you know. Is it appropriate to indicate who's interested before we vote? Or we? Gonna I'm sure yeah. Indicate away.

[193:02] Yeah, yeah. there you go. I nominate George as a vice chair. II guess I was. I was too quick. I was wonderful. Okay, sorry to take that off next week's matter, and we can focus and set on the letter. Okay, thank you all. If nothing else. It is 9, 15. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

[194:05] Okay.